Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Egyptian song

I came through a sheet music of an Egyptian song and now I want to upload it here. I don't know a lot about copyright. I would say it's {{PD-old}} maybe. But still is it uploadable? RandomGuy3114 (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you don't know the copyright status of it, maybe it's better not to upload it. When was this published? Abzeronow (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC -- third (and final?) call

Hi all -- the RfC on third-party images published by the National Weather Service has been open for a few weeks now, and activity has died down. Therefore, I'm putting out another call for broader community input.

Whether this call results in any new responses, the next time activity dies down, I'll seek an admin to assess whether consensus has been reached and to potentially close the RfC. But unless any substantial new points or evidence are introduced in the discussion, I won't announce it here again like this.

The outcome impacts a few hundred files currently on the Commons, plus how we handle files from weather.gov in the future. All advice and perspectives welcome! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

In File:Irishtown, Ringsend & Sandymount.png there is a map with photographs superimposed on it - it is used in the article in en.wikipedia.org - the map is from a street atlas of Dublin, either published by Ordnance Survey Ireland or the successor organisation Tailte Éireann. It's described as "Own work" under source, but I'm not sure who owns the copyright of the file in question as I'm not familiar enough with Irish copyright law. Autarch (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mireuk Daebul, Bongeunsa

What about the pictures in the category Category:Mireuk Daebul, Bongeunsa? Bongeunsa is an old temple, founded in 794, but the statue is said to be "made out of stone by Master Yeongam from 1986 to 1996". See COM:FOP South Korea, not okay. Any exception for religious statues or else? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Basile Morin no exception for any copyrighted landmark in South Korea. CC-BY-SA or other commercial licenses mandate selling copies of artworks, but the Korean law forbids that. That statue, if proven to be a recent sculptural work, should be removed from Wikimedia Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This refers to the three images listed below:

The first says the source is Mark Boyle, but this website has an identical image, but it's credited to Sang Kelembai. I'm not sure who the copyright holder is. This online guide seems to say that:

  • If A photographs B, then A owns the copyright of the photo.
  • If B commissions A to take a photo of B, then A generally owns the copyright, but it can be transferred to B in writing.
  • If A photographs B in the course of being employed by X, then X owns the copyright.

The other two photos are cropped versions of the first, so I assume that whoever owns the copyright of the first, also owns the copyright in those two as they are derived works. Autarch (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all it seems Sang Kelembai is not an actual person but rather a legend. (if there is an actual person with that name i apologize) I can not find any other photos by anyone with that name.
Second, more reliable sources i found credit Boyle (or no-one) on the photo, like this Guardian article from before the image was uploaded to commons. BruceSchaff (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Autarch (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
(License Reviewer comment) The parent file File:MarkBoyle(tea)Cropped.jpg is the only live edit of the uploader. I'm tagging these as no permission, as we need VRT proof of permission for these photos. As the user hasn't logged in for 15 years, I expect these to be deleted. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 15:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done All the Best -- Chuck Talk 15:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

Both File:Dillibe Onyeama (right) and Muhammad Ali (left).jpg and File:Dillibe Onyeama (right).jpg are dated 1 January 1924 which is obviously incorrect, Mohammed Ali was born in 1942 and Dillibe Onyeama in 1951. Does that fact make {{PD-US}} invalid or could the files still be PD for some reason? Jonteemil (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that this was likely after 1964, the photograph would have had to been published without a copyright notice until 1978 or published without a copyright notice AND not registered for a copyright within five years of publication until March 1989. We'd need to know when it was published so PD-US would seem dubious unless we had more info on the photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Change File Licence

Hi, i found a file (Korps Vrouwelijke Vrijwilligers-516434.ogv) that is marked is as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Netherlands but when I check the source it's actually PDM 1.0. What is the correct way to update that. I thought it was "{{PD-Layout}} but that didn't work. BruceSchaff (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The first issue is to find out what the PDM actually intends to convey. In this case, I assume that the Dutch Institution using the PDM intends to refer to the fact that the file is out of copyright in the Netherlands, its home country. The reason for that seems to be that the video has been published anonymous more than 70 years ago, as can be indicated by {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}.
However, US copyright could well have been restored by the URAA, and in that case it would still be under copyright there until 2035 inclusive. Should that be found to be the case, it should actually be deleted here despite its freedom from copyright in its source country, the Netherlands. Felix QW (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

StreetView images

Hello, just informing that all 6 images in Category:Capivari de Baixo that comes from Panoramio are very clearly taken from Google StreetView, as the Google copyright is visible floating on them. Otto Von Heim (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

POTY contender possible license issue

File:Kométa C-2020 F3 (NEOWISE).jpg was found to be published on the photographer's personal website before being uploaded to Commons. It is the user's only upload and only edit. It passed FPC with some concern for licensing that went unresolved. Now it is a realistic POTY contender. Looking for suggestions for what to do here. Courtesy ping to Palonitor. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I must say I feel distinctly uncomfortable with featuring an image which has been previously uploaded elsewhere (without a free license) without any communication from photographer and/or uploader. Felix QW (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

newspapers.com as a public domain source

Are the Public Domain newspapers, articles and images found at newspapers.com allowed on Commons? For example here: File:Chr. Heurich Brewing Company (1906).png Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Last year @Jeff G. and @PascalHD were of the opinion that it is ok. Here:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Want to upload picture from 1921 USA newspaper (Boston Globe) hosted online at newspapers.com
Can others confirm that?
Should a tag be created that explains the reasoning for allowable use on Commons for future newspaper.com uploads? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
A lot of my public domain newspaper uploads are from newspapers.com. Generally, most pre-1929 American newspaper images would be OK, there are complications if they're republishing foreign copyrighted works. British and other newspapers should be considered on a case by case basis, but generally most things pre-1904 would be OK. Abzeronow (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As in if the images are not united by a uniform licensing. Abdullah raji (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

A "collage" is often a collective or composite work, i.e. one that selects and arranges other works. In that case, the copyright on the collage is on the specific selection and arrangement, and the contained works have their own copyright. The "share-alike" provisions of CC-BY-SA and the like only apply to derivative works, where someone else's expression is used and adapted in a new work, but not collective ones, so you can mix copyrights in a collective work (you just need to have the right to use the contained work in the first place). Some collages may cross the line though -- I can't find the reference right now, but one collage which combined areas of other images with blurred / merged areas was ruled a derivative work. One case is discussed here but I'm not sure that's the one I was thinking of -- but that does go over the distinction. Most collective works are things like newspapers, which arrange separate articles and photographs which may each have their own copyright, with the individual works being easy to identify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Swiss FoP and Maman sculpture

We have a category of the Maman sculpture that was exhibited in Zürich between June 10 and August 2, 2011, so not meant to be permanent. Though COM:FOP Switzerland states legal commentators on Swiss copyright law seem to dispute with each other whether works that were meant for exhibition for a few weeks or months are eligible for the panorama exception right as prescribed by Article 27 of the Swiss copyright act: "A work permanently situated in a place accessible to the public may be depicted; the depiction may be offered, transferred, broadcast or otherwise distributed. The depiction may not be three-dimensional and it may not serve the same purpose as the original." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Ping recent participants (since 2022) from Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Switzerland for attention. @Paradise Chronicle, RayZuo, and AFBorchert: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
A few weeks or months is not permanent in my opinion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Some commentator mentions as criterion whether it's in transit or not.
The uploaders consider them covered. Let's not second guess them.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Revisit COM:GRAFFITI on recent US case

The previous discussions forming the basis of com:Graffiti are from 2011 (en) and 2012 (fr). Relevant US case law has since appeared around the : notably Canilao v. City Commercial Investments, LLC 613 F. Supp. 3d 1236 (2022), which apparently refined Cohen, et al v. G&M Realty L.P. (2013).

"[T]he Court concludes that § 113(d)(1) of VARA implies a requirement that an artist obtain the consent of a building owner for VARA’s protections to apply to a nonremovable artwork installed on a building."

The issue is that Cohen said that VARA protections apply to graffiti artists, but made note that it was in the condition that the graffiti was applied with permission of the building owner. Canilao apparently affirms this as a necessary condition for VARA protections, such that without permission, the artist does not have VARA protection (and thus presumably, but I suppose not certainly IANAL, no copyright as an artist under US law).

There are more things that may or may not be worth mentioning: since 2012, several copyright disputes with street artists resulted in out-of-court settlements, following social media backlash, that apparently were seen to be in the artists' favor: H&M v. REVOK (2018), Aholsniffsglue v. American Eagle (2014), and Stanton v. DKNY (2013). SamuelRiv (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure there is anything which directly challenges the policy. VARA creates specific additional rights for artists; the cases have shown that the illegality of the installation can indeed affect those rights. So maybe they could affect normal copyright (that is the hope of the policy, anyways). Of the other cases you mention, the second was around a legal mural ("street art" is not the same thing as "graffiti" which implies it was painted illegally/without permission), and the third was straight-up violating photographic copyrights, nothing to do with graffiti. The first one I'm not sure -- the company made the "illegal" argument but I'm not sure it was, and they may have re-used a general motif which had also appeared legally, not simply used a picture depicting the actual graffiti. They settled out of court so not sure that any precedents were set. But yes, it's an area that always bears watching. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, first second third of what? There's only one case we're talking about that has relevance afaik, here and now, which is Canilao 2022. The rest is just background on the subject that I included for completeness. Canilao doesn't say "illegality of the installation can indeed affect those rights" -- it says that the lack of permission does affect those rights. And if VARA was the only means of copyright protection for the street artist in the US, then the opinion implies they have no rights. The precedent is set. The law is set. The question I'm asking is what does this mean for how Commons handles US images, and how it should append com:Graffiti to reflect this. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
You listed three court cases at the end -- I was responding to those. You gave a good summary of the Canilao case, which confirms an earlier case about VARA rights, but does not directly address copyright or our policy. They rule that an illegally installed artwork which could not be removed without destroying it imposed too much of a burden on the property owner, so the VARA rights did not exist in that case. You say "without permission", but that is pretty much exactly what makes it illegal -- same as graffiti. If an artist gets permission from a property owner to paint a wall, it's a legal mural. But the court did balance that ruling some, saying if it was not difficult to remove an illegal work without destroying it, then VARA rights still exist. That is applying a bit of common law to an ambiguous situation (they do note that an earlier state law in California explicitly required permission in order to gain the rights, but that is mostly preempted by VARA). That does not speak directly on regular copyright itself, but may suggest that courts could also find a middle ground there, in that some rights are lost but not all for illegal paintings. Maybe photos of the graffiti itself in its (illegal) context are OK, but re-using the artwork directly in derivative works (like the REVOK case) may not be. Obviously, before 1989 or at least 1978, graffiti without a copyright notice would have been immediately public domain. That's not the case anymore, and it does remain to be seen where courts draw the line. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

60s-70s pin badges

Reposting since it was archived without any answers.

Back in the 60s-70s, the American shop chain 7-Eleven released a set of pin badges, an example of which is pictured here. Say I took a picture of one of these pins and wanted to upload it to Commons - would that be allowed under copyright? Does it fall under threshold of originality? Suntooooth (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no clear answer to this question. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The pins should be public domain as long as they were released prior to 1978 (exclusive) and contained no copyright notice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
There's no copyright notice and all sources I've seen about these pins say they're from the late 60s or early 70s, so seems like it should be fine - thank you :] Suntooooth (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Suntooooth: Are you able to check the underside of the pin badges for a copyright notice? There could be one there much in the same way copyright notices were often added to the back of photos taken during that time period. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Nope, there's nothing on the back. Suntooooth (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Any pins from before March 1989 should be fine in that case, if they are from the U.S. (Though, ones from 1978 to 1989 could have retained copyright if they filed an explicit registration within 5 years among other requirements, so we would probably shy away from anything which did get a copyright registration. Ones from before 1978 are fine if no notice.) Pins from other countries would be entirely different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure they didn't file for copyright notice on this. Not really a concern for them. After March '89 they get it by default, but I bet if it required anything from them they would not bother. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Do we have a list of what copyrighted material is admissable for use in each wikipedia language version by license? Like "Fair-use" is mostly english Wiki only, and so on for all the CC versions. The articles about licenses on the different Wikipedias do not really mention licenses on Wikipedias. Alexpl (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikimedia movement's image policy is cc-by-sa or less restrictive, with most wikis (commons, meta, and foundation are exceptions) being able to allow copyrighted images under fair use doctrine. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
The german wikipedia does not - that is why I asked. Alexpl (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Then it’s the same as commons, because I don’t think de-wiki hosts files locally. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Alachuckthebuck: that's not quite right. de-wiki hosts media files that are out of copyright in Germany/Austria/Switzerland (all of which are p.m.a.+70 countries, and all of which have a high threshold of originality) but still copyrighted in the U.S. Also, I may be mistaken, but I think de-wiki bans the use of Commons files that are still in copyright in Germany/Austria/Switzerland, and they may severely limit the use of certain Nazi-related materials for non-copyright reasons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the correction @Jmabel, looks like I need to read up on de-wiki copyright. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
So everything ever hosted on commons is fully useable by all Wikipedia language versions? Alexpl (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Yep, Thats why we exist, and why we have the licensing requirements we do, it allows anyone to use our media for any purpose, anywhere, as long as the follow the 1 or 2 conditions specified in the license. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 19:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
No. They are (or should be) public domain in the country of origin, and the US. Or licensed with CC-BY etc (and those should always be fine). Depending on the policy of a particular Wikipedia, they may not be OK. For example, a work which passed into the public domain in the US for lack of notice may be protected for the full 70pma in Germany (and Austria), even if the US is the country of origin. The English Wikipedia uses U.S. law only, so in theory anything here can be used there. Each Wikipedia may have its own policy of which law (or laws) they use, and would need to decide based on that which tags they would require or allow or which ones need more examination. In most cases they should be fine, since the Wikipedia project an image is most likely to be used would also be related to the country of origin, but that can depend on the project. Columbia for example is 80pma with no rule of the shorter term, so even some PD-old-70 images can't be used there -- but doubt that matters for the Spanish Wikipedia, given the wide range of countries that project covers. So, each project may need to look a bit carefully to see if an image complies with their policy (and, of course per Commons:General disclaimer, third-party users must look to see if they are comfortable using in their country with the information given). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. So there is no website where all these restrictions can be found and I would have to poke around in every project, hoping to unearth the relevant information - or find a knowledgeable user. Alexpl (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Minimal credit line in image reuse by pastchronicle

