Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/03

Would this cross the threshold of originality?

Logo for allAfrica. They're operated out of the US and South Africa. I'm unsure of South Africa's TOO laws (do they have any? The commons page says nothing either way) Opinions? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

South African ToO laws should be close to those of UK. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: TOO is rarely laid out in laws, rather established by copyright-office rulings or court judgments, so it’s hard to provide guidance without some accumulation of ‘landmarks’. I agree with Ruslik, noting that in Canada & India, both with British common-law traditions, the standard set by courts is worded something like exercise of skill and judgment. In this case, I think the logo probably passes that test, and the rainbow/tree graphic (albeit not the type) might even be copyrightable in the US.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: I don't think the tree part would be in the US (at least comparing it to the examples on this page), but noted on the South Africa part. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Uploading photos released for press usage by a company

Hi,

I'd like to upload some photos released for press usage by a company in order to use them in my wiki articles. These are the photos: https://embraer.bynder.com/share/886AED22-F6E4-4266-BDEB651BD17E3D53/?viewType=grid They are widely used all over the internet for illustrating articles.

Can I upload them? What license shall I choose for uploading?

Thanks! Admiralis-generalis-Aladeen (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Admiralis-generalis-Aladeen: Hi,

No, you can't upload them here without a formal written permission for a free license. "Press usage" is not sufficient for Commons, where all content should be usable by anyone for any purpose, including commercial ones. Please read COM:L, and COM:VRT for the permission procedure. Yann (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

(

Admiralis-generalis-Aladeen (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Is "King Of Jazz" (1930) in the public domain?

Someone from archive.org says so but I can't find that information anywhere else. Do you know any databases where I can check this? Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's still in copyright. Was renewed in 1958. https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyrig3121213li/page/50/mode/2up Abzeronow (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow Too bad. When will it expire then? I don't really know how to read those documents properly. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It becomes public domain January 1, 2026. Abzeronow (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow Thank you very much. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status of a photo found on a dead man

An unusual situation was brought to my attention here[1], where I was asked about the copyright status of a picture. It is on Commons as PD Israel[2] (though it's from before Israel existed), but after some digging I discovered it was found on the body of a dead Palestinian rebel, who was killed by Brits, and the photo was seemingly therefore first published in Anglophone media. There's a version on Getty[3] without clear info on first publication, but the Alamy version[4] says it's from the Sydney Morning Herald. While that may be so (which would make it PD Australia), it was probably also published in other Anglophone papers at the time, and we still don't know who actually took it, and it was owned by a dead man. So what copyright status actually applies? FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have tried a quick search on NLA Trove and the earliest Australian publication I could find was from The Sun on 16 November 1938.[5] There may be earlier publications in Australia but using different article text. There may have been earlier publication elsewhere. If we can make a reasonable identification of country of first publication (this may be multiple countries if published within 30 days of first publication due to Berne convention rules on simultaneous publication) we can then consider that country (or countries) rules on anonymous creations. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

A free search of the British Newspaper Archive shows multiple papers started reporting the death of "Nur Effendi Ibrahim Abdullah... east of Haifa on Tuesday" on 28 October 1938. I don't have a subscription with them, so I can't see more than the free search results. However, the Australian publication on 16 November must have either been first publication or simultaneous first publication as it was within 30 days of the photograph reaching a publisher (as less than 30 days since "Nur Ibrahim"'s death). We can therefore consider Australian rules on anonymous works as the source country copyright rules.

The one complication here is if the same image was published in US media within the same 30 days. If so, the US also becomes the source country and we have to consider justification under US law (rather than relying on being PD in source country on the URAA date). Some of the British Newspapers cite Reuters as the source of the story, so it could have easily been sold to the US newspapers. Hopefully another editor will have a good source for checking US newspaper archives to see if there are any matching terms in late 1938. In the worst case scenario (barring any other justifications we can use), it would become PD on 1 January 2034 as 95 years after first publication. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

If it was published without a copyright notice (anywhere) it would have lost that U.S. copyright. Only the URAA could restore it, and it was out of copyright before the URAA in the most likely "country with the greatest contacts" (Israel), or Australia if that was the first publication (unless it was the UK itself). The simultaneous publication is one place where the URAA "source country" can be different than the Berne "country of origin". The worst case scenario is that was never published with authorization and thus remains unpublished -- that would make little difference in UK/Australia/Israel but would the U.S. But, if prints had been distributed among friends of the person who was killed, that may have sufficed for U.S. publication before it ever got into a newspaper. It is a weird situation, but the current license may make the most sense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for digging. So on the face of it, it should be more or less safe to update the Commons version with a higher res version from another source? FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Ahrar al-Sham's letter of condolences to Mullah Omar after his death.jpg

Is this letter below the threshold of originality? Trade (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It is rather a long text, which is certainly above ToO. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Disney's early works are still protected by copyright in German-speaking countries

Under German, Austrian and Swiss copyright laws, all artistic works lose copyright protection and enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the last author. Recently, it was discovered that many of Disney’s early works, such as the videos related to Steamboat Willie, which entered the public domain in 2024, were not marked with relevant copyright information. Therefore, we hope that relevant personnel will mark similar files with copyright information.

If the author of this work has been dead for under 70 years, this work is protected by copyright in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, unless other regulations apply. Therefore, communities of German-language Wikimedia projects have decided that use of this file is not allowed within German-language Wikimedia projects.

Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This is true in any 70pma country (Ub Iwerks died in 1971) which does not use the rule of the shorter term (or had a copyright treaty with the U.S. long ago, like Germany). Not sure we should be adding multitudes of tags like this for every country -- there isn't anything that makes Germany, Austria, and Switzerland special in that regard. I could see using PD-old-auto-expired with a deathyear argument so life-term countries have some indication whether it's PD there (many Steamboat Willie ones do, but possibly not all). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg: It is my understanding that the communities of the German-language Wikimedia projects don't want to use the ~41 files tagged with {{Urheberrechtlich geschützt}} per initial author Cwbm (commons) and the other editors, and that no one else has questioned this in the template's 13+ year history.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that part makes sense -- they do not want to use works still under copyright for their target audience. There are likely many wikis in that situation though, not just one, and not sure it makes much sense to have many templates of that ilk. If they want a maintenance category, that makes sense, but a visual tag that everyone else sees... would not be my vote, since if German why not a French, Spanish, and every other language project tag for any 70+pma countries -- it would drown the page in warning templates. It does make sense to use PD-old-auto-expired with deathyear=1971, so that it shows that it's fine in 50pma countries but not anything longer -- it should be apparent at that point whether it's OK to use based on what a particular project's categories are. That one visual template should inform all languages, and is far more compact. I'm not going to remove usages of that template or anything, but I'm not going to add them myself, nor do I think that should be policy. We should inform one way or another, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I know, only the German Wikipedia has such a rule. (). You could say that this is one of the copyright-related peculiarities of the German Wikimedia community (another being certain debates in the past about GFDL+non-free licenses).

