Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

U.S. coin related deletion discussions[edit]

The community should be aware of the large number of U.S. coins currently subject to deletion discussions relating to their copyright status. These deletion discussions are primarily based on prior discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/Post 2003 U.S. commemorative coins designed by AIP artists or as part of a competition, Commons:Deletion requests/Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images, and Commons:Deletion requests/US Mint Registered Copyrights. While I thought the underlying issue governing these coins' copyright statuses was largely settled (which is why I filed so many DRs), some who did not have a chance to express opposition to the previous DRs have expressed concern now. As prior deletion discussions on this issue did not garner much community input, I think it's valuable to post such a broad action here to try to settle this once and for all. Central discussion here may be more valuable and less time-consuming than discussions at each of the DR pages.

Artistic Infusion Program contractor-related deletion discussions[edit]

Definition of a free license deletion discussions (also related to AIP)[edit]

Mysteryman blue 05:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Forum shopping since blue may not be getting the replies they want. Will copy-paste the three replies at one forum below. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: There are a large number of deletion requests about the same thing. A centralized discussion makes the most sense and saves time for everyone. This forum should contain a representative sample of the community. If I wanted to forum shop (which is not what I wanted to do), I would have only posted about three of the DRs, since they are the only ones with a significant amount of opposition. As the nominator of these files, it would theoretically be in my best interest to try to force anyone who opposed me to seek out each of these nomination pages individually and spend time making comment at each of them. Of course, I don't want to do that because my goal here is not to get internet victory points. Mysteryman blue 18:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I purposely kept away from adding to this today because I obviously wrote the above in haste and forgetting "assume good faith", so my apologies. Hopefully internet victory points (collect all 10!) go with allowing articles like the First Spouse Program and American Liberty high relief gold coin to roam free, and not be decimated for really nothing (as nobody involved with the coins or images has complained, officials of the mint and everyone of authority involved have to know that these images are being hosted on Wikipedia pages, and are fine with sharing the images with the public). Others seem to have adequately rebutted the nomination below, and yes, it makes sense to hold this discussion in one spot. When that occurs in the middle of the discussions then that jumbles the various threads-of-thought, and I was reacting from that. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep all No indication that the US Mint is claiming copyright on these coins or that these images may not be used here. These must not be deleted without appropriate reuploading first. Reywas92 (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep all per Reywas92. Removing images so valuable to a major coinage article and related pages seems to unnecessarily undermine the purpose of Wikipedia. If someone official was going to complain that these are being used they would have done so a long time ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep all - Reywas92 and Randy Kryn make a valid point. I think all of Mysterymanblue's recent deletion nominations of US coins should be reviewed based on this. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note that Commons:Determining if U.S. coins are free to use was created by Mysterymanblue apparently without prior discussion (please correct me if I'm wrong) and appears to be misinterpreting sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@ZLEA: The page was created after several deletion discussions for U.S. coins ended in the decision to delete. It is primarily based off of the precedents created by those discussions. If you think any of the information on that page is wrong, you are free to correct it. I always say "For reasons explained at Commons:Determining if U.S. coins are free to use" instead of "Per Commons:Determining if U.S. coins are free to use" in these discussions. This is because I am not asserting that the page itself has authority, but rather imploring people to go read it and let the reasoning presented therein stand on its own. Commons:Determining if U.S. coins are free to use is written and represented as a help page, not a policy or guideline. Apologies if there was any confusion. I have clarified this in a new hatnote at the top of the page. Mysteryman blue 18:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment Wikimedia Commons does not allow content that is not freely usable. The utility of a work is not a valid reason to keep it on Wikimedia Commons if it is a copyright violation. The fact that the U.S. mint has not written "COPYRIGHT U.S. MINT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" on its coins does not mean that they are freely usable. Per COM:PRP, "The copyright owner will not mind" is not a valid reason to keep a non-free work on Commons. There is no mechanism in current U.S. law under which a failure to actively claim a copyright will cause a copyright holder to lose copyright in that work.

Under 17 U.S. Code § 105(a), works of the United States government are generally in the public domain; a work of the United States government is defined by 17 U.S. Code § 101 as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". This law is the reason that most works created for the federal government are in the public domain; you can see this clause in action at {{PD-USGov}}, for example. Absent from this law is an automatic mechanism that causes works of federal government contractors to enter the public domain. In fact, "the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (17 U.S. Code § 105(a)). The contract signed by AIP participants describes them as "contractors" and forces each of them to "[assign] all rights, title and interest to the United States Mint in any and all Work Product produced or created under this contract and all drafts thereof, including all worldwide copyright ownership rights in such Work Product." The mint absolutely owns the copyright over these works, and we have no reason to believe that it has released them under a free license. Mysteryman blue 18:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

That argument would be valid if the coins were 2D art. However, they are by no means 2D art, but rather 3D engravings of the 2D copyrighted art. As Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. only covers undoctored scans of 2D art, the above comment would only apply to the original 2D line drawings of the coins. The actual coins, however, are not protected by Bridgeman v. Corel, and therefore a new copyright is created when a Mint employee photographs the coins. This new copyright is forfeited as works by US Government employees are ineligible for domestic copyright protection per 17 U.S. Code § 105. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@ZLEA: Although photographs of U.S. coins have separate copyrightability, I think that you are misinterpreting the impact of that ruling. Essentially, there are three layers of potential protection for a photograph of a U.S. coin: the photograph is a derivative work of the 3D sculpture, which is a derivative work of the 2D design. The photograph and 3D sculpture may have been created by employees of the United States government, but if the underlying design was created by a contractor, the photograph is still non-free. This is because derivative works are not just protected by their own copyright, but also by the copyright of the material they are based on. It's for this reason that photographs of non-free statues that are otherwise correctly licensed are forbidden on Commons. Mysteryman blue 20:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mysterymanblue's reasoning above. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep all - Reywas92, Randy Kryn, and ZLEA T\C all made good points. --Taterian (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
So we have 4 people here agreeing with the argument "No indication that the US Mint is claiming copyright on these coins". However, no one has suggested that the US Mint has claimed copyright, and it would be absurd if they did (as the US Mint is a federal agency). It seems that none of the people participating in the discussion here have even bothered reading the deletion discussions to understand why the files are nominated for deletion, which has nothing to do with the US Mint. I suggest closing this discussion and letting the deletion discussions run their course, as this discussion is not actually shedding any light on the situation. Nosferattus (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: Well, it does have something to do with the United States Mint. As noted above, the contract signed by the designers of the coins transfers the copyright in their designs to the U.S. mint; the U.S. mint is the copyright holder. At least, that is what I am claiming. Mysteryman blue 11:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Regardless, we don't accept "Copyright holder isn't enforcing copyright" as a valid free license. Commons:Licensing requires that all files either be public domain or "explicitly freely licensed". Nosferattus (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

How about stopping making disgraceful assumptions about other commoners, as well as muddling the copyright law, and instead bring into this thread a wikimedia foundation lawyer. Just a thought. --Taterian (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Taterian: What "disgraceful assumptions about other commoners"? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes copyright? (Vietnamese law of 1994)[edit]

Quoting Nội dung toàn văn Ordinance No. 38-L/CTN1 of December 02, 1994, on protection of copyright:

"Article 7.- The author or the owner of copyright, as prescribed in Article 24 of this Ordinance, must comply to all provisions of law when he uses his copyright.