I'm looking at this archaeology article at pastchronicle.com, which credits Wikimedia on seven images with the caption, 'Source: Wikimedia'. There is no link, and no credit to the uploader or copyright holder. (I didn't find extra info hidden in the Html, either, but maybe I missed it.) How do I find out whether they are providing adequate attribution, if I can't find the cc image page, because there isn't enough info at the website to identify where it came from? If they happen to be under cc-by-sa, then per Commons:Credit line#CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses it is insufficient. But perhaps the licensing is different; how can I find out? Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot the source you cited is not alone. Several Philippine news websites fail to attribute the authors of Wikimedia Commons images properly (although some of the images used may be under PD-type licenses). For example:
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
The Commons image sources can be found for instance by searching for the image link from pastchronicle.com on Google Lens. For instance, the first two are File:Zaña des de dalt el turó18.jpg and File:Archaeological excavations.jpg, both offered under a CC-BY-SA license. Felix QW (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I also find it somewhat bizarre that their picture of a buried human skeleton, File:The King In The Car Park - Page 15 - Figure 12.png, is actually a photograph of the body of Richard III in Leicester. Felix QW (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW perhaps the more an image is widely use in most-visited Wikipedias (like enwiki, dewiki etc.), chances are it is among the images that may first appear while searching on Google. That's just my hunch, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This is all very helpful, thank you, all. My question has a two-pronged reason: one is, that I would like to use some of the images in en:La Otra Banda, and didn't know how to find them in Commons. I should've thought about Google Lens, but that memory cell was buried under the "where I left my keys" neurons, and was inaccessible at the time, so forgive me for that. The other reason, was about ensuring that reusers of our resources comply with our licensing requirements, and I really didn't/still don't know where to turn to find out what to do about that. Is there some group, legal maybe? that follows up and contacts websites requesting them to provide a link, and the copyright holder's name or id? Should I be contacting a different group about this? Mathglot (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, enforcement of the licensing provisions is left entirely to the copyright holders themselves. The only thing I can think of is to notify the copyright holders (e.g. per talk-page message if they are Commons users) and see if they have any appetite for doing anything about it. Felix QW (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Would anyone happen to know whether or not I can upload this? The site states that it's under copyright, but it also states that it was uploaded 1920–1929. Before you assume that it was taken sometime after January 1, 1929, most of the depictions of this guy are from 1926, and the same notice is present under those images as well. The initial publication also does not include a notice of its copyright status.

Thanks. Solo4701 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You can use {{PD-1923}} tag if the picture was published before 1 January 1929. Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Ruslik: that's kind of an outdated, redirected template name. Use {{PD-US-expired}}. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
If you are sure it was from before 1929, you can use {{PD-US-expired}}. Since it looks to be a U.S. publication, then even if later than that, you can use {{PD-US-no notice}} instead (or both if you really like). The artist is Category:Carl Bohnen, who died in 1951, so it would also qualify for {{PD-old-70}} -- though that is not a U.S. license tag, it can be added too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Generally, {{PD-old-auto-expired}} tag with deathyear=1951 is best; it's auto-calculating and fully compact.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: where did you get 1951 from? I don't immediately see any indication of who was the photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
This version is signed Carl Bohnen, who died in 1951. Felix QW (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this source seems to pinpoint 1928 as the publication year of the pamphlet. Felix QW (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: The post I was replying to?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: sorry, I missed that, didn't see than information about the specific case had been added beyond the initial question. - Jmabel ! talk 07:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Would like to upload a photo used on Edinburgh News to be added to a wikipedia article

I would like to include the image found on this article in the Spartans F.C wikipedia page, but am unsure about how to/if it is allowable to upload. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks! https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/spartans-bow-out-of-premier-sports-cup-as-aberdeen-progress-to-last-four-4792223 ILoveFinance (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not allowable. Works on Commons must be "free", which means either they are licensed by the copyright owner very liberally for re-use by others (professional photographers would rarely do that), or be old enough for copyright to expire, which usually takes 100-120 years. See Commons:Licensing. That photo is by a Mark Brown, so the copyright would last his entire lifetime, plus 70 more years. Some projects may allow use under a "fair use" rationale, but photos like that would usually not qualify for even that. Making a "free" encyclopedia is often harder than a regular one, for reasons like this :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
While it is indeed true that "professional photographers would rarely do that", there are exceptions. Mark Brown describes himself on Instagram as "Freelance Photographer. Spartans FC Twitter Guy.", so he may see value in having a good image on the Spartans article. He also has images on Flickr, so it would be easy for him to change the licence on one. It's always worth contacting a photographer and asking; you can point them to en:WP:IfSM. Only one of us should make contact; ILoveFinance, would you like to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Appreciate the responses, everyone (@Marchjuly too from the other comment)!
We are good, I got permission from Mark Brown and the team's manager and they provided the original uncompressed photo. Thanks! ILoveFinance (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, actually I guess that is as easy as that. Any ideas how to progress from here? Thank you all for the help! ILoveFinance (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi ILoveFinance. This type of image would almost certainly not be allowed to be uploaded and used locally on English Wikipedia because it's doubtful any such use would meet English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, in particular non-free content use criterion #1 simply because a picture of in-game play could be taken by anyone (including yourself) attending a Spartans F.C. match/game, and the photographer could then upload it to Commons under an acceptable free license or publish it somewhere else under an acceptable free license. So, there is pretty much no way to justify the non-free use of this or any other similar non-free photo, unless the photo itself is somehow the subject of sourced critical commentary. FWIW, there might be a such a photo that could be uploaded to Commons floating around somewhere online (e.g. on someone's Flickr page), but you're probably going to have to do some digging (e.g. COM:FLICKR#Searching Flickr) to find one. Perhaps the team has an official website/social media page or an official fan forum type of site, and someone posted such a photo there. You could try asking for the copyright holder's COM:CONSENT as explained in Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change or en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. There's no guarantee it will work, but some users have had success asking for images this way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
So I got consent from Mark and the team manager. But I don't know how to document the upload with the consent -- any guidance would be appreciated, thank you! ILoveFinance (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@ILoveFinance: That's great! Please ask him to either follow the process at Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?, or change the licence on Flickr. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@ILoveFinance: I believe the "him" Andy Mabett is referring to above is Mark Brown; I don't think the permission of the team manager matters in this case. Just to make sure Mark's completely on board with this, though, you might want to ask him to take a look at COM:LRV, COM:REUSE, COM:LJ and COM:ENFORCE. Since he appears to be an established photographer, he might understand this kind of copyright realted stuff already. It's important, however, for you and him to understand that there's no way to limit the use of his photo to "Wikipedia use only", "educational use only", "non-commercial use only" or in other similar ways because such things are too restrictive for Commons purposes. It's Mark's photo so, of course, he can license it as he wants, but Commons can't host anything that's too restrictive. So, Mark should be sure this is what he wants to do before giving his consent because it can be really hard to undo after the fact. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

wikivoyage:en:File:Wreck beach sign.jpg

This file in English Wikivoyage is currently tagged as non-free because of possible FoP issue. Subject is a sign of Wreck Beach in Canada. COM:FOP Canada indeed doesn't cover texts, but is the text of the sign copyrightable? It seems not and may be {{PD-text}}. I don't see any literary effort made by the sign maker, and the sign doesn't contain elaborate designs. COM:TOO Canada explicitly claims that courts have veered the Canadian threshold of originality closer to the high-bar U.S. standard as opposed to the traditional "sweat-of-the-brow" standard that was once prevalent in most of the Commonwealth realm. Still, I want third opinions before doing the file transfer to here. Ping also two of active Wikivoyage users there @Ikan Kekek and SHB2000: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it would be copyrightable either, but I am no copyright expert. SHB2000 (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be nice to hear from some Commons admins. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Text looks way too simple to copyright. Imagine them trying to sue a different jurisdiction for having a sign with the same wording! - Jmabel ! talk 07:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel {{PD-text}} is the appropriate derivative work tag in this case, right? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind, common sense dictates the text is too simple and the sign maker will certainly lose – 100% – should he try to file "copyright" complaint against another sign maker in another country for the identical wording. Transferred now to Commons and tagged with {{PD-text}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for taking care of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft of a template (National Museum of Art of Romania)

I've written a draft of a non-copyright restriction template at User:Jmabel/MNAR reuse. I'd be very grateful to anyone who could:

  1. suggest if any of this needs to be reworded differently
  2. review my Romanian
  3. format this appropriately as a non-copyright restriction template and move it to Template space

I'll then start adding it to the appropriate files.

I understand that Commons will not pay fees like this, and I support that, but I think reusers need to be warned that these fees are stated by the museum, and that (depending, in particular, on where in the world they are and what exactly they do with the photo) they could be subject to these fees. - Jmabel ! talk 07:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it needs some kind of note that "requires" is their wishful thinking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Andy Mabbett do you have a particular wording you would suggest? Certainly "wishful thinking" is not appropriate for a template. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: You could also mention that 50 RON was about USD$11 and 500 RON was about USD$110 at the time of writing (I just checked with Google).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: sure, harmless at worst. I think it's unnecessary in the Romanian, though, I can't imagine anyone who reads Romanian not knowing the value of the leu. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:File:The Fish Bucket.jpeg

This was tagged for a move to Commons. Is this still copyrighted since the artist hasn't been dead for 70 years? APK (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@APK: there are countries where that would be an issue, but Commons policy cares only about the U.S. and the country of origin (in this case, also the U.S.), so this is fine. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you. APK (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking for guidance over photo collection website...

Hey everyone!

A couple months ago, a photo archive was made available to all via the Lewis County Historical Society and Museum in Chehalis, Washington - LCHSM Photo Collection

Most of the photos are pre-1929 and those that aren't, a supermajority are covered under the 4.0 license. Since semi-rural to rural Lewis County is a big interest of mine, I can tell you that properly licensed or available photos, like any rural area in the USA, is, well, not easy to come by, and I'd love to use this resource...but I want to make sure I can and to do so properly!

As I understand it, any photo in the United States published before 1929 is fair and free use...and as long as we properly give attribution, 4.0 can be used as well...?

My request for guidance is this -

1. Does the LCHSM collection mean they own these photos and its best not to use them?

2. If it's okay, is that only pre-1929 pics?

3. If we can use them all (4.0 licensed anyways), is a website link back to the LCHSM page enough or should I go into more detail at the upload page?

Thanks for all your help in advance!

Shortiefourten (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Two different licenses

Sorry if this problem is well known and already discussed. There is a series of photographs originally published on Flickr and recently uploaded by SecretName101, like File:Casey Mayes 004(001) (52888702728).jpg, for example. At Flickr they were really placed under CC BY 2.0. However, in the EXIF they have Creative Commons.BY.NC.SA which is incompatible with Commons rules. Should these images stay or go? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Андрей Романенко, licensing policy states, Non-permitted licenses may only be used on Commons if the work is multi-licensed under at least one permitted license. So, I think it's fine to have these on Commons. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with @Ratekreel here, assuming the rest of the EXIF matches. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Same image used in two works, only one is copyrighted

I've come across two baseball cards of Jeff Innis published in 1988 which use different crops of the same photo on the obverse (see Card 1 and Card 2). Card 1 (like all other cards in that set of cards) was published without a copyright notice but Card 2 (like all other cards in that set of cards) was published with a copyright notice on the reverse. Now if the producers of Card 2 were the authors of the photo they used in that work, that copyright notice would be valid and enforceable. If the producers of Card 1 were the authors of that photo, it's my understanding that photo would be in the public domain because it doesn't appear to have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office (I tried a few different searches here, here and here which I think would satisfy the criteria of Template:PD-US-1978-89).

So the question is whether the producer of Card 1 was the author of the image. I think so. If you look at all the photos in Card 2's set, you'll see only Jeff Innis is wearing a different uniform, suggesting that photograph was taken at a different time by someone else. By comparison, Card 1 fits in perfectly in its set as part of a single photoshoot. The only thing that gives me pause is that Card 1 is a tighter crop, so Card 2 must have been working from the original photo, suggesting it wasn't simply a scan/copy of the public domain card but a licensed use of an underlying, copyrighted, original photograph. Any input would be appreciated (on this admittedly not very important question). Denniscabrams (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The case where only some copies of a work bear a copyright notice is often a grey area. @Clindberg: Would you be able to offer any insights here? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
According to U.S. Copyright Section 2203.4, "The omission of a notice on a work published between January 1, 1978, and February 28, 1989, with the authority of the copyright owner does not invalidate the copyright, provided that one of the following conditions has been met: • The notice was omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public." So we have a case where some copies of the card/photo have a notice while others do not. It would likely still be protected under copyright law as long as the number of copies without the notice is relatively small compared to the total distribution. The presence of the notice on some copies suggests to me that the copyright owner may not have intended to abandon their rights. The notice could have been forgotten or misprinted on some copies, or it might have been added later in subsequent printings that year. In a situation like this, it does not necessarily or automatically invalidate the copyright, and to argue that the work has entered the Public Domain, you would need to show that a significant number of copies lacked a notice. PascalHD (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Notices were required on all copies. The "relative small number", in court cases, has I believe been about 1% to 2% of the total distribution, for cases ruled that copyright was not lost. Much more than that, copyright could be lost. I have a hard time believing that an entire run of playing cards would be that small a percentage. If the two photos were different crops, and a wider crop had a notice, we can't use that crop though. Just the expression distributed without notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Alexandre Tarsaidze.jpg

Would someone mind taking a look at the licensing of File:Alexandre Tarsaidze.jpg? I don't think the {{PD-US}} licensing is a good fit for several reasons: en:Aleksandre Tarsaidze was born in 1901 and would've been only 27 or 28 years old on January 1, 1929, and this picture seems to have been taken at a much later date than the claimed August 1920. Given the Aleksandre Tarsaidze emigrated to the US in 1923, it's possible this is either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but that's just a guess. If this is OK for Commons, then there's no need for en:File:Alexandre Tarsaidze.jpg locally to English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the uploader, User:GeorgaOnMy Mind, can help, and provide the extact URL where it was found? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello colleagues. The photo is taken from the free open website of the Parliamentary Library of Georgia. Here is the link: http://www.nplg.gov.ge/emigrants/ka/00001062/ 178.134.6.20 06:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
That site is "Copyright © 2010-2012 by David A. Mchedlishvili".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Maryland State Archives

The bottom of most Maryland State Archives pages bare the following disclaimer:

This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Can this be interpreted as an {{Attribution only license}}? People seem to think so (cf. File:Anthony G. Brown Official State Photo.jpg and File:Thomas Perez-Maryland Secretary of DLLR-.jpg) but I want certainty before I go all out and create a template and stuff. Cheers Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the permission fields of those files say (emphasis mine)

This information resource of the Maryland State Archives is presented here for fair use in the public domain.