The French and Spanish Wikipedias certainly have no similar rule. You'll find Mickey on the French Wikipedia, for example. (This isn't really entirely comparable, since French and Spanish are spoken in many more countries with disparate copyright laws than German.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Carl here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Carl. Nosferattus (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Flickr

If someone has a Flickr account and uploads a bunch of photos, some of them having that user in the photo with it being taken by someone else, but the user has them under a CC license, is it valid? Mainly asking because I've been in correspondence with a person who appears in some of the photos, and I've seen things like File:We Want Eazy!.jpg, Category:Flickr files uploaded by samhsloan@gmail.com, and Category:Files from Eric Garcetti Flickr stream and I just want to make sure that it would be allowed for them to upload it to Flickr before it was transferred. reppop^talk 05:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Reppop: That depends on whether or not there is use of a timer referenced in the EXIF metadata.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. What matters is whether or not the licensor is empowered to grant the license. Whether they used a timer, a remote without a timer, had the copyright transferred to them, it was a work for hire, etc., is not important. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: Good luck divining that empirically.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Works with conflicting licenses

Is it safe to use content that has conflicting copyright information?

For example, I saw a website that says its content may not be used for commercial purposes. However, the copyright statement also explicitly mentions a CC BY-SA license with no non-commercial clause. I know some authors dual-license their works, but it doesn't make sense in this situation because the CC license would defeat the purpose of the NC restriction.

So my questions are:

1. From a legal perspective, would the presence of the CC license supersede the non-commercial clause?
2. What is Commons' policy on works with such conflicting licenses?

I do know such files are typically deleted on Wikipedia without clarification from the uploader, but I'm not sure what the procedure on Commons is. Ixfd64 (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Exactly how close are the statements to each other on the website?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 08:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

1. The CC licenses stand alone, per their own text.
2. Incoherent dual-licensing is common, but the CC license remains valid.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that is good to know. I was wondering if courtesy deletion would apply if the author says it's a mistake and requests removal. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The website in question says the content is distributed under the Creative Commons license. However, the next paragraph says the content may not be used or distributed commercially. Yet the paragraph after that contains a link to the CC BY-SA license with no NC clause. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

If they are linking to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license and saying that is the license offered, then the terms of the license as given in that document stand alone. As it says in the 4.0 license, "Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License." Similarly, the version 3.0 license says, "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here."

In other words, if they specify some condition not in the CC license, you do not need to choose to respect that condition (if you are using the work under the terms of the CC license specified). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

NATO Manual Copyright

What is the copyright of an aircraft manual published by NATO? For example, T.O. NATO 1RF-G91-R4-1 (source). According to discussions in 2016 and 2020, it seems like the answer is normally based on whatever country the creator is from. However, in this particular scenario the answer is unclear. The aircraft represented, a Fiat G.91, was built by an Italian company, but the format of the manual's designation resembles that of the United States Air Force (for an explanation/examples, see The "T.O." System). Unfortunately, no bibliographic information other than the designation is present. If it's American, then it would be public domain, but I am not sufficiently familiar Italian copyright to know what it would be in that case. –Noha307 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The copyright status has nothing to do with where the airplane was created. It only has to do with who created the manual and where the manual was first published. "First published" can mean multiple countries, as long as the publication occurred within 30 days. This manual was almost certainly published in the United States upon initial release, if not created by the US military.

If this work was created by the US military (probably), it is in the public domain for that reason.

If it wasn't created by the US military, then it would be in the public domain due to publication in the US without a copyright notice before March 1, 1989. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

The copyright status has nothing to do with where the airplane was created. It only has to do with who created the manual and where the manual was first published.

I mentioned the aircraft only because of the possibility that the manual was initially created by the manufacturer, Fiat, which is an Italian company and then republished by NATO/the U.S. (For reference, there's a collection of manuals for a different Italian aircraft available on the website Flight Manuals Online. Note how the covers indicate they are a mix of company and military published documents and that one of them, GAF T.O. 1L-P149D-1, is published "under the authority of the [German Minster of Defense – Air Force Command]".) I realize this likely doesn't materially change the result of your explanation, I just wanted to explain why I brought it up. –Noha307 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Presidency of Maldives (CC-BY-4.0)

This license tag is used on 24963 files. However, according to the copyright policy that it links to, the CC-BY-4.0 license only applies to "submissions to presidency.gov.mv" by "visitors to this website". All other content on that website is either "materials to be published in the public domain" or "third-party content on this site [that] can only be licensed for reuse through the independent consent of the original content owner" (with no indication as to which is which).

It seems to me that this copyright policy has been misinterpreted, and the CC-BY-4.0 license has been assumed for thousands of files to which it does not apply. Beleg Âlt (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Roman Kubanskiy as author.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery (UK)

I can't find a simple explanation about the copyright of images from the National Portrait Gallery. I'm writing an article for en:Charles Maynard (British Army officer) and images of him held by the NPG. These include two images dated to 1919 (one a negative and the other is a bromide print). As these were created 105 years ago, are they out of copyright? Can they be uploaded here? Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The images are by Creator:Walter Stoneman. As he died in 1958, the UK copyright won't expire until 1 January 2029. However, the US copyright will last until 95 years after publication. We may be able to argue that the 1919 photographs are out of US copyright but the 1935 photograph must still have US protection until at least 1 January 2031. The 1919 photos can probably be uploaded in 2029. The 1935 photo can be uploaded in 2031. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. Are you saying the 1919 photographs can be uploaded now? Or the combination of UK/US copyright means we have to wait until 2029? Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You may be able to upload the 1919 photographs at English Wikipedia as that project is only concerned about US copyright. You will need to form an argument that the photographs were published between 1919 and 1928 (creation of the photographs in 1919 is not a guarantee that they were published at the time).

Commons is concerned with copyright in both the US and the source country (UK in this case) so they can't be uploaded here until 2029. However, that assumes that we can form the same argument that the photos were published between 1919 and 2033.

You may want to wait to see if other editors comment here with their views on the date of publication. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

From Hill To Shore, thank you so much for your advice here and for finding a usable image!Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Roscosmos

I ended in the middle of the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Loral O'Hara Official Portrait.jpg: while the CGTC photographs is under copyright, it would be great if someone with a VPN or living in Russia could check if the Roscosmos Usage Guidelines have changed in anyway since April 2023. This could help projects like Commons:Spacemedia, that accidentally ends uploading CGTC or Roscosmos material that NASA uploaded in their website (this project also has issues with non-PD SpaceX materials). Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in Roscosmos media usage guidelines as far as I can judge. Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Legality of UNPOL emblem?

I came accross the UNPOL article but was a little surpised that there was no emblem, but I found it off of their youtube channel however I have no clue about its copyright status. Leonard LMT (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Tifos at soccer stadiums

I'd like to get a picture of a soccer stadium in Basque Country. In the photo you can clearly see a poster that a group of supporters hung in the stands during an important match, and it is precisely this poster that is interesting. It is a drawing made by a professional. Can I use this photo? --Suna no onna (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Guidance re possible copyleft trolling

I'd like to know if it's appropriate or useful to Wikimedia to report a photographer for possible copyleft trolling.

Apart from having a claim from Pixsy myself on this person's behalf I have found on their Wikipedia page eight other examples of people saying they've been hit by Pixsy claims in the very recent past, and asking if Pixsy represents the photographer, or asking to come to a negotiated agreement. They have not answered any, but someone else on their behalf stated that they will not respond to questions there and insist on the attribution specification being observed. They have many photos on Wikipedia, all with CC2 or CC3 licences, requiring name attribution and a link to the licence. They have many more on Flickr with the same licencing. As far as I can see - and I have searched a lot - these photos are not available for sale on any stock licencing sites, which leads me to believe they may be using CC followed by costly claims from Pixsy as a business model like others I've seen discussed here.

