This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
First of them has three different PD templates, which is too much to my taste.
The second is claimed CC, while looking exactly the same. Without advice, I'm not sure vectorization (possibly even automatic) is above TOO who-knows-where.
Thanks. As an offtopic note, current PNG version is converted from SVG, making it short of no-use even as reference original. Should it be reverted? - Gabuxae (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
U.S. pre-Berne ad question
As I understand it, in the U.S. before March 1, 1989, an ad in a newspaper needed a copyright notice of its own independent of the copyright notice for the newspaper. But what if the ad was for something in the same newspaper?
I recently had a chance to photograph a copy of the launch ad for the Friday Foster comic strip in the January 15, 1970 issue of the Chicago Tribune. The newspaper had the usual copyright notice on its masthead, but there is no copyright notice on the ad. Would the ad therefore fall into the public domain for lack of notice? Or does the newspaper copyright cover the ad because it is (presumably) from the same rights-holder? And (given that the ad is illustrated by the comic illustrator) does a copyright by the illustrator figure anywhere in here (I would think not, because this is clearly authorized use, so if it fails to do what is needed to retain copyright, that counts for the illustrator as well). - Jmabel ! talk20:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The Copyright Compendium says "A general notice for a collective work as a whole covers the separate contributions that it contains (regardless of ownership), except for any advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner for the collective work." If the newspaper owns the ad, then it doesn't need its own copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
It would depend on who the author of the figures were since European authors would be subject to copyright terms that would require them to have died before 1954. Generally anything published before 1880 will be OK, and we do have PD-old-assumed for either unknown authors or named authors that death date information cannot be found for works published before 1904. For works by American authors, works published before 1929 are all OK. Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Scinde house
File:Scinde house.jpg was tagged as own work by User:DeletedUser93348383211, which is clearly incorrect. It may have come from here at en:MTG Hawke's Bay, where it is marked as public domain. Is that enough information to tag the image as public domain rather than own work? According to the website the photographer was Frank L Moodie (Francis Lizars Moodie), architect, and the date 1926-1931. There is more information about Moodie here. TSventon (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
If it was published before 1929, it clearly is PD in the US. However, the date range goes until 1931, and if it is from 1931 it could be copyrighted in the US until 2026. Felix QW (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm having trouble figuring out if these cards are in the public domain. I don't see a copyright notice anywhere and, because they were published in 1957, that would mean they're in the public domain. But how does one confirm that there was no notice. What if there was some packaging for these cards that contained a copyright notice that wasn't printed on the individual cards? And if there was a notice, how would I be able to tell whether that copyright was renewed? The copyright renewal log is not the most intuitive, user-friendly site. Any advice would be appreciated. Denniscabrams (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for asking! Well it seems to me that you've already done a lot of due diligence even just by asking here. Since these were published in 1957 if we operate under an assumption that they were properly copyrighted and registered that would mean their renewal was due around 1984-1986 with 1985 being exactly 28 years later. This was required for all works published up through the end of 1963 since renewal became automatic in 1992, or 28 years after 1964. To search those logs you would need to check out the Official Public Catalog on copyright.gov. Currently there are two versions of it, but since the original version tends to be easier for finding renewals and not just new claims we shall start there.
The items appear to be called Hollywood Stars, so I just went ahead and looked up that keyword on the logs and sorted by date. The only items returned under this query from the 1950s are for film related pieces by Columbia Pictures. In the 1984-1986 section we have fresh registrations for home media releases of said films, and one brand new for some art and other visual pieces. When I looked on the newer edition of the site I was not able to find any hits for the 1957-1959 period when these would have been originally registered.
I would say those cards are fairly safe to be considered public domain since we've looked and not found any renewals or original registrations. SDudley (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, can someone check this logo for threshold of originality? It has already been speedy deleted at least twice on the German WP for copyright reasons, and now I find that it has the "no threshold of originality" tag here. Though I do not quite understand where that tag came from, since apparently no one except for the uploader themselves has been working on that page.
Hi, IMO this is OK. From what I can see on Google cache, the deleted version was bigger. Yann (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it was.
What I still don't quite understand is where that tag came from, since no one else had been working on that file up to that point, and there is no ticket of any sort. Did the uploader themselves place it there? Do uploaders get to decide for themselves if threshold of originality is an issue? --2003:C0:8F10:A100:A476:A5D8:2034:6E8523:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Copyright of Raising a flag over the Reichstag
The English Wikipedia article says that the famous photograph Raising a flag over the Reichstag is "public domain in Russia since January 1, 2019", although this is marked as dubious. Our file page says the photograph "was in the public domain in its home country (Russia) on the URAA date (January 1, 1996)". The photograph was published in the Soviet Union in 1945. My questions are:
When did the photograph's copyright expire in Russia?
When did the photograph's copyright expire in the United States? (and was it restored by the URAA?)
@Yann: Yes. Neither of those directly address the 2 questions above. I believe the photo falls under condition #4 in {{PD-Russia-1996}}, so I'm pretty sure it's PD in Russia. The law that {{PD-Russia-1996}} cites is from 2006, however, so I'm not clear on when the copyright actually expired. I'm asking so I can fix the info in the Wikipedia article (and update the File page with more specific info), not so I can nominate it for deletion. Nosferattus (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
As I read the template this photo was always public domain as made by an employee of a Soviet Union state news agency. GPSLeo (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: I don't think that's accurate. The dates in that section of the template are calculated using {{CURRENTYEAR}}-70 implying that such works have a copyright term of 70 years from publication, in which case it would have expired on January 1, 2016 (which disagrees with both English Wikipedia and the Commons file page). However, I read through the translations of the laws cited in the template and at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia and they don't mention anything about works created for state news agencies (or any terms based on creation date for that matter). I can't figure out where this stipulation comes from or if it's accurate or not. Nosferattus (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the older discussions was that the copyright got restored in Russia to 70pma, and that mil.ru released it under a CC license in 2019. Because there was a CC license, not sure we tried to hunt around for an actual PD reason. Answering the questions directly is hard, because not sure there was a Soviet copyright on it when created; it was only later laws which gave it a copyright. Things have been retroactively restored to 70pma for the most part now, which would mean it could still copyrighted in Russia, but there can be all sorts of edge cases, and maybe TASS is one. @Alex Spade: usually knows those reasons inside and out. As for the U.S., it may have entered into the public domain immediately if it was published without notice (and the U.S. did not have copyright relations with the Soviet Union until the early 1970s). The question then is what was the copyright status in Russia on January 1, 1996, when they still had their older 50pma law in place. If public domain then, the U.S. copyright would not have been restored. It's also possible the "country of origin" could be difficult to determine, if it was published in other countries within 30 days of it being published in Russia. If the U.S. was one of those countries, that means the URAA wouldn't restore it regardless of status in 1996. Given the translation of TASS situation (item 4 in PD-Russia-1996), it sounds like they determined that TASS owned the copyright (makes sense), and moreover the term was limited to 70 years from publication (and not 70pma). In 1996 that term would presumably have been 50 years from publication. Not sure what the 2019 public domain date was about though, if published in 1945. But it sure looks like section 4 of PD-Russia-1996 was added after the court case in question, so it probably applies directly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
That would make sense as item 4 in PD-Russia-1996 isn't actually mentioned in any of the laws cited in the template. Nosferattus (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
So if the copyright term in 1996 was 50 years after publication, it would have expired in Russia on January 1, 1996, the exact day the URAA went into force. Thus it would not have been renewed by the URAA (assuming that was otherwise possible). If the copyright was retroactively set to 70 years after publication it would have expired again on January 1, 2016 (in Russia). So the 2019 CC license was probably unnecessary, but I won't complain. Nosferattus (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Based on your explanation, I've updated the text in the English Wikipedia article so that it is more accurate. Nosferattus (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
1936-1937 works had not received prolonged 70y term (they became PD on Jan.1, 1993). The right time limit for TASS works by Khaldei is clear - it is no later than Jan.1, 2019. The left time border is very complex - there were 4 possible copyright terms in this case: old Soviet unlimited term1st for TASS works, but it was repealed in 1992-1993 and was replaced by 50y term2nd, then 50y term was replaced by 70y non-retroactive term3rd (in 2004), then 70y non-retroactive term was replaced by 70y retroactive term4th (since Jan.1, 2008). Alex Spade (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
It's about a court decision on 14 Sep 2015 which rejected an appeal and confirmed the previous lower-instance decision. But there are no further documents available. --A.Savin08:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
You can find decision in more suitable form here (in Russian). This database has free access on every working day since 20:00 to 23:59 MSK and on every holiday (May 4-5, 9, 10-11, etc.) all day long. Alex Spade (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
With Google Translate, seems to say that the copyright was owned by TASS (the court case was the photographer's heirs trying to claim a 70pma copyright, but the older laws took precedence). The original copyright expired after five years in 1950. The 2008 law restored the copyright, though apparently the legal entity term was for 70 years from publication, so it ruled the copyright expired after 2015. The term would have been 50 years on the URAA date (and may have been simultaneously published anyways, but that is a moot point). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
John Jude Palencar's illustration of Eragon
File:Christopher Paolini, Eragon 1.jpg was uploaded by User:Penguin Random House Verlagsgruppe, who has a verified identity, which is why I'm not taking this straight to a DR. But really? Does John Jude Palencar's contract with Penguin Random House really permit them to release his work on the CC-BY-SA? And take credit for it--they didn't credit John Jude Palencar at all on the page. That surely violates his moral rights in the EU. That in and of itself doesn't scream that they crossed the t's and dotted the i's on this. Anyone want to tell me to go for a DR, or to just let it lie?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
If it's just a moral rights issue, I would simply add the artist name and be done with it. That is not a reason for deletion. I could easily see publishing houses owning the copyright on cover illustrations -- it would depend on the contract, of course. If they own the copyright they could license it. If this is the account of a different Random House subsidiary than the one which published the original, that particular subsidiary may not own the copyright though. I'm leaning on assuming good faith given it's a verified account, but any clarification would be good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in Germany they couldn't exactly "own" the copyright for a work by a living author, but they could (and quite likely do) have unlimited rights granted by that author. - Jmabel ! talk15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
If the economic right has been transferred, I think that is basically what "owning" copyright is. This particular cover was for an American publishing house (Alfred A. Knopf), by an American artist for a work by an American author. This version would seem to be for a German translation and printing, but the country of origin (and copyright rules regarding transfers) would be American. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not that I doubt the identity of Penguin Random House Verlagsgruppe, it's more that I doubt their competence. On one hand, I was looking at this as a potential commercial reuser, and there's simply no way I could trust that license. On the other, I was reading about Bill Willingham's fights with DC over his contract, and it makes me hard to trust a company to follow the contract when they've put so little care as to leave credit off their reuse.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I can confirm that the account was driven on behalf of the Penguin Random House Verlagsgroup by an experienced person with knowledge about CC licenses. This person also arranged a book scholarship program between Penguin Random House Verlagsgruppe and Wikimedia Deutschland. There is little doubt that they know what they are doing. For example they provided another cover of the novel “Der Hexer” when I kindly asked for that. ;) Best, —DerHexer(Talk)11:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Over on English Wikipedia, there is an ongoing long debate about whether this gif is (1) public domain, (2) CC 1.0 due to public domain data, or (3) not public domain and not free-to-use. To solve the debate, a discussion is being opened here to assess:
Whether NEXRAD/radar screenshots are, in fact, free-to-use or not free-to-use?
If the answer is not free-to-use, does the U.S. government publishing it make it free-to-use?
If the answer to No. 2 is yes, why is some NEXRAD screenshots in the public domain and others not?
This image (File:Sulphur Tornado Radar Image.png) was also discussed for it not being in the public domain/free-to-use in the English Wikipedia discussion.
I personally think it is free-to-use. In that deletion request discussion back in 2023, Jameslwoodward (no-pinged) stated, "The data is clearly PD. While the software which was used to present it is copyrighted, the only human involvement is by the uploader...It is well established the output of a computer does not itself have a copyright unless it is derived from a copyrighted work." An English Wikipedia editor brought up the point that even though Jameslwoodward is a Commons administrator, they are just a regular editor with regards to discussions. However, one should logically assume that an administrator knows the rules enough to make that kind of statement. NEXRAD is owned entirely by the United States government and anyone has access to the data. As brought up by Jameslwoodward, as well as English Wikipedia editors, the software used is in fact copyrighted. However, Jameslwoodward states there is a precedent (one that hopefully can be linked in this discussion as I am not aware of where it is) that output from a computer, i.e., those radar softwares, are just using public-domain and freely available data. That all said, I am just one editor. Hopefully a few experiences Commons editors can chime in and help sort out the policy with regards to this topic. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Could you please give a link to the data on the NEXRAD website? So it would be clear what are the steps between the public domain data and the image? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: Here is the NEXRAD download website. There are three main applications users get radar data: Gibson Ridge products (GR2/GR3), RadarScope, and RadarOmega. The deletion discussion above involved a RadarOmega screenshot for reference.
-RadarScope/RadarOmega internally store the archived radar data. So users (1) open app, (2) click which radar site they want (out of the 159 of them), (3) click a “previous time” button, (4) choose data/time, (5) see archived data.
-GR products, a user has to physically download the data to see/open it. So, (1) download data from NCEI website (picking correct radar/date/time), (2) open GR application, (3) click “open file”, (4) open the files, (5) see data.
There may be some other method, however, those three applications probably account for 98% of the radar screenshots on the commons/EN wiki articles. Users also get live-radar feed from any of the 159 radars via those applications or even the National Weather Service website. So, someone can screenshot the live data without any of those download steps, and just open app and click radar = see data. All three applications see the same NEXRAD radar data. Hopefully that gave some guidance as to how the processes work for that. WeatherWriter (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
By all appearances, NEXRAD is entirely owned and operated by the U.S. government, so any expression would be PD-USGov. That's not inherent in any satellite photos, but U.S. federal government ones should be. Are there any examples of NEXRAD images which are not considered public domain? While it's possible to combine PD material in a creative way, to get a copyright on "selection and arrangement", I don't think combining images into a time animation meets that threshold. They are already timestamped so the order is already given, and they are placed on top of each other. The software used to make such animations is irrelevant, unless it adds copyrightable expression visible in the final result (such as maybe a copyrightable logo, which if removed then becomes fine). In particular, algorithms aren't copyrightable, so if passing something through a computer algorithm, the result has the same copyright as the input. If you combine several NEXRAD images from different events, with annotations to point out similarities, that particular combination may get a selection and arrangement copyright. As with anything though, you need to identify copyrightable expression, made by a human, in the final result for there to be a copyright. The satellite images certainly could be, but those seem to be PD-USGov (though definitely not CC0, which is an explicit license by a copyright owner). If a human carefully chose framing from a series of satellite images, such that different people performing the same idea would all come out differently, then *maybe*. If that selection was automated (computing a center for the storm and choosing that), then no. The question is what, exactly, did Mark De Bruin himself contribute to what can be seen in the final result. It may take effort and skill, but "sweat of the brow" like that is not copyrightable -- just the human creative part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this discussion, and hopefully there can be firm clarity on these class of images. For context, the National Weather Service's NEXRAD radar data is delivered as binary files encoding raw data (details). This radar data is visualized and plotted independently by a wide range of public and commercial services, including the National Weather Service (example image) and popular paid software suites such as GR2Analyst (example image), RadarScope (example image), and RadarOmega (example image). While it's clear that the National Weather Service's own radar images fall under {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}, potentially less clear are screenshots of radar visualizations produced by non-free commercial software, which may apply their own methods to denoise radar data, smooth it, or correct for potentially erroneous values. On Commons, screenshots in this category (that were not published by the NWS) take a variety of forms. Some are limited to the radar imagery. Others include the entire software visual interface. I'm inherently a little wary of uploading images/screenshots non-free software on Commons, so hopefully those better versed in copyright can provide some clarity on that front. —the•austin•man(works)14:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Any automated processing like de-noising I don't think would create a copyright. Software interfaces can often include copyrighted elements though, so usually best to crop to just the images themselves. A specific visualization done by a human, if it adds a lot of elements over the original, may be enough for a copyright -- but automated ones less likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll add that {{PD-NEXRAD}} was created by WeatherWriter. In addition, radar images are freely available via the NWS website and through other venues, e.g. the Weather and Climate Toolkit, and numerous such images are on Wikipedia (so the "90%" figure is not valid). And the vast vast majority of radar images on Wikipedia that were created using privately-created software are not via RadarScope or RadarOmega -- the only private radar application that is significantly present on Wikipedia is GR2Analyst (and to a lesser extent the other Gibson Ridge variants). RadarScope and RadarOmega have a distinct "stylized" presentation so can easily be identified. Now, on the argument that you can grab a random person's hand-coded radar loop from Twitter and call it PD, with not so much as attribution required -- as far as I know, no software will follow supercells or supercell mesocyclones for you. That requires a unique measure of work to program. Whatever you think of the applications mentioned previously, I don't think it's fair to say that just because something was created using PD data, every single thing deriving from it must also be PD. And on the bit about satellite, those are largely created using U.S. government-provided tools anyway (or by Wikipedia/Commons users who publish it here under a free license), not private software, so not really a good comparison. Master of Time(talk)04:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Whether you think that or not, that is not how the general law works. As seems to be the nearly-overall consensus from Commons editors not apart of the EN-wiki discussions (like myself and you), the radar screenshots are public domain as there is no human interaction involved besides the screenshot/upload process. Humans do not have any creativity in terms of what the data says. The fact the same identical screenshot could be pulled up on GR2/GR3/RadarScope/RadarOmega is a huge indication that it is, in fact, nearly no outside copyright reasoning. RadarOmega was already determined by a community consensus to be in the public domain per that deletion request. A seems to be the case here as well, the lack of human interaction/creativity between the radar taking the image and not taking the image is near 0, aka, not creative enough to consider it copyrightable. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
To pose another question: Since you do say everything can be pulled up via a NWS/.gov process, could you upload a duplicate of File:Radar image of the 2023 Amory EF3 tornado.png or even File:NEXRAD loop of the Rolling Fork EF4 tornado.gif? That first screenshot was nominated for a FPC at one point and that gif is of the strongest and deadliest tornado of 2023 (w:2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado). Both were from GR2, however, in mere minutes, RadarScope/RadarOmega duplicates (that look identical) could be uploaded. Since you say all the stuff is truly available via a NOAA-provided tool (i.e. .gov website), uploading duplicates of either of those would help support your point. Right now, I have no idea how you could do that, as NWS-radar gifs (as far as I am aware) can only be created via the last like 30 minutes worth of data, i.e. archival data is impossible except by those applications, which all use the same data. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Copyright is not the same thing as "commercially valuable". Also, at least in the U.S., a "recognizable style" is not copyrightable either -- that is more of an idea, and copyright does not protect that, just specific expressions of an idea (and expression made by a human). (It may be more in the realm of a trademark, if any protection exists). Such software is certainly valuable, and the software's own source code (and binary) has its own copyright, but it cannot claim copyright of any expression that passes through it. Photoshop may have blur filters, and de-noise filters, but Adobe does not get a copyright of any image made using them -- they are just applying the functionality to an input image, and the artist is using them as a tool, and owns the entire copyright to the resulting image (if they started from scratch at least). When you make a photograph, you don't own any copyright over the photographed subject (unless in a studio and you are arranging the content too). The copyrightable expression is based on the framing, angle, timing, and other elements under control of the photographer. There's probably not a lot copyrightable in a satellite photo (the angle is too obvious, and the timing is "always"), but likely enough.