So I guess it's pretty clear cut that the notice does apply before whenever it was changed (don't know when thanks to w:Internet Archive#Data breach and Denial of service attack), but the current one is still in question. Queen of Hearts (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
"fair use in the public domain" is nonsense. - Jmabel ! talk 07:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Are stained-glass windows covered by COM:FOP in the Netherlands?

I'm specifically wondering this about stained-glass windows that aren't yet old enough to fall into the public domain, that are located in places of worship. There was a discussion earlier this year about whether churches in the Netherlands are considered "public spaces" that would be covered by freedom of panorama laws (the discussion can be found here). The consensus was basically yes, though the law doesn't specifically say anything about churches or other places of worship, so this is based on interpretation of what it does say. There is also the question of whether these windows are considered artworks in their own right, or pieces of architecture, because the former might be protected by copyright law while the latter is not.

For reference, here is the relevant Freedom of Panorama law: COM:FOP Netherlands ReneeWrites (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

"Modern" stained-glass windows in the Netherlands seem to be covered by Freedom of Panorama, if inclusion in databases from archives and state agencies with free licenses is an indication. See these examples: at Noord-Hollands Archief and at Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed. The last agency, RCE, holds hundreds of photos of modern stained-glass windows in its database. Vysotsky (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
@ReneeWrites: , thx for bringing this up. Just for the record, according to my knowledge works of architecture are also protected by copyright In the Netherlands, in Europe and World Wide. Pictures of the exterior of buildings can be used freely in the Netherlands because of the national FOP regulation. Yet, images of the inside of buildings are not covered by FOP if they are not public buildings. Futhermore I endorse Vysotsky's comment. -- Mdd (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
So a stained windows in for instance a railway station entrance can be freely photographed and published. About churches there has been a discussion, see here. @User:Arnoud Engelfriet would think it acceptable if a church is open to the public (as most roman catholic churces are), but this was not accepted by others in the discusion. Imho Engelfriet is expert on Dutch (web) copyright law. Ellywa (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll quote Romaine's comment which does makes sense to me, as they actually interacted with a Dutch government body. The comment (with emphases added by me): "Even while the input from Arnoud Engelfriet is very clear in this matter, I decided to call the government and the law office to get their input in this matter. I described to them that we have Freedom of Panorama in the Netherlands, which applies to the public space. The question I asked is them what we should see as this public space, and more precisely where the divide is between public and private, and how we should see this with churches. As reply I got from them that the general rule is that if places can be freely entered by anyone from the public, this is considered to be a public place, otherwise it is a private place. Specifically churches, if a church has opening hours and anyone can freely access and walk inside, it is a public place, if a church is only open with services then it is not. They said it does not matter if the place is owned by the government or a private organisation, openbare ruimte applies to what is accessible to the public." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Строители Центрального телеграфа в Москве. 4.09.1926.jpg

I would like to find out for myself how many fellow Commons users believe that a photograph from a personal archive is considered to be first published at the time of its creation. Quick1984 (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Was it taken by the person who made the personal archive? Or collected from somewhere else (which would indicate availability of copies at the time, and thus publication)? The U.S. Copyright Office goes into some aspects in the Copyright Compendium; one of the examples of publication they give in there (section 1905.1) is Giving away copies of a photograph without further restriction constitutes publication of that work. So giving copies outside of your immediate family probably does constitute publication in the U.S. For a family photo album and photos taken by that family, no. But there are lots of ways something could end up published. Most works were made to be published -- deletion on that status alone, without good evidence of remaining in the family (or corporate archive at least for works they authored), would usually be a theoretical doubt to me, not rising to the "significant doubt" of COM:PRP. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Who can set the license for music?

Who can set the license for music videos and audios / what is required for such files to be considered CCBY?

  1. Is only the video or the video+audio CCBY at e.g. File:Robin Schulz - "Sugar" - Director's Cut.webm which was released on Vimeo under CCBY (that license stayed there for years) – does the set licensing also include the audio or is it just the music video?
  2. When a track is released by a label does it allow the label to specify the copyright or can it be assumed that if the label sets a copyright the license indeed is that? This music video is set CCBY by the label that released it.

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a bit new to assessing copyright and would like some help. I'm currently working on the article for Petrona Eyle on Wikipedia. It currently uses this image, which is marked as being CC by-SA 4.0. However, the original source link is defunct and I cannot verify this. I don't think it's accessible via Wayback Machine either, though I obviously can't check right now. I also can't find any other versions of the image that are explicitly licensed in that way.

I do think the image is probably public domain in Argentina. Per Argentine copyright law, "photographs are protected for 20 years after creation and 25 years after publication." Assuming that the photo was taken and published during her lifetime, the latest it could have been originally published was 12 April 1945, so the latest it could have been covered was 12 April 1990. I don't know the exact date, so I'm not sure what the U.S. copyright status would be, or if that's even relevant.

Alternatively, I think the image could fall under fair use. Per en:WP:NFCCP:

  • She's dead, so no free equivalent could be created.
  • I don't think that the image is being used commercially. All of the uses I've seen are for educational purposes.
  • It's a single image.
  • It has been displayed outside of Wikipedia.
  • I think it meets Wikipedia content standards.
  • I intend to use it exclusively in the Petrona Eyle article (I might need to remove it from the "Women from Argentina" page).
  • It would be used to identify the subject.

Finally, I'm not sure how to change the copyright attribution of a work that has already been uploaded (or if it would be better practice to just upload a different version of the image).

Anyway, thanks! Appreciate people's input. Spookyaki (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, from both an Argentinian and US perspective. The photograph will have been made before 1945, so should certainly be out of copyright in Argentina. Barring strange edge cases such as late publication, the image should also be out of copyright in the US since it was out of copyright in Argentina in 1996. I would see issues mainly if the image were not actually taken/published in Argentina, but there is no indication in the subject's biography that she spend extended time abroad after completing her degree in Switzerland. So, I went ahead and relicensed the image accordingly. Felix QW (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Standard vs. corporate works in the United States

I have two questions regarding standard and corporate works in the United States:

  1. I know that standard works are protected for life + 70 years, and corporate works are protected for 95 years after publication. But how do we determine whether a work is of corporate authorship, especially in the case of a sole proprietorship? Does it depend on whether the business is registered?
  2. If a publisher buys the rights to a photograph from an individual author, then would the copyright rules change for the photo?

Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

No; only in modern cases are works protected for life+70. Any works published before 1978 has the 95 years after publication, and any works published before 2002 will have copyright at least until 2048.
If a non-employee creates something, the only way it's a corporate work is if it was work for hire. That's complex, but it always involves the company paying someone to produce something, not buying from them later.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
If it's a work for hire it gets 95 years from publication. A "work made for hire" is defined in 17 USC 101, and is 1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, or 2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. I don't think a sole proprietorship would be considered an employee in the normal sense. There's no separate legal entity there, really, who could own the copyright. As for the second question, no -- a copyright term does not change based on a sale later on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the information! Ixfd64 (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg@Ixfd64@Prosfilaes perhaps this is still decades and generations to the future, but how about U.S. buildings made by architectural firms? An example is the building that I will show at the right side of my comment, authored by Populous firm. There's a rule of "95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter," but which of the two terms are applicable here? Decades into the future, {{FoP-US}} will give way to a future tag (perhaps a heavily-revised {{PD-US-architecture}}, because by then the fact on the PD status of pre-1990 U.S. buildings will no longer important, and changes in tags will require the determination of status based in the prevailing law, not the 1990 cutoff date). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I think buildings are pretty much considered published, at least if built in a public place. Not sure it matters for us, since photos are not derivative of the photographic copyright, so it doesn't really matter what the architectural term is when it comes to photos of them. {{FoP-US}} won't change, unless the part of law where it says photos are not derivative works changes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg what I meant is something theoretical and for sometime in the future. That tag will no longer apply to this and other U.S. buildings that are copyrighted today, more than 90 or 120 years later, since these will be in public domain by that time. I am not referring to the tag for the images of the building based on the present time. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it will apply. The date of completion of a building is irrelevant to that tag, even though it's mentioned. That tag applies to buildings since 1990 as much as ones before it. That tag is stating the copyright of the building is irrelevant to the copyright of the photo, and it will continue to be irrelevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I could be more explicit -- most FoP clauses in laws acknowledge that a photo is a derivative work, but automatically allow that type of work. The U.S. instead explicitly defines such photos as outside the scope of the architectural copyright -- i.e. they are not derivative works in the first place. So there are no restrictions that expire when the architectural copyright does. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Costumed character files

User:Sahaib has started a RfC on Disney Costumed characters and the exact perimeters of COM:Costume as they want to discuss this topic as a result of a DR that I had closed as delete. Posting here so interested people can comment on it. Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Arrest of a suspect in Sarajevo

Hi, It seems to me that the copyright status of this picture is not clear: Category:Arrest of a suspect in Sarajevo. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Austria is the relevant policy, since it was first published in Vienna: en:Arrest of a Suspect in Sarajevo. In the worth case, the files could be moved to the English Wikipedia, but isn't there a better solution? If it can be considered a "simple" photograph, then it is OK: copyright has expired in Austria if published more than 50 years ago. Copyright has expired in the United States if published prior to 1946. Yann (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Published 1915, so no imaginable U.S. issue.
Some of these image are ascribed to Walter Tausch and others say "unknown". If unknown, it went out of copyright in Austria no later than the end of 1985 (70 years after known publication). For Tausch (who was there at the time and took many related photos), it could be trickier: I cannot find anything online about his death date (or, for that matter, his birth date). If he lived until 1954 (40 years after shooting the photo) it might still be in copyright in Austria.
I do see a lot of other sites treating these same photos as PD, but with no stated rationale. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Reading the en-wiki article, it was published in Austria on July 5, 1914, without naming a photographer. Another publication the same day had a version, and credited Walter Tausch. A German publication four days later (which means it was at least simultaneously published in Germany, among probably others) credited a Charles Trampus, which some later research claimed he obtained from an anonymous local photographer. No idea, really. This is another situation which opens up lots of possible technicalities -- if anonymous, it's PD anywhere, and if not, there is the simultaneous publication issue which could make the country of origin somewhere very different, with very different rules. By older German law (and possibly Austrian), they would have been "simple photos" and long expired. The EU restorations may have changed that status, so any copyright would be a revived one of long-PD works. Given the lack of certainty of a human author, and that the named photographers may have obtained copies from another source, I'd be fine assuming PD-anon-70. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I updated the license for all files, and harmonized the author as {{unknown|author}}, sometimes claimed to be Walter Tausch. Yann (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I have two questions about image copyright status, if anyone who specializes in this field please help, I would be very grateful.

1. For images on trumanlibrary.gov, can you tell me if the image in this link can be uploaded to Commons? If so, what is the exact image copyright tag? {{PD-US-1978-89}} or {{PD-USGov}}? A similar example is the photo in this link, which was also uploaded to Commons with the copyright tag PD-USGov, but I'm not sure if this is correct or not.

2. This photo and this one are both in the Gardiner, Arthur Z. collection. The author gave to the U.S. government the copyrights in this material and in any other material received by the U.S. government and maintained in a depository administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, I'm not sure if the General Lê Văn Kim.jpg file has the correct image tag; if so, then similar photos like this one and this one — also in the same collection — can be uploaded with the same PD-USGov tag, right? Thank you. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  • 1. The copyright status of the image is going to rest principally on who took it, and when and in what context it was first published. The same applies to the already uploaded file. Based on just the facts to hand, I see no reason to think that either is in the public domain.
  • 2. There are numerous considerations that affect the copyright statuses of these images, including:
    • the copyright notice for the Gardiner papers continues to specifically say "Documents created by U.S. government officials in the course of their official duties are in the public domain. Copyright interest in other documents presumably belongs to the creators of those documents, or their heirs." So, this isn't a blanket claim that all those materials necessarily are in the public domain.
    • as far as I can tell, there's no claim here about who took these photos, which might not have been Gardiner himself? Gardiner could not donate copyrights that he himself did not own.
    • as photos taken in Vietnam, their place and date of first publication is potentially relevant to determining "country of origin" and then figuring out how US and Vietnamese copyrights interacted at the time of publication, and then subsequently. Neither country was a signatory of the Berne Convention when the photos were taken, but both became so subsequently at different times, perhaps even before the photos were published?
    • even if Gardiner took the photos himself on his own time and was their sole copyright owner, the act of donating them to the US Government does not itself put them in the public domain. Works created by US Government employees in the course of their duties are ineligible for copyright. However, the US Government and its various agencies can own copyrights that are transferred to it by other parties. 17 U.S.C. §105 is quite explicit on this point: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."
Again, just on the facts immediately to hand, I don't see any reason to think that any of the photos in Question 2 are in the public domain. -- Rlandmann (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, I got it, Thanks so much for your feedback. CalCoWSpiBudSu (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

South Korean Government Works: Attribution Template OK?