The State does not protect the copyright of the works which:

1. Go against the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, damage the bloc of unity of the people;
2. Campaign for violence, aggressive wars, sow hatred among nations, diffuse reactionary ideologies and cultures, depraved and debauched life, criminal behaviors, social evils, superstitions, which sabotage the fine customs and habits;
3. Disclose secrets of the Party, State, military and security secrets related to the economy, foreign policies, private life of citizens, and other secrets which are protected by law;
4. Distort history, negate revolutionary achievements, offend great men and national heroes, slander and hurt the prestige of organizations, and the honor and dignity of citizens."

(Text is in the public domain per "PD-VietnamGov" as an official translation.)

Any works from the Republic of Vietnam's government can be seen as #7 § 1, at least it States that such works are not eligible for copyright protections, not sure if this is the same as base copyright. Or does this assert that copyright © exists for such works but that the Vietnamese government wouldn't enforce it?

Also note that the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam does not recognise the legitimacy of the Republic of Vietnam, instead they claim that South Vietnam was ruled by the Republic of South Vietnam and that the Republic of Vietnam was an illegal occupation of the territory of the Republic of South Vietnam. So I don't think that Socialist Republic Vietnamese law treats Republic of Vietnam works as Vietnamese government works as they assert that the Republic of South Vietnam was the sole legitimate government at the time.

Also, symbols of the Republic of Vietnam are illegal in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, are illegal things copyrightable? (Where the illegality stems from something other than copyright infringement itself). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have another doubt here: what is the country of origin as per Commons policy and per URAA: Vietnam? The non-existent South Vietnam? Countries sometimes stop existing, they sometimes have no legal successors. While their citizens generally get new citizenship, we may have policy-related problem with anonymous/pseudonymous/government works from such countries. I suspect that works first published in South Vietnam do not fall under URAA. But unsure, which local copyright law should we apply per Commns policies: South-Vietnamese? ridiculous. Vietnamese? on what basis? Consider them PD? Ankry (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think anonymous/pseudonymous works will just be considered to come from (Socialist) Vietnam, which has jurisdiction over authors from all of Vietnam. However, works by the South Vietnamese government, an entity that no longer functionally exists and is considered illegal by the government in charge (certainly prior to 1996, and still to this day), can be considered public domain, as neither the Vietnamese nor US government will protect those copyrights. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see also this argument put forth by Ankry, I think that this might require a larger community discussion, and it might also apply to other historical modern governments that aren't recognised and not a party to the Berne Convention and/or signed the URAA. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't apply elsewhere; it only applies here because of specific law of Vietnam. Biafrian works, by international and local understanding, are Nigerian works and protected (as far as I know) by Nigerian law. Works of the Biafrian government are probably considered to have escheated to ownership of the Nigerian government.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My concept draft for "{{PD-South VietnamGov}}":

This file is a government work by either the government of the French protectorate of Tonkin, the French protectorate of Annam, the colony of Cochinchina, the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina, the Republic of Southern Vietnam, the Provisional Central Government of Vietnam, the State of Vietnam, the First Republic of Vietnam, or the Second Republic of Vietnam and is therefore intelligible for copyright in modern Vietnamese law. The government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam maintains that between 2 September 1945 and 2 July 1976 only the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of South Vietnam were legitimate governments and that any rival governments were illegal ("reactionary" or "counter-revolutionary") organisations.

This template excludes:

Works by private or corporate authors which fall under the jurisdiction of the modern Vietnamese government.

Works by the governments of the Nguyễn dynasty, French Cochinchina, and French Indochina prior to 2 September 1945, these are "{{PD-Vietnam}}" on different grounds.

Legal disclaimer:

This image is or may contain a symbol or symbols prohibited by Vietnam's National Assembly, due to (variously) representations of South Vietnam, or similar governmental structures; or of organizations associated with said. Imagery covered may include the Flag of South Vietnam and emblems/insignias.

Template:PD-South VietnamGov/lang

Notes, I use the term "South Vietnam" as a catch-all term to include any Vietnamese government other than the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of South Vietnam between 2 September 1945 and 2 July 1976, as all of these governments were treated the same, but as this includes a lot of different countries it is better to use the name of the longest extend and "most associated" country from this period.

Also note that in English the names "Republic of Southern Vietnam" (Cộng-hòa Nam-phần Việt-Nam) and the "Republic of South Vietnam" (Cộng-hòa Miền-Nam Việt-Nam) sound similar, but only one is considered to have been "a legitimate government" by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam today. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Update, I have launched the template, anyone is free to improve the text there and I don't think that I've made any errors with the laws. I have brought this topic up numerous times since 2017 but usually didn't receive any input from any other contribitors, I think that "South Vietnam" works as a good short hand here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Videoconferencing[edit]

Do we assume by default that the participants provide their image to the [reliable] final publisher under the [free] license designated by the latter? Or should the permission be expressed more explicitly? Should those participants be considered as the co-authors at all? Can't find any policies on this matter.

For example, may I upload the images of Christo Grozev from his conversations with the Bulgarian national TV and with the Bulgarian vlogger? Thanks. --INS Pirat (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@INS Pirat: I am of the opinion that, no, it is not OK to host screenshots/photographs of videoconference participants without copyright releases from them, because video feeds are individually protected by each of the participants. Mysteryman blue 02:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Mysterymanblue, and what do you think regarding the "fixation" concept addressed in the discussion linked below? --INS Pirat (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, with no clear consensus: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/08#Zoom video meetings. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Are all of the works below subject to {{PD-animal}}?[edit]

Works that can be protected by copyright law are human works, and animal works are not subject to copyright law.

