Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/03

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

Use of existing Wikimedia playing card images e.g. File:Rosamond's Bower Patience.png

I am creating images using graphics software to illustrate how patience or solitaire games are played e.g. File:Rosamond's Bower Patience.png. However the actual playing card images are taken from Category:SVG playing cards 4 on Wikimedia Commons. Under "Source" I have described them as "Own work" because I produced the actual graphic, but added the words "The card images are from "Category:SVG playing cards 4" here on Wikimedia Commons." Is that acceptable or is there another, preferred, way of indicating the source of the actual playing card images? Bermicourt (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

​Other ways to show such origins are the templates Own based, Own using, and maybe in this case probably Attrib/Attribs. Less suited is Derived from because it is not a derivation.
IMHO your solution is good and acceptable, the link to the category summarizes the use of 14 cards where an Attribs table of all these cards seems not helpful.
Have you ever thought of creating an SVG image when you used SVG card images? It is kind of downgrading when you convert the SVG images to a PNG image. -- sarang♥사랑 08:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- sarang♥사랑 08:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Maps based on data from datazone.birdlife.org

Hello all,

User from he.wiki want to upload map based on data from datazone.birdlife.org but hesitating as the site term of use say: "In particular, please note that the data cannot be used for commercial purposes, passed on to third parties, or republished". It's not a copyright issue but still I would like to her an opinion/s. -- Geagea (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As you noted this is not a copyright issue. So, no problem. Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! פרצטמול (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Ruslik, But the thing that I was actually worried about is "Full and appropriate acknowledgement is required in any materials or publications derived from the data (and copies of these should be sent to BirdLife)." פרצטמול (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This is not much different from what a CC-BY license requires. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
As I can see it, you break the contract if you license "products derived from" the data for commercial purposes, which you will do if you upload such a map to commons. That is not a copyright problem, but do you want to? And, if you for copyright reasons need a permission to use the data, then you don't have it if you don't follow the terms as the contract, to my understanding, is the only thing giving you right to use the data. Then, data is usually not subject to copyright. However, in the EU, there is the database rights, and the map would probably be based on a "significant part" of the database and thus using it without permission would violate their database rights. I don't know what we think about those at Commons. The Hungarian user could anyway be sued (though IANAL). –LPfi (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Dzungargenocide.png

file:Dzungargenocide.png is a cropped version of a public domain image already on Commons, specifically File:Battle of Oroi-Jalatu.jpg. Does that mean that the cropped version is also public domain? If so, how do I get the tag updated? Can I just do it myself? Signore Galilei (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You can just do it yourself, linking to the file from which it was cropped. Anyone can see they are equivalent when comparing them side by side. (aside: briefly had to make sure I wasn't looking at the geohashing wiki, haha) Arlo James Barnes 18:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Usually cropping does not involve enough originality to create a copyright, so the crop would inherit the copyright of the underlying work.
You can edit the file description page like any other wiki page. The licence is in a template, which you can exchange for any other licence template; in this case, you could copy {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} from the description of the original (or from here). You should also tell in the file description that it is a crop of this work. The best way to do that is by using {{Extracted from|File:Battle of Oroi-Jalatu.jpg}} in the source field.
I wonder though: is this depicting genocide? en:Ten Great Campaigns says nothing about genocide, rather I get the impression it was an ambush on an army. A genocide might have followed, according to en:Dzungar people, but I am not sure the battle image is the best illustration.
–LPfi (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the editing info. The best English Wikipedia description of the battle I can find is in en:Dzungar-Qing Wars#Final conquest of the Dzungars. From there, it does seem that this particular image is a wartime ambush, and the genocide occurred after the war. Signore Galilei (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! (Also, I did go geohashing recently, yes) Signore Galilei (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

choreography in Commons (or elsewhere in Wikimedia)

Hi, this question isn't solely about copyright but copyright is a major component of it, and I don't know of a better-suited Wikimedia forum that has any activity (although, feel free to suggest any you know of).

Background: The now-disbanded music group dotstokyo (which has a creator page) released some but not all of their creative output into the public domain. They published a webpage which delineates which works are covered: https://dots.tokyo/PD (Japanese-language). Listed there are song/track titles, and it says that for those tracks three aspects are released: the tune (they linked karaoke versions specifically, which I uploaded), the lyrics (which I put in the description of the karaoke files, and may add to ja.ws at some point), and the choreography for that track in their live shows. Anyone reading this who doesn't understand Japanese can use multiple machine translation apps to confirm that's what it says. Not released are the specific instantiations of these things in the dots oeuvre -- so, the [non-karaoke] album version audio, and video recordings of their shows (posted to the management company's YouTube channel) are themselves still under exclusive copyright.

