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.


Deprecate Template:PD-BNF and Template:PD-GallicaScan[edit]

The templates {{PD-BNF}} and {{PD-GallicaScan}} were created in 2008 when the general assumption was that everything the Bibliotheque Nationale de France scanned for Gallica is in the public domain. As we know now, that is not the case, and the BNF has changed the rights remark for many of its magazine, newspaper etc. scans to ""Droits  : Consultable en ligne" (rights: can be viewed online) - at least in the French language version; in the English version, you can confusingly still often read Rights: public domain for the very same magazine or paper, while the German version doesn't mention the copyright status at all.

Anyway, it should be clear that because some file is from the BNF or Gallica, that does not mean it's automatically in the public domain. So my proposal is to deprecate these two tags and mark them accordingly that they should not be used for new files. For new files from BNF/Gallica that are in the public domain for some other reason (because the author died over 70 years ago etc.), only the regular PD-old, PD-scan etc. tags should be used. If we don't do this, these tags will always come back to bite us in the a** because people will use them for new uploads. Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 10:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mostly  Support. Wording of these templates in indeed a problem. It should be mentioned that there are not sufficient for Commons, that a verification of the copyright status and a proper license are needed. Yann (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mostly  Support per Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Admittedly I don't have much experience in the area, but the proposal seems reasonable from doing a basic glance at the templates and how they are being used. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I've changed both templates so that they now say the file might NOT be in the public domain and might be deleted if not in the PD; also that other valid license tags should be used. To do this, I've created a new marker template {{PD Gallica warning}} (modeled on {{PD German stamps warning}}).

The specific wording could probably still be improved. Thoughts on that? --Rosenzweig τ 12:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. We have now 1,403,257 files with a deprecated template. How do we fix that? Yann (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a large-scale tag swap we'd probably need a bot. Anything from ca. 1900 or before should most likely be ok, so perhaps the license tags for these files could be replaced with a suitable PD-old tag by a bot? For anything newer (and that might still be a lot), we'd probably need a file by file manual review. And that would most likely take a long time, see the German stamps situtation still in progress after a decade. --Rosenzweig τ 13:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely. We have 1.4 million files with a giant PLEASE DELETE ME sign on them, maybe some miniscule fraction of 1% actually might need removal upon request. Yes, the wording should be changed to the usual & much more neutral "... has been deprecated. This template should be changed to ..." like these things normally have.
Absolutely, though, the shift will require bots and we shouldn't be going out of our way to encourage removal of the files until such bots are available. This cart got waaaaaaay out in front of its horse. — LlywelynII 04:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fwiw,  Strong oppose until this can be handled better and less disruptively than what's currently going on. I've spent multiple weeks of my life on editing and research for several hundred of the files badly impacted by this. Others are doubtless in the same boat. The way we handle PD-Art would've been a much better way to handle this: "...please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States..." Simply changing the PD license to PD-Old etc. will remove the previously provided links to the BNF files.
@Yann: @Jeff G.: @Adamant1: Those arguments might not cause you to change your vote ("might as well get started & the links don't matter") but, given how this has shaken out in practice, do you have suggestions for minimizing the damage and disorder this is going to cause? Are there any mass-PD-editing utilities similar to HotCat for categories to speed this up? I have to edit everything here through a series of proxies to get over the Great Firewall & going file by file would be a vastly prohibitive waste of time. — LlywelynII 05:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My suggestion would be to look into how the review of German stamps was handled after they were found not to be PD. Which, as Rosenzweig has pointed out, still hasn't been fully dealt with 10 years later. So I don't think you have to worry about all the files being immediately deleted. Nor does anyone expect you to deal with it on your own. Let alone at all. Just as long there's a consensus about how to handle it and basic things being done to move in the direction of reviewing the files at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: Did those stamps come with 24+ point text "warning" that the files "could" be deleted at any point? I'm dubious. — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but neither does anything having to do with have such a warning either. If you look at the template for German stamps though it says "this file is most likely NOT in the public domain. It has been marked for review, and will be deleted in due course if the review does not find it to be in the public domain. Which I think is totally reasonable. If you look at Category:German stamps review there's still upwards of 8 thousand files that haven't been reviewed. That's just ones that are included in the category to, but there's others. With German stamps specifically, they are only being reviewed now because I've been slowly going through them over the past year. There's no one gunning to delete anything in mass though. So your assertion that the files will be immediately deleted the second we implement this is clearly hyperbole. Really, probably no one is going to delete the files. Let alone any time soon or in mass. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LlywelynII: So what is your proposal for the wording of the templates? And how do you think should we prevent them being used to upload copyrighted files, as some users are doing now? If we don't stop that, the amount of files will only get larger. And as Adamant1 pointed out, nobody in fact proposed to delete over 1 million files. Right now it says that the files might not be in the public domain and might be deleted. --Rosenzweig τ 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're curious, in toto, this seems like a (bad) answer searching for a (miniscule) problem. The template was largely fine and helpfully included a link to the BNF that the current solution will just delete. The things that shouldn't be uploaded shouldn't've been uploaded with or without this template's existence. They can be uploaded with or without this template's existence. The template could be rephrased to only cover the appropriate material. The problem would be exactly the same and it wouldn't be putting 1.4 million valid files at risk.
At minimum (as already explained above) the language of the edit should be more neutral, more in keeping with similar templates like PD-Art, and simply request that separate/additional licensing be provided. — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LlywelynII: "has been depreciated": I presume you mean "has been deprecated". (Normally I'd let is slide, but since this appears to be a proposed edit…) - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: "Normally I'd let is slide": I presume you mean "I'd let it slide". (Normally I'd let it slide, but since this appears to be needless snark... Yes, if the normal phrasing is slightly different, sure, use some version of that instead. Neither here nor there. Still, do kindly leave some notes on the merits of what we're talking about. It's possible I'm just completely wrong in thinking that the current phrasing will cause a much bigger problem than the original issue. Some of the original posters hadn't even noticed that 1.4 million files were affected, though.) — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LlywelynII: "included a link to the BNF that the current solution will just delete": Which "current solution" do you mean? All links to BNF in the file descriptions are still there, none were deleted. And yes, when replacing the PD-GallicScan tag with an appropriate PD-old tag, another template with just the link (like {{Gallica}}, which does that without any claim of public domain) will have to be added at the same time. --Rosenzweig τ 07:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've changed the templates a bit so that the collapsed section with the deprecated tag is now expanded by default. --Rosenzweig τ 08:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need a wording saying these are not eligible for a mass deletion, just to prevent fear and conflicts. There are a lot of cases where the BNF doesn't claim a copyright, although it could, e.g. File:Portrait Roi de france Clovis.jpg. Would replacing the current template by {{CC-0}} be OK? Yann (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've changed the wording of {{PD Gallica warning}} so that possible deletion is now mentioned in the last paragraph. @Yann: What do you mean with your CC-0 proposal? Insert CC-0 in those cases you mentioned "where the BNF doesn't claim a copyright, although it could"? You mean in addition to a PD-old template for the underlying work? --Rosenzweig τ 13:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. Yes, in addition to a license for the content itself, we need a license for the picture when it is not 2D (i.e. when PD-Art/PD-scan doesn't apply). Yann (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does the BNF explicitly refer to CC-0 somewhere, or is this some other declaration that they don' claim such copyrights? Or is it just implicit / assumed etc.? Even if it is "only" implicit, we can most likely still find a way to express that, but we should try to get it as correct as we can. For the coin image you linked, the BNF now says "Droits : Consultable en ligne". Is that their new default? --Rosenzweig τ 17:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May be. BNF doesn't use CC-0, but there is usually a "public domain" mention. I wonder if we should use PD-self or CC-0, or something else. There are a number of cases where they said that the pictures are in the public domain, and later changed their mind, e.g. File:En attendant Godot, Festival d'Avignon, 1978 f22.jpg. Fernand Michaud donated all his pictures to the BNF, and they were available with a public domain notice, but that was later changed. Yann (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe create something under Category:No known restrictions license tags? - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, there were no new contributions here (or in the parallel COM:VP discussion) for a few days now, so the initial fears of imminent mass deletions seem to have died down. There was no bot mass-tagging files as missing license tags because of the tag deprecation, and nobody was launching mass deletion requests because of it.