I was recently requested to review File:241015 감시장비에 포착된 북한의 남북 폭파 연결도로.jpg, which was created and released by the South Korean Ministry of Defence. The Ministry's copyright statement makes the following statement:

저작권법 제24조의 2에 따라 국방부에서 저작재산권의 전부를 보유한 저작물의 경우에는 별도의 이용허락 없이 자유이용이 가능합니다.

— in: [1]

Which is translated into:

In accordance with Article 24-2 of the Copyright Act, works for which the Ministry of National Defense holds all copyrights may be freely used without separate permission.

— translated version, emphasis added

Article 24-2(1) of the South Korean Copyright Act states the following:

A work produced as part of official duties and already made public by the State or a local government, or a work of which the author's economic right is owned in its entirety by the State or a local government under a contract, may be used without permission:

Provided, That the same shall not apply when the work falls under any of the following cases:

1. Where it includes any information pertaining to national security;
2. Where it corresponds to an individual's privacy or confidential business information;
3. Where it includes any information of which disclosure is limited under other Acts;
4. Where it is registered with the Korea Copyright Commission under Article 112 (hereinafter through Article 111 referred to as the "Commission"), and is managed as State-owned property under the State Property Act or as public property under the Public Property and Commodity Management Act.
— translation of the South Korean Copyright Act, emphasis added, in: [2]

The original Korean consolidated version is given here.

My question is that, is these provisions firm enough to support the existence of File:241015 감시장비에 포착된 북한의 남북 폭파 연결도로.jpg on Commons? The provisions purports to authorize {{Attribution}} (also cf. Article 37 of that Act, which places a statutory duty to attribute), but throughout the Act I see no explicit allowance of commercial use or derivative works. Moreover, this would be contradictory to all the different classifications of KOGL (which places different usage requirements). Can someone who is familiar with South Korean advise? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional reference: Ministry of Government Legislation explanation.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure seems like that is worthy of its own template. Not sure that attribution is even required, but it's not exactly public domain either. More of a {{Copyrighted free use}} situation. Is there any way we can determine (like a searchable database) if a work has been registered with the Korea Copyright Commission? If it has, it would seem like a work would need to be explicitly marked with {{KOGL}}, since it would not fall under this general permission. If there is no way to determine that, it may be difficult, unless we can understand the scope of "managed as State-owned property under the State Property Act or as public property under the Public Property and Commodity Management Act", and only allow works which fall outside of those. Wait, we do already have a tag -- {{KoreaGov}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Damn, that template is pretty much a rare sight in Commons, and I don't even know we have one like this! If then, we have a clear case solved, thanks!廣九直通車 (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Are IDF press releases copyrighted?

There's an IDF press release with photos of Israeli commandos in lebanon, which would be good for the wikipedia page on Israel's invasion of lebanon. I can't find online if the IDF copyrights photos. Does anyone know? Milkisverytasty (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like Israeli copyright law has a 50 year copyright term for government works, and I couldn't find anything saying that the IDF is an exception. So, it is probably not going to be uploadable here. Felix QW (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
As a note, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit has released some images into public domain. See {{Wikimedia Israel/IDF Spokesperson's Unit}}. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Does the Spokesperson's unit need to directly upload it? Or is it ok if it's from a press release on their website. Milkisverytasty (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Text on signs

I recently encountered File:Description of the Givati Parking lot.jpg. It primarily consists of text, about 200 words long by my estimate. I would expect that the text is under copyright. The sign is displayed in a public place in Israel and the uploader has indicated that the sign and text were prepared by the Israel Antiquities Authority, but I can't find evidence that it would be copyright exempt. Is there anyone more familiar with copyright in Israel that might be able to shed light on the situation? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: This photo was taken and uploaded by me. This sign post was posted by the Israel Antiquities Authority at the archaeological site in Jerusalem's Old City, known as the "Givati Parking lot". To the best of my knowledge, as all directional/informational road signs or signs posted for the public at museums, national parks and at archaeological sites, the information contained therein is not protected by copyright, and may freely be used by visitors for public information and dissemination. However, I am no expert in this case, and leave the matter with Wikimedia Commons as arbitraters in this case.Davidbena (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
In my mind, the amount of independently composed text suggests the sign to be above the threshold of originality. However, I cannot tell from COM:FOP Israel whether a textual work intended to inform can also be a "work of applied art", which would fall under freedom of panorama. Felix QW (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
User:Felix QW, the matter seems to be explained thoroughly in COM:FOP Israel, where "applied art" in Israel has the connotation even of advertisements, maps, etc. used for public information. To this we can include signposts posted at archaeological sites.Davidbena (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree that sounds reasonable. The reason I am hesitant to conclude that is that the examples given there are all pictorial, and I would have thought that since we very frequently express public information as text, if covered this would be the first thing to list. Of course, I do not have any real knowledge of Israeli copyright law beyond our information page, so I would not hazard a guess either way. Felix QW (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint James the Greater Church Bulacan Plaridel 15.jpg

Possible derivative work (copyrighted poster/tarp) problem? Or can it be resolved through simple blurring or censorship? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

approve my own license-free image

Approve mu own license-free image GoodKindandHappy (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@GoodKindandHappy: it is completely unclear what you are asking. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

CC-BY clip from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

On July 17, 2024, an edited excerpt from the 2007 film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was uploaded by the official Harry Potter YouTube channel under YouTube's "Creative Commons - Attribution" license. Is this CC-BY license valid enough for this clip to be hosted on Commons? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@JohnCWiesenthal I don't feel comfortable with such content. It may be the official YT channel of Harry Potter, but the film adaptations' copyright holder is their production company, Warner Bros., and we don't know if there is a consent from Warner Bros. over that excerpt. But take note also, that the excerpt has a different context than the intended meaning or storyline from the original film, since it is a meme regarding the survival of summer heat. The excerpt has a transformative nature (the meaning and context significantly altered from the original), so the excerpt falls under United States fair use law (as a meme or parody purpose with transformative nature), which we cannot rely. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Announcement: copyrightable or not

Involved file: File:3062Baliuag Bulacan Landmarks during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic 31.jpg. While it seems to provide information, it is not an ordinary list of names or things, or excerpts of information or facts. I doubt it is {{PD-text}} but I need third opinions before proceeding with a DR (or not). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: The character in the logo on top looks copyrightable.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
…but could easily be covered by a Gaussian blur without changing the basic usefulness of the image. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel I have some concern on the text but, is it {{PD-text}}? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
And I don't think it is required to blur the logo, since it is just a tiny part of the image, zooming into it produces an inferior (blurry) image of the logo, so I don't see the need for a Gaussian blur edit. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd guess that should be PD-text. I can't imagine them winning in a court is someone reprinted that verbatim and they claimed it was an infringement. I can't really even imagine a judge taking the case. - Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done adding the PD tag. This section can now be closed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the character is de minimis in this case. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Joint authorship

If a work has joint authorship, is one joint author able to release the work into the public domain? (i. e. would a joint author saying "I dedicate this work to the public domain" and nothing else be considered releasing the work under a non-exclusive license or otherwise allowing the work to be used freely without the permission of the other joint authors?)

Also, I think that we should create a template for files that have joint authorship to explain why they are validly licensed in the United States and warn that they might not be so in other countries. Thoughts on this? prospectprospekt (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Found the answer to my first question. In this law journal article, the authors claim in footnote 397 that "[i]n the event one co-owner indicates her intent to abandon a work but the other does not, the non-abandoning owner should be considered the sole remaining owner." This actually raises the question of if we should accept joint works whose authors have not all consented to a free license/public domain dedication at all. COM:L says that all licenses must be irrevocable, and all CC licenses are, but a CC license only lasts as long as an owner has copyright. If a joint author releases their work under a CC license but later abandons their copyright to that work, then wouldn't the free status of that work be revoked? prospectprospekt (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how abandoning copyright could invalidate a prior license.
Consider an analogous case in property law. You sell me a parcel property, including a perpetual easement to use a particular rout across other land you own, because my parcel isn't on any road. No matter what you do in the future with your land, you can't invalidate my easement. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

 Comment A (very) few countries allow copyright claims for AI artwork, and it is certainly possible that more might in the future, so whatever we do we have to at least allow for that possibility. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment We might want a new template that would wrap around {{Self}} that would indicate that a license was being granted to cover the case that the work might not in the future be considered public domain. Or this could be done with an additional optional parameter for {{Self}}. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
An equivalent is {{Licensed-PD-Art}} for self-photographed 2D art by Old Masters, which contains a factual assertion that the image is PD in the US and many other countries, with a backup license from the photographer in jurisdictions where the photographer may hold copyright. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Mockup of new message of UploadWizard that a PD mark will be added to all AI media
@Jmabel @King of Hearts Thanks for your interventions. We discussed them in our meetings and came out with a potential notice for people who choose "own work" to upload AI media. What do you think about it?
Also, we don't know if it would be a good idea to extend this to "not own work". What would be your idea in this sense?
(Note: I'm going to share this thread also on the Commons Telegram channel to gather more feedback, but if you know someone who is knowledgeable with these issues, or could be interested in it, please tag them along)
Thanks! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
While being very widespread – and super popular among the tech bros – the pseudo-legal notion that AI-generated content is per se "uncopyrightable" is not a given. We should not build features on this hasty assumption. See also @Jmabel's comment above. Gnom (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I think we should 1) accept images, for now, under the assumption that AI-generated content is uncopyrightable; and 2) ensure that they are clearly segregated from deterministically generated content like File:2024 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly.svg, in case there is an adverse court ruling in the future. Currently both are tagged {{PD-algorithm}}, but it would be useful to make a distinction here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Does this memorial cross the TOO in the US?

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

I would also guess that to be below TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. -- Ooligan (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I completely agree. I noticed the situation myself some time ago and decided to follow up on this at some point in the future. I think mass deletion requests will be inevitable, and they should probably be split into reasonable batches that allow for some checking by commentators. I would be happy to contribute to some preliminary sorting/tagging drive of those that are PD in the US, if that could be helpful. Felix QW (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
You may want to do a DR per year (or at least group them by year in the DR) so that the "Undelete in XXX" categories can be processed more easily in the future. Though it may be some time yet before we can undelete any. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that you should at least try to notify the Chinese Wikipedia community among others, for they could have much better understandings in areas related to these pictures, perpare in advance for possible impact, and even provide reasonable opinions on certain copyright issues. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 15:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment: We did once have a DR for files with URAA-restored copyrights. The consensus was to keep them. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the issue there was that the deletion request was far too broad. It was established later (see Commons:Review of Precautionary principle and the synopsis at the top of COM:URAA) that if there actually is significant doubt that a file is free in the US, it should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. I agree that there should not be a single deletion request with thousands of files, and that one should sift through them first to sort out files which do have a reason to be free in the US and tag them appropriately. But ultimately we should not be hosting files that are copyrighted in the US and do not have a valid license, and in my opinion flagging those for removal from Commons is a laudable enterprise. Felix QW (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The Detroit Industry Murals and the URAA

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

Law before 1978 was that public display was publication. So these were published in the US and thus the URAA is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
But neither the definition of "source country" nor the definition of "restored work" say that publication is different if done before 1978. Since the URAA was applied retroactively, I wonder if it brought the modern definition of publication over to past works as well. prospectprospekt (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The source country is where it was first published, in this case, the United States. And so this wouldn't have been eligible for restoration. Abzeronow (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Publication before 1978 is by the laws before 1978. That's how the Copyright Office and every case I've read treats it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Berne country is country of publication. The URAA source country is the same, other than a more common-sense tiebreaker for "simultaneously published". If they were paintings in Detroit, the US by pretty much every measure would be the country of origin. Anyways, they are likely PD in Mexico too. Their law had a registration requirement before 1948 (part of their 1928 law) -- see this case about URAA restoration of some films (most were restored but some were not, due to that, and that case was about the remainder). I don't think there is any way for us to check old Mexican registrations so it's not something we can easily do for a tag, but that was the reality. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The reason why I think that Mexico is the country of origin under the Berne definition is because the Berne convention says that "the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication", much like the Copyright Act of 1976's definition of publication. I still need to read the court case, but I wonder what the URAA means when it says "is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection". Would a failure to follow formalities be considered an "expiration of term of protection", or does the "term of protection" ignore such requirements? Also, I looked up the ruling and William Patry seems to criticize it. prospectprospekt (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
The country of origin for a work of architecture is the place it is located. Exhibition of a movable piece of art is one thing, but placing it permanently on a building is quite another -- Berne may well follow it architecture logic of being permanently placed there. That would also be where it was sold. If photographs of it were published, which they virtually certainly were, that would also do it. The paintings certainly never were present in Mexico, so not sure how they could be published there. The U.S. would absolutely consider them a "United States work" and avoid the URAA that way. If there is no copyright notice on them, they lost copyright immediately. In Mexico, if it was never registered it lost copyright that way and never regained it. The "expiration of term of protection" is an interesting question in that case, as I don't think you are supposed to take formalities into account for that, but since Mexico did not have to restore its own works (and did not much like the U.S. for its own works), that remains the reality -- very few works from before 1948 would have a copyright in Mexico. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
The URAA does not follow the Berne definition of country of origin. The URAA test for source country makes it clear that the work is not eligible for URAA restoration since it was first published (according to US law) in the United States. Whether or not this agrees with the Berne Convention is irrelevant. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I could rephrase my question as: what does the word published mean in the URAA's definition of source country? What is the basis for saying that published means the definition of publication at the time of publication versus the definition of publication in 17 U.S. Code § 101? prospectprospekt (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Not a full answer, but (1) if something was published in both its "home country" and the U.S. ("simultaneous" publication, meaning within 20 days), the "home country" publication is irrelevant in U.S. law. (2) In this case I see absolutely no sense in which this was published in Mexico before being published (exhibited) in the U.S. @Prospectprospekt: do you disagree with the latter? - Jmabel ! talk 11:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
According to the definition of publication in 17 USC 101, the murals were never published at all, so the source country would be determined by Rivera's Mexican nationality. prospectprospekt (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess we could assume, like Carl Lindberg does above, that the Detroit Institute of Arts sold photographs of the murals. That would satisfy the definition of publication per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US#After 1978. prospectprospekt (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
The definition of publication before 1978 was more tortured -- as you saw in Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. The post 1978 law doesn't matter really in this case. Given some court rulings, it would seem statues and paintings in public places where anyone could photograph them were likely published. If the rights were deemed transferred to the institution such that they are the rightsholder, which was also a confused topic under pre-1978 law (often commissioning a work would also by default transfer the copyright) it would be a US-owned work anyways even if not technically published. But the odds are virtually certain it was. You would need a court case precedent the other way to put this anywhere near "significant doubt" territory. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ambigrams in free license used in a game shows