The question: are you aware of a format for recording choreographies I could write to while watching the videos and upload here (or to some other Wikimedia project depending on the details of the format, perhaps mulws)? Arlo James Barnes 15:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Lyrics and tune have a copyright prior to being recorded, but I don't see how choreography can. So if the lyrics and the tune are in the public domain, and if the recorder puts the records into the public domain, they can be uploaded to Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean; Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (Q56274602) set precedent in the US for the threshold of originality for dance. Or are you distinguishing an individual act of dance from the dance scheme? Arlo James Barnes 18:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Copyright exists from the time a creative work is recorded. If the choreography details were not written before, there is no copyright. Yann (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The enwiki article on the Berne Convention says "As soon as a work is 'fixed', that is, written or recorded on some physical medium [then copyrights are instantiated]", so I think that's the same concept. I don't think that can be the whole story since publication is also usually material (hence why some letters from Darwin aren't in the public domain), but I see how performing a choreography isn't the same as publishing the written version (presuming it existed in the first place). But it's nice to have an explicit release anyway, as here. Arlo James Barnes 17:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
If you see the choreography on the net (without it being live-streamed), then it has obviously been recorded. And if it is written down, then that's as tangible as notes written down (I assume there is copyright on ballets in most jurisdictions). But here, as the choreography is dedicated to the public domain, there should be no problem (given PD dedication is possible in the local jurisdiction). There is probably a host of ways to write down choreographies, but you'd probably either find somebody who knows how to, for the genre displayed (and releases their copyright), or have somebody watch the video, learn the choreography, and let you record their show under a free licence (CC-zero?). –LPfi (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm no dancer, so the second option is out of my hands (and you'd need five performers to do it up right), but the first option is something more what I'm looking for. I'm hoping there's something like Gaupol/Amara (by analogy with subtitling) for setting up timings and specifying poses, but perhaps that's just wishful thinking. Arlo James Barnes 18:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
You'd need to recognise the poses, and know symbols or names for them. That's why I think you need someone to do it for you. –LPfi (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
After some more reading, it appears that category:DanceWriting is the system best suited for textual representation currently, but the focus seems to be on the SignWriting sibling system at the moment. Arlo James Barnes 17:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Copyrighted Images

This user RMonish is uplolading copyrighted images even after being warned. AAhap36 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: You issued the final warning to RMonish (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) .   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Copyrighted logo from a free software repository?

If an official repository for a free software package contains the company's logo, then is it safe to assume logo is free even if the copyright holder doesn't explicitly say so otherwise?

For example, the Nvidia logo has been determined to be copyrighted and consistently deleted from Commons. However, the logo could be obtained from a repo with the Apache License. Can we assume that the Nvidia logo is free in this case?

I noticed that a Twitter logo was recently uploaded to Commons under a similar rationale. It was nominated for deletion about a month ago, but the consensus is to "keep" so far. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The LICENSE file at the Nvidia repository you point to, says at the top: Unless otherwise noted, Thrust's source code is released under the Apache License, Version 2.0. So, it would seem that they explicitly scoped the license to the source code, and not other stuff in there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It looks the license only applies to the source in this case. However, I did find another instance of the logo in a different repo. The license for this one does not seem to be specifically limited to the source code. [1] Ixfd64 (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Data USA

Yesterday I added a copyright violation tag to a file sourced by Data USA, and the file was deleted. Today I came across an entire category of files uploaded from this website. My concern is that Data USA's content usage policy specifies personal use only. I'm not sure how to nominate for deletion an entire category of images. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, the license template was created by User:Kaldari in 2017, so perhaps Data USA previously had a different usage policy. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The files were not transferred from Data USA with a publicly visible free license. Rather, they were uploaded by Dave-landry-datawheel, a VRT-confirmed authorized representative. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I uploaded these files as direct exports from the site... and I am actually the chief maintainer of Data USA. If there is language that needs to be added/changed/removed from our usage page, please let us know. We want these files accessible for anyone who wants to use them here! Dave Landry (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Please see the replies above. Which file was deleted? Was there not even a deletion discussion? Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Not sure. File histories sometimes vanish after a speedy delete. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kaldari: The file is File:Tree Map of Industries by Share in Wisconsin.png. It seems that due to the lack of an acceptable license on https://datausa.io/about/usage/#content, {{Data USA license}} may only be used when uploaded by an authorized representative of Data USA. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Damages at 7A Košice Street.jpg