The Copyright Office does say (in a guidance paper around AI) In the Office’s view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. In their Compendium (Chapter 3, they reiterate To qualify as a work of “authorship” a work must be created by a human being. They further state Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author. They give some examples of non-copyrightable situations, such as A photograph taken by a monkey, Reducing or enlarging the size of a preexisting work of authorship, Declicking or reducing the noise in a preexisting sound recording or converting a sound recording from monaural to stereo sound, or Medical imaging produced by x-rays, ultrasounds, magnetic resonance imaging, or other diagnostic equipment. So the question really is what elements did the human user add themselves, and is that creative enough to support a copyright.
Certainly, anyone involved in the creation should be credited. No reason to hide any of that. If the particular framing of each satellite photo was chosen by that person to "follow" the storm, that is arguable as a copyright. The framing may not be entirely creative, but there could be enough -- anyone else doing the same idea may end up with a slightly different expression. It would be a thin copyright -- you can't prevent anyone else from using the same idea to make their own version that looks very similar -- but it may be enough to prevent exact copying. If someone comes up with an algorithm to automate it, then those choices are not creatively being made by human, and they would cease to have copyright (they would have a copyright to their hand-written computer code, but not expression which passes through it). If that was a manual process, there could be an argument there. If there is really only one or a very few ways of doing it such that the framing is obvious, that can be a place where the expression and idea "merge" (called the merger doctrine) and there is no copyright either. But if not, and that rolling framing was done by a human, it's possible there is a copyright there, and I may tread carefully. The details on how it was made become very important. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
To add one other note for this specific gif: At the top left is the attribution watermark, “Via Mark De Bruin, AWS, NOAA”. This has a direct U.S. government, attribution watermark on it “NOAA”. Shouldn’t that help indicate this would be in the public domain, especially since the only reason to indicate a possible copyright is strictly judging how the gif was even made? WeatherWriter (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
If you alter a public domain work (or arrange public domain works), provided the additions or arrangement is more than the threshold of originality, then you get a copyright on your additions. This is what is known as a "derivative work"; adding new expression to an existing work. If the original is copyrighted, you need the underlying author's permission to distribute it. If the original is public domain, then the only copyright is on the additions. They may just be crediting the public domain part (which actually they should do, per 17 USC 403), while noting any additions are their own. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
If this is in fact copyrighted, then there is a ton of deletion requests that need to occur, as that would mean w:NEXRAD radar loops would be copyrighted as it isn't just a single screenshot and involves too much originality. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
It would not be radar loops in general which are a problem. Taking a series of timestamped images and putting them together in an animation is not creative and would not support a copyright. The only possibility here is the specific framing of each image to follow the storm as it moves across territory -- the framing is different than the original. Even there it may not be enough, but it's at least a little bit arguable. It matters, in each case, what expression was added to the satellite images (by a human). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
PD-old-assumed when date of birth is known
I was wondering about how we handle situations where the date of birth of an artist is known, but not their date of death. Cecile Pfulb-Kastner is a botanical illustrator some of whose illustrations would be very valuable for Wikimedia projects. It is known that she was born in 1874, but her date of death seems to be unknown. She would have to have reached the age of 80 for her works still to be under copyright in France, which I find not unreasonable. Is there some consensus on this somewhere? Felix QW (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
It's like any other author whose death date we don't currently know, their works before 1904 can be uploaded, and we would have to wait for the later ones. Pablo Picasso (born 1881) lived to be 91 and his works are copyrighted in the EU until at least 2044; Henri Matisse was born in 1869 and died in 1954, his works will enter the public domain in the EU next year. There are plenty of examples of artists who lived past 80. Abzeronow (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I was initially thinking that too, but it seems strange to treat pre-1904 and post-1904 works differently if their copyright term depends only on the (unknown) date of death of the same individual. In my mind, to would make more sense to say that once the date of birth is known, we take, say, dob + 90 or so as a credible upper bound. Felix QW (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
According to idref, she was divorced in December 1940, when she would have been 66. Living another 14 years is plausible, assuming she wasn't caught up in the war. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Per the records of Cimetière de Montmartre in Paris a woman named "Guillo nee Kastner, Marie-Cécile" died at the age of 92 on April 11, 1966. Given the age at death and date of death, this makes her year of birth 1874, matching the illustrator. The spousal surname of "Guillo" matches the surname of the illustrator's second husband (following first husband Pfulb). It seems very likely that this is the date of death of the illustrator Cecile Pfulb-Kastner. Per the illustrator's marriage record to her first husband, we know her given name is Marie-Cécile, which also matches. We might have to delete the images at Category:Cecile Pfulb-Kastner, to be undeleted in 2037 (1966 + 70 + 1). —RP88 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
What's written in the description for File:1OhitRcopyright.jpg is directly contrary to the way the file's been licensed. Assuming that the uploader is the same person who created the image, they might not fully understand what releasing the file as licensed means. Does the file's description need to be changed because it's obviously not in accordance with COM:L? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Can we use this image free of restrictions? It is (said to be) of Alfredo Di Lelio, the originator of w:Fettuccine Alfredo, in front of his Roman restaurant. I would estimate that it was taken c. 1910-1920. It can be found here, here, and here (as well as other places). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@Cl3phact0: , For Italy, photographs would either have a copyright term of creation plus 20 years if it is a simple photograph or life of the author plus 70 years for artistic photographs. I'm inclined towards believing this photograph to be a simple one. @Ruthven: @Blackcat: for a second opinion from Italian administrators. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@Cl3phact0: If that photograph, being clearly not-artistic, was taken before 1977, the photo is in public domain both in Italy and the US. In this case can be published on Commons with licences {{PD-Italy}}{{PD-1996|IT}} in the permission field of {{Information}} template. -- Blackcat19:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
From the same source as the second upload (above), there are two other images that could help improve the article: a menu from the 1920s; and a post-card from the same era. Are these acceptable on Commons, and if so, what criteria/licences need be applied? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: This is the only source I know of, and it only shows the one side. The postcard does contain a partial (cropped) version of the same photo that's already been uploaded and is said to be of Di Lelio in front of the restaurant circa 1914 (left image), if that's any help. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Before this note scrolls to the archive, any further advice or consensus re: the Alfredo postcard? [NB: I'm unlikely to add it to the enwiki w:Fettuccine Alfredo article, which now includes the other two images, although if the copyright is ok, I'm happy to go ahead and upload it here.] Cheers,
In 2013, the Lillstreet Gallery replicated feminist cartoonist Nicole Hollander's living room for an exhibit they called "Will You Step Into My Parlour?" I attended and took several photos and was going to post them to Wikimedia Commons in order to add at least one to the Nicole Hollander Wikipedia entry. However, I paused on the question that asked whether the work of others was visible in the photo. Because it recreated her living room, the walls include some of her "Sylvia" cartoons as works-in-progress. Don't want to fall afoul of copyright issues. What do you think? Engmaj (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
On the other hand, the whole recreated living room might be considered a copyrightable work of art, in which case you would be out of luck. - Jmabel ! talk17:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Not sure I have the technical skills or software to do that, but I appreciate the suggestion. May reach out to you again if I want to try it. Much appreciated. Engmaj (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Please help: Is this photo in the public domain? What template?
If I correctly understand this document from the U.S. copyright office, works unpublished as of 1978, with an unknown author, that are at least 120 years old are in the public domain. However, I do not find a template here that exactly matches those conditions; {{PD-old-assumed}} explicitly does not cover U.S. copyright.
This photograph of an American founder of the Washington (USA) city of Centralia is listed as circa 1890. Washington died in 1905, so the latest it could possibly be would mean 120 years is a year or so from now; however, I think the source is reliable for an estimate within a few years. (And the subject does not look to be in his mid-80s.)
So: (1) Assuming the asserted facts (including creation prior to 1904), am I correct to understand it is in the public domain in the U.S.? (2) If so, what template should I apply when uploading it? And (3) Is the assumption in (1) safe from the perspective of Commons policy? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Without knowing the publishing history, this could run afoul of some quirks in U.S. copyright law. As I understand it:
If (as I suspect) it was published more or less contemporaneously, it is PD. In particular, if it was published no later than the end of 1928, it is PD.
If it was first published 1929 through 1977 without a copyright notice, it is PD.
If it was first published 1929 through 1963 with a copyright notice, but copyright was not renewed, it is PD.
If it was first published 1978 through 28 February 1989 without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years, it is PD.
If it was not published until 2003 or later, given that even due diligence will not tell us who took the photo it would be in the public domain 120 years after creation, which seems safe. However, if the photographer can be determined, it would be p.m.a. + 70: if the photographer was alive in 1954, it would still be copyrighted.
If it was first published 1929-1977 with copyright notice, and copyrights were properly renewed as relevant, then it would still be copyrighted.
If it was first published 1978 through 28 February 1989 with notice/registration it is copyrighted at least until 2049.
If it was first published 1 March 1989-2002, it is copyrighted at least until 2049.
(Someone actually expert is welcome to edit the above if I'm wrong; please use strikethrough for deletion & bolding for addition to make your edits clear.)
Thank you. I agree with your analysis, this matches my understanding. The one little detail I'd add is that, as I understand it (and as I believe is stated on the copyright.gov page I linked), everywhere you say published is more precisely stated as legally published with the consent of the copyright holder. So for instance, if somebody came into possession of a box of photos and donated it to the historical society, and the historical society published it or loaned it to somebody who published it without doing an extensive search for any heir etc., that would not establish a copyright date.
I don't know a whole lot about this particular photograph, nor am I deeply invested in uploading it; rather, it's an interesting case to zero in on your fifth bullet point. That's the part I'm interested in; you're absolutely right that this photograph might have been published somewhere, and I'd be hard pressed to prove that it wasn't. But, for a photo that wasn't (e.g., if its provenance is pretty well known, and basically consists of "lived in a shoebox for over a century"), what is the Commons template that would reflect the 120 year rule, with regard to U.S. copyright? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, We usually assume that old pictures were published at the time of creation, as leaving the photographer's custody constituted publication. You can use this version, which also covers the US copyright: {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Or you can use {{PD-US-unpublished}}, which covers unpublished images from before 1904. Yann (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I think what Yann says is a little over-strong, but reasonably applies here. We would not make that assumption about amateur work by someone photographing their own relatives, nor about work of a known individual who is known to have kept massive files of work they did not publish. This looks like professional work intended for sale or publication. - Jmabel ! talk22:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I have seen various images uploaded, such as File:Bassano_Ltd_-_Pamela_Jackson_(née_Freeman-Mitford).png and File:Bourdillon1932.jpg, under a UK unknown license, yet the author is clearly stated as Bassano (1901-62) and using a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template which says it is not valid for post 2012 uploads (the two examples were uploaded recently). This leads me to some confusion around whether this photo is or is not protected by the same author and from around the same time. I'd appreciate if someone knows whether the fact of Bassano Ltd being active until 1962 means the UK-unknown template is invalid, both in terms of authorship and date (post 1954); or, would UK-unknown be valid if the actual individual themself as part of the group is unknown? Bungle(talk • contribs)17:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
The PD-UK-unknown template would be valid for Bassano works that were published or revealed to the public before 1954. However, anything from Bassano from the 1930s that was uploaded after 2012 would be subject to deletion due to URAA. In the specific case of the GB Stern, you have a 1939 date of creation, and that it was a half-glass negative that was acquired in 1974 (which might be the relevant date as far as publication/reveal to the public) and therefore wouldn't be PD in the UK until 2045 and in the US until 2070. Abzeronow (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll need to double check but I think the UK copyright rules extended from 50 to 70 years in 1988 or 1989. Any anonymous works created and published before 1938 should have become PD on 1 January 1988 and wouldn't be affected by URAA in 1996. Anything created and published in or after 1938 will probably have URAA issues.
There are more complex issues around anonymous UK creations before 1938 that were published after 1938. We would have to investigate those cases to see if URAA restore US copyright in 1996.
In terms of the initial question, the author is normally unknown as the credit line usually gives "Basano," which is not an identifiable person. If the credit line gives "Jon Doe at Basano" then it is no longer anonymous. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that as in most (all?) of the EU countries, the UK had a retroactive copyright extension to 70 years before 1996, so any post-1928 images would still be copyrighted in the US. Felix QW (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
It is more complicated than that. The copyright was extended when it was still valid. If the copyright expired, it wasn't renewed. Yann (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The details are in Art. 16 of these regulations; since there are EEA countries that already had a 70 year term and do not implement the rule of the shorter term (e.g. Germany I believe), this encompasses practically all works that would still be protected by the new rules in the first place. Felix QW (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, the details depend from country to country, since the copyright terms were different. At least, that's the case for France. Yann (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The EU restorations were retroactive -- they brought back into copyright expired works. However some countries did that before the URAA date, and some did it after (meaning the previous law matters for the URAA). The UK did it on the URAA date itself, which unfortunately means the longer, restored terms matter for URAA calculations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
At least France didn't restore expired works when it passed the new law. That's why French anonymous works published before 1936 or whose authors died before 1936 were not restored by URAA. Yann (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, France did, but in 1997. In the law implementing the change, Article 16, they say: The provisions of Title II of this Law shall not have the effect of reviving rights in works, performances, fixations or programs that passed into the public domain before July 1, 1995, unless they were still protected on that date in at least one other Member State of the European Community. I don't think we have identified any type of work which was not protected in the European Community on that date, less than the current EU norms. Several countries had been 70pma for a long time before that (and Spain had been 80pma). The EU directive forced the restoration; that wording is right from the directive. The French law goes on to list limitations of owners of revived rights, so some works certainly were brought back from expired status. The timing matters for the URAA, so any works still expired by the old law on the 1996 URAA date remained PD in the US. France did have the wartime copyright extensions so their terms were more like 58 years and some months on the URAA date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The original UK term was 50 years from creation, regardless of author. The UK extended terms at one point, but did not extend expired works. But they then implemented the retroactive EU extensions on January 1, 1996 itself. That meant that the retroactive terms were active on the URAA date (which was the same day). So on that day, the image got restored in both the UK and the US. Alexander Bassano died in 1913 (and retired in 1903), so anything with only a corporate credit is basically anonymous (Bassano Ltd is a company, not a person, and 70pma terms are based on the human author's life). The term for those is 70 years from publication, or 70 years from creation if not published in those first 70 years. The NPG collections are a bit problematic if they are from glass negatives (like these two), since we don't know they were published at the time. If not, they may have only been published upon donation in the 1970s and the 70 years may run from then, so there might be a UK copyright still. The NPG also has images made from silver bromide prints; those were obviously published at the time so ones done in the 1930s would be PD-UK-unknown now (even if restored by the URAA in the US). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on this. I still remain a little unsure, especially as this was a 1939 creation, but that without evidence of publishing before the NPG got it in 1974, would we have to work with the latter date? In which case, in the UK, are we looking 1974+70yrs because it may just slip out of the URAA exception by a year or so? It sounds like we'd have to go with an unknown author if we only know the group of photographers rather than individual, but I can't discern if this means we're talking about a now PD image or not. Bungle(talk • contribs)19:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we have deleted several Bassano images on that reasoning in the past. I'm sure we have also kept many under the PD-UK-unknown hope they were made available to the public at the time (which is the term in the UK law, and is easier than attaining "publication"). Most works were made to be published, and we often assume they were, but photo negatives from an archive make me nervous. If Bassano took 4-5 photos but only actually marketed 1-2, then the others remained unpublished. Which ones did the NPG then put on their website? It is somewhat of a judgement call, if we think this doubt rises to "significant", per COM:PRP. Anything less than 95 years old is almost definitely not OK in the U.S., so should also be deleted on those grounds, though that has also been inconsistent in the past. Lots of gray area when it comes to negatives from photo archives, unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
CCTV screenshots and US copyright law
Does anyone know anything about the copyright status of CCTV and security camera screenshots under US copyright law? There's discussion on going over at English Wikipedia about the copyright status of en:File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg and whether the file should be relicensed as {{PD-automated}}. The image seems to have been made public by the en:FBI, but it doesn't seem to have originated with the FBI. It appears to have come from footage taken by a privately installed camera that was subsequently passed on to the FBI. Has there been any US case law related to this type of thing? If there has, then perhaps that information could quickly resolve the English Wikipedia discussion about the file one way or the other. Would this file end up being deleted if it's relicensed as PD and then moved to Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it has been tested in court, so no case law. It's arguable either way, and it may depend on the particular details of each situation. As with anything, there has to be human creativity in the U.S., which in these situations is probably limited to the angle and framing chosen (but which may be enough, much like photo snapshots). Whether a camera is CCTV or not is irrelevant in and of itself. In Commons:Deletion requests/File:CCTV video of Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse.webm (still ongoing but that one involves a camera that is actively pointed and zoomed by humans, so a far more likely case of being under copyright), I did find that there is a copyright registration for this video (PA0002103805). So, it is possible it would seem. I'm not sure there is any guidance from the Copyright Office. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The issue I see with something like this is how exactly to determine the amount of human interaction involved. Since a lot of CCTV systems can be remote controlled and there's no way to know that information with any specific image. I don't see why a CCTV image that was intentionally taken by a control room operator controlling the camera wouldn't be copyrighted though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The question has never been tested legally either way in the US. The general copyright rule is it must require a human creator and creative input to be copyrighted. So I would say, probably not. IMO, if it is positioned for a particularly artistic purpose, then there is a copyright in the US. If it's just smacked on a building for security purposes and then never moved again probably not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Holy Door of St. Peter's Basilica
Is the Holy Door of the famous basilica in public domain or not? It was apparently inaugurated in 1950, and its sculptor died in 1979. Per COM:FOP Vatican, Vatican City follows the Italian copyright rules, so the restrictive law of Italy (no formal FoP) applies. Unsure if the door can benefit from things like 20-yr protection for works of state et cetera. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Are the images produced/provided by the Government of Sint Maarten or the Parliament of Sint Maarten subject to any copyright restrictions? As far as I can tell there is no coherent copyright policy on either site.