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Telecasts are considered performance, not publication. An airing without a notice did not put a commercial in the public domain, since no publication occurred. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
In something like this, the distribution of a work to unaffiliated TV stations for airing would have been publication. It's hard to tell; I'm not even sure if the version aired had to have a copyright notice if the version distributed did, but they would have been published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Airing without a notice isn't publication without a notice. If you can establish publication without a notice, that would be different. But the fact that the airing occurred without a notice is irrelevant. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Why is placing a sculpture in the public (where people can photograph it) treated differently from airing it on TV (where people can record it)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I assume your "sculputure" example refers to older U.S. copyright law. I think the main reason for that interpretation was that there just was no good definition of what it meant to "publish" a singular work of art, and courts had to come up with something, and until treaties and legislation ruled otherwise, what they had come up with is that exhibition constituted publication. A fair number of sculptors did place copyright notices on their sculptures, and registered their copyrights. That was completely (or virtually completely) under the sculptor's control.
By way of contrast, it was literally never customary for broadcast commercials to carry an on-air copyright notice. Nor did the copyright-holder of the commercial have any real control of how it was broadcast: they distributed it to the networks and/or independent stations, that latter entity (not at all under their control) did the actual broadcasting. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Because speeches and performances traditionally weren't publication, because of their transience. Therefore a broadcast wasn't publication, because it too was transient. Note that a recording of it in 1950s would require expensive equipment and result in poor quality output. "The Quatermass Experiment" (1953), a live serial broadcast, is mostly lost because when the BBC tried to record the first two episodes, the results were so bad they gave up. It would take until the late 1970s until a consumer could reasonably record the video from a TV.
As I said above, releasing a physical version of the commercial to third parties for the purpose of broadcast is publication, and would have needed copyright notice, which I'm pretty sure it didn't have. But the actual broadcast didn't need one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Automated Wildfire Cameras

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authority to release promotional image under CC-BY-3.0

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

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't make that assumption, no. Given that although inter-related, the two companies are distinct and separate entities, we would be taking KNTV's word for licensing a piece of content that they themselves don't own. And shareholding doesn't translate to "empowered to release copyright".
We would need to see something from SM Entertainment themselves. Their website has a contact link that actually pre-loads an email with several options, including copyright enquiry: https://www.smentertainment.com/en/ --Rlandmann (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is my understanding that Commons has always de facto ignored US copyright when it came to FoP cases (and I am using FoP loosely here to refer to taking photos in public). Some have argued that we should resolve this discrepancy by deleting all photos of public works in the world that are subject to US copyright restrictions and follow US law either exclusively or in conjunction with source country law, but this is a minority view that has never gained consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@King of Hearts I have seen such arguments, including those in discussions where I am involved with (e.g. Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/04#Proposal affecting FoP Chile). Though that will certainly attract disapproval from Wikimedians of countries with complete commercial FoP up to monuments (like Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, Singapore etc.), and will certainly affect the yearly Wiki Loves Monuments competitions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I also support the practice to ignore de facto ignored US copyright, at least when it came to artists/countries not related to US. On Jan 01st I always upload new 70+1 years released artists works, there are just a very few users who have a different opinion about that. In those rare deletion procedures files were always saved. --Sailko (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
This situation been brought up before, several times. Since there is no court precedent, I think policy (or at least precedent here and thus de facto policy) has always been to keep photos which are OK by FoP laws in the country of origin, in the hope that status may also affect the US status. The one cross-country FoP court case precedent I know about (a poster OK in Austria but not OK in Germany) would point to the photos being a problem in the US, but we have not seen an actual US case to show whether that status matters by US law (foreign laws regarding ownership of copyright can matter in the US, and it's unclear where FoP laws stand). Photos of works fine in the country of origin only via expiration of the underlying work probably have less chance in the US than that, as there is no FoP law to possibly matter, but maybe we are applying that general principle to photos of works expired in the country of origin. This situation really only exists for photos of foreign sculpture. For the Japan one, unsure when the statue expires in the US. If the original statue was published in 1935, it could be 2031. You say 2024, but I'm not sure where that was shown. If the copyright of the original was transferred to an organization, sounds like it would have expired in the 1980s and avoided the URAA (no evidence for that was brought up). If the 1964 version was a derivative work and not a copy, it may be still later (and still copyrighted in Japan too). But if that was just meant to be a copy of the 1935 version, then not sure a new copyright was created. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I based it from the comment by Strangesnow, which I also couldn't verify if the PD-US term is true or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh. That comment seems to have assumed a 70pma term, which would only be the case in the US if the statue was technically unpublished in the US until at least 2003. Rather doubtful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
It's true that I don't know any specific lawsuit relating to a US website hosting a photograph of a some in-copyright artwork on public display in a country which provides for exceptions to copyright allowing for images of the artwork to be reproduced. However, the conclusion that an exception in foreign copyright law would allow for reproduction in the US has absolutely no basis — it requires the making up of new legal principles from whole cloth, and those principles would run against those of established US law.
A key principle in US law is that copyright subsists in works, not in copies — and even when there is only one copy (say, the original), that is a copy, not the work. The "theory" here must be either:
  • whenever a copy of a work is displayed in a foreign country with an exception to copyright which is not present in US law, that exception is applicable in the US, or
  • US law allows for further copying of what would otherwise be an infringing copy or derivative work as long as the copy can be traced back to a copy made in a jurisdiction wherever, under the local law in the place where the copy distributed (or the copy from which the distributed copy was made), the item is not infringing.
The notion that additional exceptions to copyright arise with respect to a work based on the jurisdiction in which a particular copy of a work is situated has absolutely no basis in US law.
  • There are many exceptions and limitations to copyright provided for in the statutes and case law. Nowhere is there even a hint that foreign law's exceptions could be imported into the US in this fashion. Cases relating to foreign copyright holders uniformly apply only US law to determine if infringement occurred.
  • This idea also directly contradicts the Berne Convention, Art. 5, Sec. 2: "Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention [referring to the optional exceptions for the rule of the shorter term], the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed."
Certain hypotheticals about choice of law with copyright on the internet are unresolved by courts. But the place where the photograph of an item was taken does not mean that the publication of the photograph in the US (a separate act) cannot be infringing.
The more honest (or less disingenuous) interlocutors will argue that the distribution and publication of these photos could be allowed under the fair use exception in US law. And that's true! But this, of course, depends on what the actual use is, and the multi-factor fair use test. You will note that whether or not an exception exists in foreign law is not one of the factors. The most honest among us will just say that these images often are unauthorized (infringing) derivative works, but that the copyright holders don't know or care. When copyright holders did complain, the WMF removed the files.
In any case, potential fair uses and "the copyright owner doesn't care" are not supposed to be acceptable rationales for hosting files on Commons. In order to get around this inconvenient fact, many users instead argue, however disingenuously, that no court has ever ruled on this issue, no matter how inescapable the conclusions might seem. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

GFDL license across wikis

Why GFDL is not a good license for media files

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note on ro.wikipedia: listed under Alte licențe libere (other free licenses), with a warning that it is more intended for documents. There is no explicit statement that the licenses in this section are acceptable, but given that the section includes things like Imagine asupra căreia s-a renunțat la drepturile de autor (images were the copyright-holder has given up their rights), it would appear so. - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The situation is not necessarily a lot clearer for ro.wiktionary and ro.wikisource, both of which say simply Licențe libere - Licența GNU pentru o documentație liberă ("Free licenses - GNU license for free (libre) documentation.") There is nothing explicit there about whether the license is acceptable for images or not. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Hello @Lklundin, just to clarify: We can lawfully host the NASA logo on Commons because it is a US government work, see the maaaany files in Category:Logos and seals of NASA. Therefore, we should probably restore the original version of the file, I would say. Gnom (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. I self-reverted, with apologies to Ingaviano. FYI, what was unclear to me is this note "Use of NASA logos, insignia and emblems is restricted per U.S. law 14 CFR 1221" on {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. Lklundin (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
That is non-copyright restriction, more like trademarking. You can't use the logos to pretend you have a connection with NASA. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

My reading of COM:Syria would say it became PD in Syria in 2021, but URAA restoration makes it under U.S. copyright until 2066. Abzeronow (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Uh, that fucking sucks! Thanks for your help. Zanahary (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Image reviewers? Need some assistance.

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

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

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

@MKFI Opyquad is citing an outdated copyright law, the 1990 Copyright Act. It would be interesting though if the succeeding Nigerian laws did not retroactively applied their Commons-unfriendly provisions to the images made under previous laws. For instance, the restrictive FoP provision current 2022 Copyright Act (for audio-visual and broadcasts only, not photographs) doesn't apply to images that were uploaded to Commons before March 17, 2023. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, on inspecting the alleged source of the image, it doesn't appear to be from the time the outdated law was in force. Year of the article is 2024, so the portrait is governed by the 2022 Copyright Act. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @MKF for starting this conversation and @JWilz12345 for your contribution
Unfortunately, most parts of the Copyright Act 1990 were lifted without any alteration (except changing sections) and pasted into the Copyright Act 2022. But all citations here shall be from the Copyright Act 2022.
Section 13 (2) of the Copyright Act 2022 states that a photograph shall be protected by copyright if such an image was taken from a still photograph of a TV broadcast.
The Copyright Act 2022 doesn’t govern File: Professor Timothy Abiodun Adebayo.png because it has not violated Section 13 (2).
As for the duration, which @MKFI earlier mentioned, Section 19 (1a) is clear on this. Here is the interpretation as it applies to the file, which has been erroneously deleted:
For most types of creative works (like books, music, or paintings), copyright lasts for 70 years after the person who created the work dies. However, this rule does not apply to photographs, which may have different copyright rules. In essence, the copyright rules that apply to photographs can be found in Section 13 (2).
This is why photographs of academicians and politicians do not enjoy copyright protection, IF:
They are not used to disparage the subject.
They are not used for fraud.
They are not used in a bad light.
They are not used in a demeaning context, etc.
Among the works that are eligible for copyright under Section 2 (1a-f), photographs are not specifically mentioned, UNLESS such photographs are taken from the works mentioned in this section, from a live television broadcast, or have an inscription of a photographer.
A photograph is free to use in Nigeria IF it doesn’t contravene any of the sections or subsections cited in my argument as clearly stated in  Copyright Act 2022. Opyquad (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Opyquad I think Nigerian photos are governed under a different provision: section 19(1)(c) which states: "audiovisual works and photographs, 50 years after the end of the year in which the work was first made available to the public with the consent of the author or 50 years after the work was created, if not made available to the public within that time." The section you cited is not applicable as it is for broadcasts: Section 13.—(2) "The copyright in a television broadcast shall include the right to control the taking of still photographs from the broadcast." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 @MKFI Every section of Nigeria’s Copyright Act 2022 can’t be appropriately interpreted in isolation. The provision mentioned in section 19 (1)(c) refers to photographs taken from works that are eligible for copyright under Section 2 (1)(a) - (f).
Photos of public figures that are not derived from the aforementioned list are free to use. File: Professor Timothy Abiodun Adebayo.png is one such free-to-use file, which does not even require consent.
A user may, however, give credit to the source where the photo was first used. In fact, a conflict of rights arises when such a photograph does not bear the inscription or logo of the photographer.
This is the position of copyright law in Nigeria except there is another copyright law that I’m not aware of. Opyquad (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Opyquad -- In many (or even most?) jurisdictions, photographs generally fall under the category of "artistic works" (ie, the category covered by section 2(1)(c) of the 2022 Nigerian copyright Act).
The wording of section 19(1) makes it clear that Nigerian law follows this same pattern, given that at (a) it covers "artistic works other than photographs" before it goes on at (c) to cover photographs.
This interpretation is further confirmed in section 108(1)(d), which states that "artistic works" include "photographs not comprised in an audiovisual work".
In short, a photograph is an "artistic work" and eligible for copyright under section 2(1)(c), which lasts for 50 years after publication under section 19(1)(c). Based just on the Act, this file will be protected by copyright for another 50 years or so, and was correctly deleted.
To contest this, you would need to point to some statute, case law, or expert opinion that proves that photographs are not considered "artistic works" in Nigeria, or that certain types of photograph are ineligible for copyright for some particular reason. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rlandmann Photographs are definitely artistic works in Nigeria. The deleted photo is not for marketing or promotional purposes. I think we are not on the same page regarding the interpretation of the provisions of copyright. Photos of public figures are free to use if they are not used for exploitation or in a negative light. Instead of going back and forth, I will get permission from the institution that first used the photo. Opyquad (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
That might not be sufficient -- you need to get permission from the person or organisation that owns the copyright; generally the person who actually took the photo, or their employer. This might be completely different from the institution on whose website you found the photo.
That aside, I'm curious where you found the provision about photos of public figures being free to use -- I didn't find that in the act itself. Can you point me to a source for future reference please? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Uploading a Québec magazine article image