Having seen the stress these claims cause because of inadvertent errors, and knowing that the photographer must have declined the chance to ask for a takedown before making a claim, I would like to do what I can to reduce the harm it may cause others in the future.

I don't know enough about how Wikimedia works to know if it's useful to name them and present the evidence, or if you only work at a higher level, encouraging the use of CC4 etc so I'd like your guidance before I publish any details here. Normanlamont (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Normanlamont: What can we do if you don't name who you are talking about? Yann (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, @Yann - my reason for asking is that I don't know whether it's your or anyone's job to do anything. That's why I was asking if it's 'appropriate or helpful' to report the person. It's not like Flickr where there's a clear authority that I'd be reporting them to. I was quite prepared for someone to come back here and say this isn't the right channel to pursue the matter. If I were to put all the details here, what would follow from that? Normanlamont (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Normanlamont: Yes, please report such trolling here. If the accusation is valid, their account will likely be blocked and their images may be deleted from Commons. Nosferattus (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"PD-Australia" (tag) not valid

Recently I tried to upload an image using the "PD-Australia" (tag), together with the "PD-1996|country=Australia" (tag), both tags I've used on many occasions in the past. However, my latest attempts produce a red message: "The wikitext you entered doesn't contain a valid license template" (even though the preview button indicates they are valid), and I'm not able to proceed any further. If I go to the country specific tags webpage, under 'Australia', there are no tags listed, only "No information available". What's going on? Why are the tags for Australia no longer valid? Ikeshut2 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ikeshut2: Where are you seeing the error and when did it occur? You uploaded a file with those templates yesterday, and that seems to have worked. If the error happened as a one-off incident today, it could have been a temporary server-based error. Try again after a few hours and see if it repeats. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Yes, it is a recent error. Ikeshut2 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ikeshut2: It looks like Commons:UploadWizard tests for the presence of {{License template tag}} (see mw.UploadWizardLicenseInput.js and CommonSettings.php), which User:Jarekt removed from {{PD-Layout}} and the other license base templates earlier today. I'm working on fixing it now. —RP88 (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I was getting the same error in the upload wizard earlier for the "PD-US-no notice" tag. So it's good to know someone is looking into the issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. —RP88 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Still missing a few license tags, see: Commons:Copyright tags/Oceania. Bidgee (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bidgee: I am not sure what your point is, but that page is irrelevant to the error that was occurring yesterday with UploadWizard. As I mentioned above, UploadWizard depends on {{License template tag}}, it does not consult Commons:Copyright tags/Oceania or any other subpage of Commons:Copyright tags. If you want something changed at Commons:Copyright tags/Oceania you might try adding a note to its talk page. —RP88 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact the license tags are missing for numerous countries isn’t irrelevant. They were showing but now they aren’t, only “No information available” is displayed. Bidgee (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bidgee: You have misunderstood. RP88 is not saying your problem is irrelevant, they are saying that your problem is not related to the current discussion. You have found a new problem and joined an unrelated discussion, which has caused a bit of confusion. It would be best to start a new discussion and explain the problem again. When was the last time you saw the tags on that page? Which countries are you certain had tags showing previously? The Oceania page includes translation code and transclusions (with the translcuded pages in turn having translation code); there are a lot of potential areas for something to have broken. Knowing which tags have disappeared and the time frame will help editors track back related changes to find the cause. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said, there are a large number of license tags missing. Last time I looked was about the time just before {{License template tag}} was removed and they were there. When the UploadWizard issue appeared, I noticed this one, if they aren’t connected and happens to be at the same time so be it (I’m not to know). Bidgee (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright notice on US Government work?

I found a Air National Guard recruiting poster with a notice in the bottom left corner reading "©1989 United States Government as represented by the Secretary of Defense. All rights reserved." Aren't all works by the American government public domain, making this notice erroneous? Suspiciouscelery (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is erroneous. Nosferattus (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Suspiciouscelery: Yes, we probably have Dick Cheney to thank for that, but it could have been one of his two predecessors that year.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The only chance that is correct is if it was a third-party copyright assigned to the U.S. Government. Not likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I found this poster in the April 1991 edition of the U.S. Government Printing Office's Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications at catalog entry 91-8849 on page 32. The publisher was the U.S. National Guard Bureau. On page I-555 is the contract number index, a list of documents that the GPO knows were prepared by third-parties under grants or contracts. The list is small and does not include 91-8849. While this does not completely eliminate the possibility of a third-party copyright, I think it is very likely that this poster is {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}}. —RP88 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Are the paintings of Pigcasso the pig PD?

So I was about to upload some images of recently deceased Animal artist Pigcasso, as seen here: https://pigcasso.myshopify.com/collections/available/products/amazon-tribe-picgcasso-lefson-2023 https://pigcasso.myshopify.com/collections/available/products/rip https://pigcasso.myshopify.com/collections/available/products/pigcasso-2-print.

We know the case of the "Selfie monkey" and that Commons hosts animal-made art as PD, but Joanne Lefson, her former caretaker, is claiming "co-autorship" of the works, calling some of them in the website as "Picgcasso | Lefson". Since the animal has been trained and in her own words says "The pig can only reach and paint within a certain dimension so to cover a full canvas of this size required a lot of turning in all angles and multiple variations in height...it still needed a colour"

Are those claims of co-ownership enough for this images to have copyright? Hyperba21 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure. The Wikipedia article states they had a "partnership", which even sounds weird. I would be cautious to upload these. Maybe try and find some filmed footage where a painting was exclusively made by the pig and upload it safely. Bedivere (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Just found a Video where Lefson states: "Pigcasso is definitely the artist, she is the only one that paints on the actual canvas". So her only role would be more precisely of an assistant. I think that's a good claim to be PD-animal. Hyperba21 (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the Pig is the artist. As we know, non-human (Animals) authors are not eligible to claim copyright. Of course, Lefson is the one who stands to profit from these works and will do whatever she can to claim ownership of the works. So is this a case of copyfraud? Maybe. Did she add to the artwork to claim co-autorship on the works? Maybe. If it ever went to court, I imagine it would follow a similar result of the "Selfie Monkey". PascalHD (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Welp, there's only one way to find out, let's see where this goes. The "Boris" painting has video evidence of it being painted by the pig. Hyperba21 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that paintings by elephants may be a better analogy. Ruslik (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sport kit drawing image and copyright licence template

Looking at various discussions about the kits, I saw that most have the usual copyright licenses (I, the copyright holder of this work, etc.), while some have the template {{PD-textlogo}} (like this). Since the clothes are not copyrighted (Clothing), but the sports kits are (Sports uniforms/kits), from what I understand, there is a belief that the latter can be on commons without logos, there is another perspective from some who say that these small images lack originality, while if I understand correctly, there is also a belief that perhaps some kits with complex designs (maybe like that) are subject to copyright (from the discussion).