I did find this advisory report that makes mention of creative commons licensing. It says, "Government produced video, photographs and other material are the property of the government." But I can not tell if they are talking about Aruba or Sint Maarten.
Sint Maarten had a recent change in government and I would like to understand what I am allowed to upload. For example, is the image found on this press release available to upload on Commons or English Wikipedia?
As far as I can tell, the absence of copyright details probably means: no, it can not be used.
COM:NOP Sint Maarten also makes mention of what has been made public by or on behalf of the public authorities, apparently governed by Art. 11 (2) of the copyright law, but I cannot actually find a second sentence of Article 11 in either the Dutch or the English version of the law as on WIPO or at File:Dutch copyright act 2006-06-22.pdf. Very strange. Felix QW (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW, I finally found this page on a Sint Maarten hosted website, which does have Art. 11 (2). It states,
"Evenmin bestaat auteursrecht op hetgeen verder door of vanwege de openbare macht is openbaar gemaakt, tenzij dat recht, hetzij in het algemeen bij wet, besluit of verordening, hetzij in een bepaald geval blijkens mededeling op het werk zelf of bij de openbaarmaking daarvan, voorbehouden is."
from my understanding as a law student, if the image is published by the government then its public domain. the tricky part is the type of image published. the sourced image you mentioned from the government site is public domain. CharlesViBritannia (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
It does make an exception for cases where rights are explicitly reserved, and to me the footer line Parliament of Sint Maarten - All rights reserved at the parliament website would be enough to put its public domain status in doubt. On the government website you linked I cannot find such a statement, so images from there could be fine. Felix QW (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@CharlesViBritannia, @Felix QW, yes I am concerned about the all rights reserved on the parliament website's footer.
Second Marlin cabinet image exists on English Wikipedia under a non-free use rationale. Might be the best route, but would prefer to upoload to Commons.
I'd so no since it's from an original 35mm slide, which means there's evidence of prior publication. Although you could maybe just upload it anyway and then support the DR if anyone nominates it for deletion. Not that I'm telling you to do that, but then on there's already a bunch of images from slides on here that no one seems to care about even though they have a questionable copyright status. So it's your call... --Adamant1 (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not. That's why I said "Not that I'm telling you to do that." Otherwise I would have just said it's probably PD. Although I think you could make an argument as an ignorant user for uploading something with an ambiguous copyright and then supporting it being deleted later on if it turns out to be. Plenty of people do that all the time on here and one of the reason's I mentioned it is because there's different opinions about if things like photographic slides are technically published or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I'm just letting them know what options are out there. Nowhere have I said I support uploading the image if it's copyrighted or that they should do that. But again, there various opinions on here about if photographic slides have been published or not. So I thought it was worth mentioning even if I don't personally think they are published or that BhamBoi should upload the image. Although since you brought it up, I think there are instances where you could argue a slide is considered a published work. Not that I think any of them apply here though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@BhamBoi: unless it was published without notice before 1 March 1989, it's hard to see how it could be in the public domain. See Commons:Hirtle chart: there are a lot of possible cases, but any that do not involve that would have it as still in copyright. Jmabel ! talk03:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Most of the time, any somewhat modern photo like that will be under copyright. The U.S. has some exceptions though. The only real chance was if it was legally published (without a copyright notice, but none seems to be there) before March 1, 1989. That question is among the more thorny ones in U.S. copyright law, with a lot of gray area. It seems as though the photo comes from the archives of Otis R. Marston, who had his own photos and collected a lot of material writing books. He died in 1979, but not sure when the collection was actually donated. The source names the subject of the photo as the "creator". If the photo had been taken by Marston, it was likely unpublished at least until the collection was donated, if not further. But if it was a photo given to Marston without any distribution restrictions before 1978, there is a decent chance that constituted "general publication". If that gift happened 1978 or later, you'd have to go by the new definition of "publication" in the 1976 Copyright Act. Different sides can make arguments, in whichever way is in their favor. That can be a judgment call for hosting here, if the community feels there is a significant doubt as to the public domain status. There is no explicit license given (in fact the collection page notes other entities you have to get permission from for certain photographic authors in the archives), so being public domain beyond a significant doubt is the only way to host it. I probably would not upload it myself, but unsure how I'd vote if someone else did. It does seem likely the print was given to Marston, and probably before 1978. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
An anonymous photo from the UK, published in 1958, would be public domain there in 2029 and the U.S. in 2054. Royal Society would not own the copyright; they likely published it under a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
This photo was uploaded in 2010 by user JoelleJay, and credits "Joelle Smart"—presumably the same person—as author. It was shortly thereafter added to a Wikipedia page about a high-school competition called KYVE Apple Bowl (also created by JoelleJay), the caption noting "captain Joelle Smart (holding trophy)". Much as the technical capability exists for JoelleJay to have taken a photograph of herself and her high-school coterie using some sort of camera with timer, it seems more likely that someone else took the photograph and she later uploaded it when creating the page about the high-school competition she participated in. Given this, is the image appropriately licensed? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah this happened when I was a teenager, my dad took the picture and used my Wikipedia account to upload it... Not sure what that means for licensing, but the proper owner of the copyright definitely released it to Commons. JoelleJay (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
There appears to be an updated copyright law of Kosovo: the Law No. 8 L-205 on Copyright and Related Rights. It is a major overhaul of their copyright law, aligning their provisions with EU standards.
The terms remain at 70 years (since the law before the implementation of EU standards was already at 70 years p.m.a.).
A promising revision is the Freedom of Panorama. Now found at Article 49(1.12), it bears striking similarity to the EU FoP clause at the EU Copyright Directive (this is also the identical wording of the Portuguese FoP which is also aligned with the EU standards). I found no trace of non-commercial restriction, so far.
But I don't want to celebrate prematurely; someone should confirm if this is indeed the official law now for Kosovo. Can anyone verify by accessing the Albanian text of the 2023 law?
Based on the English version linked, it does look good -- the non-commercial restriction on FoP in their previous law seems to no longer be there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg I have now updated most of the CRT page (specifically the sections pertaining to the governing law, general rules, not protected, and FoP). I will withdraw three Kosovar DRs that I made yesterday. Kudos to the Kosovar government at introducing FoP that's friendly for new media and I.T. age! JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)19:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The open question now, is if the FoP provision covers murals (and other 2D flat arts) or not. It bears identical resemblance to both COM:FOP Portugal and COM:FOP Moldova, which are patterned after the European Union FoP model, but it appears there is difference in the interpretation with regards to the inclusion of 2D flat arts. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)20:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
English translation published in the official gazzette is fine as refrence. Albanian version has the exactely same content.
Law is already in force. So this is good as well.
Regarding 2D arts: The article speaks about "works" in general. Article 2 doesn't offer a definition of work. So we can only refer to article 1. 1.1 just speaks about "literary, scientific and artistic works" in general. And 1.2 says: "This Law is in full compliance with the following EU Directives." I don't think that the law makes a difference between flat and three-dimensional work, but I don't know all there EU directives. Albinfo (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Albinfo: The EU directive says nothing on 2D vs 3D works. That is up to each country. The phrase used, "such as", is a bit ambiguous in English. The presence of the comma before "such as" most likely means it was not meant to be restrictive and part of the definition, but merely explanatory of common types of works that may apply. Without the comma, it can more easily be read as only applying to those types of works (though even then, it's not definite). James Woodward, in the previous discussion, thought that any ambiguity argued for only allowing that type of work or similar. I did and still do disagree, but it's an understandable argument. I don't know if the Albanian is any more clear on that matter; reading such a technicality into a English translation is a bit nervous. (Even if 2D works are allowed, you can't make a virtual copy of a public 2D work via a photo -- that would prejudice the original work. It would just be showing the original work in its public context.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg perhaps leave 2D works as "unsure" for the meantime, and "buildings and sculptures" as OK. Anyway, I have requested undeletions of several images, on COM:UNDEL. Perhaps the Kosovar buildings and public sculptures may be the uncontroversial ones to be restored, I'll ping @Yann: who frequents the UNDEL page. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)09:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The EU directive is pretty specific and hard for countries to vary; it's 70pma from the latest death of specific contributors. The modern Romanian law (article 66 or 67 depending on version) says: The authors of an audiovisual work, as provided in Article 5 of this Law, are the director or maker, the author of the adaptation, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue, the author of the musical score specially composed for the audiovisual work and the author of the graphic material of animated works or animated sequences, where these represent a substantial part of the work. However, their 1996 law was non-retroactive, and I think Romania got away without making it retroactive when they later joined the EU. The older terms were pretty much 50 pma, but their older law did have: Cinematographic or radio studios and mechanical recording organizations have copyright over the collective works they create. And, the term for a copyright owned by a legal entity was 50 years: the duration of the author's patrimonial right is limited to 50 years from the appearance of the work, if this right belongs to a legal entity (the only exceptions were some specific shorter terms for compilation and photographic copyrights). So, it may hinge on if this was done for a studio, or if it was primarily Jean Mihail himself. If done for a studio, it may have expired by their old law in 1976, and was never restored. If considered a private copyright of Jean Mihail, it may still be under copyright in Romania until 2034. I have no idea what was the norm in Romania film in the 1920s. I can't find many details about the film -- it was a derivative work of an earlier play, but those copyrights would seem to be expired, and Mihail may be the primary contributor. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
YouTube video with two licenses
I noticed while rewriting an article that two images that I uploaded back in 2021 (File:Ei Wada.png and File:ELECTRONICOS FANTASTICOS! Roppongi Art Night 2019.png) that both had the Creative Commons Attribution license from YouTube, but also had the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 in the videos' descriptions. Does the YouTube CC license trump the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, or should it be counted as a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 video? reppoptalk23:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Any time there is more than one license, a reuser can choose a license. So this means that commercial users are stuck with a CC-SA 2.0 license, but non-commercial users can opt for CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Our page should probably mention both. - Jmabel ! talk01:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Seems fine to me at first glance, since the observation itself and the parent dataset carry CC0 marks - is there any particular reason you think the images are excluded from the public domain dedication? Felix QW (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It specifically says on the website that "Be aware that licences applied to images may differ from those applied to occurrence records" (you can confirm this by going to [5] and seeing the small print that says this) 0x16w (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
So it seems — you can request deletion of your own uploads within 7 days of uploading by adding {{CSD|G7}} to the top of the page. An administrator can then delete the image.
I am not sure the exemption for the photographs is intentional on the part of the University, so I think it would certainly be worth an email to them if you think the images could be valuable for the project. Felix QW (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Films of Japan
Hi, According to PD-Japan-film, Japanese film copyright expired for all films produced in Japan prior to 1953. But until which date these are in the public domain in USA? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
No source but PD-old?
File:Wawelberg.JPG was uploaded back in 2007 under a {{PD-old}} license but there's no information provided about the image's en:provenance at all so it's not clear how it meets the terms of the license. The uploader hasn't made any edits on Commons since 2009 and last edited Russian Wikipedia in 2012; so, I don't think any additional information is going to come from them. I did a Google image search and did find this uncropped version of image, but no other information about it. Given the subject of the photo en:Hipolit Wawelberg died in 1901, it seems like {{PD-old-assumed}} might be a slightly better choice of a license, but still there's no real source. Would the website I found be sufficient enough of a source for the image even though it comes from a blog which might possibly have been published after (perhaps several years after) the file was uploaded to Commons? Finally, even though the "PD-old" license states a US PD copyright license is also needed for the file, none is provided. What would be an acceptable US PD license if this file is OK for Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
A lot of rules and tags were not around then. A photo of someone who died in 1901 means it was taken a long time ago. Particularly if that was from Poland, since {{PD-Poland}} may well also apply. It probably wasn't worth worrying about. PD-old-assumed is probably the best license these days. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Both are tagged with Template:own and the user as author.
Since one image depicts the artist de:Rainer Schade and one is artwork by Rainer Schade the user can’t be Rainer Schade and the photographer. I don’t know whether both files are to be deleted for unplausible source information or how to resolve this. Frupa (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
While notifying the user on de-wiki I realized the photograph might have been taken with a self-timer by the Rainer Schade alias Adrian Basil himself. I still guess that copyright violation is more likely. Frupa (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
"Fair Use" photo
I'd like to upload a photo to wikimedia commons to use in wikipedia. The photo is owned by the Oklahoma Historical Society and available on their website as part of their digital collections. They mark it as "Fair Use", and I contacted them and they explicitly gave me permission to upload it here and link on wikipedia as long as I cite them.
The photo was taken in 1981 and published in a local newspaper.
Best way to proceed? Not sure how to mark this when uploading, as we have explicit permission but they haven't signified a specific CC license.
Not possible. The photo is not theirs in the first place, but of that local newspaper. You should contact them and ask them to follow the steps at COM:VRT. That way, the file can be uploaded. Bedivere (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@Wikipedian-in-Waiting: Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type per COM:FAIR; so, if you try to upload the image under such a claim, it will almost certainly and perhaps quite quickly end up being tagged for speedy deletion. The only way that Commons will be able to host such an image is either (1) the copyright holder agrees to give their COM:CONSENT (i.e. agree to to release the image under a free license acceptable to Commons or (2) the image is, for some reason, now considered to be within the public domain (i.e. it either never was or no longer is eligible for copyright protection). For reference, generally the person taking a photo is considered to be the copyright holder of said photo, and only they can release their work under an acceptable free license. In some cases, a photographer/journalist working for a newspaper might've entered into a en:work-for-hire agreement with their employer which transferred the copyright of any works they created while working for their employer either totally or partially to their employer. Many photographers working for newspapers did (still do?) are sort of freelanchers in the sense that they're paid for providing photos, but they retain all or some of the rights; moreover, many newspapers also get photos from other third-parties (local residents, wire services, photo agnecies, etc.) with which they've entered into some form of contractual agreement allowing them to use the photos. So, if you're able to track down the en:provenance of this photo, you should look for any type of attribution that might help determine who took the photo. If by chance you're unable to find out any more about the photo's provenance, then under US copyright law even photo with and unknown author are still eligible for copyright protection. How long they're eligible depends upon when they were first published or how may years have passed since they were created. An photo taken by an unknown author first published in 2012 would be eligible for copyright protection for 95 years after the date of first publication or 120 years after its creation, whichever is shorter as explained in COM:HIRTLE.Finally, even though Commons doesn't host fair use content, some of the local Wikipedia projects (e.g. English Wikipedia) do. These project, however, have their own policies and guidelines with respect to such content. Some of these projects have policies in place which are much more restrictive than fair use by design; so, before trying to upload any files to these projects, ou should first determine whether they host such content and then figure out what their policies regarding it are if they do. Information about English Wikipedia's policy can be found here and here, and questions can be asked about it here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
There is one chance the image might be in the public domain, if it was published without notice before 1 March 1989. If you can find an actual issue of the newspaper using the photograph, and it was published without notice, then it can be safely uploaded. Bedivere (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean "without notice"?
The library that owns the image says the photographer is unknown. It was published in a newspaper named Daily Oklahoman, on November 29, 1981. The library did note the caption that ran under the photo, and this seems to be the article, but as you can see the newspaper did not retain the photo with it, with the move online.
Actually one of the last lines of that article, I just notice, gives a Staff Photographer's name even though the photo itself is not there.
That newspaper is still in business. I don't know how the library system came about owning the photos, but they have thousands of them from that newspaper, from the 1880s to 1999. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Adding: I just googled the staff photographer's name thinking I could just ask him. It seems he died in 2022. (But I think the library was holding the photo during his lifetime, not a recent acquisition.) Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Ooh, that's good to know! I went down a few rabbit holes looking at newspaper archives to see if that might work in this case, and couldn't find it explicitly. But I'm keeping that in mind for future - thank you! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bedivere: It's a moot point now perhaps given what was posted below, but I believe copyright notices were only required for print publications published prior to 1978. Registration within five years of publication was required for works published from January 1, 1978, to February 28, 1989, but not a notice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
That is the law, but in practice the delayed registration thing for works with no notice was rare, maybe vanishingly rare. - Jmabel ! talk17:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: You still needed notices between 1978 and 1989, but there were ways to recover the copyright if you forgot, one step of which was registering within five years (there were other steps too, but that is the easiest to verify). If there was a copyright notice, there was no need to register. You did get further benefits if you did, but you would not lose copyright if not registered. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I checked, and this issue includes a copyright notice. You would need permission from the named copyright holder (which is the newspaper; this is almost certainly a work for hire). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
A recent DR brought to my attention that while COM:Turkey mentions an extension of copyright terms from 50 to 70 years in 1995, it does not mention whether that was retroactive.