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

@Ineuw: Nothing you've said there indicates that the copyright owner has granted any sort of license, so you cannot upload that to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel I posted this question without additional info. In Québec, all cultural activities, like films, photos, publications, productions, etc., that receive government funding are in the pubic domain. In this case, the publisher, Québecor Media is Québec's foremost media company, but a publication with such narrow focus and limited audience, receives public funds. I will restate this question on French Wikipédia and Wikisource. Thanks.— — Ineuw talk 00:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Been a bug for 10 years...
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89692
I am removing the PD building tag from my image. -αβοοδ (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
@-αβοοδ it has been a common practice to provide licensing tag to the public space artwork, especially due to the Freedom of Panorama policy regarding freeness of works of architecture and sculptures around the world (we only have less than 90 countries that permit FoP for copyrighted architecture). The U.S. does provide liberal FoP for architecture, but it has been a common practice of some here (myself included) to add PD tag for public domain buildings. All U.S. buildings completed before 1990 are in public domain. But if there comes a new consensus that there is no need for such tag, I'll agree to have PD-architecture tags removed from all files for the sake of simplicity. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not a matter of simplicity - I originally had it tagged the first way I showed above for the sake of completeness, with both the PD/FoP tag and the CC tag for the photo.
MediaWiki doesn't know how to handle an image with two licenses, and the "zoomed in" view of the image here or on Wikipedia erroneously reports the photograph as being in the public domain when it detects the PD-architecture tag. That isn't OK, it's patently false.
I had no idea it was a known (for ten years) issue until I went and checked phabricator... -αβοοδ (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 see here:
The example on the bottom is using {{Licensed-FOP|1={{PD-US-architecture}}|2={{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}}} like it "should" -αβοοδ (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@-αβοοδ: The image you show correctly shows the object photographed as PD and the photo as free-licensed. If that is supposed to be an illustration of the problem you reported, it looks to me like it doesn't match your description of the problem. - Jmabel ! talk 23:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel You need to look closer. At the red box. The screenshot is a composite, you need to ignore the "Licensing" and below, I did not want to upload multiple screenshots. You only see that AFTER clicking the "Public Domain" in the red box to navigate directly to the full Wikimedia page for the image (and scrolling down)
Check for yourself in Media Viewer or by trying to do the equivalent on mobile
When you are viewing the image in either view - the only license you see is Public Domain. The photograph IS NOT in the Public Domain. -αβοοδ (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

9/11 photos and videos from NIST

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

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

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

They're clearly not, and IMHO should be speedied as no-permission.
This is different from the NWS cases you've seen where at least there was some confusion generated by a general disclaimer on the site. Here, there's no evidence of permission offered that copyright was transferred to the NIST (let alone that they were created by the NIST...) --Rlandmann (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Just looked at the second one, and it gives a reference to the nist.gov website, no longer there but archived here, which clearly says at the top: Image © 2001 Star Reese, and at the bottom, The materials (images, video, documents, etc.) available on this website may be protected by copyrights owned by private individuals or organizations, and may be subject to restrictions on use. Copyrighted materials, in most circumstances, cannot be used or distributed without the permission of the copyright holder. (NIST does not maintain current contact information for copyright holders.). So... yes, these should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I figured. I plan to go through the files and nominate the ones that weren't taken by the NIST for deletion when I have time. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Australian photographer in the US, 1944

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

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

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

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

File:Ohio University Rufus Bobcat.jpg

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

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

File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg

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

Adjusting brightness is not copyrightable imo unless some other creative element was added in the process, which does not seem like it was Bedivere (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a complicated one. Let's start with the first publication:
  • first publication of the image seems to have been in 1942 in US Camera 1943
    • I have confirmed that the book carried a Copyright notice, as required ("Copyright by T. J. Maloney 1942")
    • I have not been able to find a valid copyright registration, however. I can find other annual editions. For example, US Camera 1942 (Catalog of Copyright Entries 1942 Part I, page 11, registration A 160011, Nov 12, 1941) and US Camera 1944 (Catalog of Copyright Entries 1944 Part I, page 18, registration A 177716, Dec 15, 1943) were correctly registered. The entries are alphabetical, so if it had been correctly registered, US Camera 1943 should appear in Catalog of Copyright Entries 1943 Part I, page 13, but it does not.
  • If it had been correctly registered, copyright would have been due for renewal in the 28th year, so in 1970-71
    • No copyright renewals for T. J. Maloney exist in these years (or any other years, for that matter)
I therefore conclude that copyright on the first publication of this photo either expired in 1970 or 1971, but more likely was never correctly registered in the first place.
Beyond that:
  • over the decades, the artist made numerous modifications to the negative and is on the record saying that “it is safe to say that no two prints are precisely the same.”
  • the copy hosted on en is of a later print and not the same as the version published under copyright in 1942, and there is a question about whether the alterations made to the original work cross the TOO to be copyrightable.
  • One version of the print, made by Adams in 1980 received its own copyright after the photographer's death. Registration VA0000209098 was issued by the US Copyright Office on March 26, 1985. That the print was based on an existing work was acknowledged, but the basis for the registration was "New Matter: unique reinterpretation of negative into printed enlargement." So, it appears that the alterations that the artist made in at least one case were significant enough to be copyrightable.
  • Adams had a little over 250 copyright registrations to his name. Some of these expired without renewal in his lifetime, but about 240 of them were made after 1964 and will be protected by copyright for decades to come. Most of these appear to be collections of his photographs in book form, and it's probable that at least some of these volumes contained copies of "Moonrise"
Therefore:
  • the freedom of any particular print of "Moonrise" probably depends on the circumstances of publication of that specific copy and its similarity to any other copies for which copyright might have been registered (via being collected into a book)
  • en's copy is sourced to MOMA[4], who say it is a print, not a reproduction from a book, but do not say when it was made. This means there is some possibility it is the 1980 version or one substantially identical to it
  • for comparison, the copy at the Minneapolis Institute of Art website[5] is also a print, not a reproduction from a book, and was made in 1961. Meaning that either:
    • this print is substantially similar to the one published in 1942, and is free of copyright or
      • Update -- the negative was substantially chemically altered in 1948.[6] If the lighting changes made in 1980 are sufficient for the USCO to approve a copyright registration, it seems likely that this does too...
    • the alterations are substantial enough to require a new copyright notice, and copyright will depend on its similarity to versions that might have been published in copyrighted books.
Conclusion:
  • versions of "Moonrise" that are free of copyright and that we can host here definitely exist. The original 1942 version is one example.
  • the version on en is not safe and should be deleted. The existence of copyright-free versions means we can't even use it under NFF over there...
  • the version at the Minneapolis Institute of Art is also not safe
  • when archive.org and its collection of Catalogs of Copyright Entries for the period 1942-1950 is available again, it might be possible to zero in with more certainty on potentially free versions of the image.
Whew! --Rlandmann (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Great work @Rlandmann Bedivere (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Like you, I would never have believed that tinkering with the exposure of a photographic print would amount to a copyrightable alteration, yet here we are! --Rlandmann (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Ansel Adams took the photo while he had a 6-month contract with the Department of the Interior to photograph land controlled by the Department. he had completed a photo shoot at a reservation and was driving near Hernandez when the opportunity happened. The photo has the Carson National Forest in the background, but that is Department of Agriculture land. There has been a debate about who owns the negative's copyright. The prints of the negative are derivative works by Adams. The prints are not faithful copies of the negative but rather prints that do substantial dodging and burning -- operations that are more than just adjusting the overall brightness. Glrx (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for this extra detail! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
A few points to add:
  • The lack of copyright registration for US Camera 1943 is not of particular importance, since registration was an optional formality. The fact that neither the book nor the photo itself (nor any photos by Ansel Adams) was renewed in the period around 1970 is more pertinent.
  • The current version of the file on Wikipedia is this version from MoMA. According to the sources I cited on the file description page, Adams gave a print to MoMA in 1942. (Though I can't re-verify that right now, since Internet Archive is still mostly down.) The description page on MoMA says, "This print is one of the first of many that he made from a single negative." So I think it's fair to conclude that it is the aforementioned 1942 print. Thus the changes to the negative in 1948 aren't relevant.
  • Giving a print to a museum was probably an act of publication, independent of the publication in US Camera. So even if there was enough originality in that print to make it a copyrightable work distinct from the version published in US Camera, the MoMA print is still PD due to lack of renewal.
  • The copyright claim for the 1980 print seems dubious. The registration record states "Cataloged from appl[ication] only." Which I haven't seen before, but seems to imply that they registered it without inspecting a copy of the work? And it was registered alongside 70 other prints as part of an edition titled "The Museum Set". Could the Copyright Office have examined all those prints and compared them to the negatives and to all the previous prints of those images to determine if there was enough originality in the new prints to merit a copyright? Seems far-fetched, to say the least.
  • Adams sold hundreds of prints of the photo through the 1970s. Did any of those have a copyright notice? Seems unlikely. There are numerous museums and galleries that list details of their copy, with none of them mentioning a copyright notice that I've found. See here an auction listing that shows both sides of the print, with no copyright notice to be found. So we have probably hundreds of prints that have gone into the public domain. Leaving approximately zero room for any new originality in the printing process that could justify a copyright even in any later prints that did follow the required formalities, such as the 1980 print. (Even the 1980 print may not have bore a copyright notice. It wasn't registered until 1985, just under the 5-year wire to rescue the copyright of a work published without notice. Seems likely that the Adams trust didn't get wise about copyright formalities until that time.)
Toohool (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is the negative had many problems, so printing the negative took substantial work and each print is unique. That could be a reason that chemically treating the negative was attempted.
The simple path would be for Adams to make an improved print, photograph that print, and then produce prints from the second-generation negative. No one is claiming that Adams took that route for Moonrise prints.
I have some trouble with publication / COM:PUB; see also COM:PACUSA. If Adams sold prints from a shop open to the public, then I'd put the publication at the sale of the print. The article above suggests that making prints was more like a commission. Adams got letters requesting a print, and then Adams made a derivative work. I am not sure that fulfilling a commission is publication. The transaction sounds private rather than public. If I commission a painter to paint my portrait, is the resulting portrait published? I do not believe it is. The public never had a chance to see my portrait.
I do not understand the nuances of publication. Displaying a work in a museum does not necessarily constitute publication. The museum may not allow photography. A gift may be publication, but I suspect that issue is more nuanced. If I gave a photograph to a friend, then that is not a transaction with the public and should not be publication. If I gave photographs away while running for public office, then that is publication. Is a gift to a museum that does not allow photography publication? Why would a gift be treated differently than a loan? Or is that why I see notations that a work of art is on "permanent loan" from a museum patron?
Glrx (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
We usually consider that a picture leaving the photographer's custody constitutes publication. There have been exhibitions of Adams' works. That certainly constitutes publication. I have got a list for Category:Exhibition at M. H. De Young Memorial Museum. November 15, 1932–December 31, 1932. Yann (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
But that conflicts with a statement in COM:PACUSA: "the court ruled that exhibiting a work in a closed gallery setting that did not allow copying was insufficient to qualify for publication because the location restricted the public's dominion over the work." Other comments also show that limited disclosure does not constitute publication. I see the broad claim as too simple. Glrx (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
This only occurs where the gallery was set up such that copying or photography was prevented. Additionally, distribution based on request letters is not limited publication, and is in fact thus general publication. The courts created the doctrine of “limited publication” to distinguish certain distributions from a “general publication” and to avoid the divestive consequences of publication without notice when it was clear the author (or copyright proprietor) restricted both the purpose and the recipients of the distribution. Generally, a limited publication is the distribution of copies of a work to a definitely selected group with a limited purpose and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution, or sale. (Compendium 1905.1). Whether or not there is publication has nothing to do with the privacy of the transaction; it has to do with whether or not there are restrictions placed on the copies and into whose hands they might fall — where there are not. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the 1932 exhibition, Group f/64 says that on November 15, 1932, the first exhibition of Group f/64 opened to large crowds and that Edward Weston's prints were priced at $15 each; all of the others were $10 each. The show ran for six weeks. So the pictures were on sale, and there certainly have been news reports about it. That certainly constitutes publication. And confidential exhibitions where journalists can't take pictures are certainly the exception. I can't access to US newspapers archives, but it probably could be done. Yann (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:William D. Hoard.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public display without any means to specifically restrict copying by onlookers counted as publication before 1978. So the painting is presumably in the public domain due to such publication before 1929, either via its display in a government building or public display (if any) made by the Historical Society.
Additionally, if published without a copyright notice (before March 1989), or with a notice (before 1964) but no renewal, the painitng would also be in the public domain.
If the painting really hadn't been published before being put on the internet, it would be in the public domain, as long as that first publication occurred in 2003 or later. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I changed the license to {{PD-Art|PD-US-expired}} to indicate that the scanning or photograph of a 2D work of art doesn't create a new copyright. Yann (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller and Yann: Thanks for the response! Much appreciated. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
As an additional question, the files that the historical society make available for the portrait include a version in a PDF that has been somewhat restored, with more accurate coloration. Given what you said about scanning above and that this appears to basically be a cleaned up version of the portrait, would I be good to extract that photo and upload it to Commons as a more accurate representation? Or do you think there are some additional copyright issues I may run into? M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Owl WTP.jpg

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

No, we CANNOT host this file here on Wikimedia Commons, read COM:L. Fair use is not allowed here, and Disney's Winnie the Pooh is still under copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Just un case they forgot, this request was also posted at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#File:Owl_WTP.jpg. Commander Keane (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
For reference, a similar request was also posted at en:WP:MCQ#File:Owl WTP.jpg, where it was pointed out that it would likely be quite hard to justify the non-free use of such a file per English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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

The photo wallpaper court cases from Germany (Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/05#No mercy for grandma's photo wallpaper at Cologne District Court) were decided a few weeks ago by Germany's highest regular court BGH (Federal Court of Justice). They ruled that showing such wallpapers in the background of photos on the Internet etc. is not a copyright infringement because there is an implied consent for such uses by the original copyright holder when licensing photos to be used for photo wallpapers. “The fact that the exception of incidental works in Art. 5(3)(i) InfoSoc Directive could potentially apply in the present case was deemed irrelevant.” [8], [9], [10]. Note: The BGH is described as German Supreme Court in the English language article, it is not Germany's constitutional court however (that is a separate court). --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Lisboa 2011 139 (6474542577).jpg

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

I googled "Tupac murals in Lisbon" and found numerous different photographs of this same image. That and the image title would affirm that the photograph is in Lisbon, in Portugal Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
A reverse image search also consistently points to Lisbon, and one of the websites you linked even specifies the area of Lisbon. Note that the EXIF data also says Lisbon. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: there is precedent for keeping 2D FOP images in Portugal. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:RatoMetroLx3.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salgueiro Maia graffiti.jpg Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Here is a good resource from a Portuguese scholar regarding the Portuguese FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
So it would seem it isn't even a question, 'works' includes anything that could be defined as 'works' Bastique ☎ let's talk! 01:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that opinion is completely unambiguous. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who commented. I've added {{FoP-Portugal}} for the photographed mural to the file's page based on the comments above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ada Limón NASA poem -- Europa Clipper plate

Slightly unique situation I just noticed, wondering if anyone has any insight here. Ada Limón, the US Poet Laureate, wrote a poem for NASA for the Europa Clipper space probe -- the poem was etched into a metal panel and attached to the probe before it was launched. NASA uploaded a photo somewhere of the panel, someone then uploaded the image to Commons because it's ostensibly copyright-free. But the image also technically contains copyrighted material - Limón's poem. She doesn't give up possible copyright just because she's fulfilling a task for the government, correct? AFAIK she wasn't a paid employee of the federal government, but rather an independent contractor creating a work that she gave to the government (NASA). Would this mean that the poem is still under copyright, and thus a picture of the etched metal panel would be a derivative work?