Based on the fact that most of these files are uploaded with the team names and are painted thumbnails of the actual sports teams' kits, while most of these files list the uploader as the copyright holder, is this correct? If not, what copyright license should be used? What is generally the case with all this? Phailonick (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Phailonick: For those who don't know, "kit" is the uniform worn by an association football (soccer) team (or goalie). Most of these small PNG representations of parts of kits are probably below TOO in the source countries, so not to be worried about. On enwiki, en:Template:Infobox football club uses such kit files, and there are counterparts on 102 other language Wikipedias. en:Template:Football kit does too, and has counterparts on 106 other language Wikipedias. I have yet to find a guide or set of standards for them. If you find out, please let me know.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Yes, but isn't it more covering for the uploader to use template {{PD-textlogo}} instead of a template like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} (when talking about specialized team kits, not generic designs)?

A photograph containing a derivative of an image which might be hard to find the origin of

The image File:Spoilt ballot in Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner Elections.jpg, used in the English Wikipedia page for Spoilt vote, is an image of a deliberately spoilt ballot paper, the subject of the image containing what appears to be a photo of a police officer attached to the ballot. Because it is black and white, has text superimposed on it, and is being photographed itself, it might be very difficult to reverse-image search the image, which this Commons file is a derivative of, to find its copyright status. Additionally, the uploader claimed to have created their image of the spoilt ballot themselves (which they have released under a free license), although I think it is unlikely that the photo attached to the ballot was taken by them. Is it possible to find the origin of the photo in question, and regardless of whether it can, does it need deleting under the precautionary principle? Xeroctic (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Image(s): Princess Indira and Maharani Chimnabi

Hello! I'm new to this. I've uploaded an image: MAHARANI CHIMNABI II which I'm fairly certain is in the public domain due it being published in the late 1800s. However, aside from a BBC outlet, I was unable to find a direct/original source for it. Will it be on Flickr? And is the source link being the BBC page alright?

Additionally, I've found this image of Indira Bayi (Travancore): (https://www.thehindu.com/society/the-life-and-times-of-indira-varma-princess-of-travancore/article19325070.ece) which is also in the Public Domain in India and the US. I'm unable to access further details because its behind a paywall. Could I upload it? Alljijhuiiniiyu (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

File:MAHARANI CHIMNABAI II OF BARODA (1891).webp is OK. Yann (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to know.

The other image I mentioned, when I do a cursory search online, seems to be in Manu S. Pillai's book "The Ivory Throne", which I have not read but he might've the author there? I do know that the image was taken and published in 1937 so it should be in Public Domain. Alljijhuiiniiyu (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a bit more problematic, as Indian copyright will only have expired in 1997. That means that due to the URAA it would still be copyrighted in the US until 2032 inclusive. Felix QW (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Never mind - I had misread COM:India to mean that the extension to 60 years applied to all photographs still under copyright in 1958, but apparently it applies only to photographs created after that date. In that case, copyright expired in 1987 and everything is fine. Felix QW (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad to hear that! Alljijhuiiniiyu (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Eligibility of Magellan's Cross Pavilion mural

Hello. Is the local enwiki file w:en:File:Magellan's Cross inside night view (P. Burgos, Cebu City; 01-23-2024).jpg eligible here on Commons? It may be dismissed as focusing on the cross, but I have some concern that it may not be eligible here because of the non-incidental presence of the ceiling mural. Per this site, the cited authors were painters Jess Roa and Serry M. Josol (the painters' names were signed on the artwork). The site further claims that it is not known when the painting was made but a 1965 photo implies it was already existing on the pavilion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Public domain status of European harmonised standards

Following a lawsuit by Carl Malamud against the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled today in case C‑588/21 (press release) that «a harmonised standard, adopted on the basis of a directive [...] forms part of EU law». It follows that such harmonised standards are in the public domain and we can host them on Wikimedia Commons.

To have a transparent discussion about this, I've also uploaded one such standard and I've opened a discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EN 301 549 V3.2.1 (2021-03).pdf. Please participate. Nemo 13:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

See also the lawyers' press release. Nemo 06:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

And the CEN/CENELEC press release which is in complete denial. Nemo 12:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the ruling said they were public domain, exactly, just that they form part of EU law. It may be like the difference between a public record and public domain -- the copyright protection does not mean that access can be refused. That latter press release tried to throw doubt on the standards even being reproduced by third parties, but that seems unlikely to be barred. However, also not sure there is an automatic derivative right in these. I.e. some other body can't take the standard and make changes. Is there an explicit copyright status for EU law specified anywhere? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Public domain status of EU law across the EU follows from various national and EU rulings, but there may not have been an explicit CJEU ruling on the matter because it was never questioned. There was some information in the speeches by the judges during the hearing and in the Advocate General opinion. If DIN/CEN/CENELEC keep pushing the copyrightability in lower courts, we can expect the issue to be deferred to the CJEU again by some judge in Germany, but it's hardly controversial. Nemo 16:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I gathered in the press reports about this decision, the CJEU ruled that the European Commission must publish these standards so that they can be accessed free of charge. Several reactions also emphasise that the standards now should be accessible free of charge. I haven't read any reaction claiming that they are in the public domain. In fact the German standards body DIN welcomed that the court did not question the copyright protection of harmonised norms in general. --Rosenzweig τ 16:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It is likely that EN harmonized standards will become accessible without cost, while CEN/CENELC/ETSI retain other rights (eg modification and merging into derivativw works), so they won't be public domain. SV1XV (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course you wouldn't expect the entity which sued Carl Malamud for copyright infringement to celebrate the public domain status of the standards. Nemo 12:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That they're not "celebrating" does not automatically mean they're wrong. --Rosenzweig τ 13:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Aren't those standards automatically copyrighted per the Berne Convention?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is if there is something like {{PD-EdictGov}} for the EU which would change that status. The decision may be somewhere in between, which allows no-cost access and reproduction but no derivative works (and possibly not allowing reprinting for profit). If so, it would be the vague equivalent of CC-BY-NC-ND. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Pat Ast and Shelley Duvall.jpg nominated for deletion

Link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pat Ast and Shelley Duvall.jpg. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

City Center Building in Homs, Syria

While we are probably aware that Syria has no suitable Freedom of Panorama, I stumbled upon these images of a suspected modern building in Homs. Is the building acceptable here? I cannot immediately find any information online, other than claims that it was once a modernist building but since the start of the civil war there all its windows have been blown out. It may be OK here if the architect has been dead since 1973 (if he is known) or if the building was completed before 1974 (if the architect is unknown). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Updating the European Commission Audiovisual Service licence template

Link: Template talk:EC-Audiovisual Center#March 2024 update Joofjoof (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Please, rev del

Cropped out art. File:September 11 - ten years after, taken by U.S. Embassy Finland on 11 September 2011 - 18.jpg Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ooligan:  Done. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Please, rev del - one more.