So the task at hand is now how to replace the bulk (hopefully) of the PD-GallicaScan and PD-BNF license tags with better and more fitting tags so only a small percentage (hopefully very small) of them remain to be examined if they have to be put through the deletion process.

I've looked at various categories and files both here and at the BNF web site, and I've noticed that we really cannot rely (anymore, if ever) on what the BNF writes on the file description pages as far as copyright is concerned. In the French description, for all files at which I've looked I found "Droits : Consultable en ligne", regardless if it was a map from the 1600s or a magazine from 1970. In the English description, they say "Rights: public domain" for the very same files, 1600s map as well as 1970 magazine. In other languages (German, Spanish, Italian, Russian) I didn't see anything about copyright in the descriptions. Given that situation, what the BNF writes on its file description pages about copyright has become meaningless, and it really was about time that we retired and deprecated those tags.

Now what the proper replacement tags for PD-GallicaScan and PD-BNF are depends on the individual file. For those with named authors it would be some variety of PD-old or PD-old-auto, plus a tag like PD-expired or PD-1996 if they're also in the public domain in the US. I don't know how well a bot could do this, maybe better if the file description page uses a specific {{Creator}} tag for the author. For files with no named author, but a date older than 120 years, PD-old-assumed(-expired) could be a solution.

I've looked at some press agency photos from the Rol and Meurisse agencies we have which usually came from Gallica. The usual rationale here is that these agency photos are collective works accd. to French copyright, and {{PD-France}} applies if they're older than 70 years. I've tried to change some tags with VisualFileChange, and changed the tags of 200 files or so in Category:1927 photographs by Agence Rol and Category:1926 photographs by Agence Rol. Namely those that simply used {{PD-GallicaScan}} without any parameters, and I've changed that to {{PD-Scan-two|PD-France||PD-US-expired|}}. Stuff like that – very similar files which all take the same relatively simple license tags and are already grouped in categories fitting for the task – could be done without bots with the assistance of VFC, somewhat reducing the overall usage of the deprecated tags. Besides the press agency photos, are there any other suggestions for similar cases?

While VFC can help somewhat, a large number of file description pages will probably have to be changed by bots, especially those where the tags have parameters, which may not be what one excepts (like {{PD-BNF|{{ARK-BNF|ark:/12148/btv1b53184933b}}}}, combining two tags that probably weren't meant to go together). Those are probably too complex to be cleanly replaced with VFC. What do you think would be the best way to proceed with this? Simply turn up at Commons:Bots/Work requests? Ask somewhere else? Gather more details first on what exactly should be changed, preferably not here but somewhere else where it won't be archived after a week of no new contributions? --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Without very specific parameters, I would not want to touch this as a bot task. I don't read French.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: I'm not grasping why you think VFC wouldn't be the main tool for this. Admittedly, I've never taken on something this large that way, but the key to using VFC effectively for this sort of thing is usually to start by a well-chosen search to find a set of images whose tags you want to change in a particular way, and I suspect that a lot of progress could be made reasonably quickly in that manner. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: We'll see. I've now discovered that a huge lump of the 1.4 million files (about half) are in Category:Manuscripts from Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) uploaded by Gzen92Bot, so uploaded by a bot. There are subcategories there for the works, containing the files for the single pages, and while some only have 2 files, others have over 500. Most are probably somewhere between those two. Per Category:Manuscripts from Gallica, many have less than 10 though. I've changed the tags in a 500+ category already with VFC, that went well I think, and by concentrating on the larger categories one could get down the number of template usages fairly quickly. Until only the smaller categories are left to change, and those would be more tiresome. Maybe the bot operator who uploaded these files could help out. --Rosenzweig τ 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and PS, not every search can be used as a basis for VFC unfortunately, as I found out. You can search for "has template XYZ" and everything, but VFC then won't accept that search, or more precisely, you're not even offered to use VFC then. --Rosenzweig τ 22:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't get around to try replacing more tags with VFC, but will try to do so tomorrow. --Rosenzweig τ 20:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: You can instead search for "insource:{{XYZ}}", with quotes if necessary.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've done some more both in the press agency and the manuscript categories, several hundred files. I'll probably have a bit more time to dedicate to this task over the holidays, so we'll see how many files can have their tags replaced in the near future. With just under 1.4 million files still left it will still take a lot of time until it is done. --Rosenzweig τ 23:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Down to slightly below 1.29 million files now, so a bit over 100,000 files in 6 days (my edit count here at Commons has certainly gone up dramatically). I didn't work full-time on this, but it certainly took quite a few hours. It works quite well for files uploaded by a bot (like the Gallica manuscript files) where you can expect a certain uniformity of the file description pages. You need to find some specific phrase that reliably (!) identifies a large subset of Gallica files (more than just one category), then go through all the VFC hoops like having to load "more" files several times to really get all of them. Even then, you won't get all (at least for some of the larger chunks) and will have to repeat the task two or three times, I guess because the servers/API take some time to really find all of the files. Also, some files will fail with API errors when processing several thousand files, so to catch all of them you need the repetition. I was able to process some larger chunks of 8,000 to 9,000 files that way (like archival records of the Comic Opera in Paris), but that is probably the upper limit of what can be accomplished with VFC. Other chunks were several thousand files. Once all the bigger subsets are processed, it will get more tedious, so this will take a lot of time as predicted. Looking at the template transclusion count, I noticed it going down slightly every now and then even when I hadn't processed any files with VFC, so maybe some users are actually replacing the deprecated tags. --Rosenzweig τ 13:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was mostly busy with undeleting files freshly in the PD over the last few days, so I didn't get much done here. Still down about 20.000 files to below 1.27 million now. --Rosenzweig τ 21:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyleft Trolls[edit]