Does anyone here have any insight on that? It would make a difference for all anonymous works published between 1929 and 1944, as well as works published during that time whose author also died in this interval. Felix QW (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
It's an interesting question. The law after it was updated in 1995 is here. The law actually implementing the 1995 change is here (in Turkish).
The "Provisional Article 1", which was inherited unchanged from earlier laws, seems to indicate it was retroactive:
Provisional Article 1. Unless otherwise determined in the articles below, the provisions of this article are also applied to the works presented to the public or registered within the country prior to enforcement. The inclusion or non-inclusion of the work or product within the provisions of the Copyright Law dated 8 May 1326 does not change the situation.
The protection periods concerning the works publicized prior to the enforcement of this law are calculated according to this law. The terms copyright, rights of possession, literal possession, possession of fine arts and similar mean the rights and authorities granted by this law in similar cases.
In case the rights pertaining to a work or the use of such rights have been handed over to someone else in whole or in part prior to the enforcement of this law, the new and wider rights granted to the owner of the work by this law are not considered to be transferred, as well. The same provision applies to a longer protection period when compared to the older one or the works and products not protected under the former law.
But "Supplementary Article 2" which was added by the 1995 law, states:
The protection periods in this law apply to the works, adaptations and products that become publicized after the enforcement of the Law, with respect to neighbouring rights, cinema works, computer programs and data bases. The provisions of this law related with the ownership of cinema works apply to the cinema works started to be produced after the enforcement of this Law.
That may be limited to newly-created neighboring rights, cinematic works, computer programs, and databases, which may have not had protection before -- but that seems to say that the new longer terms would only apply to works first published after 1995, not even works not previously expired. That is the opposite of retroactive. I do not see any parts of the law which deal with revived rights, which is common in retroactive laws, to protect existing exploitations of a public domain work. But if those were not protected at all before, then they did not have a term which expired, which was required to avoid the URAA.
Subsequent laws changed those sections -- I think a 2001 amendment may have made it more clearly retroactive. That has a clause which gives owners of newly-infringing copies six months to sell them.
Overall... not sure I'd want to claim that was non-retroactive. Any ambiguity did not last long, but of course the URAA date was in that period. There is just no language (other than foreign works for the rule of the shorter term) which limits the terms of the new law based on expiry of a copyright term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the detailed analysis! It seems to me the most parsimonious interpretation that those concepts that have been completely newly regulated, such as neighbouring rights, cinema works, computer programs and data bases, were only applied to newly created works, while the mere extension of terms was retroactive. Felix QW (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Yep, but even those (neighbouring rights, cinema works, computer programs and data bases) were probably made retroactive in 2001 or a little later (that "Supplementary Article 2" has been removed from their law by now). And works which did not have foreign protection, but did in the U.S., were still subject to the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Updated FoP in Mongolia
Ping also @Chinneeb: who nominated the no-FoP template I made.
As per COM:FOP Mongolia, the recent law somehow introduced the alleged FoP in Mongolia. However, I need further discussion here, because we need to be sure if it complies with COM:Licensing requirements. The new FoP of Mongolia reads:
To display them to public by making a duplication of the works of architecture, fine arts and statues located in public places permanently, and by painting, filming or photographing them. This shall not grant a right to reproduce an identical structure, statue or architectural creation directly or indirect way for commercial purposes.
There is a non-commercial restriction but we need more clarification here. It may mean that it is not allowed to reproduce an identical (exact) reproduction of buildings and monuments of that country for any commercial use; this is reasonable since 3D models of such works are certainly harmful to the normal exploitation rights of the landmarks' designers or artists. However, if the interpretation is that even images of such works are not OK for commercial use (like uses by postcard makers, T-shirt prints, application developers, or web developers), then the new Mongolian FoP is unacceptable for Commons and {{FoP-Mongolia}} is invalid.
Thanks for posting this here. I think I need to bring out the Mongolian original of the non-commercial restriction section (46.2), which should clarify that translation. It reads,
Article 46.1.1 does not grant the right to fully reproduce (бүхэлд нь хуулбарлах) an architectural work in the form of a building or structure (барилга болон барилга байгууламж хэлбэрээр) for direct or indirect commercial purposes.
I'd argue that this would mean 2D representations (hence photos and videos) are definitely allowed, while 3D representations need more discussion. Chinneeb (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chinneeb if that's so, then its another good news for Commons. And perhaps one more high-profile country since 2016 (Belgium). Though I may need more inputs from other users. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)11:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chinneeb I revised the FoP section. The architectural plans and models are clearly not OK as the use is restricted to building restoration only. Also, no indication that 2D works are covered, so copyrighted Mongolian murals, paintings, frescoes, billboards, and other 2D graphic works are still not OK on Commons. Also, the passage on digital archives and libraries has no relevance on FoP so I removed it entirely. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)12:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Another thing that needs clarification: does the "public place" in Mongolian law also extends to publicly-accessible premises indoors (like inside train stations or museums), or not (only outdoor spaces)? JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)12:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This shall not grant a right to reproduce an identical structure, statue or architectural creation directly or indirect way for commercial purposes. Does it says non-commercial FoP? (Like South Korea, France...) Ox1997cow (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 "Public place" (олон нийтийн газар in the original) is not defined in that law, but from a cursory glance of Mongolian government documents hosted on legalinfo.mn (if this helps), that phrase (олон нийтийн газар) seems to be used for a variety of indoor and outdoor places.
@Ox1997cow I've included the original Mongolian above, which clarifies that the non-commercial clause relates to identical reproductions in the form of building or structures only. Chinneeb (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Seems pretty good to me, though limited to "structures, statues, and architectural works" per the translation here, so no 2D works. 46.2 says you can't make what amounts to copies of the work (statue of a statue, etc.) but that is normal (though even allowed for non-commercial purposes). I don't see that they define "public place" anywhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I think we're generally good. Although it would help if the thing about it's applicability to permanent works found in "public indoors" was clarified but I don't think it needs to hold up allowing for FOP in Mongolia at this point either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
May I ask what the justification for enforcing the public indoors vs. outdoors distinction for Mongolia is? Some of the notes on Commons:Freedom of panorama/table are as basic as "Due to the Mexican law not mentioning what public means, it's supposed that it's also possible."
I'd argue that we can say indoor sculptures are OK for Mongolia as well, since the phrasing used (олон нийтийн газар) is also not defined explicitly. That said, I've found a government-issued Law handbook that has a definition of "олон нийтийн газар", which includes "дэлгүүр, зах, тээврийн хэрэгсэл" (stores, markets, transportation vehicles) (see https://nli.gov.mn/gariinavlaga/Book-tanii%20huuliin%20hutuch.pdf) - all indoor areas - in a section dealing with theft, funnily enough. Chinneeb (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chinneeb the default rule for vague FoP laws on public indoors is either "unknown" or "not OK" (again, per COM:PCP). Unless there are legal literatures (such as court case files, commentaries of lawyers/legislators, or supporting laws or implementing rules, it may be safe to consider Mongolian FoP for indoors as "unknown" (gray). I will wait for other users for their opinions if the citations you gave is applicable for public indoors. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
One possible thing that may occur, assuming the citations you gave are valid for FoP purpose, is that public sculptures in some indoors are OK, while others are not, similar to Dutch FoP or Mexican FoP. Perhaps sculptures inside markets may be OK but, how about inside government buildings, temples/churches/mosques, and museums? Can "transportation vehicles" extend to public transport facilities like railroad stations and bus stations? JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd just leave it grey. As there doesn't seem to be any way to determine what qualifies as "public indoors" and what doesn't at this point. We can't just have a blanket rule about it either, obviously. So it's best to go with nothing qualifying per COM:PCP and then extending the guideline later once the laws are clarified. I can't image it taking that much time before we get clarification on it due to someone suing under the new law. Otherwise you could just pick the usual places as "public indoors", I.E. railroad stations, churches, museums and the like, but that seems sub optimal. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
For now, I'm only undeleting the outdoors works. If it's clarified that indoor 3D artworks are covered, I can always undelete those when we get more clarity. Abzeronow (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
GBIF
I recently uploaded some pictures of pages in herbaria taken through GBIF. Is it okay for me to keep uploading images that are claimed by the GBIF to have a Commons-compatible license? Is the copyright claim of these images recorded on GBIF reliable? NewUniverse (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
File:Songs and Amapola.jpg was uploaded under a {{PD-US}} license, but that seems to be clearly incorrect because this album was not released prior to January 1, 1929, and it doesn't appear to have been first released in the US (i.e. it's not a work of US origin). The file is also a crop of a much larger image as shown here and here. I think there might actually be a copyright notice somewhere on the back cover near the bottom, but I'm unable to check for sure even by emlarging the image. I was going tagged this for speedy deletion as a {{Copyvio}}, but the company that released the album seems to be based out of the Philippines, not the US; so, I was wondering whether there might be an acceptable way to re-license this per COM:Philippines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
PD-US is a catchall license; could also mean no-notice or not renewed. However, does not seem that matters here. I think the album in question was from 1971. If the photographer is anonymous, it may have recently become PD in the Philippines. If the photographer is named, probably not PD. Given it appears to be a Philippine work though, it would have a U.S. copyright (if it needed URAA restoration or not) which would last until 2067. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
However, another editor pointed out that some other pages like the photos page(archive) still retain the older CC-BY-SA 4.0 in the footer. Is that redundant, or does it still apply to newer photos? I have updated Template:Fars/en in the meantime. أنون (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The page you link to has a CC-BY 4.0, not a CC-BY-SA 4.0 in the footer. Besides that, tread lightly. I'd tend to assume they meant to remove it from the whole site. Someone could communicate with them and ask them to clarify.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Until they change that "Fars Media Corporation is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License" footer, I'd assume it's safe to upload these /photos page. Bedivere (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
We're not lawyers, and we can't give legal advice, but by complete coincidence I'm a musician and you might want to read this. The particular article is oriented to the U.S., so your situation may be a bit different, but probably not radically so. - Jmabel ! talk15:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is something like corporate authorship in Canada. A corporation may well own a copyright (en:Copyright law of Canada: “Ownership of a creative work may be assigned to a corporation or other employer as part of an employment contract.”), but the author would still be a human being, with the copyright term (the duration) tied to the year of that person's death. That is the situation in the UK, and Canadian copyright law is similar to UK copyright law in many ways. I didn't do a thorough research though. --Rosenzweigτ22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that is correct. The company is the "first owner" of the copyright, but the "author" is the human who made it. Canadian copyright terms are based on the lifetime of the author, though if not named (i.e. anonymous) then there are terms based on year of publication and/or creation. Canada recently non-retroactively extended their terms, so some of the older terms may apply. Do note that any copyright which still existed in Canada in 1996 got restored by the U.S. to a term of 95 years from publication. The current term for anonymous works is the earlier of 1) 75 years from publication, 2) 100 years from creation, or 3) 75 years from creation if never published. The terms before 2020 were similar 50 years from publication or 75 from creation. {{PD-Canada-anon}} has those terms now. If the employee's name was mentioned (or became known) then the term would be based on their lifetime. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
When uploading such works, we'd obviously need a USA PD tag too. What would be the best way to go about that? If it had no notice, let's say a post card, would that be okay for the no notice tag? (If you can prove it was published in the USA). Or would I use the USA corporate publications terms? (95 years after publication). PascalHD (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
If first published in Canada, you'd need {{PD-1996}} to qualify. If it was published in the U.S. within 30 days of first publication in Canada, then yes you can use the no-notice tag, but that can be hard to prove. If it was under copyright in Canada in 1996, then you'd need to wait for {{PD-US-expired}} to qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that correctly describes the present situation, for the essential. The situation may differ in a few particular types of cases. Corporate authorship of photographs existed in Canada. It was abolished in 2012. The corporation was the author of the photograph when it owned the original support (plate, negative, ...) of the photograph. Being the author, the corporation was also the first owner of the copyright. The duration was 50 years from the creation of the original support. Such photograps whose copyright had already expired in 2012 (i.e. photos taken before 1962) remain in the public domain. For photograps whose copyright had not yet expired in 2012 (i.e. photos taken after 1961), the 2012 law retroactively transferred their legal authorship (but not necessarily their copyright ownership) from the corporation to the photographer. What happened with the copyright ownership depends on the type of relationship between the corporation and the photographer. Large commercial corporations were the big beneficiaries of that 2012 change in the law. Because they were the employers of the photographers working for them, they could use another section of the law, which provides that the employer is by default the owner of the copyright. Such companies thus obtained huge extensions of the duration of the copyrights they owned, passing from 50 years from creation to 50 years (later extended to 70 years) from the date of death of the photographer. Losers were small nonprofit corporations who had provided the negatives and a sum of money for occasional photos, and who retroactively were stripped of their rights to those photos. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Right, had forgotten about that. The 50 years from creation, for photos from before 1961, was specifically for photographs not other types of work (though cinematograph works were 50 years from publication). That line would be before 1946 to avoid the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The duration of copyright does not depend on who claims the copright, but it may depend on several factors and how they combine, such as what type of work it is, if the creator is known, who created the work, when the creator died, when the work was made, what was the relationship between the entity and the photographer, what type of entity it is. There can be many different answers, depending on the facts. It's better to link to the actual work or to describe all the facts than to list all imaginable cases. A work made by an employee of a Crown corporation or entity, provincial of federal (but not municipal), such as the National Film Board, has a copyright in Canada of 50 years from publication. A photo taken before 1962, and authored by a private corporation (the corporation owned the negative) or by a municipal corporation, is in the public domain in Canada. That doesn't apply to other types of works such as texts or paintings. A photo for a corporation taken after 1961 is in copyright in Canada until 70 years after the death of the photographer. The questions seem to imply a postcard published in 1952, possibly anonymous. The type of work is not specified. Assuming a creation the same year as the publication, if the work, of any type, was anonymous and the creator remained commonly unknown, it can be in the public domain in Canada, see the template PD-Canada-anon. If it's a work, of any type, by a know creator, it can be in the public domain in Canada if the creator died before 1972, see the template PD-Canada. If it's a photograph, by a known photographer or anonymous, it can be in the public domain in Canada if the "Company" was indeed a corporation and if it can be reasonably assumed from the normal practices that the corporation was the author (owned the negative). Commons does not have a PD template for such photos, but this situation of corporate authorship is included in the template PD-Canada of en.wikipedia. Anyway, in all cases, a 1952 Canadian work is probably not in the public domain in the U.S. because of the URAA, unless it meets U.S. public domain criteria. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
File:Amarillo Texas - AQHA - Dash for Cash.jpg was uploaded with a license for the photo, but there's no license for the statue itself. The sculptor en:Jim Reno died in 2006, but it could've been a work commisioned by the en:American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame which might have been built in 1989. The horse en:Dash for Cash depicted in the statue died in 1996, and the statue appears to have been inspired by a photograph of the horse taken at a race held in 1976. That's lots of dates for sure, but none of them really indicte when the statue was created or when it was installed. It seems that there should be some kind of license for the statue per COM:FOP United States that shows it's within the public domain or otherwise OK for Commons; for example, like is done in the case of File:Secretariat statue.jpg (assuming that licensing is correct). I tried searching "Jim Reno" in the Art Inventories Catalog of the Smithsonian American Museum of Art and got a some results, but nothing for this particular sculpture. My best guesstimate is that this statue was likely installed after January 1, 1978, but possibly prior to the above-mentioned museum opening. I also tried searching of "Reno Jim" and "American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame" at the US Copyright Office's site, but came up empty. Could {{PD-US-1989}} be OK to use here or does this file need to be deleted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
An issue that I see is that according to COM:Public art and copyrights in the US public display of a statue was no longer considered publication if it occurred from 1978. Therefore, if it was not erected before 1978, it may not even count as published, let alone published without a notice. Felix QW (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Again: Copyright status of West African CFA franc and Central African CFA franc
I talked about copyright status of West African CFA franc and Central African CFA franc. (See this.)
In last discussion, the conclusion was that the Central African CFA franc is in the public domain, and the copyright status of the West African CFA is unsure.
However, after I read COM:CUR EU, I knew common side Euro coins are allowed under conditions, but national side Euro coins are not allowed.
Central African CFA franc is in the public domain in Cameroon where Bank of Central African States is located, is that public domain in other countries where Central African CFA franc is also used?
Or do the copyright laws on currency issued in Cameroon apply to all countries using Central African CFA franc?
Does applicable Senegalese copyright law include currency? And what about other countries using West African CFA franc? Ox1997cow (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Murals
I'm seeking some clarification on whether it is permitted to upload photos of murals. I came across a mention indicating that murals are generally not accepted. However, I also noticed that there is a Murals category with numerous photos of recent murals.