If so, are all of the works below subject to {{PD-animal}}?

1. A pattern on the leather caused by a wolf or tiger biting and scratching the leather

2. A paint pattern created by a dog or cat with paint on their paws moving around the paper

And, why no {{PD-plant}}?

Do you think it will be the subject of PD-plant if it is a work made in such a way as to cut rocks or walls as plants grow?

Ox1997cow (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A tree or tiger or a rock itself has no legal right to copyright, but a human-generated photograph or painting of that object is potentially copyrightable, as creative choices are involved in framing, lighting, composition, etc. Bite marks or claw marks are not copyrightable themselves, but a photograph of the marks might surpass the threshold of originality. See Category:PD-animal. A simple scan of a painting made by an animal would probably be ineligible for copyright per {{PD-animal}}, but a photograph of a nest made by a bird is copyrightable. Do you have any particular images in mind? If you can get a plant to paint a picture or operate a camera, maybe then we can discuss {{PD-plant}}. --Animalparty (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This template should be deleted as it has no basis in copyright law.

There are a handful of works - paintings by elephants - for which this is applicable. In all the others, this is relying on sheer invention within Wikimedia, who have no legal authority. In particular, the infamous monkey selfie, for which this template was invented.

This template is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question. It states that the content is PD, as animals cannot hold copyright (indeed they can't, vide the elephant painting case). However it fails to address the very real question of whether anyone else holds it, as Slater claims for the monkey selfie case. Per COM:PCP, it is simply outside Commons' remit to make such judgements. The monkey selfie is the worst case, as it flies so obviously in the face of PCP, but Commons should never be making such an assumption. As a result, there is is no case when this template could legitimately be used. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As I understand the situation, it is the position of the Wikimedia foundation that works created by non-human animals are in the public domain, as evidenced by the lawsuit over the monkey selfie. For this reason, we act like it is settled law that these works are in the public domain, with the hope that, should anyone sue over the removal of one of these works, the foundation will back us up.

Does this go against the precautionary principle? Perhaps. But I, for one, am partial to the idea that the precautionary principle is for where the facts of a particular case are in question, rather than where a bold legal claim (that is rooted in reality) is being made. Mysteryman blue 20:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I like to view PCP as the overarching principle on Commons, much as IAR is the overarching principle on Wikipedia. But that doesn't make them super-policies in the constitutional sense which all other policies and guidelines are subservient to. It just means that it's the default mindset to be in when you are unsure what to do. So it's OK for the community to follow aggressive interpretations of the law such as {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-animal}}, especially if implicitly or explicitly endorsed by WMF legal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"works created by non-human animals are in the public domain, as evidenced by the lawsuit over the monkey selfie"

But there is no such case, no such conclusion. It is "settled law" only in the minds of Wikimedia, no-one else.

Perhaps "works created by non-human animals are in the public domain", but that also depends on a conclusion that the sole creator was an animal. The monkey selfie still faces Slater's claim to hold the copyright (David Slater is a human and can indeed hold copyright, at least when Wikimedia permits him to) and that is far from settled law. If the "facts" are so clear, then it would be easy to cite the relevant case law. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I am aware. I think you took my words out of context. I said "it is the position of the Wikimedia foundation that works created by non-human animals are in the public domain, as evidenced by the lawsuit over the monkey selfie." I am not saying that the lawsuit shows that non-human authorship implies public domain status, but rather that the lawsuit shows that the foundation has taken a particular point of view on this issue. The law is not clear, but I don't think it's an absurd conclusion for us to operate under, especially with the backing of the foundation. Mysteryman blue 01:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That is maybe the case, but what that says is that WMF has indeed appointed itself as the arbiter of the law (it has no such power). Also that COM:PCP has been abandoned - surely this is precisely the sort of case for which PCP was intended? The Slater case law might go one way or the other, but one thing we can say for sure about a situation which attracts the lawsuits this one has is that there is significant doubt attached to it. Slater has suffered inexcusable harm from WP's actions here, WP has also suffered harm to its reputation as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear; the WMF has appointed itself arbiter of the law in the same way that everyone does and everyone has to. You made your statements having considered libel law, knowing that no court has ruled on your exact case; the WMF did not delete the file having considered copyright law, knowing that no court has ruled on their exact case. If no one is willing to take the case to court, then case law will never be written.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

COM:PCP point #1, "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to." Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Which is getting it backwards; it is in our best interest to have this settled in the case law, instead of us running away from images we could use. It is expected that the copyright owner could sue the WMF, and the WMF is prepared to deal with that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably clearer, maybe even better, to have this settled in law by a clear judgement. But no part of WMF intention should ever say, "Let's force the copyright owner to sue us first and see how a judge decides"! (Nor does it) Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You're assuming there is a copyright holder, when that's what is under discussion. There was wide consensus that we should do just that in a poll on COM:PD-ART, and on that page, the WMF response is

"WMF has made it clear that in the absence of even a strong legal complaint, we don't think it's a good idea to dignify such claims of copyright on public domain works. And, if we ever were seriously legally challenged, we would have a good internal debate about whether we'd fight such a case, and build publicity around it. This is neither a policy change (at least from WMF's point of view), nor is it a change that has implications for other Commons policies."

So that is WMF intention, as stated on a parallel case 12 years ago.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You can't take a legal opinion on a different issue and extrapolate it here like that.

"dignify such claims of copyright on public domain" is begging the question. You can't claim "there is no copyright because we've decided there isn't, therefor we won't even address that question". For the case of mechanical reproduction of PD Art (the case you cite), then there is a pre-existing, independent legal basis for believing this to be PD. It's an existing principle, WMF would be right to defend it.

A principle, "We spent Wikimania with the Jimborati waving around posters of the monkey selfie. It would be unusually embarassing to have to admit this was wrong." has no legal basis. Nor have I seen this "We're here because we're here" principle espoused by anyone after the selfie was uploaded, until Wikimania took to gloating over it. This is doubly offensive: it's not merely ignoring Slater's claim (right against COM:PCP), it's revelling in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: It's not just the WMF; the United States Copyright Office explicitly says that they will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants, and give "a photograph taken by a monkey" as an example of this (Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, section 313.2) Vahurzpu (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Several issues: That has absolutely zero relevance to my point. My first comment here was "elephants can't hold copyright", no-one (outside PETA) claims that they do. But the point here is that this is no reason whatsoever that David Slater doesn't, an issue which US courts have not as yet ruled upon.