Hi, See [1] for background. Cory Doctorow and Joshua Brustein accuse Larry Philpot of using Commons to sue people. Nenad Stojkovic is also mentioned by Doctorow. Nightshooter didn't upload anything since October 2013, but we should probably do something here. Images by Marco Verch were previously deleted for the very same reason. Yann (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: He just has 21 mediocre quality concert photos on Commons. I would strongly support nuking from orbit and banning his account for eternity. Plus maybe sending a note to his mother. He is exploiting Commons and hurting our mission and reputation. We should have no tolerance for such bad faith foolishness. Nosferattus (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus: concur, though I don't have a space laser to spare. Care to start the DR, or would you rather that someone else does? - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann and Jmabel: Done: Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Larry Philpot. Hope I did that correctly. Nosferattus (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cory Doctorow makes an interesting suggestion about including a warning alongside old CC licences to make reusers aware of the potential danger. However, our templates like {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} don't mention it. Should we add a warning to these templates along with a message encouraging copyright holders to re-licence their work under 4.0? The files will still remain here if the old licence is used but it gives reusers the opportunity to choose a safer file or make very sure they follow the terms precisely. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think about suggesting that. Yann (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've had this discussion before. I think it would be a good idea to first approach those users who are still active and ask them to change their uploads with pre-4.0 cc licences to 4.0 or cc-zero. The best way to do this could be with an offer: just agree on "this-to-be-created-page" and a bot will adapt all your uploads. It would also be good if Flickr would adapt its licences, as many of the pre-4.0 licences come from there. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And not to forget @Doctorow has an account at Commons. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we do that, it's probably best to add the 4.0 license and not remove the earlier version -- if someone is using it under an earlier license for a derivative work, they may still need the original version to comply with those older terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To my understanding, re-licensing under 4.0 could never undo the fact that they had previously irrevocably licensed it under the older version (say, 2.0). So, it would be dual-licensed, and could be used under the terms of either version 2.0 or 4.0, which may be more restrictive or more permissive in various ways. I agree it would be good to keep some explicit record of the old license in the file metadata, ideally in a less prominent way to show that 4.0 is preferred. 70.181.1.68 00:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can't undo it, but if it's not explicitly shown, there could be issues. Say someone used the work in a derivative which is CC-BY-SA-3.0 -- not sure you can do that with a 4.0 work; the derivative must be 4.0 or higher. If someone is validating the license and doesn't see the old versions, you could get into technical problems (which is what these copyright trolls can live on). Best to be explicit abut the dual-licensing and show all versions the author agreed to license under. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Philpot images had already been discussed and processed years ago -- see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive_74#Vote:_overwriting_the_images_with_forced_attribution. The images had the correct attribution and a warning added to them. It sounds like another user who uploads here (Harald Krichel) is now using Pixsy, which I guess uses copyleft troll tactics. That user is apparently a member of VRT, and Wikimedia Deutschland. The question seems to be what to do with those uploads. They use the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license explicitly, even now, and only the 4.0 versions have the provision which helps fight these tactics. Not sure we have heard back from that user -- whether this is intentional on their part, or not being aware of how Pixsy does business. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Obviously, we should do the same thing with Harald Krichel's <4.0 uploads.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are unfortunately thousands of them, so unless done by a bot (and then the images protected from being overwritten like Philpot's were), not sure how easy that approach will be. But it is one option, for sure. Unsure if this user has actually filed lawsuits like Philpot did, or just uses Pixsy, which I would presume (given the notice on the help desk) demands payment rather than the option of just fixing the attribution. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there some reason that no one wants Harald Krichel to participate in this discussion? Nosferattus (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two linked accounts (@Seewolf and Harald Krichel: ) were pinged from the previous discussion on Help Desk and there is a link from that discussion to this one.[2] Seewolf was pinged on 14 December and the last global contribution was today. Harald Krichel was pinged on 20 December but the last global contribution was on 15 December. Seewolf should have received a notification for the previous discussion but has not replied. I am including Pings in my comment here to repeat the notification. Hopefully we will get a response. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have never sued anyone nor send them a bill for minor or even major violations of a cc-license. A major violation would be a "Photo: Wikipedia" and nothing else as attribution. But there are cases where the picture is used and a very different copyright holder is named on the page. In some of these cases on very commercial pages, I have sent them an invoice. If that is so heavily frowned upon, I will in the future abstain from that practice and license my pictures as cc by-sa 4. --Harald Krichel (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually, if someone has this wrong online, the first step should be to simply ask them to fix the attribution, and if they will do that, then the matter should be settled. Conversely, I for one don't think there is any problem with threatening to sue a someone (especially a commercial) entity that used your work in print without attributing you (or one that won't fix an online attribution when requested), especially if they are a repeat offender. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who thinks that is excessive on my part.
Harald, is your practice much different than that? - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this. The issue is not copyright holders holding accountable copyright violations, it's when the copyright holders jump straight into "sue!" mode without giving the violator a chance to correct the mistake. Those violations are often just a case of ignorance rather than maliciousness. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically yes, but I didn't first ask to fix the attribution, before I have sent them the invoice, hence the anonymous complaint. By switching the license to CC BY-SA 4.0 I obligate myself to do that. Harald Krichel (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solzhenitsyn photo[edit]

Our website used File:A solzhenitsin.JPG fully attributed and linked to the creative commons license. PicRights International Inc is demanding we remove the image from our site and pay them damages, claiming the image is copyrighted by Reuters for exclusive use. We have refused to remove the image or to pay PicRights because the photographer has made the image available under CC-BY-SA 4.0 on wikimedia. I could not find talk at the image page. PicRights says we are infringing on https://pictures.reuters.com/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ITEMID=PBEAHUNGTCC If this is not the right place to ask about this, could someone direct me to the url of the appropriate page. Has anyone dealt with similar issues? Before hiring a copyright lawyer are there other steps to take? PastPicker4tA (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PastPicker4tA: Hi, and welcome. Please use internal links like File:A solzhenitsin.JPG or that for source File:Evstafiev-solzhenitsyn.jpg (both monochrome). Pinging @Evstafiev (Mikhail Aleksandrovich Evstafiev) as uploader 08:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC). It appears Reuters had the photo in color and much larger June 01, 1994 (13 years earlier), but the uploader claims to have taken it that day. Perhaps Reuters stole the rights from him or gave insufficient info to PicRights.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. PastPicker4tA (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to confirm that the photo was in fact taken by myself, however I was not the only photographer present at that moment. Mikhail Evstafiev Evstafiev (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evstafiev: Thank you. Did you take it in color and license it to Reuters?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was shooting Fuji400 colour negative film that day. Reuters have a similar but not identical photo; the one from my archive was originally scanned in colour. When I began writing, editing and contributing to Wikipedia, I converted my file to b/w and uploaded to Wikimedia. Hope this resolves the matter. Evstafiev (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or, more precisely, is the claim of PicRights International Inc. believable, to the effect that you might have ceded to Reuters the copyright and the *exclusive* right to use all versions of this photograph? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the claim is not correct. Evstafiev (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what to say here. It sure appears as though it was uploaded and licensed by the photographer, long ago. Do note that is is NOT licensed CC-BY-SA-4.0, but rather multi-licensed CC-BY-SA-2.5-Generic, CC-BY-SA-3.0-Unported, and GFDL 1.2+. You can pick any of those licenses, but strictly speaking it is not licensed with the 4.0 version. Reuters has a color version; ours is black and white. The crops are different; the Reuters image has more content on the left side, while ours has more on the right (meaning it was not copied from that Reuters image). Reuters does not name the photographer, but just "Stringer" which may just be a term for a contract photographer. Presumably the photographer at one time contracted with Reuters. They may be mistaken on the "exclusive rights" aspect, in that they have rights to use it but the photographer may maintain rights to license it elsewhere, but only asking the photographer directly may resolve that. If the photographer transferred exclusive rights to Reuters per the contract, it's possible he did not have rights to license it here, and forgot that. Or Reuters simply assumes it has exclusive rights on all its images and assumes people copy from their site, and only gave superficial info to PicRights. I'm sure that is true most of the time, but not sure what realistic options PicRights will give you. Perhaps asking them for details about the contract with Mr. Evstafiev. The real answer probably lies in the contract between the photographer and Reuters, which none of us here would know. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for pointing out that the Wikimedia image has more content on the right. I had noticed the crop on the left, but not the extension on the right. Very helpful information. PastPicker4tA (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: en:Stringer (journalism). - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The black and white version is also displayed on his official website [3] and, per his copyright notice there, he is the owner of the copyright on it ("All material and images on this website, unless otherwise stated, Copyright Mikhail Evstafiev"). That is consistent with the information on Wikimedia. It is not consistent with the claim of PicRights. There is an address where he could be contacted to clarify the matter. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for this helpful information. PastPicker4tA (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So for some fun I took the cited images and superimposed them. They line up almost perfectly, but wikipedia image indeed has more content on the right (green box) and Reuters image, on the left (red box), and thus, Wikipedia did NOT lift the image off Reurters. That makes me suspect that Evstafiev WAS the stringer. -- Wesha (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evstafiev last edited here 5 years, 7 months, 12 days, 1 hour and 47 minutes ago = 2052 days (Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:50:33 UTC) and on any WMF project on enwiki 4 years, 2 months, 27 days and 35 minutes ago = 1549 days (Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 12:04:33 UTC). Thank you all.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, nonetheless, he posted ^^^^farther up on this thread about four hours after Jeff G.'s remark here, so he is now engaged on this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taking pictures at a film shoot[edit]