LOC claims the work is copyrighted, wondering what more informed folks think about this. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you are right. Gnom (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, the LOC is an authority so I see no reason to not take their word for it. Rather than deleting the files, I suggest blurring the text on the four images that contain the poem. I'd be happy to handle this and hide the originals if there is agreement for this route. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Blurry part of the text would be a solution. But isn't there a better source than Facebook? Yann (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately no. I've searched for alternatives and, bizarrely, it appears that image was only published on social media. That said, the account is JPL's, so I wouldn't think there would be an issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
There is also this version: File:Europa Clipper commemorative plate 2.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Blurring makes sense to me! 19h00s (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Blur has been applied to File:Europa Clipper commemorative plate 2.jpg, File:Europa Clipper commemorative plate 2 (cropped).jpg, File:Europa Clipper commemorative plate.jpg, and File:Europa Clipper vault plate obverse and reverse.jpg, and previous versions hidden. Please let me know if anyone finds additional files that need redacting. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Beatles US sleeves

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

It looks that way to me. More interestingly, I don't see a copyright notice on the record itself either. I'll be interested to hear from others who have more experience with this kind of work. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Other pressings ([11] [12]) do not have a copyright notice either. Bedivere (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
The copyright symbol for sound recordings (℗) wasn't a thing in US law until 1971. Jarnsax (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, could anyone see if they're able to see this specific issue of Texas Monthy and check if there is any copyright notices for it? As well as to see if it applies for this image? reppoptalk 03:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The January 1977 issue of Texas Monthly was registered for copyright with the USCO on December 16, registration number B288604: Catalog of Copyright Entries 1977 Part 2: Periodicals, page 385. Registrations of collective works covered all contents. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! reppoptalk 19:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Israeli logos

Even though COM:TOO Israel says Israel's threshold of originality has moved closer to the US's in recent years, I'm not sure File:Logo of Agudas Chasidei Chabad.png, File:Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch logo.png, File:COLEL-CHABAD-LOGO v1 current-1024x278.png, File:Logo of Devar Malchut.jpg, File:Living archive Jem.jpg and File:Aleph Institute Logo.jpg are even simple enough for the US's TOO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Cosplayer of Rin Tohsaka from Fate-stay night at Comic Market 82 20120821.jpg

Watermark shows "2chコスプレ写真うpスレ転載禁止" This file seem like copyvio, but probably needs a Japanese speaker to say for sure. Do we have anyone who speaks Japanese here?--125.230.85.49 12:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Photo of person, taken by a professional photographer

Hello, I am sure this has been answered before, but I was unable to find the info, sorry. I have created a new article about a person. I want to add their photo. They provided the photo, which was taken by a professional photographer. All parties agreed to the use of this photo. It has been widely published on the internet before. Shortly after adding it to my wikipedia article, the photo was taken down. Reason: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images. I have then tried to upload it again, which was denied. I now want to try uploading the same or a similar photo, but I want to get it right this time. Not sure how to proceed. The upload wizard always ends with "Don't upload this photo". I am located in Germany, if this matters. Thank you for your help. Roeckelsemm (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC) This is the article in question: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rabe

@Roeckelsemm: Have the photographer contact COM:VRT to confirm permission. Abzeronow (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Or the photographer can post the photo on a web site or public-facing social media page clearly under their control, indicating the granted license, and you can then cite that as the source. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

New York Public Library Digital Collections

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

If at all possible, I think we should substitute the actual reason for it to be in the public domain for the library's own determination. In this case, the button is very likely to have been distributed without a copyright notice, and since the party and movement were active in the US, we can safely assume it to be a US work. So I would substitute {{PD-US-no-notice}} for the {{PD-because}} statement. Felix QW (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
You just need a new template like those in category:No known restrictions license tags for the NYPL. This is the exact type of situation that those templates are for. Jarnsax (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Logo Canadian North Airlines

Buenas,se puede publicar el logo de Canadian north (aerolínea canadiense) es simple o complejo? si es simple ,se puede publicar a Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Canadian North
Definite no for the 2003 polar bear logo.
The current logo suggests a man and is not a common stick figure; it may be above COM:TOO.
Glrx (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
(Por ejemplo:https://canadiannorth.com/) se puede publicar el nuevo logo?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
No to the upload. Given the American Airlines logo ruling, I think the man is not clearly below the threshold of originality in the US. Glrx (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Mira (File:First Air logo (2017).svg) el usuario público con SVG y {{PD-textlogo}}. AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Bastique:cual es tu opinión, es posible abrir el DR? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: File:First Air logo (2017).svg has been nominated for deletion. Glrx (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@AbchyZa22 No estoy aquí todos los días. No me necesitas pingar cada vez, hay otros administrators 😉. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 16:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the AA logo, courtesy link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:American Airlines logo 2013.svg (fair use image for context: on enwiki). See Commons:Threshold of originality#Logos and flags and for some US examples see Commons:Threshold of originality#United States of America and COM:TOO Canada. I find the issue perplexing. Commander Keane (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Can a letter from a French Govt official be added as a source?

If a person received a letter from a French Govt official on a official ministerial letter head with a Govt. Document number. Can it be added to support a fact regarding that ministry. From what I have seen online, this document is in the public domain. Is that correct? What criteria need to be met? Measureonce (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Measureonce: You seem to be asking several separate questions:
  • Is a letter from a French government official inherently in the public domain?
    • French copyright law is rather different from Anglo-American copyright law, in that it separates droit d'auteur (which is about attribution) from patrimonial rights (which are more about the right to reproduce the document and who is entitled to compensation). The former is clearly satisfied by correct attribution to the author. Can you tell me what basis you have to think the latter does not prevent publication of this document? Certainly not everything produced by an employee of the French government is effectively in the public domain. "From what I have seen online" is not exactly a citation for your claim.
  • Is a document like this within Commons scope?
    • Quite likely, but really no one can tell you that without seeing the document, or at least having a good description of the document.
  • Can this document be cited to "support a fact"?
    • This is not something Commons can help you with at all, but most likely placing it on Commons does not in any way make it more citable. Documents need not be online to be cited (certainly not for Wikipedia, and I've never really heard of any other site having that as a standard), though of course it is convenient to be able to link a copy. If it is already online somewhere, adding a copy to Commons is of literally no advantage in this respect.
Jmabel ! talk 19:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I see there is a lack of photos of the chinese military, i found quite some photos on the Chinese MOD website and can also possibly get some screenshots on the official CCTV channel 7/Chinese military youtube channel(idk which one owns it, I see some videos from the chinese military and some from channel 7 there); May i ask if i'm allowed to upload them and what extra procedures do i need to go through? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The bottom of the site reads, Copyright © Ministry of National Defense of the People's Republic of China. All Rights Reserved, so the answer is no. Gnom (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh okay thank you. How about youtube? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Thehistorianisaac: I am afraid but those videos are also all copyrighted. Gnom (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your information. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

InAudio/Infraction

I was just listening to the outro music in the video when I found it using Audile. Infraction made it that is a part of the InAudio music library. Regarding the InAudio licensing terms, can anyone assess whether it is eligible? - THV | ♂ | U | T - 03:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC); edited: 03:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No, because the use of the music is limited, which makes it non-free. Gnom (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I think I need to blacklist it. Plus, the terms "no copyright" and "copyright-free" are probably problematic and misleading. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 08:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC); edited: 12:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

How do CC BY-NC-SA licenses pertain to PD-scan artworks?

Many institutions own artworks that are in the public domain, but claim copyright whilst allowing noncommercial reproductions of what are scans of these artworks under a CC BY-NC-SA license. Wikimedia does not allow reproduction for commercial use, but does allow "faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art" with the PD-scan tag; an apparent contradiction. Files of this sort have stayed up for more than one year on Wikimedia Commons.

Example 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Hugard_de_Latour.png This file was sourced from the website of Bibliothèque de l'Observatoire de Paris. (https://cosmos.obspm.fr) It is a painting by Claude-Sébastien Hugard de LaTour who died in 1886,[13] thus the artwork is in the public domain. The terms on the Paris Observatory Library website state however [14] "L’utilisation de ces reproductions à usage privé ou public non commercial est autorisée et gratuite, dans le respect du droit d’auteur." Transl. "The use of these reproductions for private or public non-commercial use is authorized and free of charge, in compliance with copyright law."

Example 2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_Ash%C3%A1ninka_settlement_along_the_Chuchuras_River.png This file was sourced from the website of Die Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. (https://smb.museum-digital.de/) It is a photograph taken by Charles Kroehle who died in 1901,[15] thus this artwork is also in the public domain. Similarly, this work was released under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. [16]

What is the consensus regarding scans of public domain artworks which were released under a CC BY-NC-SA license? Are they eligible for the PD-scan and similar tags? Endebyrd (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added PD-Scan to Example 2. If the source uses a noncommercial license but it's a faithful reproduction or scan of a 2D public domain work, we use PD-Art (artwork) or PD-Scan (documents, photographs, etc.). Abzeronow (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
So the PD-scan/art tags effectively overrule the noncommercial license? Endebyrd (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Commons made a community decision to apply the Bridgeman decision to non-US works so we ignore that for 2D works. Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks. Endebyrd (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Threshold of originality: Gradiometer survey

Are there any opinions on whether File:Magnetic image of council circle.jpg passes the US threshold of originality? At the original source, it is under a non-commercial educational use only license, so it could only be kept if it is below the threshold of originality. If people believe it to be copyrightable, I'd open a DR. Felix QW (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doc James, do you have any thoughts? I don't think this is a ToO Issue, because this isn't an artistic work, this is scientific data, and the rules around data representation are very confusing. I think there was a similar discussion around some data from the New York Times, but I can't find the exact case. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW, after further investigation, this appears to be a copyrightable image. I think a DR is in order. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Plots of some data are not copyrighted. However, I would say this image should have at least the same copyright protection as an aerial photograph. Given the NC nature of the website, a DR is appropriate. Glrx (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Medical imaging is not copyrightable in the USA as it is simply recreating what is there with no originality applied to it. Do not know about this image. One could always upload it to NCCommons.org however not sure if any wikis have adopted this yet.[17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
@Doc James, I don't think this is medical imaging, this looks like land survey data. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Never stated it was. Just mentioning the copyright rules around medical imaging in the USA. The Commons community can decide as they wish. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all! Any further input is welcome at the deletion request page. Felix QW (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

New court decision about freedom of panorama in Germany

Germany's highest regular court, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), has decided that photos taken from above using a photo drone are not covered by the FOP exception in Germany's copyright law. The case was about drone photos of sculptures placed on colliery spoil tips in Germany's Ruhr area. [18], [19]. Discussions (in German) at Commons:Forum and at de.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 07:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be an expected ruling since publicly available views rather than public spaces are what German FOP is about. Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
There were conflicting decisions by lower courts (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/05#New case law about freedom of panorama in Germany), so the case was not immediately obvious. I personally expected a decision like that from the BGH, they're usually quite protective of author's rights. With some exceptions like the wallpaper cases below. --Rosenzweig τ 09:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig@Abzeronow: here is the English-language article on the court ruling. The logic is that the FoP privilege given by Sec. 59 of the German copyright law only applies to photographing of copyrighted pieces of buildings and artworks from the ground or street level where the public has 100% access. It is obvious that airspace is not publicly-accessible: you still need some forms of clearances to access the air, like airplane documents (ticket/visa/passport etc.), balloon tickets, et cetera. Drone is also a special device to allow photographers to illegally gain enhanced but non-public vistas of such works, on the same German legal logic as helicopters, ladders, et cetera. On their Facebook post, Freelens has adviced website developers and multimedia or photography creators to remove drone photos of copyrighted buildings and artworks, as a precaution (to prevent more needless lawsuits from architects and sculptors). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Free or non free image subject? (Australia Local Govt public information sign)

I asked this at Commons helpdesk, a responder suggested I post it here for an appropriate answer...

