Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


Sint Maarten Government Images[edit]

I have reviewed the Commons copyright rules of Sint Maarten and the Netherlands. As I understand it, copyright in Sint Maarten is governed by the Auteursverordening (Author's Regulation).

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.

Thanks in advance for your help. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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."
Same language can be found here too.
What is your interpretation of that? Are images hosted on the Government of Sint Maarten or the Parliament of Sint Maarten subject to any copyright restrictions? Thanks, Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Classicwiki The legal text is a good find, by the way! We should probably link to it from COM:Sint Maarten. Felix QW (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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.
@Felix QW, where do you think I should put the link? Background or Not protected section? -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think updating the link in the background section would make most sense. Felix QW (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV screenshots and US copyright law[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"Fair Use" photo[edit]

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.

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Got it. Thanks for the quick reply! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and links so I can understand this better when considering other images! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
By publishing without notice means that the newspaper issue that included the photograph did not include a copyright notice saying for example © 2024 Bedivere. All rights reserved. Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
You are completely correct @Marchjuly, I stand corrected. Bedivere (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the law, but in practice the delayed registration thing for works with no notice was rare, maybe vanishingly rare. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Thank you Clindberg for clarying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media created by Fars News Agency[edit]

Recently, Fars News Agency had redesigned their site, and they removed the older CC-BY-SA 4.0 notice from their site, and replaced it with "© 1401 Fars, Inc.". The earliest instance of the new design was on Feb 17th according to Wayback Machine.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Holy Door of St. Peter's Basilica[edit]

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)[reply]

1968 image free to use?[edit]

This image is hosted by the Huntington Library, but I don’t see any copyright terms listed on the page. BhamBoi (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Adamant1: please don't advise people to upload images of questionable copyright status just because someone else did. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Adamant1: do you know the term "apophasis"? If not, look it up. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Kodachrome was "slide film", no negative. The existence of a slide proves nothing more than that it was developed. - Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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 ! talk 03:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

file:2010 Apple Bowl Winners.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

John Baker pic: copyright status[edit]

I've found a good pic of John Baker, but the work is copyrighted by The Royal Society; the picture was shot in 1958 by Bassano Ltd. I'm pretty sure it is not OK for Commons, but I ask it anyway.-- Carnby (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

2023 Kosovar Law on Copyright and Related Rights[edit]

Page that may need updating: COM:CRT/Kosovo.

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?

Ping all participants of the CRT/Kosovo talk page: @Bes-ART, Clindberg, Aymatth2, and Arianit: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info here is what I consider the official version (in Albanian): [1]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Albinfo the Kosovar FoP bears striking similarity to Moldovan FoP. Both anyway patterned their laws upon EU standards. Portugese FoP has identical FoP word construction, too. However, the Portuguese FoP commentators do not speak of restrictions to uses of 2D works. However, the current interpretation of the Moldovan FoP is that 2D works are excluded, at least as per longtime admin @Jameslwoodward: (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#FOP Moldova seems to not limit 2D works). Further clarity on the Kosovar FoP treatment on 2D works is needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2D works eligibility should be clarified as soon as possible. I thought w:en:File:Bill Clinton Boulevard2.jpg (which I requested for undeletion) refers to the statue of Bill Clinton, but it turned out to be an outdoor poster (or mural as the uploader claimed). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Partula otaheitana[edit]

I have uploaded two images [2] and [3] that I have now realized do not have any listed copyright (see [4]). How do I remove them? 0x16w (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Films of Romania[edit]

Hi, Does anyone what is the copyright term for films of Romania? Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania doesn't mention films. This concerns File:Manasse (1925) by Jean Mihail.webm. It is in the public domain is USA, but may be not in Romania. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

YouTube video with two licenses[edit]

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? reppoptalk 23:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ! talk 01:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Films of Japan[edit]

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)[reply]

No source but PD-old?[edit]

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)[reply]

The portrait seems formal enough to me to be a portrait published soon after creation, so I would be alright with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Felix QW (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

URAA Restoration of Turkish works[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Updated FoP in Mongolia[edit]

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.

Ping Commons users whom I known to have participated in FoP-related forums and threads: @Clindberg, Ox1997cow, Abzeronow, Adamant1, Yann, A1 Savin, Rubin16, and Brianjd: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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,
  • 46.2. Энэ хуулийн 46.1.1 дэх заалт нь архитектурын бүтээлийг барилга болон барилга байгууламж хэлбэрээр шууд, эсхүл шууд бусаар ашиг олох зорилгоор бүхэлд нь хуулбарлах эрхийг олгохгүй.
Which translates to:
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Chinneeb@Clindberg@Ox1997cow I have updated both Commons:Freedom of panorama/table and my userspace page at Metawiki here. More clarification is still needed for the applicability of permanent works found in "public indoors". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think there's a green light now for admins to undelete all images of Mongolian buildings and sculptures found outdoors (deleted cases are at Category:Mongolian FOP cases/deleted). Those found in public indoors can be requested for deletion later (at COM:UNDEL) if things have been clarified. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ivan the Terrible (1944 film)[edit]

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)[reply]

Conflicting authorship information for two images[edit]

Back in 2011 Adrian Basil (talk · contribs) uploaded the two files

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GBIF[edit]

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)[reply]

Hi, Yes, there is a clear CC-0 license at the source. You should require a {{Licensereview}} for all images. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the template to all uploaded images. Many thanks! NewUniverse (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Corporate Authorship[edit]

I was looking at uploading some older Canadian works, however I am confused as to how copyright works for companies/corporate authorship. The copyright claimant is not a person but the company. (Ex: © Company 1952). I cannot find any clear info online when something under copyright to a company would enter the Public Domain as it is based on the life of author. Do we just use the Unknown/Anonymous copyright tag? PascalHD (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Rosenzweig τ 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

File:Songs and Amapola.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=876990725"