Non hypothetical filmset at Domshof Bremen

Hypothetical situation. Suppose I come across a film shoot and decide to take pictures. Would such pictures be allowed on Commons, or would the arrangement of actors and props be copyrightable? Ixfd64 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What country would this hypothetical situation take place in? Some countries have rules around consent of participants (non-copyright restriction) that would prevent upload to Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's say this is in the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ixfd64: You're fine. In the U.S., doing things in a public place is implicit consent to be photographed, limited only by personality rights. - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends. If the shoot takes place in an area that is cordoned off, even if that area would at other times be a public place, it is now private. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you can't walk into the cordoned-off space of course, but you can still shoot from outside. Obviously, for the duration, the cordoned-off space doesn't count as public, but this is just like being able to stand on a public sidewalk to photograph a house. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No copyright issue IMO. There is no artistic, literary, or audio-visual work involved (I assume copyrighted elements may pass de minimis thing). Non-copyright restrictions like privacy, security, and house rules are not grounds for deletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 'arrangement of actors and props' is an artistic work and is therefore copyrighted. In some cases de minimis may apply. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should there be a PD-old-maybe-published template?[edit]

I saw that this file has only {{PD-US}}, but we know the death date of Orville Wright, so I figured I could put a more specific tag on it. But I wasn't sure whether to use {{PD-old-auto-expired}} or {{PD-old-auto-unpublished}}, as I tend to assume that merely transmitting a telegram does not qualify as "publication" under US law. Both templates indicate that the work is PD in the US (when given deathyear=1948), and logically one of them must apply (either it was published before 2003, or it was not). What template is appropriate for situations like this, where we don't know exactly which combination of formalities causes the work to be PD, but we can be reasonably sure that it is PD? I don't want to leave it with just {{PD-US}}, because we know the death year and can give more specific advice as to its non-US copyright status. NYKevin (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pre-1978 was murky in terms of what publication meant but you can use whenever the contents of the telegram became revealed to the public as a publication date. Abzeronow (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The date of death has almost no bearing on old U.S. works and does not help in determining which more specific tag to use. The deathyear argument helps in other countries, certainly. We would need to know the date of publication, with publication itself being often a murky topic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, I do see the text published here, a Kansas State College bulletin, with reference to it being published in the December 16, 1928 New York Times. So it's at least that old. In three days, it would definitely be PD-US-expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is good to know. Since I'm a NYT subscriber, I was able to verify that the Times did indeed publish the text of the telegram on that date (I looked up the article in TimesMachine: [4] is a subscriber-only direct link). As I would have expected, the telegram itself had no individual copyright notice, but I suppose it is possible it would be considered covered by the NYT's copyright, so waiting for January 1 and then tagging it -expired is probably the most pedantically correct way to do this. (I am extremely doubtful that the NYT actually has a valid claim to Orville Wright's telegram in the first place, but I'd rather not try to work out exactly how to write that in a PD template when we can just wait two days.) NYKevin (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed that it's very, very unlikely that the New York Times would have had rights to renew the telegram text (even though they did renew that day's newspaper in general), so it likely entered the public domain 28 years after that publication -- unless of course it was published elsewhere earlier, which it could have been. But yeah it all becomes moot in a couple days, since we have a solid date of publication, so easiest to just wait. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done, and added the publication information to the file's {{Information}} so that it does not get lost. NYKevin (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exclusive licence/license on Wikimedia Commons contributions[edit]

(reposted from en:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Exclusive_licence/license_on_Wikimedia_Commons_contributions as suggested by ColinFine)

If someone uploads an image to Wikimedia Commons with a non-CC0 licence, and then submits it in a journal article which involves granting the publisher exclusive use, what is the status of the image for the uploader, as well as for everyone else? Thanks, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 12:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cmglee: AIUI, the status would depend on the contract between author and publisher, irrevocable vs. exclusive.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"with a non-CC0 licence" this is too unspecific, but for this i'm going to assume CC-by-SA 4.0 was used. If this image was uploaded to Commons with that license, then the CC license is irrevocable. Anyone can download and reuse the image according to the licensing rights, up until the copyright of the image expires (This being sort of the whole point of what we do here). If the copyright owner then submits that exact same image to a paper and this paper requires that the owner/author gives them an EXCLUSIVE right to the copyrights and the publishing rights of the article and all of its contents, then this is technically not possible. There is already a pre-existing conflicting contract (license) that gives non-exclusive rights to everyone else. Even transfer of the copyright does not invalidate the previously granted licenses. So effectively the journal cannot receive an exclusive publishing right from the author, and possibly if the author engages in a contract with them without notifying the other party of this previous contract, the submitter is creating a breach of contract situation between themselves and the journal. There are however many nuances to this and without a specific journal and knowing the specific publication contract (because most journals these days have multiple contract types) it is difficult to ascertain the impact for copyright owner and journal. But for Commons this all doesn't matter. The Creative Commons license is irrevocable. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. I'll have to carefully check the contract then. Would you know of any precedence of authors getting in trouble for breaching such a contact? Thanks, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 15:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming this is about yourself: I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that if you first offer an irrevocable free license and then receive some sort of compensation from a second party for an "exclusive" license for the same material, the party that paid (or provided some other quid pro quo) for the "exclusive" license would have legal recourse, because you agreed to provide them something you were not in a legal position to provide. (Harder to guess what happens if there is no quid pro quo.) If the contract in question is not yet signed, I would certainly think you would want to add a clause indicating explicitly that this particular image is already licensed under such-and-such license. They don't necessarily need to mention that license when they go to print (because they have a separate license from you), but they presumably can't sue any third party for using a license that you have also granted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If an author writes an article that quotes a text that is in the public domain and publishes the article with a publisher who demands exclusive rights, I expect that the legal department of the publisher will agree that this does not imply that the author from then on can no longer quote this text – unlike everyone else, who is not a party to the contract and can use it freely. I also suppose that the same holds for a CC-BY-SA licence, regardless of who the original creator was. (The author might include material created and licensed by someone else.) If there is any doubt, I'd ask written confirmation of this analysis from the publisher. I also have signed various contracts with a rider added at my behest making an exception to a clause that in the specific context was not reasonable.  --Lambiam 00:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, @Jmabel: and @Lambiam: That seems like sounds advice. You're right that everyone else's rights are not affected no matter what is in the contract as they did not sign it – I should've realised that. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 01:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would summarize the situation like this: having issued a CC-BY-SA licence, in effect the only special or exclusive IP rights an author has left to grant are to waive the BY and/or SA conditions. I can imagine circumstances in which either might be of value, but I don’t know how often they occur IRL, if at all, to the extent that anyone would actually purchase such a right. Some form of BY is essential in all reputable academic work anyway, so here (if my inference from “journal” is correct), only the SA requirement would be on the block. For example it would allow licensees to assert ARR on DW of their making. (Similar considerations would apply to the NC & ND conditions, but we don’t go there.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my experience, when paying for a separate license for materials that are already free-licensed, most publishers understand they cannot get exclusivity (though that sounds like it might not be the case here) but they are willing to pay for a strong assurance that you really own the relevant rights, and to that end they typically want your real name, not an account name. Also, they want to be freed from any obligation to mention a specific license when they publish.
BTW, I've also had people pay for a 6- or 12-month exclusive on a set of photos, with me free to free-license them once that time is up, or (in at least one case I can recall) free to free-license whatever they didn't publish in their magazine. It's interesting how much business models seem to differ on this sort of thing. - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for sharing your views and experiences, @Odysseus1479: and @Jmabel: good to know. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 13:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I understand, if you "grant a publisher a right to exclusive use", that does not automatically null and void any of your previous obligations, i.e. from now onwards you promise to not sell or otherwise transfer your right to that image to somebody else. But CC is irrevocable, so if the publisher failed to see this image is under CC alredy, it is THEIR fault, CC license is still valid. -- Wesha (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Wesha. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 14:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to adhere to license but it's impossible to "link" to a license on a print piece[edit]