In 2023 I photographed and uploaded my image of this information sign (includes some text) in public view (attached to the street frontage of a Council building) in my home town, Lismore in Australia, but am now wondering whether maybe the content would be non free to do so - advice appreciated... File:Lismore flood levels to 2022.jpg - Regards, Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This question concerns the w:threshold of originality at which a work becomes eligible for copyright.
In Australia, that's a low bar! The Copyright Act (1968) makes specific references to charts and diagrams. Australian case law touching on the threshold of originality has focused on whether a work was created by humans or just a mechanised compilation to which humans have contributed along the way (eg, a TV guide or phone directory). I think a chart or diagram like this would be eligible for copyright in Australia. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
When you say "low bar" that means "really strict", right? As an alternative would it be ok for someone to create a diagram based on the photo, with the years and flood levels, or would that be a derivate work of something under copyright. I am thinking it is just data, but not sure. Commander Keane (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
"Low bar" means that there doesn't have to be much to a design for it to be eligible for copyright -- even a really simple design like the Aboriginal Flag is eligible for copyright in Australia. This sign is considerably more complex than that, including its stylised water droplets.
But the factual information in the sign is not copyrightable, so I don't see why anyone couldn't make a diagram based on that. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to responders, it sounds to me like this information sign would be copyrighted as human-created, in which case I will request Commons admins to remove it and remove the links to it in Wikipedia (2 places). The same information can probably just be presented as an external link to something published elsewhere: a shame because I rather liked the presentation effort that had gone into making this sign. I am guessing that displaying it in a public place does not simply mean folk like myself can take a photo and put it on Commons as a copyright free image. Thanks - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
If it didn't have the graphics (water drops), there would be no issue IMO. No different to the manual flood gauges. Bidgee (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Tony 1212 -- Not in the case of a 2D work like this, no. (3D works like sculptures, buildings, models of buildings, and craft works on permanent public display are different). However; let me have a go at creating a free alternative :) --Rlandmann (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Sounds great! Tony 1212 (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
You may find this graphic helpful as well - if readable :) https://www.lismore.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/1/2.-community/7.-emergencies-amp-disasters/images/flood/history-of-lismore-flood-events.png?w=902&h=609 Tony 1212 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
No problem -- ideally, what would you like the graphic to represent? The original file has just the 4 biggest since 1974. Did you want any others included too? --Rlandmann (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rlandmann: This https://www.lismore.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/3/2.-community/7.-emergencies-amp-disasters/documents/flood/history-of-lismore-flood-events.pdf is a good source for data of every recorded flood in Lismore. Gnangarra 11:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rlandmann I'm not sure - whatever has the most impact I suppose (which would be the major floods; there are a lot more minor ones). In case it helps, the context for the original graphic is being affixed to the pump station itself, per this Google street view - link ... I quite like the juxtaposition of the building with the flood markers. If it helps, I could photograph the building myself on Friday and you could re-use that as a backdrop (or something), although it is rather ugly... but any other thoughts are welcome! Tony 1212 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Wow the people vs flood height pic in the link is remarkable! Reminds me of File:Human-brachiosaurus size comparison.svg ;-)--Commander Keane (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Commander Keane, @Rlandmann Yes, and the pavement is already 9.5 meters above the AHD (Australian Height Datum). The river normally sits at around 0.5 m above AHD, current plot here... http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDN60231/IDN60231.058176.plt.shtml Tony 1212 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
A bit more flood data here, excluding the 2022 event which was unprecedented: https://rous.nsw.gov.au/cp_galleries/flood_mitigation/master/Lismore-moderate-to-major-flood-peaks-1880---2017.PNG ... up to creative users what would be a good visualization of some of this data! Tony 1212 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Commander Keane, @Rlandmann Well I put up the image for deletion and @Infrogmation of New Orleans opined that it was not a copyvio; perhaps this diversity of views should be discussed further... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit confused about using National Portrait Gallery images, I know there has been some disputes about usage and I'm unsure of the rules. I want to upload this image from 1922. The photographer is unknown but it is by Bassano Ltd. I have seen some other NPG Bassano Ltd images on the Commons from the same year. Would this particular image be ok to upload and under what license? Spiderpig662 (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that this is a negative that was acquired in 1974 might mean it's still under copyright in the U.K. (and thus the U.S.). Abzeronow (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Work of Ihor Hordiy

Пишу українською мовою, бо не можу чітко висловити своє запитання англійською мовою. Прошу перекласти, якщо хтось достатньо володіє обома мовами.

Ситуація така: архітектор Ігор Гордій завантажив у Вікісховище серію власних архітектурних проєктів, які в більшости реалізовані в місті Тернополі (Україна), зокрема, завантажив цю світлину каплички (саме зображення вже збудованої споруди, а не ескіз твору), яка збудована 2013 року (також інші зображення будівель за його проєктами: File:Ресторан у с. Підгородньому.jpg, File:Тернопіль - Будинок по вул. Митрополита Шептицького, 5-а.jpg, File:Житловий будинок по вул. Липова в м. Тернополі.jpg, File:РТОК по вул. Кульчицької в м. Тернополі (2016 р.).jpg, File:Автосалон «Міцубісі», «Сузукі», «Ніссан» по вул. Микулинецькій в м. Тернополі (2009 р.).jpg, File:Торговий центр по вул. Оболоня в м. Тернополі (2016 р.).jpg).

Питання: в Україні відсутня Свобода панорами, але, якщо сам архітектор, який створив реалізовані в натурі (збудовані) будинки, завантажив на Вікісховище зображення цих будинків (споруд) під ліцензією CC-BY-SA-4.0 , то чи означає це, що він надав згоду на фотографування і завантаження зображень цих самих будинків іншим фотографам? Микола Василечко (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

English Summary of auto-translation: UK Architect Ihor Hordiy uploaded photographs of his own projects to Commons under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Does that CC-BY-SA license transfer to other photographers who wish to upload photographs of the same projects by Hordiy, even as there is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 18:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I can't see any reason it would. He didn't free-license the building, he free-licensed the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. The CC license applies to "Licensed Material" --- defined as "the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License." Insofar as it is such a work, and given that there is no notice that it is excluded from the scope of the license, the appearance of the building embodied in the photograph should be included within this license grant. The "Licensed Rights" are defined as "the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license." "Adapted Material" according to the CC license is any material that is "derived from or based upon the Licensed Material […]" — but not necessarily from the Licensed Material in the particular form it takes in the photograph. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
If they uploaded photographs, I would assume the license would just apply to those photographs. We have to give authors that option -- licensing the building appearance so far as it is seen in those photographs, but should not assume more. I would simply consider the photograph itself the "Licensed Material" and I'd prefer to see a court case before aggressively assuming anything beyond what we actually need to host. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the images uploaded by the architect himself (or his camp/representatives) are the only images with legal licensing, since only the architect has the right to share and distribute the photos on the Internet. The uploaders can only have the right to freely share their photos here if they had prior permission from the architect, which should be made through COM:VRTS correspondence (like an email from Ihor Hordiy). The best option is to convince him to finally allow the free licensing of all images here as well as future uploads of his buildings, in a one-shot correspondence of authorization. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller: by way of a thought experiment here: if I paint an oil painting, and then free-license a macro image of one particular brush stroke (or a few such images), would you say I have thereby free-licensed the oil painting? Presuming the answer is "no," then how is what you are arguing different from that? - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
It's very different. In your hypothetical, the copyrighted work (painting) is not substantially included within the image. Here, the copyrightable work (the design of the exterior of the building) is substantially included, and the license should be taken to apply to what is actually conveyed in the image. It is 100% kosher for someone to draw a picture of the building at a different angle — and it would also be allowed to take a photograph of a physical building to yield a similar result. In fact, the images posted by Hordiy tend to include most of the external appearance of the building; the other parts are generally similar to the parts included, to the point where they may include minimal (if any) separate originality constituting an independent copyrightable work from the portions actually shown.
The contrast between these scenarios is that in your hypothetical almost none of the hypothetical painting is shown, whereas these photos show almost all of the copyrightable elements of the exterior design.
As for what @JWilz12345 says, anyone who receives the license certainly has permission to depict whatever copyrighted work is fully contained within the picture from a different angle, and whether this is done via drawing or via photography is irrelevant. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gor Igor: Чи можете дати відповідь, як автор проєктів будівель? --Микола Василечко (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Написав також листа через електронну пошту до автора. Якщо зрозуміє про що мова, відповість і надасть дозвіл, то це буде позитивне вирішення. Інакше, доведетьсмя вилучати деякі завантажені зображення його проєктів будівель, завантажених іншими фотографами, наприклад зображення каплички у цій категорії.--Микола Василечко (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
There is no answer from the author. So, what is the conclusion with the files? Other photographers can you download photos or not? --Микола Василечко (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
@Микола Василечко try to ask the architect if he is willing to allow the use of free licenses for the other uploads by other users. We have COM:VRTS to process licensing authorizations via email and other forms of correspondences. User:Gor Igor may be inactive, so it's no use of mentioning him here. Email correspondence to Wikimedia from Ihor is what we need. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 I wrote User:Gor Igor on email correspondence to Wikimedia as well. There is no answer. If I meet him (we live in city Ternopil), I ask it in person. There is no permission now, so the files must be deleted. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

COM:CRT/Malaysia used to contain contradictory information on whether the 1987 copyright act was retroactive. However, the section cited both for and against retroactivity seems clear to me in stating that expired terms would not be revived:

[T]his Act shall apply in relation to works made before the commencement of this Act as it applies in relation to works made after the commencement of this Act: Provided that this section shall not be construed as reviving any copyrights which had expired before the commencement of this Act.

I edited COM:CRT/Malaysia accordingly; however, since the previous copyright terms for photographic works were 25 years from publication, this seems to place all pre-1962 photos first published in Malaysia into the public domain, regardless of the life dates of the author, and also avoids URAA restoration for those works.

Does anyone see a fault in this chain of thought, and if not, should we perhaps create a template to reflect this? Felix QW (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My read of it is that all works that were in copyright in 1987 had their terms extended, while all works that were expired in 1987 did not have their copyrights extended so pre-1962 published photos are PD as far as URAA as well as all works by authors who died before 1962. Abzeronow (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Ditto to Abzeronow. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
My reading of it is similar to Abzeronow's interpretation, but I also see that regarding licenses, exceptions etc. the current law applies. The retroactivity part applies to such things as licensing, copyright exceptions, and penalties, while the non-retroactive part is for works that are already in PD in Malaysia by the time the law took effect. We may need to take into account two aspects of retroactivity in copyright laws: retroactivity regarding uses/licenses/exceptions and retroactivity regarding copyright terms. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you all! Now we should only consider whether it makes sense to add at least the photography case to {{PD-Malaysia}} (authors who died before 1962 would be PD in Malaysia anyway, there the main interest is in avoiding the COM:URAA), or whether to make a new template similar to {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. Felix QW (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Shortest, standard and language-agnostic license statement for social media posts

Hi! I started a discussion elsewhere about what would be the shortest, standard and language-agnostic license statement for social media posts that we as Wikimedia Commons community would feel comfortable enough with. I was suggested to move the discussion over here:

I'm interested in providing simple ways for people to share their photos to Wikimedia Commons. In particular, I'm interested in ways how they can share their Instagram posts. I have already read this, this, this and this and found them all very interesting and useful.

What do you think may be the shortest text they may add to their post that acceptably communicates their will to release it under a CC license? I'm trying to find something as short, standard and language-agnostic as possible, as I think something like that may (1) make it easier for authors to add it, (2) make it easier for everyone to search such freely-licensed content on Instagram, and (3) make it easier for us to confirm (even automatically) that the post has been licensed appropriately.

Ideally, I think a hashtag such as #CC_BY_SA_4_0 would meet all the criteria above. Do you think this would be clear and unambiguous enough? It does not include a link to the license, but the examples provided here don't include them either and seem to be OK.

Consider also this previous thread for additional context.

Maybe we could come up with some guideline or policy? Maybe something like Commons:Flickr files? And maybe update Commons:License review and Commons:Where is the license on various sites? accordingly? Diegodlh (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

"I (insert name here) do Hereby release my work under (insert free license here)." in the caption. The image still has to be within scope. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I would say that e.g. simply adding "CC BY-SA 4.0" to a photo is already enough. Gnom (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Think there needs to be some statement of who took the photograph. A hashtag or licence mention could also mean that they're reposting a CC-licenced image they found online, and (wrongly) believe that it's enough to mention the licence type, without naming the original photographer. (eg. https://www.instagram.com/p/Bn2EqKxlmHi, which looks more like someone using a free stock photo.) Belbury (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I've been thinking about a guideline on Commons similar to that on Wikipedia, but to extend the guidelines to include publicists and agents. Of course we would have to call it Commons:Publicists, Agents, and You (COM:PAY). 😅 Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
com:PAY should be the paid editor page. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I've been working on permissions a lot in the last few months, and I'm pessimistic that short, standardized, and language-agnostic attainable, if we also care that permissions obtained via the process are robust and ethical. Considering a few different elements of this:
  • the license part is easy -- via a hashtag as you suggest
  • we also need (as already stated by Belbury) a statement that the person posting the image owns it or is otherwise authorized to license it. This is vital, but not language-agnostic. It *could* also take the form of a set of hashtags in different languages. #MyOwnPhoto #MaProprePhoto #MeinEigenesFoto
  • our email template also makes it clear to people that the decision is irrevocable and describes how the image might be used. I think this is ethically important, and don't see any easy way to express acknowledgement of this concisely and language-agnostically.
So how's this for an idea? We could have a system where people who want to make their social media photos usable on the Commons could sign some acknowledgements, register their social media account, and receive a token in return. For example, after I register my Instagram handle, and acknowledge that I promise only to tag my own work and understand the implications of what I'm doing, and select a license, I get a token "WGE57EF7". From then on, anything I post from my registered handle with the hashtag #WGE57EF7 may be used on the Commons under the license I chose. The registered social media account would not necessarily have to be publicly identified with a Wikimedia account. Thoughts? --Rlandmann (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/10&oldid=957218535"