Secondly, that's the Compendium. It's advisory, explanatory and generally correct - but it doesn't set the law, courts do.

As a third point, it doesn't even matter if the US sees no copyright here, Slater might hold a valid copyright elsewhere, and WMF policy (and PCP) is clear that that would be enough to prevent it being here, whatever the US situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It's also not settled law that the individual that designed the autofocus and thus had some creative control of the monkey selfie doesn't have copyright. But I think it in our interest, and in everyone's, to minimize extraneous copyright claims, and if it were a bunch of children, I don't think we'd be giving much voice to Slater's copyright claims.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your original question, {{PD-plant}} could certainly exist, much as {{PD-river}} for say photos of the Grand Canyon. But it is so obvious to anyone that a river or other geological process cannot own copyright that we don't need to point out that it's OK to make "derivatives" of "works" created by these inanimate objects, which includes plants. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

PD-Canada-anon[edit]

Currently, {{PD-Canada-anon}} says that anonymous works in Canada are PD 50 years after publication or 75 years after creation. However, I am unable to find evidence of the 50-year rule in the Copyright Act. In fact, 6.1 (1) seems to imply:

75 years after creation, if unpublished while still in copyright; or
75 years after publication or 100 years after creation, whichever is shorter.

Can someone double-check if this is correct? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It's correct. It was 50 and 75 until (I think) July 1, 2020, when Canada's updated copyright law (for the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement) went into effect. They increased the term of a few types of works/situations, with anonymous being one of them (they are still 50pma for usual works though). The increase was non-retroactive, so works expired under the old terms by 2020 remain PD. Wipolex doesn't have the updated law yet, actually -- their latest Canada version is from 2019. So yes, that tag needs updating, though it will be works published before 1970 or created before 1945, until 2046 when anonymous expirations will start again. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Slight correction -- unpublished anonymous works continue to expire after 75 years. So just published anonymous works get their term extended by 25 years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Please take a look at Template:PD-Canada-anon/en and let me know what you think. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

In the discussion last year on this question in /Archive/2020/07, it seems my search of the government websites missed one of the two orders in council issued in connection with the implementation act, number 2020-0215. That made me erroneously suggest to wait before changing the anon template. I'm sorry about that. The effect of this order in council was indeed to make section 24 of the implementation act (the change about anonymous works) come into force on 1 July 2020, a few days before the VP/C discussion, as Clindberg correctly mentions above. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of amusing that it had just come into effect when that discussion happened, but we hadn't located the actual text. On the other hand, it appears that Canada was not forced to go to 70pma after all, since the new law is still 50pma as a general term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clindberg: The explanation seems to be in article 20.89(4)(a) of the Agreement, which allows a transition period for the implementation of this particular point, until no later than 1 January 2023. I suppose another implementation act can be expected for this at some time before then. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this YouTube screenshot of a celebrity acceptable?[edit]

Dear admin,

Please advice whether this YouTube screenshot is acceptable as an actor profile picture on his Wikipedia page.

If not, please inform on how I should solve this. Thank you...

The current photo on his wiki is also a screenshot from YouTube.

There are a few like this that were approved. For example: Photo for Kim Soo-hyun, Park Si-hoo, Lee Tae-min, and many more.

Picture I want to upload: [deleted]

YouTube source: KBS World TV

Caption: Jang Dong-yoon as MC for 2019 KBS Entertainment Awards

Date: 21 December, 2019.

License:

This video, screenshot or audio excerpt was originally uploaded on YouTube under a CC license.

Their website states: "YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license."

To the uploader: You must provide a link (URL) to the original file and the authorship information if available.

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

Attribution: KBS World TV

You are free:

to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

CC BY 3.0 Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 truetrue

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunva718 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chunva718: It doesn't look like the Youtube source you provided is released under a Creative Commons license. Youtube videos aren't allowed to be uploaded here unless it's explicitly released with a free license. Please see Commons:YouTube files for further information. -M.nelson (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@M.nelson: Finally... Thank you so much for the information. It's really helpful. 1 more thing, I read that repeated copyright violations can get a user suspended. Please inform me how many times a user can upload pictures with copyright issues until it's deemed necessary to get the user suspended... Thanks again.Chunva718 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Chunva718: You're welcome. There isn't a specific number of allowed uploads with issues before a user is blocked - the blocking policy is at COM:Blocking policy. Generally a user is blocked if they continue to break policies even after having been warned and given a chance to improve. -M.nelson (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  - @M.nelson: "even after having been warned". Well, I've got auto message like this, 3 times now: "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyright infringement / piracy. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing." Is this the form of warning that you meant about? I'd be very discouraged to upload medias now that I'd received that 3 times... Chunva718 (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
    - @Chunva718: No, if you're at risk of being blocked you will usually get a warning even more direct than that, with a very clear message like "You may be blocked soon". I don't think you'll be blocked if you make an honest mistake in the future. But you should only upload things if you're confident that they are freely-licensed, following the rules at Commons:Licensing, and if you aren't sure then it's much better to ask for advice like you did here. -M.nelson (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

WappenWiki[edit]

Should we add WappenWiki.org to the bad sources list, because this site has been licensed as {{Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}}, and it's ineligible on Commons. --49.150.98.214 05:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems like much of the content is old enough to be PD anyways. Commons:Problematic sources may be a better place for it, but as I've never heard of it, it might not be important enough to merit a feature on any of our pages. Just treat it like any other website, which by default is non-free but may contain some PD content. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: It depends COM:COPYVIO, this site is licensed under {{Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}}, but non-commercial Creative Commons license is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. --49.150.98.214 01:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because someone puts a {{Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}} on something, doesn't mean that it's not acceptable for Commons. It's as if they chose to not license it at all. It might still be PD, in which case any claims of copyright amount to copyfraud. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

argentina.gob.ar[edit]