Cropped out art. File:September 11 - ten years after, taken by U.S. Embassy Finland on 11 September 2011 - 29.jpg Last one today. Thanks again. -- Ooligan (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Open Data (Brazil)

Hello,

I was looking into the Brazilian Decree nº 8777 which has an interesting Chapter 2 (Translating with DeepL):

"Art. 4 The data made available by the Federal Executive Branch and the active transparency information are free to use by the Public Authorities and by society. (Edited by Decree no. 9.903, of 2019)

§ Paragraph 1 Authorizes the free use of databases and information made available under the terms of item XIII of the caput of Article 7 of Law No. 9,610, of February 19, 1998, and whose copyright holder is the Federal Government, under the terms of Article 29 of said Law. (Included by Decree No. 9.903, of 2019)

§ Paragraph 2 - The Federal Executive Branch is obliged to indicate the holder of copyrights belonging to third parties and the conditions of use authorized by them in the disclosure of databases protected by copyrights referred to in item XIII of the caput of art. 7 of Law No. 9,610 of 1998. (Included by Decree No. 9.903, of 2019)"

Would this really mean that the materials produced by the Brazilian Government should be free to use on Commons under an expansion of Template:PD-Brazil-Gov or even a new template (example GODL-India)? I'm personally curious about the possible use of texts and images (of public and historical interest) released under the Freedom of Information Law here. I'm also worried with the fact that the official gov.br domain is under CC BY-ND 3.0 Deed, which may create some eventual deletion requests if this domain is used as a source for the files. Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

On the "Freedom of Information Act", it covers the Brazilian Government (União Federal), the States, the Federal District and the Cities in general. By the paragraph 2 from the above decree, only the third party materials would receive a different license. Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

On this 2020 discussion is understood that the Decree 9903, which edits the Decree 8777, makes mandatory the free/nonrestricted use of the Government Data, going against any restrict CC license - the Decree 9756, which created the gov.br domain, doesn't mention any type of license. Erick Soares3 (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Erick Soares3: Do our accepted file types count as data under the Decree 9903?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G. The decree only says about data and information, without mentioning any file type. Using this example from the Brazilian Space Agency, I believe that most data from the Data Base would be CSV and JSON. Erick Soares3 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And @Jeff G.: since the Decree also covers the "Freedom of Information Act" as being Open Data, you can add "PDF" files in the mix. There's even a official search website for the FOIA requests - maybe a template linking to this site could be useful to cite the original requests. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I emailed the Open Data Portal and they replied me that they use the following licenses: Creative Commons Attribution; Cc-Zero; ODbL and PDDL. While this might not make a new template necessary, would be interesting to at least link this info (or this discussion, after it goes to archive) at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil? Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Erick Soares3: Please have them send that directly via VRT, or at least quote it in an email via VRT that you carbon copy to them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

North Korea Media

Hello, everyone! I want to upload photo of the new North Korean MBT, but this photo was made by Korean Central News Agency. Is it possible to upload file or not? Maybe, I need a permission from it? Thanks! Stoffel Vandorn (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

For Commons, all media is assumed to be protected by copyright unless there's a reason for it not to be (e.g. it is 500 years old, the creator released it under a free license, et cetera). Hope this helps. Bremps... 06:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

U.S Passport not protected by copyright... right?

Are U.S. passport photos protected by copyright? I would've thought so, as the photographer has no room for creativity. However, this Wikipedia discussion and this Wikimedia Commons question ("Using passport photo.") both did not reach a conclusion. Does anyone have a definitive answer? The files in question are this and this. Bremps... 01:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Also applies to this one, but it's a Swedish passport. Bremps... 02:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

We discuss it a bit here: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/02#"Booth_Pictures"_and_U._S._Threshold_of_Originality. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Which way would we err if it's not settled law? Bremps... 06:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

We would try to err on the cautious side, but it could also be case by case. I would tend to agree that a passport photo setup where someone takes a perfunctory photo may not have a copyright, but it's also possible to take your own photo (or crop an existing one) at which point, who knows. That threshold can differ by country, so you almost have to start all over again looking at that country's precedents. There's no principle which would apply to all countries. For Sweden, that may need to conform to {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, as photos below their normal copyrightable threshold still get a term of protection. Maybe there are exceptions there for a perfunctory photo taken by someone else (no idea, but seems odd that their employer could exercise copyright control on such photos), but if supplied by the person for their own passport, it probably has their "simple photo" protection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bremps: IRL, you can take your chances if the source country has no term of protection below TOO. Here on Commons, we follow pcp.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Would PCP mean the 2Pac photos need to be deleted? Bremps... 17:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

At least IMO it would depend on who took the photograph and the jurisdiction of where it was taken. If it was taken at home by person getting the passport or a private business then it would be copyrighted. Otherwise it would be PD if taken in a state where government works are free of copyright, for instance California. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at File:Fani Willis 2023.jpg

Hey all, thought to ask some of the more experienced people here whether a simple "yes" to "may you release this image into the public domain for Wikipedia" (or some similar phrasing) implies that the copyright holder understands the concept of public domain. The copyright holder is a politician who is trying to walk back her releasing the image into the public domain after seeing news media use the image in a way she does not like. The relevant deletion discussion is here. Bremps... 06:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Are all images on Government of India-owned websites subject to the Government Open Data License (GODL)

About the picture I included and found on a Government of India website, depicting Santi Sudha Ghosh, does the Government Open Data License apply to this specific image? Also, does the permission for using this image follow the general rules for using pictures on Government of India websites? Or are there special rules just for this image? CharlieMehta (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

On en:File:Santi Sudha Ghosh.jpg, you have given a direct link to the image at https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/Santi-sudha-Ghosh-US-1.jpg. Can you provide a link to the page where you found the image? The page may have useful context for us to answer your question. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore I found this image at this link https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/unsung-heroes-detail.htm?4320. CharlieMehta (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Specific to that image, there's nothing on the page to indicate the source of the image. The GODL refers to data generated by public funds, meaning the photographer of that image would need to be acting for the Indian government with the copyright belonging to the government. That site was created by the Ministry of Culture (indiaculture.gov.in) which has a less than open copyright page.[6] Ravensfire (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

A few years back, I requested some Indian people involved in Wikimedia projects to get a legal opinion from a lawyer. This never came, so I wonder now where and when the GODL is valid. Yann (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Most arguments I have seen is that is only valid where explicitly stated. Which is mainly just the data.in.gov website only, as far as I have seen, and then usually not for photos (if ever). However, some of their government websites have a license which could be construed to be free (such as this one). Without a statement like that, I would not upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg Here's the Terms of Service document at https://www.nic.in/terms-of-use/, contains lot of ambiguity. But does this also apply to its subdomain sites? CharlieMehta (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I tend to think it does not. The subdomain has its own privacy policy page, and apparently login system. I don't see any terms of use though at a quick glance. I would tend to think that content is separate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a common phrase in many of the notices on Indian government pages of "Material featured on this Portal may be reproduced free of charge after taking proper permission by sending a mail to us. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. " There was a template I had created for Goa government images that was deleted due to having that phrase. (see User_talk:Ravensfire#User:Ravensfire/Goa-Govt). Pinging @Jameslwoodward

Is that phrasing (which I find in most ToU pages for India were the GODL is used) enough to block using here? There's contradictory information on that and if it's truly not valid, there's multiple template and a fair number of images that need to be deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: I think that phrasing is enough to block using such content here, as denying certain DWs.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The main source of my conflict here is there was a deletion discussion in 2019 that was in part around that phrasing Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Indian_Army. It's confusing for me, and worse for some of the more casual editors. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I tend to think that phrasing is OK, per that discussion you reference (I participated in that), as the restrictions seem aligned to moral rights, which exist regardless of any copyright license. That wording still tends to get argued over every time it comes up, though. But without that phrasing being obviously tied to the website a photo was obtained from, I don't think we should host it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