Can someone explain the policy regarding this? Are there specific conditions under which mural photos are allowed, or is there an exception for certain types of murals? Thanks, Fugit hora (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Fugit hora. You might also want to take a look at COM:CB#Murals. There are two things that typically need to be considered when it comes to murals: (1) the copyright status of the mural itself, and (2) the copyright status of the photo of the mural. Assuming you want to upload a photo you took yourself, number (2) shouldn't been too much of an issue as long as you're willing to license your photo in accordance with COM:L. However, unless you're also the creator of the mural, (1) is going to be trickier to sort out because murals (even publicly displayed ones) are seem as being a creative work eligible for copyright protection under the copyright laws of many countries (even when the artist who painted the mural is unknown) and Commons won't be able to host a photo of such a mural unless the mural itself can be shown to be within the public domain either because it no longer is or never was eligible for copyright protection, or the COM:CONSENT of the mural's creator can be obtained for your photo of it. Perhaps if you provided some more information about the murals in questions (e.g. where they're located), someone might be able to give you a more specific answer. As for the photos in Category:Murals, each should have a license and relevant information for (1) the photo of the mural and (2) the mural itself. Whether the licenses are correct is another question, and those that don't two licenses probably need to be assessed to see if they can be kept by Commons. Files are uploaded to Commons all of the time, but their copyright status isn't really formally assessed during the upload process. Good faith is assumed when it comes to uploaders; so, problem files only tend to be found after (sometimes several years after) they've been uploaded. This means it's quite possible that some of the files in that particular category either are incorrectly/insufficiently licensed or never should've been uploaded in the first place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
@Fugit horaDanish FoP rule only allows free uses of inages of buildings. Public art cannot be used commercially, so unless the artist or last-surviving co-artist died more than 70 years ago, the work cannot be shared here under commercial licenses like CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or CC-zero. Also, since Danish FoP for public art is invalid for Commons, U.S. copyright law comes into play. This means even post-1928 Danish murals that are already out of copyright there are not OK here because the U.S. copyright has not yet expired (typical term is 95+1 years from creation or publication for URAA-established U.S. copyrights over all eligible artistic works outside the U.S.). The interaction of U.S. law can be safely ignored by uploaders only if Denmark, Norway, etc. had complete FoP (and {{Not-free-US-FOP}} can be used on the description pages of images of Danish/Norwegian/Finnish murals). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
@Fugit hora: The page you linked (COM:MURAL) sums it up well. As for any other work, the work must be old enough for the copyright to have expired, based on the author's year of death or other applicable criteria, or the work must be under a free license offered by the copyright owner. There are some exceptions, e.g. when a mural is barely visible in the background, etc. Derivative images of such works should be uploaded only when the uploader can tell exactly why the original works are freely usable. A large proportion of images of recent murals on Commons are not supposed to be there. Some people upload and reupload images of non-free murals (and of non-free currencies) all the time, sometimes in mass uploads. Such images need constant cleanups. But given that deletion requests for such images are usually made through slow deletion requests that can take months to be closed, the proportion of copyvios can become large, as copyvios are uploaded more easily and rapidly than they can be deleted. One user used to do a useful job of patrolling that type of copyvios, but he has recently been blocked indefinitely (for a reason unrelated to this). Even the two examples of murals currently featured in the Wikidata page for "mural" (mirrored in the box in the Commons category you linked) are possibly not free. (One is arguably a photo of a street but it is titled mural and the uploader himself inserted it in Wikidata as an example of a mural, thus showing that the mural in the photo is prominent enough and not merely incidental.) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
For the File:Figure Skating Barnstar Hires.png, I used the Upload Wizard, selecting "own work based on others' works", but with those options I was not able to add the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (only the 4.0 version), so I changed it manually after the upload, but I am not sure if that is allowed. For the File:Golden Figure Skating Barnstar.png, I used the old upload method, selecting the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, but I struggled to tell the system that it is an "own work based on others' works" and add the GDFL tag.
I plan to upload another two requested barnstars for the WikiProject, but before doing that, I want to ask which upload method is the best for doing that (I don't want to cause any unnecessary licensing problems). Thank you very much in advance! Henni147 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
for the Biellmann-spin image it says You may select the license of your choice. which is consistent with the use of the old GDFL license, so using it under cc-by3.0 is fine, even 4.0 is ok as that is backwards compatible with the 3.0 license requirements. GDFL is is depreciated on Commons and no longer valid for anything but software licensing. 06:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Gnangarra06:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
@Gnangarra: Thank you very much for your quick reply! So it fine if I simply upload it with the Wizard under the CC-BY-4.0 license and just skip the GDFL tag entirely, right? Henni147 (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, This film was published in two parts. The second part was published in 1958. So it seems that File:1944 Иван Грозный.webm, which contains both parts, is in the public domain in Russia (the author died in 1948), but not in USA, according to PD-Russia-1996. Am I right, or did I miss something? Yann (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
De-jure, the author of film is Mosfilm, not S. Eisenstein, so see p.3(b) of {{PD-Russia}}/{{PD-Russia-1996}}. So, the 1st part (created in 1944, shown in 1946) is PD in Russia today (but there are or can be some nuances with the restored versions of 1987 and 2014 years) and not PD in the US (the 1st part was not PD in Russia on Jan.1 1996, it was temporally PD in Russia from Jan.1 1997 to Dec.31 2007 and it is PD in Russia since Jan.1,2017 again). The 2nd part is not PD in any case. Alex Spade (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Discogs
I've just noticed an interesting thing about the uploads at Discogs, a record collecting site. These are their intellectual property rules:
Intellectual Property Rules
By uploading images to Discogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements:
Image is Public Domain (expired copyright or public from inception); or
You own the rights to the image and agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or
Image is already made available through a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or
Fair Use – any image representing a physical or digital product in the Discogs Database for the purpose of critical commentary or for the purpose of reselling a physical product under the First Sale Doctrine.
— Discogs
Number two is particularly important in the following case. Many times, it is the artists themselves, even labels, who upload the records info and images on Discogs. Given that they explicitly accept those intellectual property rules (they are even prompted when uploading an image), and in the case they are the legitimate owners of the images, they agree to release them under a CC0 license. That means they would be eligible to upload on Commons. Of course this is to be observed case by case, but in any case, it's great news for the Commons. Bedivere (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
For example, I came across this local label, they've uploaded a couple of images (five actually). These, if in scope (I could not find an article about these artists), could be uploaded here given the label's express release onto the CC0 license. Here's another, band Zettt, which released themselves some photos of themselves and one of their releases. Another label that has published images of their own releases is Akasa Records [6]. Bedivere (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
What you've posted above seems to ignore the possibility that the content being uploaded to Discogs was uploaded in accordance of "4. Fair Use". Is it not possible that bands/musicians are uploading their content to Discogs as fair use? If they have done so, then such content wouldn't be acceptable for Commons per COM:FAIR. I'll admit that I don't know much about Discogs and I wasn't able to access the links you provided above, but unless the uploads are clearly licesned as #1, #2 or #3, it seems that you just can't automatically assume they're not#4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC); [Note: Post amended by Marchjuly to add the word "not" to the final sentence. -- 02:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)]
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. I am only referring to works uploaded to Discogs by their legitimate copyright owners, which would then mean they "agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license" as per the intellectual property rules. By uploading a file to Discogs, any user agrees to those rules, either the file will not be uploaded. One could understand, then, that the files fall in any of these categories: if the image is not in the public domain (rule 1), the uploader is not the copyright holder (rule 2) and the file is not released under a CC0 (rule 3), it is available under the fair use doctrine, and so much of Discogs files are not acceptable on Commons. The point I make is that only those files uploaded by their copyright holders are acceptable here because then, rule 2 applies. Bedivere (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I get where you are going, but I'm pretty sure you would never get a judge to uphold that understanding. I'm pretty sure a court would say that even with the way those terms of use are stated, uploading something to which you happen to own the copyright would not be an implicit CC-0 release, and that Discogs would be using it on a "fair use" basis. I would not want to see Commons rely on that other interpretation: I think it would put reusers at great risk of being successfully sued for copyright infringement. - Jmabel ! talk05:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I am also uncomfortable with that interpretation. I'd feel better if users put an explicit license on an image page, i.e. were forced to choose between those four options on an upload, with each image tagged with that choice. The uploader could argue 1) they are providing the images under fair use, to help sell their catalog, or 2) they violated the terms of service (nothing illegal about that) but never actually licensed their image. A photo of an album may be a derivative work of its cover as well, and even if valid the license may only be for the derivative aspect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bedivere: That could very well have been the intention of Discogs when they wrote that clause. That interpretation would have more weight if the introductory words were "... you agree that your upload meets...". I.e. the copyright owner's own use of the file. Indeed, logically, copyright owners are not using their own images under the fair use doctrine. However, the words are "... you agree that the image meets...", which can be read as meaning that, once the image is on the website, it is used in fair use by Discogs. Also, that clause seems to have been added to the Discogs upload guidelines in late 2022. It could not be imposed as such to images uploaded by copyright owners before then. One would have to look at the clauses that existed elsewhere on the website. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I think so. The profile image is a standard Unicode character (𝕏, U+1D54F Mathematical Double-Struck Capital X), the "verified" badge has been determined to be under TOO, the other icons are part of the open-source Bootstrap Icons icon set, and the words and phrases in the screenshot are all too short to copyright. Omphalographer (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
It looks to me like that was published in the U.S. in 1985 with no copyright notice, so it is most likely {{PD-US-1978-89}}. There is a small possibility they registered the copyright later to "cure" the lack of notice, but I'd be surprised if they did so, if they generally weren't concerned with holding onto there rights.
Only possible issue is that if they made unauthorized use of a photo or other image, it might not have lost its copyright by being there. But, again, it's hard to imagine the World Bank making unauthorized use of someone else's intellectual property. - Jmabel ! talk04:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I did receive email .
here is the image that I need to update with approval. .
Non commercial licenses are not accepted on Commons. In addition, the copyright holder has to send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Best, Yann (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Copyright Mondadori
Telepiù cover on Commons is bad quality:
from this pic there have been extracted two images (quality even worse):
Being aware of this, I was able to find the same cover and I made a much better scan of the same page from which I extracted some decent images (here).
Could they be replaced, keeping the same dimensions (or even slightly smaller) as the original images?-- Carnby (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Carnby. I'm not sure that would be OK to do because only the copyright holder has the right to release their work (or a version of their work) under a Creative Commons license. Whether they release a high-quality high-resolution version of their work would seem to be entirely up to them; so, if they choose to release a low-quality version of their work under a CC license accepted by Commons for whatever reason, I believe they could still retain more control over high quality versions of the same image. So, I'm not sure it would be OK for Commons to host higher quality versions without their consent, particularly if they come from sources other than the original copyright holder. This and this might be helpful, but they seem to primary reference US copyright law, which might differ from the copyright laws of the country of first publication. Of course, I might be completely wrong on this and am quite happy to be corrected by others; however, I would suggest moving carefully here since there seems to be multiple layers to this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Marchjuly and Carnby: I believe that is not how we have interpreted CC-BY in the past. Pretty sure I've seen it said several times that if an image is released under such a license, it is on the image as such, not a particular resolution. The only exceptions I'm aware of are certain images released by GLAMs where we have made an overt compromise to get access to a large body of clean, medium-resolution images where otherwise we would have nothing.
Can someone who has been more involved in past discussions about CC licenses and image resolution please weigh in? - Jmabel ! talk03:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I did a bit more Googling and most of what I've found seems to support what you posted above (this is interesting even if it's just a blog which looks to be based out of India and there's also this from the Creative Commons website) in that the CC license applies to the image itself and not a particular version (e.g. resolution) of an image. So, as long as the higher quality image is exactly the same image (i.e. a case of COM:2D copying and not COM:DW) and not licensed under a more restrictive license, the license chosen for the lower quality version seems to also apply to all enhanced versions, at least under US copyright law. I guess it could be possible for a copyright holder to try to release multiple versions of the same image under different CC license in an attempt to individually license different quality images, but I'm not sure that works as they think it works due to the nature of CC licenses. They could also try to place their own restrictions on the higher quality versions through separate individualized agreements with re-users, but that would seem to be a type of COM:NCR that wouldn't be a concern of Commons unless Commons was party to said agreement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
That is a well-written article. Strange system of competition between courts, where the complainants choose the courts likely to favor them, thus favoring most extreme judgments. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
That strange system is a big nuisance which politicians/lawmakers would have needed to address many years ago by clarifications in the relevant laws. So far, they didn't. --Rosenzweigτ11:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for linking the article. I feel for the granddaughter. German courts appear to need reform, and I'll definitely take it into account with Germany's already strict de minimis standards. Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
EXIF copyright
I uploaded File:Interior of Asda, Barrhead.jpg from Flickr to Commons under CC-BY 2.0 license, but I noticed that the copyright details are on EXIF metadata:
@Xeverything11: It appears that Flickr user James MacDonald (jimmy_macdonald, 49703429@N00) wrongly appropriated it from photographer Ian Georgeson, we should not host it, and we should not trust James MacDonald. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I nominated two Twitter screenshots for cv before finding Category:Screenshots of Twitter and Category:Tweets looking not very free. Please excuse my poor understanding of copyright regulations. Some are marked with own work, some with PD-ineligible -- are they even applicable? What would happen if I were cought copypasting those Tweets into Wikipedia? This and this even show the design of the whole window. I'm really confused. Tried searching for COM:Tweets but found nothing. cc@Shinohara Chihiro: --魔琴 (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The uploads of Samarthisliveyo7x11 (talk·contribs) are map images which, as can be seen from their watermarks, were created at iipmaps.com[7]. The FAQ[8] of that site says:
Can I use the maps created with iipmaps free version for any purpose?
Yes, you can use the maps created with the free version of iipmaps for any non-commercial purposes. However, they will bear a watermark indicating that they were created with the free version.
Since we don't allow any of the NonCommercial CC licenses, this seems like a possible licensing issue. I don't know the first thing about Indian copyright law, though. Apocheir (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the digital version of an old manuscript held by National Library Board Singapore
I would like to know whether the digital copy of the manuscript (link:https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/book-detail?cmsuuid=53de5273-f8df-4122-b808-8eb33ec61386) from National Library Board Singapore should be considered to be in public domain or not. This is because according to the page "All Rights Reserved. National Library Board Singapore 2006.", however according to the copyright rules in Singapore any works are in the public domain upon the expiry of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the author of the works died. In this case the author Munshi Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir has passed away in 1854, and if we calculate the year that the work should be in public domain is 1927. Therefore, the work should be considered to be in the public domain. However, according to the terms of use at the website held by National Library Board Singapore:
"No part or parts hereof may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, modified, republished, displayed, broadcast, hyperlinked, framed or transmitted in any manner or by any means or stored in an information retrieval system without the prior written permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY. However, you may download and print the Materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only provided you do not modify the Materials and that you retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the Materials. You also may not, without the permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY, insert a hyperlink to this website on any other website or "mirror" any Material contained on this website on any other server."
So I assume that the manuscript although was published in 1880, we still should refrain from uploading the work to Commons Wikimedia because it will be copyright infringement. Is this correct? Hakimi97 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
@Hakimi97: A faithful copy of something in the public domain does not qualify for any copyright of its own. Some courts in common law countries have disagreed, upholding a "sweat of brow" doctrine. Commons, with the advice of WMF's lawyers, has chosen to ignore that precedent, which is certainly not valid in the U.S., where Commons is officially located. - Jmabel ! talk14:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
According to this website, Greenland is not part of the Berne Convention. Does that mean any photograph that is (i) taken in Greenland and that (ii) has its copyright in Greenland expired, can be uploaded, as {{PD-1996}} only applies to members of the Berne Convention? I also don't see Greenland on the member list provided by WIPO. FunnyMath (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: That's what I thought as well. But if you look at the territorial information for Denmark provided by WIPO, it says "Accession to the Berne Convention (1886) included the Faroe Islands", and the Faroe Islands, like Greenland, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but it says nothing about Greenland. FunnyMath (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I took a look at the original Berne Convention document. It says Denmark's membership "comprend le Royaume de Danemarke et les Îles Féroé, avec exclusion de l'Islande, du Grœnland et des Antilles" (emphasis mine). So it looks like Greenland is indeed not part of the Berne Convention. So does that mean {{PD-1996}} does not apply? FunnyMath (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf doesn't mention Greenland one way or the other. I've sent the US Copyright Office a question asking whether the US has copyright relations with Greenland; they say they will respond in 10 business days. I would note that D. Benjamin Miller is correct; anything published outside of Greenland would be copyrighted, so you're looking at things published for Greenland itself. With a population of 60,000, back 70 years ago (as Greenland is life+70), I'd be surprised if that was much more than a local newspaper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright rules - Files uploaded to Commons should be free both in the country of origin (as defined by the Berne Convention) and in the United States of America.
So, we have something like {{PD-RusEmpire}} - if Greenland is not party to the Berne Convention (it is not country of Union for the protection of the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works), then Greenland is not the country of origin in any case and its copyright law and term of protection are unimportant.
Further, it is unimportant, where photo was taken - it is important, where photo was published (was made public at the least), and besides possible simultaneous publication within 30 days in any other countries of the Union, there are 3 cases after that possible event, when other country of the Union will be country of origin:
in the case of cinematographic work the maker of which has his headquarters or his habitual residence in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country,
in the case of of architecture erected in a country of the Union or other artistic works incorporated in a building or other structure located in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country,
in the case of other works if the author is a national of a country of the Union¹, the country of origin shall be that country (¹ - Author who is not a national of a country of the Union but who has his habitual residence in a country of the Union, be assimilated to national of that country).