The website of the Government of Argentina states that all contents are licensed under {{Cc-by-4.0}} unless otherwise stated. However, Paul_012 found a total of 9 images from Getty Images, with another photographers attributed on Getty's website. Given by the large amount of images copied, should we list argentina.gob.ar on COM:BAD or COM:PRS? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that an image appears on the Getty website does not mean that it is still under copyright. There are a number of images on the Getty website depicting the Boer War (1899-1902). All are out of copyright. Furthermore, Almy make a charge for some Creative Commons images, even if they are available free elsewhere, for example this image is also available here. Martinvl (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The cases in question (2020 Olympics photos) are all commercial images by professional photojournalists unaffiliated with the Argentinian government, and the CC licence clearly is not supposed to cover them. I don't know if the government has licensed the images, or if Argentinian law allows their use, but they should have been "noted otherwise", per their terms. This seems to have been a failure on the part of the employee who created pages such as [1] and [2]. The question is whether such failure is a prominent problem on the site (all ministries appear to be hosted on that domain). There are a lot of images from argentina.gob.ar on Commons (Special:Search/"argentina.gob.ar"); from a brief glance, the majority don't seem to be problematic. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Martinvl concern about media agencies, King of Hearts stated in another discussion that images sold Getty are generally original to their photographers, while Alamy has a history of stealing Commons images. When combined with the comments of User:Paul 012, is listing the website on COM:PRS suitable?廣九直通車 (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-US government works, copyright term, and URAA[edit]

I have a collection of maps published by the South African government over many years but I'm not sure of the copyright status and which would be allowable on Commons. The South African copyright law establishes a term of 50 years from publication for government works - see {{PD-SAGov}} - which means that all maps published up to 1970 are now in the public domain in South Africa. But when it comes to the copyright status in the US I am uncertain as most of the guides involve the death of the author as one of the factors, and that doesn't apply here. I understand that those maps published up to 1945 are definitely in the US public domain as they were already PD in South Africa on the URAA date in 1996. But what of the maps published from 1946 to 1970? Do they really have a US copyright term of 95 years because of URAA? It seems illogical that the SA government could claim longer copyright for its works overseas than it has given its own works by its own laws. But I realise the law is not always logical. - Htonl (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] To get rid of that illogicality, many countries practice the Rule of the shorter term – but the USA does not. The USA gives the same protection to foreign (Berne country) works as to domestic ones, regardless of the law in the country of origin. So for the later maps to be free, you need some statute that makes them free according to the law in the USA. –LPfi (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Canada and Australia have confirmed via OTRS that this is the case for Crown Copyright. I think each country requires case-by-case handling, but it would not be unreasonable to conclude worldwide expiration of government copyright even without an explicit statement from the government if the situation warrants it. Think about why we follow URAA for works by ordinary people in other countries. Even if a government declares its own citizens' work to be public domain, they can still enforce their claim in the United States. On the other hand, when the government does it to its own works it's a bit akin to {{PD-author}}. Individual government employees would not be able to enforce their claim in the United States, because the United States would recognize the work as a "work for hire". As for the government itself, we can reread the law, look for examples in the wild, ask the government, etc. to gather as much evidence as possible and make an informed decision based on the facts. One concern is that a government could reverse policy and start enforcing its copyrights worldwide. But I don't think that's a huge problem: while we require free licenses to be irreversible, we have long carved out an exception to theoretically allow governments to reverse the PD status of works. Otherwise no work (e.g. by private individuals) would be truly PD at all, since a government could always retroactively change the copyright term to 200 pma in theory. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Drumont collage copyright question[edit]

Drumont + La Libre Parole

I have a question concerning the copyright status of image File:18990910 Edouard Drumont and Libre Parole.jpg which is possibly an original image created for a 1991 book still under copyright. The image itself is a collage made up of two century-old images, one of which is available at Wikimedia in a slightly different format.

Edouard Drumont (cat) was a French journalist who published the antisemitic newspaper La Libre Parole (cat) at the end of the 19th century and railed against Alfred Dreyfus in the Dreyfus Affair. The image in question appears to be a collage of two images: an oval portrait of Drumont, from some other, more contrasty version of what appears to be the same image as File:Drumont 1903.jpg, and an image of the front page of La Libre Parole from 10 September 1899, announcing Drefyus's (second) conviction, which afaict is not available in Wikimedia Commons.

I'm no expert on copyright of derived works, but the image appears to me to contain a unique, creative, artistic adaptation, in the way that the center of the front page has been torn out, with shards of paper crumpled around the periphery, in order to frame the portrait. So, the question to me would be, who created this artistic adaptation?

Although the two images making up the collage are individually probably not under copyright, as they date to 1899 (newspaper) and 1903 (portrait), I see no indication that the uploader has acquired the two images copyright-free, and then created an original work by themselves and uploaded it. Instead, it appears they have uploaded an image from the book Dreyfus: A Family Affair. 1789-1945 by Michael Burns that they named in the sourcing for the image.^[1] I don't currently have access to this book, but I could probably get it through an ILL to see if the book contains this image on page 241, as mentioned in the summary. If it does, should this image be removed from Commons? (P.S. it was difficult to find the right venue to post this question; why isn't there a link in the left sidebar for it?) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

References

↑ Burns, Michael (1992) Dreyfus: A Family Affair, 1789-1945, Chatto & Windus, pp. 240–241 ISBN: 978-0-7011-3891-2. OCLC: 813249758.

According to view available on Google Books and as previously mentioned on the file talk page, the original caption in the book reads: "Edouard Drumont and the anti-Semite newspaper he founded. "The Traitor Convicted," reads the headline after the verdict at Rennes. "Down with the Jews!" (Roger-Viollet, Paris)". It appears to be a licensed image, which is also used on the cover of a different, later book.[3] The description on the licensor's website isn't very helpful as to establishing the date of first publication.[4] I'll start a deletion request. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks (here). Mathglot (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

threshold of originality for non-graphic works[edit]

Are there any good example of the threshold of originality for things other than graphics, particularly audio, sculptures and architecture? Ixfd64 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

JWilz12345 has worked extensively with Philippine buildings and might have some opinions there. For sculptures, note that something relatively simple such as Cloud Gate is above the TOO. For audio it gets tricky because the recorder or the subject or both may have a claim to copyright, depending on jurisdiction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll try to add some examples. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, Ixfd64: pardon me if I can't help on TOO, but per Jameslwoodward in one DR copyright registrations exist even in several basic sculptures (one infamous example is the Cloud Gate whose author is agressive, even suing NRA over use of an image of his public work in their video). See also: [5] and [6], both of which I used as references in the enwiki entry of U.S. FOP (w:Freedom of panorama#United States).