Hi all-

I'm looking to use an image for a print piece that is tied to this licensing standard. However, one of the requirements is that a link to the license be included with the image when it's used. The issue is that I want to use the image for the print piece, so I can't provide a link in the common digital sense. I really don't want to clog up my layout with a long url. Can I just give appropriate credit like this, and the person who views the physical piece can look up the license if needed? "[Creator name/handle], License: CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons"

If anyone wants to dig into the license further, here's the Image. Clarejello (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do need at least to provide a URL. You can set up a bitly link, which will be short. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
10-4. Thanks for the response! Clarejello (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel MW has its own Link-Shortener w.wiki. The image and the author (if the author of the image has a MW account) can be linked to with w.wiki. The license would need an external link shortener unless a single link to the file description page is deemed sufficient. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. That would be another way to do it. Still, Creative Commons is independent of WMF, and the user is entitled to link to the license without involving anything from WMF. - Jmabel ! talk 21:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For images where the file name on Commons is too long, you can also use a shortened URL using the article number, such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=109924879 . It doesn't help much for this image because the filename is already short. You can find the article number in the first SCRIPT element of the HTML source code, marked with "wgArticleId". – b_jonas 18:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, on an image page under the Tools sidebar, there should be an option for "Get shortened URL", which generates a link like https://w.wiki/8jVC. So, there's various options! — Huntster (t @ c) 21:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rea Irvin image[edit]

In a little over 3.5 days, w:Eustace Tilley as drawn by w:Rea Irvin will appear in the DYK section of the English Wikipedia w:Main page. I just stumbled upon something with an image of Irvin and was wondering if there is any chance that we can have a proper image in the Irvin infobox.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @TonyTheTiger: what is your theory on why that would be public domain (since it is certainly not free-licensed)? - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Aren't old pictures PD? Irvin died in 1972 and the picture on that website looks like he was young. All you experts have to do is figure out the source of that old image, which is why I am here, I think.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • We'd have to know when the photograph was published in order to determine copyright status. Right now for the US, it's before 1928, and on Monday, it will be before 1929. Abzeronow (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I thought you guys could do image searches like most common folks do text content searches.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His fantaisist self-portrait was published in 1943 by M.H. de Young Memorial Museum in the book Meet the artist, which has a copyright notice, but there doesn't seem to be an indication of a copyright renewal for that book title in the stanford base nor in the loc base, but other users could know better search options. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perception-based map cartoons[edit]

Can I request some assistance in properly adding some Perception-based map cartoons to commons. this article presents two w:John T. McCutcheon cartoons (from 1908 and 1922) that may be inspirations for w:View of the World from 9th Avenue. Can we add them to commons so I can include them in that article?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When were those cartoons published? Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
McCutcheon cartoons were always page 1 on Chicago Tribune and 1908 and 1922 seem believable dates. Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: what "assistance" would you need? Is there some reason you cannot simply upload them? - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do I need the exacted MMDDYYYY? Can anyone help me with those?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll look tomorrow for the 1922 cartoon but you can upload in the meantime if you want, I do have a Newspapers.com subscription and the Chicago Tribune is on my followed list (since I do upload pre-1928 stuff from there). Abzeronow (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What licenses would I put on the upload? If it is routine and the dates are hard to find, I am in the good graces with the w:Chicago Public Library here in town. So, if everything is Kosher, I might be able to get help tracking down dates. I am here to figure out how to make this a kosher process. I would also appreciate help with the dates, but could get help from the CPL.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anything published in the U.S. before 1928 (2 days from now it will be before 1929) is in the public domain. {{PD-US-expired}}. No "license" is involved for something in the public domain, though some people speak of this loosely as a "license tag". Year is sufficient, though more precision is always welcome. - Jmabel ! talk 21:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved

Is this work copyrighted?[edit]

The Flickr work in question

I found a work on Flickr that says it is public domain but given it’s from a television programme I'm unsure of the validity of this claim. I've placed a link to the Flickr file of the image above. Help on whether or not it is or is not copyrighted and whether or not it would be acceptable to upload to Wikimedia Commons under the rules of the Commons would be very helpful and much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Flickr account has the description, "Big Brother Junkie, sharing Big Brother Photos from series around the world." The image EXIF data says "Copyright - Channel 5 Broadcasting 2014" and "Embargoed - Celebrity Big Brother 2015." The "embargoed" suggests this is a publicity image produced by Channel 5 (Q1062280) to promote their 2015 show and released for use by professional media (embargo is an instruction to media organisations not to use the image before the day Channel 5 wants to start its publicity campaign). The EXIF stating that Channel 5 retain copyright and the Flickr account appearing to be a fan-based account (or at least not claiming any relationship to Channel 5) suggests the public domain claim is false. I would advise against upload here without further evidence of its copyright status. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is what we call Flickr washing. When someone takes a copyrighted work and reuploads it under a falsely given open license. PascalHD (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo Niagara.svg[edit]

Hello. I think this file can't be an "own work" because it's the logo of the french band "Niagara". Maybe it can stay here because it doesn't meet the threshold of originality ? If it's not right, it should be deleted ? Thank you. 78.119.11.155 11:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, {{PD-textlogo}}. I changed the license. Yann (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Double checking validity of Andy Warhol image content[edit]

I found File:Warhol Benincasa.jpg on commons and have extracted a thumbnail for use on WP. This file claims to be own work. Is this a validly licensed image?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Seems extremely unlikely from a user with no user page, no other Commons (or other WMF) contributions, and who did not provide a date for the photo. 12 years after upload, it is hard to determine whether it may already have been online elsewhere. Minutes after it was uploaded, someone not logged in (an IP address that has only three contributions, all in less than five minutes, all to one article and I would presume the same person as User:Catmuuu) added it to en-wiki. So I would guess that this is a fraudulent claim of "own work". - Jmabel ! talk 03:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jmabel: Google and Tineye can't find larger or older copies online. The uploader may be a former student or colleague of "prof Benincasa (left)".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Jeff G.: that's why I didn't nominate it for deletion. But I would certainly not bet on it myself; e.g. if I were publishing a book, I wouldn't trust that license. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I am not publishing a book, but I have an interest in using the thumbnail in a DYK nomination for w:Campbell's Soup Cans (in the article and on the w:main page}. What are the rules in this regard?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It is down to the view of the reuser as Commons doesn't dictate policy for Wikipedia. I have the same view as Jmabel that we have no evidence that the licence is either valid or invalid. It looks suspicious but we don't delete files out of paranoia alone. Personally, I would be uncomfortable with using this file. The consensus of Wikipedia editors may take a different view though. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the Disney Junior logo really above TOO?[edit]

Per COM:TOO#United States of America, an example of a logo that cannot be uploaded to Commons is w:File:Disney Junior.svg (VA0001927957). However, I just looked up that registration number at copyright.gov/records... it appears that it's not a registration for just the logo, but for an entire brand guide. The application title is "DISNEY JUNIOR - RETAIL AND MARKETING BRANDING GUIDE SS14 UPDATE". Typically a branding guide would mean a full book of information about a brand. In fact, I found the relevant portfolio page of the designer, and the brand guide included a complete refresh of the packaging of many Disney Junior products. Certainly a full-size book would be copyrighted, but that doesn't mean everything inside that book is copyrightable by itself. Unless there's some other information I'm missing, it seems that we don't actually have a USCO decision on this logo by itself, so it might be public domain?