To add more confusion to this, some months ago there was a discussion User_talk:Túrelio#Need_to_take_some_action around images uploaded from India.gov.in for members of Parliament and if they were covered by the GODL. That data is really pulled from sansad.in/ls, which has a privacy policy page with no mention of the GODL and explicitly claims copyright over the contents.[7] So what is the extent of the GODL? Does it extend only to data.gov.in or other sites that explicitly mention it? Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the simple solution for that image specifically is that the person died in 1966, that was 58 years ago at the age of 73. Now she doesn't look 73 in that image which means it was taken sometime around 1920-30, so lets assume 1925, which means 99 years old, India's PD rule is 60 years from when they were published and under that basic requirement, one does assume that image is PD-India so we don't need to waste time trying to find if it qualifies under GODL.... Stemoc 06:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

All pictures taken in India before 1942 are in the public domain as per {{PD-India}} and in the USA (PD-1996). Yann (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Now and Then single cover

Hello there! I have been thinking the cover for the Beatles' Now and Then single may be too simple to be copyrighted. [8] The cover comprises the letters "Now and Then" with some shading under a line below each word, and the background is not really creative. It was released worldwide in the same day, so I'm not sure if COM:TOO UK applies, or COM:TOO US. The artist who drew the cover is from the US. Bedivere (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I've uploaded the file here in high resolution. I'm open for discussion and will even nominate it for deletion myself since I am not convinced it is in the public domain. Bedivere (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Non-free images suddenly becoming free?

Having come across the non-free image problem several times, I have tried to "protect" a few non-free files in en-wiki from being replaced by illegally uploaded versions at Commons. One such image is the w:File:Flag of ASEAN.svg. Then I suddenly find that it has been moved to Commons under a claimed free licence as being published and distributed by the Government of Republic of Indonesia. I found that a bit odd, so I took a look at the history of the editor uploading it to Commons, and then I see that they have got lots of warnings and at one point being blocked for copyright violations. Looking closer at their recent contributions, I see that they also have uploaded a lot of other files in the same way, among those logos for Olympic games that are similarly marked as non-free in en-wiki. Some are claimed to be free as they do not meet the threshold of originality, (i.e. 1984, 1976 and more), which imho is doubtful for many of them. Others are claimed to be free because they were published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929, which seems to be nonsense for logos for i.e. 1956 and 1952 Olympics. Is this a massive copyvio attack, or is it just me who does not understand the copyright rules at Commons? TU-nor (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Surely, it's the former.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I upload this image?

Copied from (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Can_I_upload_this_image?)

I want to upload one of the insignias from the right hand side of this page (https://web.archive.org/web/20130716085150/http://www.bro.gov.in/indexab.asp?projectid=9&lang=1) for the wikipedia article Project Shivalik. I believe it is allowed to be used under GODL-India. Can anyone guide me if it is allowed? Leoneix (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's alright. Bedivere (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bedivere The organisation also has a free usage policy (https://www.bro.gov.in/index2.asp?slid=3746&sublinkid=28&lang=1). I have uploaded it. Thanks for your help. Leoneix (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

File:5pknf4bvj7o31.jpg nominated for deletion

Is there anything in this image that could be above the TOO? It's a simple list of tracks. I don't know how Germany deals with this, however. Lugamo94 (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Edit: I forgot the link. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:5pknf4bvj7o31.jpg

File:Bosphorus Bridge - Istanbul.jpg

Is this image appropriate for Commons? I'm seeing "©www.fpsagency.com" in metadata? Bogazicili (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio / flickrwashing. Bedivere (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Pearl Carpet of Baroda

I am comfortable that this image File:Pearl Carpet of Baroda.jpg of a jewel-embroidered and beaded carpet commissioned in 1865 should qualify as 2 dimensional for purposes of Template:PD-Art, the same way tapestries do. But I'd like to know if anyone feels like a jeweled object isn't really 2D for our purposes. PKM (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You might get more replies to your question at another venue such as the help desk. Here people come to answer questions on copyright. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a question on copyright; the question is whether the carpet in question qualifies for PD-Art. I'm not sure; it's certainly pushing the bounds.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Menotomy Hunter Cyrus Dallin.jpg

I was Googling myself, as one does, when I came across this image on Wikimedia Commons. It's credited to @AndrewTJay as "own work" but, as you can see from the metadata at the bottom of the page, I took this picture. I originally uploaded it to a project website of mine, Icons of Arlington, at a page called Menotomy Indian Hunter (Andrew seems to have cropped it). I am fine with the image remaining on Wikipedia, but I would strongly prefer that it be listed with the correct credit. How does that work -- do I just edit the page to change the credit? Rmhbernoff (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rmhbernoff: A mention that you license your license your photograph under Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike on Icons of Arlington would be helpful here as this was previously published and there's nothing on your website that supports the license given. And your photograph can be changed so it is properly credited. @Jmabel: Abzeronow (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@AndrewTJay: assuming Rmhbernoff is telling the truth (and I would think he is: the metadata on the photo you uploaded supports his claim) this looks like straight-out plagiarism on your part. Do you have any explanation for this? This sort of thing calls into question every single one of your uploads that is not simply a faithful reproduction of 2-dimensional public domain work. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rmhbernoff: I'm sorry this happened, and thank you for offering to let us keep the photo. I have changed the credit, but we do still need to clarify the licensing because you previously published without offering the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. You can either (1, recommended) edit https://iconsofarlington.com/2019/08/12/menotomy-indian-hunter/ to clarify that you are licensing the photo under CC-BY-SA 4.0, or (2, also possible) go through the process described at COM:VRT to indicate that you are the rights-holder and are granting this license. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel! Not a big deal -- I'm only really bothered when for-profits use my photos without permissions/license. I will take a look at those two options soon and do one of them. Rmhbernoff (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright of Separately Derived Identical Drawings

A common way of depicting aircraft for identification is a three-view drawing showing it from the top, front and side and many manufacturers include these in their manuals. (e.g. a Cessna 172 drawing from a 1956 owners manual) Any of these published in the United States after 1989 are automatically copyrighted and therefore obviously ineligible to uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without permission. (There's more nuance to copyright notice, but it is simplified here for the sake of argument.)

My question is: What is the status of a self-created, separately-derived, but functionally-identical-to-an-in-copyright drawing? For example, if I were to go up to an actual aircraft, measure all of the dimensions, and then draw an accurate depiction myself, this would seem to be my own work. However, it could still result in a functionally identical illustration as if it was simply copy-pasted from a manual. There was no "creativity" in the creation of the work, so it could be considered a "mere" reproduction. However, unlike Bridgeman v. Corel, the image is not produced from the same source and, to borrow from the second of the four fair use factors, the nature of the work is factual rather than fictional. In addition, it would seem the general dimensions could be considered public or commonly known information that could not be copyrighted. (Note, this would only apply to general depictions of the entire airframe and presumably not most production drawings, as they would 1) be significantly more detailed and 2) depict parts of the aircraft not normally visible (e.g. inside of a wing) or commonly considered by the general public.)