So, for example: some German photographer took a shot in Greenland: if he published it firstly in Greenland and the UK simultaneously (within 30 days), then the UK is the country of origin, if he published it firstly in Greenland only, then Germany is the country of origin. Alex Spade (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Flugblatt der Sowjetunion aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg
Kennt sich jemand mit dem Urheberrecht an den Flugblättern der sowjetischen Armee oder Regierung aus (genauer Urheber ist nicht angeführt), die an deutsche Soldaten verteilt wurden mit der Aufforderung sich zu ergeben bzw. zu desertieren. Welches Urheberrecht gilt hier oder sind diese Flugblätter (damals "Feindproaganda") als Werke der sowjetischen Regierung gemeinfrei? Asurnipal (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Wenn sie vor 1943 auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Russland ausgegeben worden sind, stehen die Chancen m. E. nicht schlecht, dass sie als anonymes Werk bereits vor der russischen Urheberrechtsreform von 1993 gemeinfrei waren und daher auch nicht von der Wiederbelegung des amerikanischen Urheberrechts 1996 erfasst worden sind. Dann könnten man sie mit der Lizenzvorlage {{PD-Russia-1996}} hochladen. Felix QW (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Leider kann ich zum Zeitpunkt der Ausgabe nichts sagen, weil diese nicht vermerkt ist. Dort, wo das Flugblatt gefunden wurde, war ein ehemaliger Wehrmachtsangehöriger ansässig, der so ziemlich überall im Zweiten Weltkrieg war. Ich habe das Flugblatt mal unter (Kennelbach-Soviet army Flyer (pamphlet) to German soldiers to surrender or desert-01.jpg) und (Kennelbach-Soviet army Flyer (pamphlet) to German soldiers to surrender or desert-02.jpg) hochgeladen (unter {{PD-Russia-1996}}). Vielleicht meldet sich ja jemand, der es näher identifizieren kann. Asurnipal (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Ich habe Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia noch einmal durchgesehen und es scheint, als würde die anonyme Veröffentlichung vor 1946 tatsächlich ausreichen. Da es ja dem Inhalt nach vermutlich an Soldaten unmittelbar an der Ostfront verteilt worden ist, ist das heutige Staatsgebiet als Ursprungsort ja zumindest plausibel. Felix QW (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Wobei Veröffentlichung nach 1942 wiederum hieße, dass die Flugblätter in den USA noch geschützt sind, 95 Jahre ab Veröffentlichung (COM:URAA). Und Wikimedia Commons will nur Werke, die sowohl im Ursprungsland als auch in den USA frei sind (COM:Licensing). --Rosenzweigτ19:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Das dachte ich zunächst auch, scheint aber tatsächlich nicht der Fall zu sein. {{PD-Russia-1996}} sagt eindeutig, dass anonyme Veröffentlichung vor 1946 genügt, um nicht vom URAA erfasst worden zu sein, und in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia steht, dass die Verlängerung auf 70 Jahre im Jahre 2004 erfolgte, also nach der URAA-Wiederbelebung von 1996. Die eigenartige getrennte Auflistung von vor 1943 veröffentlichtem Material scheint daher zu kommen, dass in 2008 die Urheberrechtsfrist für all diejenigen Werke auf 70 Jahre verlängert worden ist, deren Urheberrecht in 1993 noch nicht abgelaufen war. Felix QW (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
چرا ویدیویی که در ویکی پدیا بارگذاری و منتشر کردم حذف شده است
ویدیویی با عنوان سکانس خواستگاری پیرمردها برای مقاله خود استفاده و بارگذاری کردم که حذف شده است این ویدئو حق نشر دارد زیرا قسمتی از فیلم پیرمردها نمی میرند است که مالک اصلی آن رضا جمالی است که خودشان اولین بار این ویدو کوتاه را نشر کرده و جهت معرفی فیلم در اینترنت گذاشتند و سپس پیج ها و سایت هایی نظیر
aparat - hashure- you tube
@Aden-9023: Hi, You are not allowed to copy images and videos from the Internet without a formal written permission from the copyright holder, unless this content is licensed under a free license, which should allow any use by anyone for any purpose, including commercial ones. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Zdjęcie do biogramu
Dzień dobry, opracowuję biogram jednego z żyjących profesorów. Chciałabym umieścić Jego zdjęcie, otrzymane e-mailem. W jaki sposób sprawić, aby to zdjęcie znalazło się w domenie publicznej?Pozdrawiam Ledowiczka Ledowiczka (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Google Translate: "Good morning, I am working on a biography of one of the living professors. I would like to post his photo, received by e-mail. How do I get this photo into the public domain? Ledowiczka" - Jmabel ! talk17:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Assuming that translation is accurate, I think there is a misunderstanding here. You cannot turn someone else's copyrighted material into public-domain material.
What we need is for the owner of the copyright (typically the photographer) to offer a free license (in Polish: Commons:Nadawanie licencji) such as {{CC-BY 4.0}} or {{tl|CC-BY-SA 4.0}; if their intention is actually to place it in the public domain, and they do not care about attribution, they can use {{CC-zero}}. There are two ways they can do that:
The owner of the copyright (not you) can go through the email-based process described at COM:VRT (COM:VRT/pl in Polish). Do have them cc you on the email. NOTE that the license must allow commercial reuse and must allow derivative works (so no "NC" or "ND" licenses).
If the photographer still owns the copyright themself, they can shortcut this by posting the image on a web page clearly under their control (e.g. on their professional site as a photographer, on their account at Flickr or a similar photo site, in a public post on social media, etc.), with an indication of what free license they are offering. Then you (or anyone) can cite that as a source when uploading, using that same license.
Currently, this HTML attribution looks as following if placed, and links to the Wiki page:
- https://example/, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Is it possible to have a link to my website instead? Even if both Wiki and Website are displayed, it's fine. For example:
- Example.Com (links to my website), CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
or
- https://example/ (links to Wiki), Example.Com (links to my website), CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Also, how do I set it up by default without editing the file data every time? Even if what I'm asking is not possible, where do I set up the default attribution data?
In the {{Self}} template, you can explicitly set author and/or attribution.
I don't think the Upload Wizard lets you take control of this, but you can switch over to using Special:Upload; just copy-paste from the wikitext of an existing file page of your own and edit accordingly for the description, date, categories, etc. - Jmabel ! talk21:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Can I upload a Twitter profile picture that has no other search returns on image search?
So I need an image of a politician, and I found one on his personal twitter account that when I searched the image, there was only where I found it from as a result. I can't find any other images that aren't copyrighted of him, so can I upload this image, or not? Wheatley2 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Wheatley2: unless I completely misunderstand you, no. Are you saying you have some reason to think that image isn't copyrighted? Why wouldn't it be copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk21:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Copyright is automatically given to a creative work when it is fixed in a tangible medium, per the Berne Convention. Copyright has to be explicitly waived for it to be public domain, or given an explicit free license. COM:LAbzeronow (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I want to draw attention of users who may be interested to an undeletion request discussion: File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg, which is remaining undecided for an unusually long time. More opinions may be useful. Although the request is technically about one file, the issue is broader and can potentially affect a large number of images and I guess that's probably one reason why administrators hesitate to close the request. C:VP/C would probably be a better place for the general discussion, if it hadn't started at C:UDR. I suppose that comments can be made here or there. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Quick overview:
What BCS is:
"Beni Culturali Standard" (BCS) is a tag placed by entities of the Italian government (e.g. the ministry of Culture) on some images (e.g. photographs of old objects). Essentially, the BCS tag:
1) states that the image has "no copyright", referring to this statement, and
2) describes some non-copyright legal requirements for some uses of the image.
The description of the BCS tag can be read in Italian there.
Example:
The source of the file discussed at UDR can serve as one example [9]. Other examples can be found on the same source website. Or on Commons.
What the question is not:
There is no problem with the non-copyright requirements (for which Commons uses the template MiBAC).
There is no question about the copyright status of the pictured objects. They are old enough to be out of copyright.
There is no problem with images that are obviously old enough to be tagged on Commons with PD-Italy, PD-1996, etc.
What the question is:
The question arises with images that look recent enough and would normally be considered copyrighted in the United States. The problems are to determine who owned the copyright on an image, by what rationale the entity tagged the image as uncopyrighted (BCS), and if that assessment of public domain can apply outside Italy.
Possible solutions:
There may be other solutions but, to keep it simple, there are at least these possibilities:
A) except where evidence suggests otherwise, it cannot be safely assumed that the recent BCS-tagged images are in the public domain in the United States, therefore such images cannot be hosted on Commons, or
B) except where evidence suggests otherwise, it is assumed that the Italian government somehow owned the copyright on the recent BCS-tagged images, and that tagging with BCS constitutes a valid statement by the Italian government that those images are in the public domain worldwide, therefore such images can be hosted on Commons.
Scope of the problem:
At present, Commons has many files sourced from catalogo.beniculturali.it. At the source, many of those images are tagged BCS.
Also, apparently many, or most, of those files are mistakenly tagged on Commons with CC BY. That mistake is probably caused by the fact that, at the source, the descriptive notices ("metadati") are visibly tagged with CC BY, but to view the status of the image itself it is necessary to click on the image.
Review:
Whatever decision is taken, whether such files are accepted or not on Commons, a major review will be needed to assess the status of all those files and to tag them correctly.
The UDR has not budged and nobody commented here either. To try to make this progress a little, here is a suggestion for a Template:BCS, which might look like this, which is only a rough draft, of course. It can be refined and someone who knows how to format templates would need to format it in all the rules of the art. Other than that, perhaps there's a way to identify the relevant beniculturali files and to group them in a maintenance category to be reviewed for proper tagging. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Zeitungsartikel aus dem Jahr 1987
In der Zeitung "Junge Welt" (DDR) erschien im Juni 1987 ein Kommentar zum Album "Casablanca" der Rockgruppe City. Dieser Kommentar hatte Einfluss auf den offiziellen Umgang in der DDR mit diesem Album. Auch verdeutlicht er auch das Klima und die staatliche Sicht.
Ich habe eine Kopie dieses Artikels und würde diesen gerne bei Wiki-Commons zugänglich machen. Da ich keine Rechte an dem Artikel habe, frage ich ob das urheberrechtlich möglich ist. Intermerker (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass das etwas anderes als ein urheberrechtlich geschützter Artikel sein könnte. Also, es ist nicht möglich. - Jmabel ! talk19:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Ein "Kommentar" zu einem Musikalbum wird urheberrechtlich gesehen de:Schöpfungshöhe haben und damit urheberrechtlich geschützt sein, und zwar zu Lebzeiten des Urheber (= Autors) sowie weitere 70 Jahre nach seinem Tod. Selbst wenn der Autor noch im selben Jahr gestorben wäre, wäre der Text in Deutschland noch bis Ende 2057 geschützt. Und Wikimedia Commons (wie auch die deutsche Wikipedia) will nur urheberrechtlich freie Werke (Commons:Licensing/de). Das ginge also nur, wenn der Urheber des Textes bzw. ein Rechteinhaber (bspw. ein Erbe) eine entsprechende Freigabe (COM:VRT/de) schickt und diese auch akzeptiert wird. --Rosenzweigτ19:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Change of License - Edit Message to say "less restrictive" (not "more restrictive")
I want to change the license of some of my uploads from CC-BY-SA-4.0 to CC-BY-4.0, thereby making them less restrictive.
However, using the Change-of-license template, the following message is rendered on the page:
Please note: This image was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons licensed as noted. The copyright holder has since changed the licensing to be more restrictive. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. See the Creative Commons FAQ on revoking licensing.
That template doesn't apply here. It is intended for when someone off-wiki tries to change to a more restrictive license.
When adding an additional license for your own work on Commons, don't remove the one that is already there. It's fine to give reusers a choice of licenses.- Jmabel ! talk14:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Two Questions Regarding Freedom of Panorama
Question 1: Do logos found on buildings of government institutions fall under FOP the following image was taken by me from my car of a governemnt building. File:CES CACES Logos.jpg if I edit this image to cut out the logo, can I use said logo to replace this image : File:CES Ecuador.gif?
Question 2: If an institution has awards permanently on display, would a picture of said awards be considered FOP? What about government medals?
HarveyPrototype (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
"Decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations, which is binding on Ecuador, provides for freedom of panorama as follows: "Without prejudice to that put forth in the Chapter 5 and in the previous article, it will be legal to realize, without authorization from the author and without the payment of any remuneration, the following acts:...h) undertake the reproduction, transmission by broadcasting or cable distribution to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of fine art, photographic work or work of applied art located permanently in a place open to the public".[351/1993 Article 22(h)]". If they are permanently on display in a "place open to the public" then they could be uploaded here. Bedivere (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the question is whether the logo separated from the picture has a copyright. I don't remember how we interpret this. Some laws expressly forbid extracting a copyrighted work even if the picture itself is OK. Yann (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Article Article 369.- Use of the trademark by third parties for informational purposes.- As long as it is done in good faith and does not constitute use as a trademark, third parties may, without consent of the owner of the registered trademark, use in commerce your own name, address or pseudonym; a geographical name; or, any other certain indication regarding the species, quality, quantity, destination, value, place of origin or time of production of its products or the provision of its services or other characteristics thereof; provided that such use is limited to identification or information purposes and is not capable of misleading the public about the origin of the products or services.
Would the Use of logos for wikipedia not be covered under the previous article?
Further, "open to the public" is problematic until we know how the country's courts have interpreted it. For example, if a space is open in the daytime but closed at night, some countries have said that is sufficiently "open" to qualify here, some that it is not. - Jmabel ! talk14:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
According to the following article some IP laws were modified in 2018. Including el "proyecto instaura la denominada libertad de panorama, establece la legalidad de la copia para uso personal y elimina las sanciones penales para las infracciones al derecho de autor que se realicen sin fines de lucro" translates to: The project establishes the so-called freedom of panorama, establishes the legality of copying for personal use and eliminates criminal sanctions for copyright infringements carried out without profit.
"Se habilita la disposición de obras a través de Internet con fines de investigación y educación, sin fines comerciales."which translates to "The provision of works over the Internet is enabled for research and educational purposes, without commercial purposes."
@JWilz12345 Understood. So Article 369 would not be aplicable even though it is legal in Ecuador. It is actually part of a different Chapter. Chapter VI Brands (Trademarks) HarveyPrototype (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The current license is almost certainly incorrect and most likely this would fall under COM:SCREENSHOT and COM:NETCOPYVIO in that the COM:CONSENT of the X account holder would be needed for this to be kept. The quoted text itself could be really old (i.e. from a publication published prior to 1929), and the X account holder simply didn't attribute it; however, the other elements seem too recent to be not eligible for copyright protection simply because of their age. My personal opinion is that whomever uploaded this file probably did so to prove a point and it's copyright status was the last thing they were worried about. They could've simply just provided a link to the tweet in whichever discussion wherever they were discussing this, but perhaps seeing it would be better. I'm also guessing the the X account holder also possibly wasn't too worried about the copyright status of the "quote" and properly attributing it (if it's indeed the words of someone else); they most likely also didn't worry about whether it would be en:fair use (even though it probably would be). Those things, however, are not really issues for Commons and the only thing that matters is the licesning of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
This isn't the logo of Shell; this is the logo of the former MonteShell Italian company, a joint-venture between Shell and Montedison. This is a photo of one of the pieces of the Fisogni Museum, that freely allows the diffusion of photos of its pieces. The photo correctly report the "trademark" template. I am totally against cancellation Moxmarco (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Anyone have a quick opinion on whether this leaflet is derivative of the movie it accompanies? The 1933 movie S.O.S. Iceberg is still copyrighted in the US since I actually located its renewal registration, so while the leaflet clearly does not bear a copyright notice (I uploaded all pages, so one can check), it just occurred that it could perhaps be regarded as derivative of the film. Felix QW (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Movie documents (trailer, poster, cardboard, etc.) have a separate copyright that the movie itself. If this was published without a copyright notice, or if the copyright was not renewed, then it is in the public domain. Yann (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This is an image repository of Sainsbury's supermarket covering years since 1869 (https://www.sainsburyarchive.org.uk). The copyright footer says CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0, which is not allowed on Commons. But images before 1929 and 1957 entered public domain in the United States and United Kingdom respectively. So are pre-1929 Sainsbury Archve images allowed on Commons? Xeverything11 (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm kinda new to uploading to Commons. Can someone check if this is good [10]? It's from this website [11], which has Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. See bottom right on the web page: "All site materials are available under license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". But there is a note in the file metadata. Bogazicili (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The YouTube description of the instrumental of the song "Other Side of the Screen" by markiplierSINGSbadly (mSb) states that others are "free to make covers with [the] video" as long as they include the Bandcamp and YouTube links to Emily Scholz's vocal version and the Patreon link for mSb. Does this qualify as {{Attribution}}? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The permission from the composer is restricted to one purpose, to make covers, it's not a free license to do anything with the music. The permission from the vocalist on her account is not a free license either and it is limited to non-profit uses. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
我想上传“赤地黑龙旗”的文件，但是我该怎么添加版权信息？
版本来自知乎上的第一个回答的图像，回答者收集/重置了网络上已有的黑龙旗，他允许我把复制品上传到Commons释出到自由领域，这个问题不大。问题在于其旗帜本身，该旗帜最早的实例已不可考，且没有作者版权或者许可证，被人们视作自由图像在中国互联网传播。那么上传文件时，我该怎么添加版权信息？ Maitian MaiLin (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
If you see these 2024 uploaded flickr images from the Museo del Oro in Colombia, they are free for you to upload under a {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} license...and they are own work. The problem is I have NO knowledge of South American art. Only Egyptian art...that I already uploaded here File:Tutankhamun’s wood, ivory and box chest.jpg and here: File:Tutankhamun’s stool 2020.jpg from this person's flickr account. Can you ask someone with knowledge of these beautiful gold images to upload them with the right title? This is an unusual request but I don't know what culture these objects belong to....whether its Sican or Aztec or something else.
Here are the links for the flickr images below. Unfortunately, the photographer did not give a clear title for these objects and say if they are Sican, Aztec, etc HarveyPrototype, Bedivere or Poco a poco. The photographer's image resolution from her Nikon camera is INCREDIBLE...but the problem is identifying the objects. The so called Gold Museum, Bogotá or Museo de Oro in Bogota, Colombia definitely exists as there is a wikipedia article on it and here is the old Wikimedia Commons Category on its Collection. These set of images by Sarah Murray are really New 2024 uploaded images as it has less than 75 views on flickr only.
Hi @Leoboudv You can upload these using Flickr2Commons. I am not sure some of the museum photos (did I see one that was the Botero Museum?) are good enough for uploading because in Colombia there is no FOP for places not permanently public, such as that. Bedivere (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Bedivere. From the flickr account owner's photo notes, it appears certain that the images come from the Museum of Gold in Colombia and would be from the permanent collection or else she (Sarah Murray) would not be able to photo them from a museum visit. There is this existing Wikimedia Commons Category...but the images there are quite old from 2008 to maybe 2012 and some from 2020. These new images are from 2024 and of very high resolution. Sadly, I know a lot about Egyptology and almost nothing about South American cultural art. Maybe User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao can upload them...but as usual the problem is what title description does one give to these stunning images...that few people knows anything about? Such is life. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Organs in countries with no-FoP indoors: copyrightable or not? Part 2
Since the last discussion on the subject was left without a satisfying result (no relevant DR was closed so far), I would like to reopen the discussion in order for interested editors having the opportunity to add their opinions. The former discussion is located here. The main arguments presented are in my opinionCOM:UA and if an organ was ornate/orignial enough to be copyrightable.