I looked into this because I was about to cite it as precedent to delete File:Super Bowl XLVI wordmark.svg, which has a comparable 3D text effect... but now I'm not sure about either logo. Can anyone share any further insight on this? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IagoQnsi: File:Super Bowl XLVI wordmark.svg is definitely below the threshold of originality (there's absolutely nothing original about it), but I think w:File:Disney Junior.svg may be original enough to attract copyright protection, mostly just because of the Mickey Mouse stylized letter 'i'. Nosferattus (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source country and the U.S. laws differences[edit]

Hello! I'd like to start a discussion on an issue that is bothering me for a long time: a file (photograph or book) that is public domain on its home country, but under copyright at the US, should never be uploaded at the Commons, and what have been uploaded should be deleted or moved to another project (like Wikisource)? This discussion has been made in the past (2008a and 2008b), but it seems that nothing has come out of it. What do you all think? The differences, for example, between "Publish + 95 years" and "Life + 70 years" is reaching to a point where the Wikisource may not receive newly PD works for some time and it seems that the attempt of a Wikisource clone has been dead for some time now. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The most recently discussion at the Portuguese Wikisource. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I may be mistaken but I believe all of the Wikimedia servers are based in the US, so US copyright law would apply. That normally means that if US copyright has expired, the file can be uploaded to any project. However, because Commons policy requires dual licensing in both the source country and the US, we won't upload here until the "life +x years" rule is also met. That is the reverse of the position you describe (copyright free in source country but under copyright in the US).
Commons has no control over the policies of other Wikimedia projects. If consensus of your local project is to adopt a different copyright policy and you can convince the Wikimedia Foundation that your new policy is not blatantly illegal (to stop them pulling the plug on the server they are hosting your project on) then that is entirely up to you. Hypothetically, you could convince the Wikimedia Foundation to move the server for the Portuguese Wikisource to Portugal, so Portuguese copyright law would be the most prominent concern. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link to a Wikisource clone doesn't seem to go anywhere but does mention Wikilivres.[5] This appears to be a project independent of Wikimedia that is based in New Zealand and subject to New Zealand copyright law. The most recent change was in 2019. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's a project I started in 2006. I don't maintain it anymore, and the last maintainer is unreachable, but if anyone wants to start it again, there are dumbs on Internet Archive. Yann (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann@From Hill To Shore (just some segué) the long-dead project may be stabbed by a trend to extend NZ term to 70 years. But right now, current proposals are confined to sound recordings (but that may open the gates of NZ to 70 years p.m.a.). Seems not yet incorporated in the law as the current version still bears the 50-year rule from making for sound recordings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only saw the replies now:
  • But @From Hill To Shore, the standard at Commons would be to delete everything that doesn't complain with US law? Even the files from Template:PD-AR-Photo? The Portuguese Wikisource there's, at much, a draft of a decision: since there's about 3 or 4 active editors, the place is almost a ghost town.
  • @Yann: and @JWilz12345: : would it be possible to move Wikilivres to East Timor (Life + 50 years)? It seems the best place for this project. Brazil and Portugal are Life + 70 (which is already kind of strict)... Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erick Soares3 consider the threshold of originality issue too. Also, the site itself is de facto dead and no one has tried to fix the codes, so unless there are persevering contributors to Wikilivres, there is no use even if it is migrated to Timor-Leste or anywhere where 50-year term for all works is still applied. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345 My point is: there are stuff in the Commons that shouldn't be here in the literal interpretation of this site policies (like the 1950s Argentina images). I started to use the Template:Not-PD-US-URAA for some images/books because it was the only that made any sense, but ShakespeareFan00 rose some issues in some of my uploads, and then backed out when he saw that "Commons hasn't made a 'consistent' decision on these yet" (example). In my opinion, if this template shouldn't be used, it should have a clear warning on it (or just redirect it to SD). If books like Escândalo do Petróleo really should not be here, I'm ok with transwiking them to Wikisource. Erick Soares3 (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erick Soares3: Argentina pictures are OK until 1972. Italian pictures are OK until 1976. Yann (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann There's no fundamental difference between the copyright situation of Argentina and Italy. The requirement of a minimum protection of 25 years since creation comes from the Berne Convention, a treaty signed both by Italy (1887) and Argentina (1967). Lugamo94 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erick Soares3 {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} has a cutoff date, March 1, 2012. URAA-affected files uploaded after that date are not supposed to be hosted here and must be deleted. Only URAA-affected files that were uploaded until March 1, 2012 can be retained here. We already reject public monuments of no-FoP countries that are now in public domain in those countries but are still copyrighted in the U.S., like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sveti Janez Marija Vianej.jpg (from Slovenia, a pre-1978 sculpture). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erick Soares3 "complain" => "comply", I presume. And good luck finding hosting that would let you legally claim a base in East Timor. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are more countries with 50 pma laws: Hong Kong, South Africa, Taiwan, etc. Yann (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accd. to meta:Non-free content#Wikisource, the French Wikisource does accept "some media files are free according to lex loci but not US law". You might try that approach at Portuguese Wikisource. --Rosenzweig τ 02:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stone circle monument at Prophetstown State Park[edit]

I recently took some photographs of a stone circle memorial at Prophetstown State Park in Indiana. There is stone circle there installed as part of the state park in 2016. I am wondering if images of it that I took myself would be allowed on Commons. They seem to be rough hewn stones, but placed artistically, which might be considered a "sculpture". Each has a stone plaque on it representing a tribal nation once in the area. Here are some of the images I took:

Would this sort of thing be allowed? -- Yekrats (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Yekrats: it's the sort of thing that is right near the threshold of originality for copyright. I'd say feel free to upload the images, but please don't take offense if the decision is to delete them. If you want to be really prudent, you could contact the person who designed the stone circle and ask them to go through the COM:VRT process to grant a free license (probably {{Cc-by-4.0}}) for their contribution to your images, which could be seen as derivative works. They could authorize these particular images without waiving any other rights to the underlying sculpture. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Steamboat Wilie (From Mickey's Toontown).webm[edit]

I don't think this musical arrangement is in the public domain. This version of the tune is apparently from 1993 or around then, and therefore still protected by copyright. I think the music is sufficiently changed compared to the newly-PD 1928 version that it would pass the threshold of originality. 70.181.1.68 19:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Deleted: (c) Lewis Bertram. Yann (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DOVA-SYNDROME[edit]

I was planning to discuss the licence and the FAQ on the DOVA-SYNDROME music library website, so can anyone evaluate whether they're eligible or not? - THV | ♂ | U | T - 12:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems incompatible to me. Specific areas of concern are: 1. It is not redistributable - if the file is no longer distributed from that website, the licence becomes invalid for anyone who obtained the file from elsewhere (Commons, for example). 2. The licence states specifically that creators may impose additional conditions outside of the terms of the licence (we would have to check every single use of the licence to ensure no extra terms were added that invalidate usage here). 3. Usage is limited to background music only - that goes against our principle of being reusable for any purpose. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I guess I'll add it to my blacklist as above. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 14:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I've nominated 53 videos for deletion, excluding the last one, where I removed the audio entirely. Feel free to have thoughts if there are additional issues. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 23:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC); edited: 23:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos from my Father's collection[edit]

I took a look thru the FAQ, & didn't see these concerns directly addressed, so excuse me if this is spelled out somewhere else.