(might be out of topic so reduce font size) re: Philippine buildings and TOO, some things have somehow changed since June-September discussions. Bad news is that even mall buildings here are treated as "distinct works", thanks to this Philippine Star article which even treats the SM Supermalls founder w:Henry Sy as the "first architect" (even if he was not a true architect himself), because he was the brainchild of the shoebox concept of his malls. Good news is that through a breakthrough copyright case in 1964 that denied an artist's right to copyright because of his non-registration of his Christmas card design (see my and Howhontanozaz's explanation here), it is acceptable that the 1924 law (did not protect buildings and reliant on formalities) is still in effect up to December 14, 1972, a day before PD 49 took effect, and thus Philippine buildings of pre-Dec. 1972 era are PD (analogous to pre-1990 buildings of the U.S.) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/intel-spiral.pdf is the only example I remember of a sound recording TOO ruling or case law in the US. I'd say it backs up my feeling; don't copy sound recordings. The underlying work may be uncopyrightable, but the sound recording itself is almost never going to be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot of other major cases here. It seems the threshold of originality for sound is very low. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

PD-logo?[edit]

File:Hungamastart.jpg was uploaded by Hungamastart for use in en:User:Hungamastart/sandbox. It's possible that the uploader is somehow connected to the cpyright holder of the logo given the similarity between the username and the website's name, but at the same time people trying to create Wikipedia articles about a company, etc. sometimes mistakenly believe that they need to use the name of the company, etc. as their username. There's no indication on the Hungamastart's official website that it has released the logo as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}; so, it seems that VRT verification would at least be necessary here. That is unless the logo is deemed to simple to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:TOO United States and COM:TOO India. Any opinions on whether this can be converted to {{PD-logo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: This seems like a PR agency acting on behalf of the company as a paid editing effort to establish a Wikipedia article for the corporate brand. In any case, the image would not be eligible for copyright protection in either India or the United States and should have the PD mark instead. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

University of Iowa claims copyright on scans of a 1911 atlas; seeking feedback[edit]

Hello, I'm seeking feedback on the historic images in this collection, scanned by the University of Iowa. The images were under copyright in 1911, upon the Anderson Publishing Company's publication of the Standard Atlas of Mitchell County, Iowa. That copyright is expired and the images would normally belong in the public domain. However, the University states, here, "No commercial reproduction or distribution of this file is permitted without permission." Can the UofI restrict distribution of these files? The University of Iowa states other scanned images in their collection are in the public domain. Firsfron (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

See w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for copyright claims on reproductions of public domain works which is called w:copyfraud. This webpage The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art is also worth a read. Ww2censor (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. This is what I believed as well. I have reached out to the university library, respectfully asking them to change the copyright notice on these images, as I fear uploading an image from this collection on Commons would result in its deletion when the source link is examined by other editors. Additional advice is appreciated. Firsfron (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

If you clearly state why the image is copyright-free, I see no problem with the source claiming copyright. Photos by White House Staff often seems to include metadata that claim strict copyright. But these claims are invalid since they are by law copyright-free (cf. Commons:White House photostream). It is not difficult for a potential reviewer to confirm that the images are indeed from 1911, and so it is obvious that they are not copyrighted regardless of what the museum says. Sigvid (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. Based on this feedback, I have uploaded Bailey, Iowa, plat map, 1911. Firsfron (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Firsfron: Your upload looks fine, so no matter what a university, museum or other institutions claims the US law is what matters. I would not even bother asking them anything. Ww2censor (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about licencing[edit]

Hi, this image was recently uploaded. The website from which the image came from, uploads all their images under a 3.0 attribution. However, when you check their Flickr account you see that the images are uploaded under an "Attribution-NonCommercial" which is not allowed here. Additionally, this website and Flickr account are "owned" by a Brazilian government agency. So, is this image a copyvio? If it's not, can this Flickr account be used as a source for images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirEdimon (talk • contribs) 06:10, 28 July 2021‎ (UTC)

@SirEdimon: You could flickrmail them to ask about the discrepancy. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 10:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Jeff G. Thanks for your answer. I have flickrmailed them, but I'm starting to think that their license is not compatible to Commons. Regards.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 12:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

SirEdimon: While the Flickr source is clearly a non-commercial license, the uploaded image source page http://rededoesporte.gov.br/pt-br/noticias/conto-de-fadas-a-brasileira-rayssa-leal-conquista-prata-no-skate-street has two contradictory licenses at the bottom. Atribuição 3.0 Brasil (CC BY 3.0 BR) and Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Dual licensing is allowed but I think you would want to determine if this is what they intend. 13:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs)

The website is CC BY 3.0 BR. The CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license is related only to its use of the ResponsiveVoice product. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The source website is free licensed. So the image from that website is not a copyvio. The flickr account is not relevant for files not taken from it. The flickr account cannot be used if it doesn't offer a free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Jeff G., Asclepias and Ww2censor They are yet to respond to my message, but do you guys think that images from this website could be uploaded here? These images would be very very useful. But I don't want to upload a lot of images that will be later deleted?--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 14:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: Yes. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: + 1 Yes. In principle, « Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil. » Template:Cc-by-3.0-br. For better certainty, you could do occasional checks on a few images to make sure the website is not making mistakes. Currently, a search on Commons for rededoesporte.gov.br returns some 60 files. Some images are from other sources (example), which should be attributed. I suppose it can be assumed that the original sources released their images under the same license. But it could be a good thing to check. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I found the named file has been added to w:de:Tatort: Die Ferien des Monsieur Murot. User:Steve Eatfield classified it as his own work but the filename itself says © Steffen Wagener - Hessischer Rundfunk (w:Hessischer Rundfunk is German public broadcast).

Will this file be deleted or is it useful to fix its metadata, e.g. author and missing categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frupa (talk • contribs) 14:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Frupa: This looks like a copyright violation so will likely be deleted. The 4 files uploaded by the uploader have been tagged with {{No permission since}} and unless evidence of a free license from the actual copyright holder (Steffen Wagener or Hessischer Rundfunk) is provided, they will be deleted in ~7 days. -M.nelson (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

"Own work"[edit]

Hi, can someone please have a look at these two images from 1981 and from 1991? Can those really be "own work"? They sure look more like "own scans" to me... --91.34.35.162 14:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

First one - why not? It's 1981, so that would be chemical film and would require scanning later on. That doesn't mean the scanner wasn't also the photographer.