Alternatively, assume that, instead of measuring the dimensions myself, I would have access to a complete, textual list of all of the necessary dimensions from the owners manual and I used that to make the drawing. Would that change the copyright determination in any way? –Noha307 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this purely hypothetical or do you have a specific case in mind? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't have a specific case in mind. However, there are various situations where I have come across illustrations (not necessarily of aircraft) that were essentially made this way and would like to know if they could be uploaded. –Noha307 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

So, it may not be a perfect example, but here's one I've been considering. If I were to take the dimensions of a 20 x 72 mmRB cartridge from a page and use them to create my own black and white illustration, would that be a copyright violation? –Noha307 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Classic clean room engineering says that you can't copy what you haven't seen. That's the best case scenario; don't look at these documents, and any similarity must be due to uncopyrightable facts. Looking at a diagram like that cartridge one and then making your own illustration is always problematic, in part since you end up using the exact same measurements, not selecting your own things to measure or illustrate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

In the hypothetical situation that two authors independently arrive at the same work, they are independent copyrights. In the U.S., copyright infringement is often the combination of "substantial similarity", along with access to the original. If something was previously published you had access to it, even if you haven't actually seen it, so that part can be hard to prove even if true. If you can prove you had no access to the original, then it was impossible to copy the expression in the first place. That said, there are often elements which are scènes à faire, i.e. elements which are common to a genre and do not themselves have copyright. For something like plane diagrams, the fact that someone has outlines drawn with those angles does not mean they are the only ones who can make a diagram like that -- those are expected. Since a plane or ship outline is duplicating an existing design (of a utilitarian object), there really isn't a copyright in the basic outline, probably. In cases like that, the copyright is in all of the small details, of which there are usually many. Or like a map -- the basic country outlines are not copyrightable, so they will often look generally similar, but all the other details in the map are what creates the copyright, so copying those small details is where infringement would come.

In your other example, the photograph has a copyright -- but the photographer does not have a copyright over the photographed object (bullet); they are just showing a utilitarian object. The copyright in a photograph is more the angle, lighting, framing, and elements under control of the photographer. If you make your own outline using that photo, then no it is not derivative since you are not copying those aspects. If a photo has a particular angle or cropping of a scene, and a drawing duplicates that aspect, it becomes more possible to be derivative. But not for something like that. If someone else makes a tracing of the same photo, their result would be similar, but a copyright (if any) would be in the details you add after that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Tyranny of the majority example.png & File:עריצות הרוב מתורגם.png

Could someone here please verify that the PD license is valid? I always feel a bit vary when the source is making somewhat vague statements Trade (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The page says "you may repost it without restriction", but I think that falls short of an actual copyright statement or license. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If there are no restrictions on usage at all then that would by definition by public domain, right?--Trade (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

But "repost without restriction" doesn't include "make derivatives." All the text says is that we can make identical copies.

A discussion appears to have started at Commons:Deletion requests/RedPanels comics. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

False licensing?

File:Interior of Crocus Theater.jpg is listed as public domain in the United States. I'm a bit suspicious of this, as it usually applies to works published before the 1930s. Can an admin take a look at it and possibly delete it? It's protected, so I cannot nominate it for deletion. Bremps... 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like someone marked it as missing permission. The US license is definitely wrong; there would need to be a license or PD statement given at the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Video source: https://t.me/vorobiev_live/6175 Timecode: 00:50

Not sure if the Telegram channel of Russia's official (governor of Moscow Oblast Andrey Vorobyov (Q502185)) equals Russia's official source. Nyuhn (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Official source or not, we would need a license stated. Russian government works are not automatically public domain (same as most countries; the U.S. is relatively unusual in making their works public domain). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Can i use these pictures in de-wikipedia?

I'm not sure if i can upload two pictures for an article in the german wikipedia. Both pics are from 1931 or 1932. Pic #1 was sold as postcard (showing a woman, Maria Einsfeld who lived and worked 12 yrs as a man with her "family, her girlfriend Helene and her two children) from Maria herseld after her unmasking. She started with that after unmasking August 1931 so this picture is from 1931 or 1932. A lot of websites use this picture with copyright information Bildquelle Stadtarchiv Mainz where this postcard is in stock. Pic #2 shows Maria in the courtroom with defense lawyer and psychologist and audience in the background. So, imho it's a official press photo in public from ? (no copyright information) and i found it in some press articles from 1932 without the name of a photograph.

Both pics can be seen here: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/rhein-main/region-und-hessen/wie-maria-zu-joseph-einsmann-wurde-17531662/truegerische-familienidylle-17531657.html (picture #1 and #3)

I'm not very experienced, i normally use my own pictures or very old pics from older books so i appreciate any help. Martin Bahmann (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If there was a particular photographer named on either, it would depend on how long they lived. If not (i.e. the author is anonymous), then the German term would be 70 years from making available to the public, which has expired. However the U.S. copyright would have been restored by the URAA and be 95 years from publication, which would still technically exist, and not allow upload to Commons until 2027 or 2028. If de-wiki only uses German/Austrian/Swiss law, they should be fine to upload there if they are anonymous, though it would be best to wait to move to Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg: The German wikipedia does not accept anonymous files after 70 years. They do accept files which are at least 100 years old if, after a thorough search, no author can be found or no date of death for a known author can be found. See de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist. --Rosenzweig τ 21:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah OK, was not aware of that (or had forgotten). If the human author had named themselves within 70 years somewhere, the term would revert to their lifetime plus 70 years. I guess that would preclude using them on the German Wikipedia until 2032 or 2033, though they could be uploaded to Commons a bit earlier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

OK understood. Thanks for your help. Martin Bahmann (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Is a NASA image of an astronaut PD-USGov if it includes an "identifiable person"

The template PD-USGov-NASA states that images from NASA are public domain unless noted, and links to the NASA Usage Guidelines, which have restrictions for commercial use and identifiable persons, of which both are applicable.

The specific image I want to use is images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-01pp1278, for the enwiki page James F. Reilly. Is it acceptable to upload the image to Commons? BhamBoi (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@BhamBoi: Yes, that image is fine to upload. What those usage guidelines are referring to are Commons:Personality rights. You can add the {{Personality rights}} template below the Information template on the image's description page. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

In laymen terms: You can't use US government employees or logos to imply or even create the perception that the US government endorses your commercial messaging, regardless of copyright status. Multiple laws apply at once and the one doesn't necessarily trump the other one. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Text logos below ToO

I'm pretty sure these logos (both American) fall below the threshold of originality, but I'd like to confirm here before uploading:

• https://www.centralmaine.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2012/03/MTM.logo_.jpg
• https://www.miles33.com/userUpload/MaineTodayMediaLogo.jpg

BhamBoi (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

They look like PD text logos to me. Glrx (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, {{PD-textlogo}}. --Rosenzweig τ 11:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright infomation after history splitting of an image

I don't quite understand this. I requested a split of File:Parrot mlt.png , here. After the split, when verifying copyright information, on both the initial and on the splitted image the copyright says "public domain by its author, Ricnun; 2006-07-31 18:53 Ricnun ". However, the uploaders are User:4throck and User:Liftarn. That does not look right to me.

Technically, it is not a big deal, because the image of the parrot is in the public domain, and I guess (but I'm uncertain) that all other modifications do not satisfy the threshold of originality. However, I would still prefer if more meaningful copyright information was displayed. Can someone please elucidate this issue to me? Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Upload process missing attribution step

Hello. I have been uploading my own files based on the work of others. I noticed that in the upload process, I am asked if my work is based on that of others and I answer yes. The problem is that the process doesn't include for providing attribution to the author of the original work nor of their license they shared the work with. I have to make an edit to add that information after the upload process is finished.