I'd say the ornamentation on some organs can be copyrighted since it's clearly not there for "intrinsic utilitarian function" at that point. Although there isn't a bright line and every organ should be judged on it's own artistic merits. It also would only extend to the ornamentation itself, not the actual organ per se. To quote from COM:UA "if the three-dimensional design contains some such element (for example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware), copyright protection would extend only to that element, and would not cover the overall configuration of the utilitarian article as such." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Organ as itself is a music instrument (--> a utilitarian object) and not a literary or artistic work. If is has some decoration, that deco can be copyrightable as itself. If someone takes a photo of organ - the main question = what is the primary object of that photo? Organ or its decoration? Similar case - a non-trivial logotype on car. Alex Spade (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The reason why this was abandoned before was because trying to create a rule for a particular narrow class of objects is silly and this is already covered under COM:UA. In all the cases that I've seen, the creative elements of the organs are not separatable from the utilitarian aspects of the work (separability is a key test of COM:UA) . The shape of an organ and the sound apertures may be creative, but these elements will absolutely affect the sound that comes out of the organ. This is where each of Paradise Chronicle's deletion requests for organs fail. Now, I can certainly imagine scenarios where there is an image of an organ we cannot keep on Commons. Maybe the organ has a mural painted directly onto it, or maybe the organ has a fine engraving. A plain reading of COM:UA will tell you that though and there is nothing really to discuss here. It is, as I think the comments above suggest, case-by-case. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@IronGargoyle The separability test described in UA is about copyright law in the USA, where there is FoP also in the interior of buildings, but the discussion is about organs in countries with no-FoP indoors. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle: Ok, you bring up differences in national laws. Here is another bit from COM:UA: "In the vast majority of national jurisdictions, the level of originality required for copyright protection of works of applied arts does not differ from the one for the fine arts.[5] It is higher in Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Slovenia, and Switzerland." (emphasis mine). Most of the DRs you created or commented on are from Germany, Italy, and Switzerland, which have a higher level of originality required. This completely undercuts your point. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@IronGargoyle Well that makes it case by case or country by country and I doubt that Switzerland has a higher threshold of originality as there any "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose" are protected by copyright. If there is one if its kind, then that's it, it's an original and in my opinion protected by copyright. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
You doubt that it is a higher threshold of originality in Switzerland for applied arts (which this would definitely be)? That is cited with multiple references on COM:UA. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you don't believe in COM:UA, as you seem to have been unbothered by other Commons policies like COM:DM and COM:TOO in your relentless deletion requests of trivial interior elements. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Interesting example. I would say delete it because it the photo appears to be a direct copyright violation. No evidence of permission and the source says all rights reserved. Congratulations on owning a church organ though. That's cool. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Aotea Lagoon park map
Hi, I'm working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aotea_Lagoon and would like to upload and use a photo of the map posted at the gate of the park. I took the photo but the map is copyright Porirua City Council. I emailed PCC asking whether I could treat the map as free content, and the Principal Advisor Brand & Marketing replied saying "Yes it’s ok to be used as free content, ..." (happy to share my email and the reply if needed). Does that meet the requirement for the author granting permission? If so how do I express that permission on the upload form? Thanks. Arnhemcr (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Arnhemcr: We need the release of rights to come from them, since anyone could say, "the owner of this copyright gave me permission." There are basically two ways to do this:
On some web page clearly under their control (their own website, public social media post, etc.), the Porirua City Council (or its representative) can indicate that they are willing to release the map at the gate of the Aotea Lagoon park under a CC-BY 4.0 license (and that, in particular, they understand that this allows commercial reuse and derivative works). Then anyone can upload, citing that for permission.
The Porirua City Council (or its representative) can go through the process outlined at COM:VRT to make essentially that same declaration.
Thanks for that. The release of rights did come from a representative of the copyright holding body but I did not ask them to agree to a particular license acceptable on Wiki Commons. I feel I've taken up enough of their time already so will leave it there having learnt my lesson. Arnhemcr (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
We seem to have new PD template, created by @RowanJ LP: , and although I support clarifying copyrights for the State of Palestine, I do have number of issues with the details of the template:
I generally do not like PD templates with a long menu of possible reasons for work being PD. This template in the current form states that file is PD because: it is anonymous works or because it is a flag or because it is Knesset protocol or court decision. I think we should use one of template:PD-anon-70 for the anonymous works and have either one or 2 templates for the other cases.
The template mentions "§6 of the 2007 statute". I think we need a link and name of the statue.
I am also confused about "governmental items including national flags are not capable of receiving marks AKA trademarks" part as that seem to indicate that flags are not trademarked but has no bearing on the copyright status. The trademark laws should not be confused with the copyright laws.
There was a paper which examined the Palestinian intellectual property situation around 2003; I think they concluded that for copyright the British 1911 copyright act was still in force, and not any later Israeli copyright laws. Unsure if that has changed. Trademark was more complicated and could involve Jordanian law in the West Bank in particular (Egypt administered the Gaza Strip for that period but sounds like did not apply any of their laws there). I'd like to see where this tag decided that current Israeli copyright law changes also apply to Palestine, and why.
Also agreed that the national flags part is strictly about trademark, and has no bearing on copyright and should not be there at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg I don't think the changes in Israeli law is in force in most of Palestine (except the Israeli-administered occupied areas, as per COM:State of Palestine#Copyright laws). The Copyright Ordinance 1924 (based on the British copyright act of 1911) is applicable to Palestine. A few provisions of the British act, like copyright exceptions, do not apply though as the Copyright Ordinance 1924 already provides some copyright exceptions, although severely-restricted (like not adapting the British-style FoP). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: for further clarification if the Article 3 of the ordinance did limited the copyright exceptions, I read the scholarly paper that you gave here. It appears that Article 3 of the ordinance (that includes private copying provision) only replaces Articles 11–13 of the 1911 British act. The FoP provision at the British act is at Article 2. So it appears, there is FoP in the State of Palestine courtesy of the 1911 British act. Need to make this correction at the CRT page. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)13:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, so far I don't see anything to change the conclusions of those papers. Just because a country administers a territory does not mean that that country's laws automatically apply -- there usually needs to be continuity of laws already in place. Jordan did apply its trademark law to the West Bank when it was administering it, but looks like it left copyright alone. So it would appear the 1911 law and the 1924 ordinance are the last copyright laws applied to Palestine (and Israel, but of course that got superseded). That would seem to mean it's still a 50pma area, with photographs being 50 years from creation, and FoP and all that. None of this is certain, and who knows how much it's actually enforced, but those seem to be the most likely terms that currently apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you all for looking into it. I did minor changes to the template:
removed the bullet about flag trademarks as something irrelevant to Public domain template
I also noticed that the template was most likely created as a response to User:BmboB's Deletion requests for Emblems and Flags of Palestinian Political Parties. It looks like after DR was filed on May 20, few hours latter User:RowanJ LP created this PD template so it's existence can be used as a reason not to delete files. That is one of the worst reasons to create new PD template, and I do not trust legal research that went into it. I am not nominating it for deletion (yet), in hopes it can be salvaged through some consensus here. However otherwiseI think it would be better not to have it. --Jarekt (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jarekt the 2007 Israeli law is generally not effective across Palestine, except the Israeli-controlled cities. The 1911 Copyright Act as modified by the 1924 Copyright Ordinance is the effective law of the two territories (Gaza Strip and much of West Bank, except Israeli-occupied cities). Therefore, the general term is 50 years p.m.a., but as per the ordinance, the term for anonymous works is 70 years from publication (1924, sec. 5). The 70-year p.m.a. of the 2007 Israeli law only applies to Israeli-occupied cities. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)00:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with Ruslik here, though this particular one may be fine. There are plenty of menus that have enough complex graphical elements that the "telephone directory" comparison would not hold. Here are two blatant examples: [13], [14]. - Jmabel ! talk03:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I have created this page to highlight Law No. 17 of 2012 on copyright in Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Some of the changes introduced in that law compared to the one used in the rest of Iraq are:
Protection for applied arts lasts 25 years rather than 50 years
Unprotected work includes daily news among other things
The duration of protection for photos is 15 years rather than 50
Performances & sound media are exempt from the general copyright law, and their protection lasts 50 years after publication
Media published by broadcasting stations is ptotected for 20 years
This was deleted and moved to English Wikipedia as a fair use file, but I wonder if it even meets the threshold of originality for copyright protection. It appears to just be simple text.
I think we could do just fine with a simpler version of that logo (without the shading). I think that shading could be considered creative enough, but simple letters (without that shading) are inherently not protected. Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@AuroraANovaUma: I've notified the administrator who deleted File:The Tetris Company logo.png about this discussion. Generally, it's usually a good idea to at least first discuss things with the deleting administrator, even if only as a courtesy, just to see what they have to say. Since the file has been deleted, it might need to be discussed via COM:DRV instead of here to see what the consensus might be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay interesting. I'm learning. @Mike-dog: : did you make this patch? I assume the user will not respond since their 25 edits are confined to the mid-year months of 2017, but if they ever log in, we'll see. In the mean time, what do we do? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I actually have the same kind of issue with this one: File:抗大教员证章.jpg
Ecuador has passed a new law in 2016, and made significant revisions to many provisions, one of which is the FoP provision, now found at Article 212(7) and reads:
La reproducción, adaptación, distribución o comunicación pública con fines científicos o educativos y para garantizar acceso a las personas con discapacidad de las obras arquitectónicas, fotográficas, de bellas artes, de arte aplicado u otras similares, que se encuentren situadas permanentemente en lugares abiertos al público, mediante la fotografía, la pintura, el dibujo, la filmación o cualquier otra técnica o procedimiento similar, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor de la obra original, si ello es conocido, y el lugar donde se encuentra.
Which translates (using Google Translate) as:
The reproduction, adaptation, distribution or public communication for scientific or educational purposes and to guarantee access to people with disabilities of architectural, photographic, fine arts, applied art or other similar works, which are permanently located in places open to the public, through photography, painting, drawing, filming or any other similar technique or procedure, provided that the name of the author of the original work, if known, and the place where it is located are indicated.
In the link given by HarveyPrototype above (the article), there was a draft bill in 2013 that also included FoP exception which, according to the linked article, "establishes the legality of copying for personal use and eliminates criminal sanctions for copyright infringements that are carried out without profit." It is not certain if the draft bill was one of the bases for the current, revised copyright law. It should be noted that, even in the now-repealed I.P. law of 1998–2014, the indicated FoP provision at Article 83(f) is "strictly the dissemination of art, science and culture", so may not be possibly free even from the beginning.
Per the FoP section at the CRT page of Ecuador, the Andean Community's Decision 351 is claimed to override all local laws. But according to a Colombian court in the only real-life FoP case in Colombia (another Andean Community member; in English translation), "it is noted that the previous provisions enshrined in the community standard, being so general in terms of procedure, leave open a great margin for the internal regulations of the Member Countries to regulate the procedures and processes based on the community standard, in accordance with the principle of indispensable complement." (refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sculptures in the Museo Botero (Bogotá)).
The Colombian court's statement means that the member states of the Andean Community are open to regulate the procedures of the generalized provisions in Decision 351. Colombia did by not allowing FoP in public indoors, although still adequate enough for purposes of Wikimedia Commons. Peruvian FoP is also regulated but still acceptable here. As there is no explicit FoP in the copyright law of Bolivia, it can be assumed that the Andean standard still applies until that country introduces the FoP clause. As for Ecuador, the regulation seems far-reaching. The 1998 (repealed) law regulated FoP to art/science/culture dissemination. The current law only allows uses of public landmarks and monuments for educational and scientific purposes, so unlikely to allow commercial uses (post cards, web development, mobile applications, tourism souvenir items, et cetera).
This matter on the Ecuadorian FoP/Andean FoP difference should be addressed. If the Ecuadorian FoP is found to be the prevailing law for FoP and not the community standard (since, as said above, the FoP was regulated by Ecuador), then Ecuadorian FoP is Not OK since 1998 – since the beginning of available WIPO Lex documents.
The aformentioned Article 212 is part of Section VII Of the limitations and exceptions to economic rights of Chapter II Generalities of Title II COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS.
I wish to draw attention to two aditional incisions Article 212.1 and 212.4 which may help this discussion.
Article 212.1 : La inclusión en una obra propia de fragmentos breves de obras ajenas de naturaleza escrita, sonora o audiovisual, de carácter plástico, fotográfi co, fi gurativo o similares, siempre que se trate de obras ya divulgadas, que su inclusión se realice a título de cita o para su análisis, comentario o juicio crítico, con fi nes docentes o de investigación, en la medida justifi cada por el fi n que se persiga, y siempre que se indique la fuente y el nombre del autor, y que en ningún caso constituya una explotación encubierta de la obra. Las recopilaciones periódicas efectuadas en forma de reseñas o revista de prensa tendrán la consideración de citas;
Which translates (using Google Translate) as:
The inclusion in one's own work of short fragments of other people's works of a written, sound or audiovisual nature, of a plastic, photographic, figurative or similar nature, provided that they are already published works, that their inclusion is made by way of quotation or for analysis, commentary or critical judgment, for teaching or research purposes, to the extent justified by the purpose pursued, and provided that the source and the name of the author are indicated, and that in no case constitutes a covert exploitation of the work.
Periodic compilations made in the form of reviews or press reviews will be considered citations;
Article 212.4 : La reproducción, traducción, distribución y comunicación pública con fines informativos de artículos, comentarios, fotografías, ilustraciones y obras similares sobre sucesos de actualidad y de interés colectivo, siempre que se mencione la fuente y el nombre del autor, si el original lo indica, y no se haya hecho constar en origen la reserva de derechos;
Which translates (using Google Translate) as:
The reproduction, translation, distribution and public communication for information purposes of articles, comments, photographs, illustrations and similar works on current events and of collective interest, provided that the source and the name of the author are mentioned, if the original indicates it, and the reservation of rights has not been recorded in origin
@HarveyPrototype in that case, the images can be hosted locally on local Wikipedias that allow fair use (does Spanish Wikipedia accomodate fair use rules of Spanish-speaking jurisdictions like Ecuador)?
Article 212.1 is for uses in typical fair use-type situations like in research, dissertations, theses, and criticisms. Article 212.4 does appear for uses in reporting, in sharing current events, and in informing the public. Local Wikipedias that can host FU-type media are welcome to such provisions, but English Wikipedia has a lex loci protectionis-based policy of only respecting the U.S. law, and not all foreign laws like the Ecuadorian law. U.S. copyright law does provide both fair use rules and architecture-only Freedom of Panorama. In the event the Ecuadorian FoP is unacceptable here, a few images (not all because of w:en:WP:NOTFILESTORAGE) of Ecuadorian buildings can be transferred there even in their fullest and highest-quality resolutions, courtesy of U.S. FoP (w:en:Template:FoP-USonly).
Wikimedia Commons has a strict licensing policy that does not permit non-commercial licensing. Yet the current trend in Ecuador seems to not allow commercial uses of their public spaces. I think, perhaps, to safeguard their "private" cultural heritage over the Internet. So there is nothing we can do. Unless, someone contests the Colombian court's statement over the Andean standards with other sources stating Andean standards prevail over the local laws of four member countries. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
So there is nothing we can do. That's essentially my opinion. Although the images can be hosted locally on local Wikipedias as fair use if they agree to it. But it's kind of out of our hands otherwise since we don't allow for things that can only be used non-commercially. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Article 212 needs to be read in accordance with the article 211. They both refer to fair use possibilities, and so, they are not usable here on Commons as it cannot be a "covert" use of the work in a way that could cause "unjustifiable prejudice" to the rights holder. Bedivere (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Confirmed: a death sentence for Ecuadorian FoP. The Andean FoP provision is not applicable to Ecuador, even from the beginning (at most 1998). Under the First "Transitional Provisions" of Article 378 of the now-repealed 1998 law: "Until such time as the corresponding Regulations are issued, the Regulations under Decisions of the Commission of the Andean Community shall continue to apply in so far as they are not incompatible with the provisions of this Law." However, since the 1998 law already provides the regulation for FoP under Article 83(f), the regulation from the Andean FoP does not apply anymore. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)18:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Let me see if I can sum up this discussion.
The reason that FoP images from Ecuador can't be used is because though they are allowed, they are permited under a "Fair Use" scenario, that since it's not in the U.S. than the images can't be uploaded under said conditions? HarveyPrototype (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@HarveyPrototype I think Bedivere compared the "fair use" in the Ecuadorian context to "fair use" in the US context. But I don't think it is the issue here; countries like China and Taiwan consider "limitations and exceptions" as "fair uses", and every country can do so. FoP is technically synonymous to fair use in terms of permitted, reasonable uses of copyrighted works of architecture and public monuments. The Article 211, IMO, is only an enforcement of the Berne Three-Step Test.
The main issue here are the FoP wordings in both the 1998 and 2016 laws, which do not appear to allow commercial uses of images of the said works.
1998 law, Article 83(f): "The reproduction, communication and distribution of works permanently located in public places by means of photography, painting, drawing or any audiovisual process, provided that the name of the author of the original work and the place in which it is located are mentioned, and that the purpose is strictly the dissemination of art, science and culture."
- is "the dissemination of art, science and culture" including the exposure of such works to media under commercial Creative Commons licensing?
2016 law, Article 212(7), translated: "The reproduction, adaptation, distribution or public communication for scientific or educational purposes and to guarantee access to people with disabilities of architectural, photographic, fine arts, applied art or other similar works, which are permanently located in places open to the public, through photography, painting, drawing, filming or any other similar technique or procedure, provided that the name of the author of the original work, if known, and the place where it is located are indicated."