The second one's a bit more of a problem. Looks like a book scan, which is credited, but who's issuing that CC licence? You can't license stuff you don't control yourself. There may be some explanation here, it might even require OTRS, but I'd start a discussion with the uploader on their talk: page. If there's some reasonable explanation, then great. Remember COM:AGF! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

1917 US county sheriff's record as found on Ancestry.com[edit]

I've found an image of a "wanted" flyer on ancestry.com from the Butte County, California Sheriff's office, dated September 27, 1917. Ancestry.com materials are (unsurprisingly) marked as copyrighted, but since the image is of a government record originally intended to be freely disseminated, and over a century old, is it usable? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

US works published more than 95 years ago are PD, and this was clearly published by the law at the time. So it is PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Status of images of pages from PD domain books on Internet Archive and Google Books[edit]

I originally asked about this at the Wikipedia media copyright page, but I was advised to ask here as well. I've been thinking of adding an image with examples of the individual letters of a script. I thought I could make screenshots of letters from a public domain book on the Internet Archive (or from Google Books, since this particular one is available there as well). However, it occurred to me that while the book itself is PD, its scanning is akin to photographing, and by using the image and not just the content, I would be using the work of the 'photographer' who scanned it (and the organisation that stood behind that activity). User:Marchjuly pointed out that courts in Germany have regarded digitalisation as creating new copyright [[7]] (also here and here). In this case, the original scanner is Google, since the book was first uploaded to Google Books and then re-uploaded to the Internet Archive. Would this be a problem?--Anonymous44 (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Not if you're in the United States. Even in other countries, scans are less likely to be copyrightable than photographs of 2D art. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm in the EU. But perhaps this doesn't matter for Wikimedia, since Wikimedia is in the US? As for me, I don't know what to expect of the laws and courts in my country, but that would only be relevant if Google decided to use them to sue me for this in the first place, and I don't know if that's likely.--Anonymous44 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anonymous44: You may want to review COM:CRT#Country-specific laws, just in case. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 20:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anonymous44, King of Hearts: The recently passed EU Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market brings the EU laws about photographs of public domain works into parity with the US standard. In other words, there is no longer a "sweat of the brow" legal doctrine in the EU. (Note that although the deadline for countries to implement the Directive into their national laws has already passed, some countries have not yet done so.) Nosferattus (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

In other words, yes you can upload the scans to Commons! Nosferattus (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everybody, that was a lot of useful information and good news. However, it would seem that I still need to find out whether my country has already implemented the directive, probably per the policy that Jeff G. linked to (the obligation to consider the copyright legislation of 'The place where the work was created; The place where the work is being uploaded from; The place that any web server the work has been downloaded from physically is; The United States'.) and certainly in my own interest. And this doesn't seem trivial - there are few mentions of it in my language, let alone of the specific law changes that are necessary in this particular respect and so on. Anyway, you people have done your best to help me, thank you, and I wish you happy editing.--Anonymous44 (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anonymous44: For Commons policy purposes it's very simple: the scanning / photographing does not create a new copyright and the resulting image can be uploaded here. The underlying work must be PD in both the country of origin and the US, but the scan as such needs no further consideration. The WMF and Commons does not honour any "sweat of the brow"-based assertions of copyright anywhere in the world.

But for all uploads you need to consider your own legal situation and risk in addition to Commons policy. If whatever jurisdiction you are in would consider something a copyright violation then uploading it here could theoretically get you sued even if the upload is fully compliant with Commons policy. That goes for all uploads, but is mostly relevant for complicated issues like this.

Now, personally, I would not worry overmuch about this unless the jurisdiction I was in had known issues in this area. For example, in the UK 5–10 years ago I would have thought long and hard, simply because some UK GLAMs were then actively asserting copyright on scans and there was at least one relevant legal threat (you've probably heard of the case I'm thinking of). These days most UK GLAMs have stopped this practice and the guidance they follow seem to at best consider the issue "unclear". I can't imagine any of them publicly claiming such a copyright, much less suing anyone to enforce it, today. Xover (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

{{PD-Art}}: The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". --Wcam (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anonymous44: The German jurisdiction you cited is outdated. Since June 2021, the en:Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market is implemented in Germany with the "de:Gesetz zur Anpassung des Urheberrechts an die Erfordernisse des digitalen Binnenmarktes". The new § 68 of the German Urheberrechtsgesetz reads now (analogous): Reproductions of visual works which are in the public domain are not protected by the "sweat of the brow" principle. Such reproductions weren't protected as original works ("personal intellectual creation") due to lack of originality before June 2021 but as "personal intellectual achievement".--Chianti (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for the additional information.--Anonymous44 (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Magazine cover using PD work[edit]

I'm not quite sure about the licensing of File:Nature volume 536 number 7617 cover displaying an artist’s impression of Proxima Centauri b.jpg. The image used on the cover appears to be slightly different from File:Artist’s impression of Proxima Centauri b shown hypothetically as an arid rocky super-earth.jpg which is cited as the PD image the cover is based on; so, there doesn't appear to be a one-to-one correspondence between the two. I guess it could be argued that the cover image is closely based upon the PD image, but the cover could still be considered a COM:DW in such a case, couldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I overlaid them in photoshop and they are identical, with the possible exception of color levelling. The magazine cover has merely rotated the image clockwise so the day/night line is horizontal. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Would such a rotation be considered creative or mechanical? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't imagine that rotating an image would be creative enough for a copyright. – BMacZero (🗩) 14:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal permission[edit]

Hello, I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask this but I am just going to do it. If I have the explicit personal permission of a photographer to upload his work to Wikipedia am I allowed to upload it? I contacted him through Emails and he was more than happy about the idea of his images being incorporated into Wikipedia and gave me the permission, I can send those messages forward to Admins as well if they want. So does this work or does the photographer has to create his own Wikipedie/media account in order to upload his work? Kind regards --Xerxes1985 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two ways:

You upload the photos and tag them with {{OTRS pending}}. The photographer sends a free license release for each photo to COM:VRT (formerly OTRS), following the instructions given at COM:RELGEN. Note that this will need to be done for each photo where the uploader is not the copyright holder, regardless of prior publication status.
The photographer creates an account and uploads the photos themselves. If the photographer has previously published them elsewhere, then they should email VRT from an email address listed on their own website. A VRT agent will confirm and tag their account with {{Verified account}}. They can now upload their own photos without any further need to contact VRT. If the photos are not previously published, then they do not need to contact VRT.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Xerxes1985: a photographer's "permission to upload his work to Wikipedia" is insufficient. For works to be accepted by Commons they must be available to be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose (see COM:L). The photographer must release the photograph under acceptable license, such as CC BY-SA 4.0. The license may be confirmed in the ways described above. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

'missing SDC copyright status' - how to comply with this requirement[edit]