For example take a look at the File:Zacapa and its neighbors.svg. I built upon an original map by Tubs, who had shared their work with a CCA3 unported. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Thinker78: This should fix the attribution for the particular image, but you might want to take this up at Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements, assuming that your "upload process" involved the Wizard. - Jmabel ! talk 11:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

{{EC-Audiovisual Center}}

Good evening! A few days ago, member Roman Kubanskiy made changes to the template for European Commission materials, adding a CC BY 4.0 license along with attribution. Is this a correct edit or a blunder? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/copyright

The audiovisual material (still images, moving images and sound sequences) owned by the EU and made available on the website of the Audiovisual Service of the European Commission is subject to the Commission’s reuse policy, set out by the Commission Decision of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents.

Unless otherwise indicated (e.g. in individual copyright notices), content owned by the EU on this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. This means that reuse is allowed, provided appropriate credit is given and changes are indicated.

Credit:

Users are requested to refer to the credit which accompanies each individual file.

Where nothing else is indicated, please quote the following copyright: © European Union, 2024, CC BY 4.0
Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Roman Kubanskiy Спасибо. Таким образом, для материалов Европейской комиссии только атрибуция и CC BY 4.0? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

copyright status of japanese pre-WW2 propaganda movies

Hi. Does anyone know the copyright status of pre-WW2 (1930 - 1936) japanese governmental and military information and propaganda films? I think they should be public domain as they are published before 1956 and more than 38 years ago (following the 1971 copyright law) but I´m not completely sure as there is no author given besides the governmental organisation publishing it. Yours Mastertom211 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, these are OK. {{PD-Japan-film}} applies. Yann (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright of scans of 1815 German book

Hi. I have just uploaded this image File:ArminiusHermannEinDialog1.jpg because I thought it was public domain, but wanted to check here incase. The file is sourced from this website https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb11712393?page=,1, (German website) where it says that files can only be used for non-commercial purposes. However, because the original text was published in 1815 and the file is a simple scan of the text, I concluded that the files cannot be copyrighted. Is this correct? Or did I misunderstand the German copyright laws? Thanks in advance! Medarduss (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, anything that old is in the public domain worldwide. I changed the license to {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}}. Yann (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Are these two images still protected by copyright?

This is Walt Disney's work. Is the copyright term calculated based on the year of Disney's death + 71 years or the year of release of Disney's corporate artwork + 95 years? These two images are certainly in the public domain according to the first calculation method, but according to the second calculation method, there is no doubt that they are still protected by copyright until 2036.

• File:Pinochio2 1940.jpg
• File:Pinocchio 1940.jpg

Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither; as US works, they needed copyright notices, and apparently the original trailer didn't have them. (In the US, only works first published after 1977 are life plus 70.) --Prosfilaes (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Evidence that an image is accepted as Public domain

Hi there, I recently uploaded File:Drawing of the Shrine of Little St Hugh, Lincoln Cathedral, William Dugdale, 1641.png. The image is discussed at this Wikipedia FAC Image Review, where I was asked when it was first published: the answer being 1986. This means it may be in copyright as a relatively newly published work. Information is unclear. However, I contacted the British Library as the repository and owner of the original domcument and they have confirmed by email that they regard the original as public domain, thus scans or photographs would count as copyright free; they have no objection to the image being published here. I understand that WP may have a process to record this, such as keeping email records etc - can someone point me to what I should do to ensure WMF has a copy of this confirmation? JimKillock (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that while the British library is presumably only concerned with UK copyright, the Hirtle Chart seems to suggest that US copyright in this 1641 (!) work that was apparently first published in 1984 would not expire until 2047 at the earliest...

Is there perhaps known to have been any contemporary manuscript circulation which could render in "published" under US standards closer to its creation date? Felix QW (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Was it actually published in 1984 with the consent of the heirs of the original copyright holder (whoever that was)? If not, then it falls under {{PD-US-unpublished}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Very good catch! But how does that work if an unpublished piece is in the public domain as an old unpublished work until it gets published, from which time it apparently reverts to being in copyright per the Hirtle Chart? Wouldn't that mean that there was no copyright holder to consent at that point? Or would that mean that "publication" in the US sense is no longer possible when 120 years have passed since creation? Felix QW (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If there was no publication with permission, it remains technically unpublished. The infinite protection expired (in the U.S.) as of 2003, so it would have been PD since then. The infinite UK protection could last until 2040. In the U.S., unpublished works got somewhat nebulous "common law" protection but not the protections in the federal law until published. In 1978 common law copyright was abolished, but gave 25 years automatic federal protection from there, and an additional 45 years if such works got first published (legally) between 1978 and before 2003. The UK abolished their unpublished treatment as of 1989, giving 50 years of protection from there, which will expire in 2040. (UK photographs before 1957 had a term based on creation, not publication, so those were not included in that.). But determining truly "unpublished", or if it's PD simply by virtue of existing before copyright itself existed, are all difficult or hypothetical questions really. If nobody is claiming a copyright, let it sit I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As for the main question, I think you can forward emails to the COM:VRT team so they have them on record. The email address is on that linked page. Normally they want communications directly from the copyright owner, not forwarded, but in a case like this (where there is no copyright owner) not sure it matters. Those would certainly be helpful to archive, in case there are future questions. I'm not sure how someone arrives at a 1986 publication date, though. Odds are it was published long, long before that. If actually true, there could still be a U.S. copyright on it, though it would take a pretty extraordinary set of circumstances (and it's so old that the UK and US could actually share some copyright history and status on the work, since it predates copyright itself). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

In case that helps, it seems to me that the original author gave the sole manuscript to his patron Sir Christopher Hatton, where it remained in the family archive for many generations until recently. Felix QW (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The drawing was used to create several derivative works for example File:Shrine of Little St Hugh of Lincoln.png published in 1773, and somewhere in Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum but AIUI the original drawing just sat in an archive.

The BL's email state that it is "public domain". If WM wanted to follow up for confirmation I would hope they would supply it. That might remove any doubt re international "copyright" in this 1641 work that was created when copyright did not exist … etc

Meantime I've emailed the team with the emails as attachments and recommended they email the BL directly if they want more secure confirmation. I'll cc the team another time! JimKillock (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Just giving it to the patron may have qualified for (pre-1978) U.S. definition of publication. It's not worth spending time on, really -- something that old would be a miracle to still have protection in either country. The UK did have the same infinite unpublished status until 1989 (existing unpublished works, other than photos, got a 50-year term starting then) so there are some theoretical possibilities. But you get into questions if copyright even attaches to something that old, etc. (it predates the Statute of Anne even). There are hypotheticals on hypotheticals, different definitions of "unpublished" and so on. I would only spend time on it if they were claiming a copyright, and just assume PD-old on it at this point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Uploading photo

I would like to upload this photo from ZooKeys >https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/106278/zoom/fig/11/, but i can't find the license. There are similar photos, e.g. this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aphonopelma_anax_female_ZooKeys_560.jpg (from ZooKeys) and it is uploaded on Creative Commons 3.0. Can i upload previously mentioned photo? Mirus255 (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The original source is this ZooKeys article, which is released under CC-BY 4.0. So you can absolutely upload it and mark it with the CC-BY 4.0 attribution license. Felix QW (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for answer! Mirus255 (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)