I have inherited from my Father all the photos (in slide format) he took during his lifetime. (He died Summer of last year.) I am in the process of cataloguing & scanning them. The earliest phots I have date to 1958, & continue up to a decade or so prior when he tired of his hobby. Topics include local history (I know he took pictures of the 1964 Willamette River flood), as well as his travels to Sudan, Nigeria, & parts of Europe. And there are a few slides that were purchased. I have two questions concerning these:

1. While I did not create these photos, since I am his heir I believe I own the intellectual property of these photos. So am I still permitted to upload those of these photos I want under a Commons-friendly license? (As an aside, while he was still alive I mentioned the possibility of uploading his photos to Commons for all to see, & he liked the idea.)

2. Amongst these slides are a number of commercially-produced ones that were, years ago, sold to tourists. These have no indication of copyright on them -- by that, no (c) symbol, no clear indication who produced them or who owns their copyright. Just a label of what the subject is in multiple languages. Are these to be considered public domain, or should I research their ownership? (That is, if there is a way to determine that: I suspect in some cases, because at the time they were created reproduction by individuals was so difficult no need was seen to go thru the procedure & cost of copyright.)

Thanks in advance for any help. -- llywrch (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any photos personally taken by him can be licensed by you, the heir, using something like {{heirs-license|cc-by-sa-4.0}}.
Commercially produced slides are generally not acceptable; per COM:PCP, we can't assume something is OK just the copyright holder is unknown. However, if a slide was first published in the United States (regardless of where it was taken) before 1978 without a copyright notice, then {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(after edit conflict) @Llywrch: My condolences for your loss.
In answer to your questions, the first group of images where you have inherited copyright, you can choose to release them through one of our "heirs" licences available at Category:License tags for transferred copyright. Further details are available at Commons:Transfer of copyright.
For the second group, we would need to consider them in more detail as it will depend on where they were taken (which country's copyright law applies), when they were taken and if there is any indication at all of authorship. Many countries have different rules for anonymous works compared to named works. Also, if they appear to be unique works (for example an image of your family at a tourist spot) or a generic photograph of a tourist spot (that may have been sold in bulk to tourists in a similar way to a postcard) that may have an impact on consideration of publication rules. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The commercially-produced slides were created outside the US, & are generic photographs similar to post cards. So I should look to the copyright laws of that country to determine if Commons can use them? (As an aside, I won't be upset if Commons cannot accommodate them: that would simply mean I would have fewer slides to digitize. I already have identified several from the first few hundred I've reviewed worth uploading out of a couple thousand my Father created.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, basically the copyright law of that country, and of course the 1996 URAA restoration of U.S. copyright may be an issue, too. I've got similar materials; I probably wouldn't try to put commercial content of that sort on Commons, it's rarely going to be PD unless it's pre-1929, though there are a few countries (e.g. Argentina) where you can go clear down to 1976.
You will definitely want to attribute him as author, and might want to create a user category for his works and use it on all of these uploads (in addition to all the usual categories, of course). - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status of Italian stamps[edit]

According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Stamps stamps of Italy are copyrighted until at 70 years after the artists death. Since according to the a sentence in the guideline "the law contains no exceptions to standard copyright law for stamps." Although according to another part of the guideline, Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Government_works, "Works created by or on behalf of either the government, the former national Fascist Party, an academy, or private legal entities of a non-profit-making character of Italy, have 20 years of duration of the rights." Which seems to be in line with, and referenced to, the wording in section 633/1941 art. 11, 29 of the Italian law on copyright.

Further, looking at the Wikipedia article for Poste Italiane it appears that the Italian Post was run by the government of Italy up until the early 1990s. At which point a large part of it was put in the hands of a private investment bank. Assuming that's the case, it seems as though pre-1990s stamps would be public domain as works created on behalf of the government of Italy. Whereas, ones created and/or published after 1990 wouldn't be. So assuming the year is correct, I'm thinking the guideline for Italian stamps should be changed to reflect that ones created before 1990 when Poste Italiane was owned by the government are in the public domain. Anyone disagree with that conclusion or have any other thoughts on the matter? Adamant1 (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French film posters[edit]

Hi, I wonder who is the copyright owner of French film posters. If I would be a film producer, I would get the copyright from the artist, but is it the case? I found 2 posters for Category:Les Aventures de Robert Macaire (1925): This one was made by Jean-Adrien Mercier, and this one by Alain Cuny. Both artists aren't dead long enough for public domain, but if the copyright is owned by the film producer, then there are in the public domain by {{PD-France}}. Any idea? Yann (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if France has any specific rules, but normally in countries where there is no such thing as work-for-hire or corporate copyrights (e.g., UK, Germany), the copyright belongs to the creator, which would be the artist in these cases. —holly {chat} 19:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think work for hire does exist in French law, but I don't know the practice in film industry. Yann (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The UK has work for hire explicitly in their law (they treat "author" and "first copyright owner" differently). I would think in other places, usually the employment contract would specify that the economic rights would be transferred, even if technically first owned by the author. French law presumes that "collective works" published under a corporate name is owned by the company. However, I would disagree the posters qualify as PD in France by my reading -- the definition of collective works are only those in which the personal contributions of the various authors who participated in its production are merged in the overall work for which they were conceived, without it being possible to attribute to each author a separate right in the work as created. If you are able to attribute the artwork to a particular person, then it's not a collective work I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think these are collective works, and I don't understand why you mention it. Only one author is mentioned for each. Yann (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought that would be the only way they are PD in France. How would the copyright expire if it was owned by the film producer? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the film producer was Jean Epstein who died in 1953, it became public domain a few days ago. Or if the copyright owner was Films Albatros, it expired on January 1st, 1984, 58 years after publication (until 1996, when it was prolonged to 70 years if it didn't expired). Yann (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The film has a copyright term based on the director, author of the screenplay, author of the dialog, and score composer (if made specifically for the movie). The producer's lifetime does not enter into it. (EU directive 2006/116/EC, article 2; and French IP code article L123-2.) The poster would have a copyright term based on the artist's life, since they are known. The producer may own the copyright and is where you need to get permission, but the term of the copyright is pretty much always based on the human author (if known) in the EU, if you are waiting for it to expire. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In looking, Epstein was the director, and it was a silent movie so no music. If Epstein was the sole writer, then the movie would be PD. But unless the poster was a still from the movie, it would be an independent work, with a term based on its own author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carl Lindberg: Well yes, they may have work for hire in the UK, but the copyright term durations, which are what is most important for us, are still tied to when the the author (a natural person) dies. --Rosenzweig τ 21:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how this is possible in practice. An organization or the State would have to keep track of all its employees' death date... Yann (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they want to sue and prove ownership of a valid copyright outside the 70 years, yes. If the company doesn't name the author, they may only get 70 years from publication. But if the author was named (or names themselves later, or in some countries simply becomes known), then the term reverts to 70pma even if still owned by the company. The EU directive does have a part which says that countries which have work for hire are supposed to require the author name on initial publication, else it will always be 70 years from "making available" with no option to expand to 70pma. The UK however did not actually implement that in their law, even though they have work for hire, so they still allow a work to become 70pma later on. France does not have work for hire technically, though I think they require an author to "make themselves known" to get the 70pma later on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct upload?[edit]