Uploaded the map File:Jezero karte (ESA).jpg with the CC-BY-3.0-IGO license, as inscribed on the picture. However, the automatic hidden category appeared "Creative Commons Attribution missing SDC copyright status". What is required from me at this step? What additional info I must provide, and how? — Thanks, Cherurbino (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything. It's a maintenance category so a bot comes along and adds the information, which is just copying the license information into structured data form. You can click on the category to see a bit more information. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Carl! Cherurbino (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Horse and Rider work by Marini?[edit]

Is w:Horse and Rider (Marini) a copyrighted work? The enwiki article seems to indicate it as a pre-1978 sculpture (during the era when U.S. works required registration for copyright protection). Can anyone interpret this SIRIS information which may provide clue/s? Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Works must either be freely licensed or be public domain in their home country and in the US.(COM:L) Marini was an Italian who lived in Italy and in Switzerland, so the home country for his sculpture is either Italy or Switzerland. Marini died in 1980, so his work will become public domain in its home country in 2051.(COM:Italy, COM:Switzerland) This sculpture is located in the US, so freedom of panorama does not apply. This file should not be uploaded to Commons. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This particular sculpture was first published in what country? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Not "home country"; COM:L says "source country". Let's not add additional imprecision to this discussion.

The Berne Convention says the "source country" is the first country of publication, provided that's a Berne signator. I'm guess that includes the US, which is now Berne signator even if it wasn't then. In US law, this was published; the mere display wouldn't have done it under Berne.

In common parlance, a work made for the US and first displayed in the US certainly could have the US as its source country. Note that no law I know of worries about where a work was written, painted, or filmed for copyright law. COM:L doesn't specify any rules.

I will say that it's frustrating for a US work to be told that Italian law matters, where the statement that a work must be PD in the US is standardly ignored by admins, despite that actually be a requirement the law puts on us.

Also, why does US FOP status matter? US law says it's okay; why would a more limited permission in cases not relevant matter here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The sculpture pictured is one of an edition of four bronze castings.[8] The 'first publication' date would be that for any of the four castings. The sculpture was created in 1952-1953 and this casting was given to the museum in 1966. So it was probably not 'made for the US' and it is not safe to assume that it was ~~published~~ unpublished before its installation at the Hirshhorn museum. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Public Domain[edit]

Just wondering: How do we know that this image is public domain? The person depicted has long been dead, o.k., but as far as I can tell, we have no clue when or by whom this picture was drawn. It might have been drawn in this century by a modern-day artist, for all we know. Or can anyone find a clue to the artist in the source (Italian language, archived link)? --87.150.13.118 13:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

As the subject died in 1723, based on free public information I think the sketch artist is long dead and the sketch is PD. Further information may be behind the paywall at https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-5000006179 . — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Alamy has a copy which looks like it was taken from Commons, so I guess they were comfortable with the PD declaration. They don't give a date or a source either, though the text was copied from here. Have to admit, it looks more like an 1800s drawing, and not contemporary with the composer, but not something modern either. Would definitely prefer to know the source (was it actually meant to be of the composer -- wouldn't be the first time an image was misidentified -- and was it meant to be more of a caricature, etc.). Not sure I'd worry about deleting it. But yes, we don't know for sure it is public domain, but it certainly looks to me as though it would qualify for PD-old-assumed. Better resolution might confirm if it was a 19th-centry style engraving, and that sort of thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Welche Copyrightangaben fehlen?[edit]

Hallo zusammen, ich habe einige Dateien in Wikimedia hochgeladen. Auf meiner Seite hier bekomme ich jetzt die Rückmeldung, dass die Copyrightangaben nicht ausreichend sind. Ich verstehe aber nicht, was konkret ich anders hätte machen müssen. Vielleicht kann mir jemand von den erfahrenen User*innen helfen? Vielen Dank schon einmal. James von Hassell (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@James von Hassell: Nehmen wir als Beispiel File:Poppelreuter.jpg: Das deutsche Urheberrecht währt für 70 Jahre nach dem Tode des Urhebers, in diesem Falle des/der Fotografen/Fotografin. Wir bräuchten hier folgende Angaben: Wer war der Fotograf? Wenn er und seine Lebensdaten bekannt sind und er vor mehr als 70 Jahren verstorben ist, kann das Foto mit einem geeigneten Baustein wie {{PD-old-auto}} bleiben. Der Name des Fotografen und die Lebensdaten wären dabei anzugeben. Ist er vor nicht mehr als 70 Jahren verstorben, haben seine Erben oder die Person oder Körperschaft, an die die Rechte übertragen wurden, immer noch die Rechte am Bild und müssten eine Freigabe erteilen. Wenn der "BDH Bundesverband Rehabilitation" davon überzeugt ist, die Rechte am Foto zu haben (das ist ja nicht automatisch so, nur weil es in seinem Archiv ist) und die von dir eingetragene Lizenz {{FAL}} dafür vergeben möchte, wäre das per Freigabe-Erklärung ans Support-Team zu dokumentieren. Das Foto könnte dann später auch wiederhergestellt werden, falls es zwischenzeitlich wegen ungenügender Lizenzierung schon gelöscht wurde, wobei die Abarbeitung manchmal lange dauern kann. Ist der Fotograf allerdings komplett unbekannt, jedoch nachweisbar, dass das Foto bereits vor über 70 Jahren veröffentlicht wurde, käme eventuell {{PD-anon-70-EU}} für anonyme Werke in Frage, was allerdings gerade in Deutschland keine einfache Frage ist. Solltest du dich darauf berufen wollen, kannst du auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite File:Poppelreuter.jpg den Knopf Einspruch Schnelllöschen (du findest ihn unterhalb des Löschbausteins) drücken, um den Antrag in einen regulären Löschantrag umzuwandeln, so dass mehr Zeit für die Diskussion bleibt. Diese Möglichkeit hast du auch bei deinen anderen Uploads. Falls du das englische Interface hast, heisst der Knopf Challenge speedy deletion. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

PD-Malta[edit]

Hi, I recently revised the copyright legislation for Malta (I also asked the MT Parliament to email me the 1970 Copyright Act and uploaded that in Commons) and have ascertained that photographs published in 1912-1948 and 1970-1973 have entered public domain. I would like therefore to add a PD-Malta template (along the lines of Template:PD-Montenegro). I prepared the page Template:PD-Malta/en, but Template:PD-Malta is blocked. Can someone help me create such a template? Many thanks, --Dans (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)