- "for scientific or educational purposes" certainly excludes commercial uses of the images, and in my opinion the exclusion of for-profit uses of Ecuadorian landmarks as stated in the 2013 article you gave is a stronger indication of Ecuadorian authorities disallowing exposure of their landmarks and monuments to commercially-licensed media. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)19:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@HarveyPrototype both Commons and Wikipedia are non-profit, technically. However, all Wikimedia sites, most-especially Commons, are expected to be stewards of free culture movement, and so cannot accept licenses that are roadblocks to that mission, like non-commercial licenses. See COM:Licensing#Forbidden licenses.
several Wikipedias allow local uploading, whether fair use or even high-quality resolutions of copyrighted architecture, using their local laws. Such Wikipedias have "exemption doctrine policies" that allow limited-to-controlled hosting of works that are against the free culture movement. English Wikipedia accepts unfree architecture of no-FoP countries by using U.S. law which allows commercial FoP for architecture (w:en:Template:FoP-USonly). German Wikipedia may also locally host, but also including copyrighted sculptures, using the more lenient German FoP (which extends to monuments), as dewiki only follows German law. Russian Wikipedia can also host, as they do not strictly adhere to free culture rules and can host unfree sculptural monuments using the non-commercial Russian FoP for sculptures. But other Wikipedias completely disallow fair use or even copyrighted buildings and monuments. Dutch Wikipedia is an example: they disabled any local uploading completely. French Wikipedia is another: they do accept unfree buildings but they have a policy that allows the architects or their heirs/estate to file take down requests to the frwiki admins to remove their buildings from wiki. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)20:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Why the hell did we have it listed as a FoP then? 1998 predates the creation of Wikipedia Commons. My life would have been much easier last year when I have been in Ecuador if I knew there is no FoP. Do we have similar disinformation listed for other countries? Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I revisited the citation on COM:Andean Community article (ths citation). The Andean Community provisions are indeed binding among members, but there is a catch (which I will indicate with underlines):
Decision 351 is communitarian and supranational law, with direct and immediate effects upon communitarian and domestic authorities. Unlike European Union directives, communitarian decisions do not require adoption into domestic law because they have immediate binding effects and prevail over domestic law. Communitarian decisions allow the joint existence of domestic law, as long as the latter does not conflict with the former. As a result, AC members may need to modify their domestic law in order to avoid confusion, but not for implementation purposes. One exception is that communitarian decisions admit "complementary regulation by domestic law," which seems to be the case in several provisions of Decision 351.
Decision 351 allowed for additional provisions under the domestic laws of the AC members, as long as these rules were not inconsistent with the provisions of the common regime. In fact, Decision 351 made several references to its integration into domestic law. For instance, the provisions on works-for-hire, droit de suite, computing terms of protection, transferring and licensing, and affiliation to collective rights management societies. In other cases, such as rules on judicial procedures, civil measures, and criminal sanctions, Decision 351 did not address certain regulatory issues, but rather left such space to domestic law. In some cases, the Decision only set forth a minimum legal standard, allowing the standard to be heightened by domestic law. This is the case for moral rights recognized for authors, economic exclusive rights, term of protection, and exceptions and limitations to copyright. Referring to domestic law seems to have been the main mechanism used to overcome the lack of agreement around a given issue during negotiations of Decision 351.
@Paradise Chronicle a question: do you think the former FoP rule (from the 1998 law) was suitable for Commons, or not? The uses of images must be for the "dissemination of art, science and culture," but unclear if commercial use is allowed or not. Also, is the 2016 law (with more restrictive FoP for "science and educational" uses only) retroactive? JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)08:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I could kind of see a hopeful interpretation of the 1998 law; using a photo of a statue commercially is still "disseminating" it. But the 2016 law (or translation at least) seems more explicit that it's a non-commercial provision. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 I'm not sure we have gotten clarification on that from any country. Certainly any old uses are OK; a law can't make past actions illegal. Does the photo count as a "use" as of the time it was taken and/or uploaded, or is it a continuing exploitation that going forward could be illegal? You could argue either way, and the laws never seem to address what happens with existing exploitation in this situation. I don't think we have deleted existing uploads in the past though, so not sure I see a reason to start now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg I found one transitional provision that may be applicable. From page 105 of the document provided by @HarveyPrototype, under "DISPOSICIONES TRANSITORIAS":
DÉCIMA CUARTA.- Todo derecho de propiedad intelectual válidamente concedido con la legislación nacional anterior al presente código, se regirá por las disposiciones vigentes a la fecha de su otorgamiento, salvo en lo que se refi ere a plazo de vigencia, en cuyo caso los derechos de propiedad intelectual preexistentes se adecuarán a lo previsto en este código. En lo relativo al uso, goce, obligaciones, licencias, renovaciones y prórrogas se aplicarán las normas contenidas en este Código. Para el caso de procedimientos en trámite, el presente Código regirá en las etapas que aún no se hubiesen cumplido a la fecha de su entrada en vigencia.
Translated as:
FOURTEENTH.- All intellectual property rights validly granted with national legislation prior to this code will be governed by the provisions in force on the date of its granting, except with regard to the term of validity, in which case the pre-existing intellectual property rights will comply with the provisions of this code. Regarding use, enjoyment, obligations, licenses, renewals and extensions, the rules contained in this Code will apply. In the case of procedures in progress, this Code will govern the stages that have not yet been completed on the date of its entry into force.
Possibly retroactive? With regards to the "use": "Regarding use, enjoyment, obligations, licenses, renewals and extensions, the rules contained in this Code will apply." JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Yep, that is probably as good as we get. So is such a photo only a "use" at the time taken, an ongoing "use" which becomes a problem, or a property right previously granted to the photographer? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg I can't say the context of the "use". Perhaps Harvey, who seems to work on files from Ecuador, may be familiar with this? Or perhaps COM:PCP may apply as the Ecuadorian courts may apply the current law (the "ongoing use")? The transitional provision also speaks of "this Code will govern the stages that have not yet been completed on the date of its entry into force." JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)23:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
"Art. 83. Siempre que respeten los usos honrados y no atenten a Ia normal explotacion de la obra, ni causen perjuicios al titular de los derechos, son licitos, exclusivamente, los siguientes actos, los cuales no requieren Ia autorización del titular de los derechos ni estan sujetos a remuneración alguna:
[...]
f) La reproduccion, comunicación y distribucion de las obras que se encuentren permanentemente en lugares publicos, mediante la fotografia, la pintura, el dibujo o cualquier otro procedimiento audiovisual, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor de la obra original y el lugar donde se encuentra; y, que tenga por objeto estrictamente Ia difusión del arte, la ciencia y la cultura;"
= ... and that have for purpose strictly the diffusion of art, science and culture;
strictly = 2. In a limited manner; only. 3. In a narrow or limited sense.
As the saying goes, "the legislator does not speak in vain". If the legislature had wanted to give a broad permission, it would not have added such restrictive wording. People cannot pick the part that suits them and ignore the restriction that does not suit them. The wording does not allow uses where exists any purpose other than the diffusion of art, science and culture. The notion that practically any use would also be allowed because it can disseminate culture anyway would be to empty the wording from meaning. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Asclepias regardless of the 1998 Ecuadorian FoP, what are your thoughts on the transitional provision of the 2016 law that is relevant to Wikimedia Commons (the one I gave above)? From my reading, it seems the current code applies to the "uses" and "licenses", and it may seem that the more-restrictive FoP (educational/scientific purpose) applies even to all images, regardless of upload or photography date. This may make Ecuador Not OK even to images uploaded before 2016. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)14:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I have referred to decisions by the Andean Community once or twice in DRs, I think concerning threshold of originality matters. I don't really know anything right now about the interaction of the laws of Ecuador and decisions by the Andean Community though. --Rosenzweigτ21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig the paper used as citation on Andean Community CRT page (which I reread and digested) is clear though, in terms of the allowance for member states to heighten (for better or for worse) their standards on limitations and exceptions, because the rules from the Decision 351 are just the minimum legal standards. Therefore, Colombia raised the FoP standard by not allowing FoP in public indoors and interior architecture, but still acceptable here. Ecuador also raised its standard, but more far-reaching to limit to educational and scientific uses only (as of 2016, though the 1998 Ecuadorian FoP allowed "dissemination of arts, science, and culture"). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)22:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I need to understand. Wikipedia in its essence and mission complies to the dissemination of arts, science and culture. I don't understand why the new 2016 law would be restrictive for Wikipedia, or for Commons. HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Part of policy is that files here must be usable for commercial use without getting further copyright permission -- that is what "free" means, not simply free of cost. See Commons:Licensing. So even though it is likely not a legal problem for us to use them for our purposes, policy requires something further. Depending on the Wikipedia project, you may be able to use such photos under a fair use rationale there, but Commons cannot host anything under that rationale, again per policy (see Commons:Fair use). Such photos would need permission of the sculptor to use in commercial uses. It's possible the older law was the same, but we misinterpreted it (or it was more vaguely worded). Without a special clause in the law allowing such uses, photographs primarily of sculptures are derivative works and need permission from the underlying author to do anything beyond fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I may be entirely wrong on the fundamentals, however I'm going to try and place into perspective why I believe that the 2016 changes are aligned with Wikipedia, and not inherently restrictive.
Artículo 3.- Fines.- El presente Código tiene, como principales, los siguientes fi nes:
1. Generar instrumentos para promover un modelo económico que democratice la producción, transmisión y apropiación del conocimiento como bien de interés público, garantizando así la acumulación y redistribución de la riqueza de modo justo, sostenible y en armonía con la naturaleza;
2. Promover el desarrollo de la ciencia, la tecnología, la innovación y la creatividad para satisfacer necesidades y efectivizar el ejercicio de derechos de las personas, de los pueblos y de la naturaleza;
3. Incentivar la producción del conocimiento de una manera democrática colaborativa y solidaria;
4. Incentivar la circulación y transferencia nacional y regional de los conocimientos y tecnologías disponibles, a través de la conformación de redes de innovación social, de investigación, académicas y en general, para acrecentarlos desde la práctica de la complementariedad y solidaridad;
5. Generar una visión pluralista e inclusiva en el aprovechamiento de los conocimientos, dándole supremacía al valor de uso sobre el valor de cambio;
6. Desarrollar las formas de propiedad de los conocimientos compatibles con el buen vivir, siendo estas: pública, privada, comunitaria, estatal, asociativa y mixta;
7. Incentivar la desagregación y transferencia tecnológica a través de mecanismos que permitan la generación de investigación, desarrollo de tecnología e innovación con un alto grado de componente nacional; la
8. Promover la distribución justa y equitativa de los benefi cios derivados de las actividades vinculadas a generación, transmisión, gestión, uso y aprovechamiento de los conocimientos, la tecnología, la innovación y los conocimientos tradicionales, así como el uso efi ciente de los factores sociales de la producción para incrementar el acervo de conocimiento e innovación;
9. Establecer las fuentes de fi nanciamiento y los incentivos para el desarrollo de las actividades de la economía social de los conocimientos, la creatividad y la innovación;
10. Fomentar el desarrollo de la sociedad del conocimiento y de la información como principio fundamental para el aumento de productividad en los factores de producción y actividades laborales intensivas en conocimiento; y,
11. Fomentar la protección de la biodiversidad como patrimonio del Estado, a través de las reglas que garanticen su aprovechamiento soberano y sustentable, proteger y precautelar los derechos de las comunidades, pueblos y nacionalidades sobre sus conocimientos tradicionales y saberes ancestrales relacionados a la biodiversidad; y evitar la apropiación indebida de la biodiversidad y los conocimientos tradicionales asociados a esta.
Which translates (using Chat GPT) as (I will bold the underlying text which implies:
Article 3.- Objectives.- This Code has the following main objectives:
1. To create instruments to promote an economic model that democratizes the production, transmission, and appropriation of knowledge as a public good, thus ensuring the fair, sustainable, and harmonious accumulation and redistribution of wealth with nature;
2. To promote the development of science, technology, innovation, and creativity to meet needs and actualize the exercise of the rights of people, communities, and nature;
3. To encourage the production of knowledge in a democratic, collaborative, and supportive manner;
4. To encourage the national and regional circulation and transfer of available knowledge and technologies, through the formation of social innovation, research, and academic networks, and in general, to increase them from the practice of complementarity and solidarity;
5. To generate a pluralistic and inclusive vision in the use of knowledge, giving supremacy to the value of use over the value of exchange;
6. To develop forms of knowledge ownership compatible with good living, including public, private, community, state, associative, and mixed ownership;
7. To encourage technological disaggregation and transfer through mechanisms that enable the generation of research, technology development, and innovation with a high degree of national component;
8. To promote the fair and equitable distribution of the benefits derived from activities related to the generation, transmission, management, use, and utilization of knowledge, technology, innovation, and traditional knowledge, as well as the efficient use of social factors of production to increase the stock of knowledge and innovation;
9. To establish funding sources and incentives for the development of activities related to the social economy of knowledge, creativity, and innovation;
10. To promote the development of the knowledge and information society as a fundamental principle for increasing productivity in knowledge-intensive production factors and labor activities; and,
11. To promote the protection of biodiversity as a state heritage, through rules that guarantee its sovereign and sustainable use, protect and safeguard the rights of communities, peoples, and nationalities over their traditional knowledge and ancestral wisdom related to biodiversity, and prevent the undue appropriation of biodiversity and the traditional knowledge associated with it.
Any and all interpretations of articles following these objectives must be interpreted under these criteria. Since Wikipedia and Commons is not a for profit organization. All FoP criteria should be valid for Ecuador. HarveyPrototype (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The 2016 Law is divided into different sections and in this discussion we should discuss how images from Ecuador can be used for FoP and for other circumstances as well.
Book I: The National System of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Ancestral Knowledge
Title I: General Provisions
Book II: Innovation
Title I: General Provisions
Book III: Access to Knowledge
Title I: General Provisions
Book IV: Intellectual Property
Title I: Copyright and Related Rights
Chapter I: General Provisions
Chapter II: Protected Works
Chapter III: Moral Rights
Chapter IV: Economic Rights
Chapter V: Collective Management Societies
Chapter VI: Licenses and Limitations
Chapter VII: Duration of Protection
Chapter VIII: Public Domain Works
Chapter IX: Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information
Chapter X: Computer Resources
Chapter XI: Miscellaneous Provisions
Book V: Traditional Knowledge
Title I: General Provisions
Book VI: The Technological Innovation System
Title I: General Provisions
Book VII: Institutional Framework of the National System of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Ancestral Knowledge
Title I: General Provisions
Taking this into consideration I believe the 2016 law is focused on the creation of knowledge and the equitable distribution of any profit that may arise from this rather than a restrctive law. HarveyPrototype (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works
The Ecuadorian FoP as it stands now, does not go well with the first factor in the free cultural works definition. By limiting uses of images of copyrighted buildings or monuments to educational and/or scientific purposes only, there is no legal freedom to use the images commercially, like in postcards, commercial websites (that rake in money through ads), tourism souvenir items (like prints on T-shirts or designs on calendars), and especially in application development.
Images of copyrighted Ecuadorian architecture can be transferred locally at English Wikipedia. That wiki only follows laws of the U.S., which means U.S. FoP for architecture is applied to foreign buildings. Images on enwiki are local only to enwiki, however, so Spanish Wikipedia won't benefit. I don't know if eswiki has an equivalent choice-of-law principle anchored on w:en:lex loci protectionis.
I also see the intention of the Ecuadorian legislature to pre-empt the restricted FoP to pre-2016 images too, as the uses or licenses are going to be weighed in by the current law. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)22:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion at English Wikipedia,[15] did the uploader have the right to offer File:Me at the zoo.webm to the public under the Creative Commons license? Rjjiii (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Updated link to archived discussion. 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Tbh I don't really understand why the CC license would be void if the camarographer co-held rights on a video from the early Internet era, in this case Lapitsky. Even the Wikipedia page says "On Karim's camera" and was uploaded on Jawed's YT channel, it's most likely that Lapitsky informally gave permission rights to publish the video. If this was going to be the case, a lot of YT videos under CC would end up in problems because of "who is the actual owner of the footage" discussions. Hyperba21 (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Hyperba21: I think the concern is that there is no indication that Lapitsky (who was holding the camera) knew how the video would be used online.[16] In the US, I believe, the owner of the device doesn't affect who holds the copyright.[17] And courtesy pings to the reviewer Armbrust and uploader Tuankiet65. Rjjiii (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
And also I'm pretty sure the Lapitsky was recording for Jawed, and Jawed likely owns all the rights to it but only reserves some. I feel like Lapitsky knew Jawed was going to upload the video and most likely reserves no rights to it AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
If I ever do reach out to him, I'll do so to ask him if he's ok with MATZ even being public, letalone being licensed under the Creative Commons license. For now, I'll assume he's ok with both, and I hope that's the reality. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
It is the videographer who owns the copyright, not the owner of the camera, nor the person who is being videoed. It is up to the videographer to license the file. If we don't have confirmation from Lapitsky that he's happy for this to be released under a free license, then we don't have a license that is suitable for Commons. That CC-BY licenses are not revocable is irrelevant; if the original license was invalid as the uploader didn't own the copyright, he could not legally license it. Schwede6621:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
19:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Done. Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Info here is what I consider the official version (in Albanian): [1]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Data_page.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Cover.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PartulaOtaheitana.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PartulaOtaheitanaDorsal.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Akkuyu_Nuclear_Power_Plant.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Akkuyu_Nuclear_Power_Plant.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=880249844){kind=link}
Comment: I hope that HarveyPrototype, Bedivere or Poco a poco know how to upload these images and put them in this Wikimedia Commons Category It seems that the Gold Museum, Bogotá wikipedia article says that these objects are divided into the " Calima culture , Quimbaya, Muisca people, Zenú, Tierradentro, San Agustín, {Tolima, Tairona, and Urabá culture. This museum seems to have more gold in it that the Egyptian Cairo Museum. The only problem is...identifying what culture are. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Not OK since 1998 – since the beginning of available WIPO Lex documents.