Hello, I upload the Cosina CX-2 image from Flickr, but are bigger and I cropping to have better size for articles in Wiki. It's correct the upload? https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cosina_CX-2.jpg Bernatargentona (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: File:Cosina CX-2.jpg
@Bernatargentona: That's a bit hard to follow; if there is another language you write better than English, please feel free to use it here.
Cropping is fine.
Was there something additional you were asking? - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moltes grácies, només tenia aquest dubte de si el retall era correcte.
Thanks you @Jmabel Bernatargentona (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Street art and FOP in the US[edit]

Would the image of en:Guy Fieri in File:Portland, Oregon (July 26, 2022) - 008.jpg be considered copyrightable as a COM:DW per COM:FOP US or would it be treated as possibly COM:CB#Graffiti? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • {{Non-free graffiti}} imho apply here Юрий Д.К 18:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I thought that might a possibility, but this seems to have been painted on the wall of a restaurant owned and operated by Fieri; so, perhaps it's more of a en:work for hire, than random graffiti. Anyway, the uploader has stated on their user talk page that they only took the photo and didn't not create the image/graffiti; thus, the "own work" claim only applies to the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was legally painted, then it's not graffiti, and it would have a copyright. (The graffiti question is gray at best if illegally painted, but that has been our policy.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are You Experienced - US album cover art[edit]

File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg is licensed as {{PD-US-no notice}} and is listed as an example of a public domain album cover in COM:CB#Album covers. However, I'm wondering whether it's really PD based upon what's written about the cover art and other images created by the photographer who took the photo for the cover in this article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly in the (long) article? At first glance, the article doesn't seem to affect the conclusions reached in:
-- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without reading the long article: under the old U.S. copyright law, any authorized publication without notice put the work in the public domain. It didn't matter if there had also been publication with notice elsewhere. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias and Jmabel: First, my apologies for not being more specific about the part of the article that I thought might be relevant. At the very end of the article, it states the following: "All images featured in this Cover Story are Copyright 1967 and 2008, Karl Ferris and Karl Ferris Photography - All rights reserved." It was the "Copyright 1967" part that made me wonder since the first image in the article is the album cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There would be a valid copyright on it in the UK (and before Brexit all across the EU) -- since it's a British author, they would not use the rule of the shorter term, but 70pma. And there were more photos in the article than just what is on the cover in question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photographs of the European Parliament[edit]

Hello, I'd like to know if this picture and others of the archive of the European Parliament are suitable for Commons. It is atributted to © Communautés européennes 2001 and states that it can be used under "Identification of origin mandatory". Morevover, the legal notice of the website states the following:

"As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it."

I guess this would fall under an attribution acknowledging the source licence. Nevertheless, I've seen that File:Official portrait of David Sassoli, president of the European Parliament.jpg has been licensed as cc-by-4.0, so I don't know which licence should be used, maybe a new template should be created. Any thoughts? Basque mapping (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. You can only use the CC-BY-* licenses if that license was explicitly stated by the copyright owner. In this case, the statement only authorizes "non-commercial or commercial dissemination" (which does not conform to our policies requiring commercial use) and also requires "the entire item is reproduced", which prevents derivative works, which also does not conform to our policies. So even though uploading with acknowledgment of the source would be OK by their rules, it does not conform to COM:Licensing so would not be OK here. The statement on the image you mention that "which is understood to be equivalent to a CC BY license" is not correct. They may have had different usage terms at the time which may qualify for us, but you can't "assume" a CC license, ever -- the license is the explicit wording they used, and we'd have to judge if it conforms to COM:Licensing. A license statement solely of "Usage terms: Identification of origin mandatory" with no other restrictions does sound like {{Attribution}}, but if there are more explicit terms associated like the ones you mention, then it would not be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg Well, in the legal notice also specifies that "the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it." so we could consider the sidenote "Identification of origin mandatory" overrides the general conditions of the website? Thanks for the help :) Basque mapping (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg I agree with you that this doesn't allow derivative works, so the rest of this is moot but: what is the problem with authorizing "non-commercial or commercial dissemination"? What is that leaving out in terms of our policies requiring allowing commercial use? - Jmabel ! talk 21:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must have missed the "or commercial". So OK, that hurdle is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification on UK mural copyright[edit]

Hi all, I've been reading COM:FOP UK and the description of Category:Murals in England pretty much back and forth over the past half an hour or so, and having taken a few pictures around Hull Paragon Interchange's entrance hall yesterday of Andy Pea's 2023 mural (commissioned by Trans-Pennine Express) 'Creation of Hull', I'm not quite sure of my rights here. Would photographs of various parts of the mural constitute a "graphic work" and therefore be inadmissible for Commons uploading under Sections 4 and 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988? Hullian111 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is hard to say without knowing the construction method of the mural. From the linked page it looks like a painted scene, so would be a 2D graphic work. We could only upload here if the artist releases their mural under a compatible licence. As the train company commissioned the piece, it may be that they also acquired copyright or the right to relicense the work; in that scenario, a suitable licence from the train company would be acceptable. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, hypothetically, I'd have to contact Andy Pea (who handily has a contact page) and Trans-Pennine Express to get 13 photos licensed. Ah, no bother then, that sounds like too many hoops to jump through; thanks for the advice, I'll just keep them on my hard drive for personal viewing. I assume the same licensing problem might be encountered if the GeographBot uploads this to the Commons in about a year's time?
As a test case so I know how to get this copyright thing right with murals in the UK, would anything by the 'Spray Collective', such as this street mural, fall under a similar licensing issue, too? The burger shop that commissioned it has since gone out of business some years ago, so the current owners of the building probably have no part in maintaining the mural, but I assume copyright still lies with the 'Spray Collective' and thus puts it under a similar licensing issue to Andy Pea's railway station mural? Hullian111 (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, taking a picture primarily of someone else's copyrighted work is a derivative, and we would need a license from the owner of the underlying work (for at least your photo) to be OK here (or the copyright needs to have expired, which can take 120 years or more). Some countries have a "freedom of panorama" provision for anything permanently in public, such that photos of it are OK, but in the UK that does not extend to murals or paintings (primarily just 3-D works like sculpture or buildings). Obviously such things are fine in many non-commercial contexts under fair use or fair dealing, but not on Commons. If the photo is primarily of something else and is a minor part of the photo, some of the situations in Commons:de minimis may apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What counts as an "author" for the purposes of copyright (with regard to a still image of a film)?[edit]

(copied from my question over at the English Wikipedia, because my question wasn't answered properly and i figure you all would know more)

The director? The cinematographer? The director in this case died in 1929 (it is a German film from 1920), and the cinematographer died in 1969. Or does it belong to the company? Since it's before 1928 it's good for America (so it can stay on enwiki) but it comes from a country that has life of the author + 70. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright term in the EU for a film, these days, is defined in the 2006 directive, article 2: The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work. The copyright owner is likely the company, if you are looking to obtain permission. But if you are waiting for the copyright to expire, then you need to look at the lives of those people. If that was a silent movie, then obviously there was no music. The cinematographer does not enter into it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: for a silent, insofar as the author of the dialogue [in this case intertitles] is distinct from the author of the screenplay, there is probably not a clue to be had as to who the former would be. Does that mean we have to wait a full 120 years from initial release for all such EU films? - Jmabel ! talk 08:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what is not credited will be attributed to the director and/or the producer, copyright wise. Nowadays, the producers manage the copyright, but it may have been different in the 1920s. Yann (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=838958138"