Hi, I am not experienced with licenses. As noted, I took the image out from a free video to show the location. Copying the video's license seems incorrect, help of an expert is needed to select a suited license. Thank you -- sarang♥사랑 07:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The file is now marked as "derived from" and shows the CC-By licence of the video (the derived file should have the same license as the original file). It's all good :) Skimel (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Unseen drawings uploaded by WMF

As I didn't realize until now, the WMF has hired artists to draw sketches of individuals (Category:Wiki Unseen), like File:Portrait of Marian Ewurama Addy on Watercolor Background for Wiki Unseen.jpg. I wonder whether those sketches are derivatives of non-free materials, i.e. photos. George Ho (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As long as the artists followed the guidelines properly, the drawings would not be considered DW. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I think category:VisibleWikiWomen / campaign:VisibleWikiWomen is a separate initiative, no? Arlo James Barnes 15:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The rules would be the same. Basically, the copyright expression in a photograph is typically the angle chosen, and the framing. For a studio photograph, it can also include the facial expression achieved, or the specific pose of the subject, and that kind of thing (i.e. elements under control of the photographer). The photographer doesn't have a copyright over what the subject looks like, just the elements specific to their photograph. To be a derivative work, the drawing would have to reproduce those elements. If the drawing picks an original angle, and does not copy those aspects seen in one particular photo, it's usually fine. But if you can identify the source photograph for a drawing, by the angle and exact facial expression, it's often a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Why is there no link to a description of the project on the category page? –LPfi (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia recordings licensed as public domain

Hi, I'm new here. The following Arabic Spoken Wikipedia recordings (audio recordings of Arabic Wikipedia articles being read aloud) were uploaded by User:Helmoony and labelled as public domain (or CC0). I believe this is a violation of the ShareAlike component of Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license.

- excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 01:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Reading aloud would certainly create a derived work, and yes, as Wikipedia is under CC-BY-SA, using the same licence for the derived work is required, unless the authors of the specific article have given the permission to do otherwise. I suppose the PD or CC-zero licence is for the reading itself, in the same way as we often licence our photos with no mention of the copyright of included artwork or architecture (which may be de minimis in the photo but not when cropped to be the subject).
The files should state the licence of the text, with mention of the CC-zero licence by means of a wrapping template, or without template – as licence templates are often read by machine, with no way to see additional restrictions. {{Derived from}} or similar can be used for the source, but I don't know what wrapping template to use for the licence.
–LPfi (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
We have template:spoken article (plus some language-specific equivalents) for the int:filedesc section, but one specifically for the int:license-header section would be nice and make it easy to upload such files using the upload wizard. Arlo James Barnes 15:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Chagaiatomictests.jpg

Can someone please look into the copyright status of this file?

The description says the image was released by the Pakistani government into the public domain, but it also says "All rights reserved by the Government of Pakistan." I also couldn't find evidence that the image is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. In any case, the photograph was taken in 1998 and is too recent for {{PD-Pakistan}} to apply. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

National Archives copyright confusion

Hiya I am working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Morris and I wanted to check on the copyright status of two pictures I added from commons, namely this one and this one. They have been uploaded as part of a batch from Flickr marked "no known copyright restrictions". On Flickr they are both marked "No known copyright restrictions" with a blurb saying "This image is from the collections of The National Archives. Feel free to share it within the spirit of the Commons." It seemed a bit odd, because they are from 1970 and thus one would think they would be copyrighted. So I mailed the National Archives, they replied saying the photos are copyright of the Metropolitan Police (ie London police). The Archives gave me the most recent links on their pages which are here and here and both pages clearly say "Creator:Metropolitan Police Office" and "The National Archives understands this item to be the copyright of the Metropolitan Police Service. It may not be reproduced except with the permission of the copyright owner.". Therefore it seems that the images here definitely have the wrong copyright notice and perhaps maybe even need to be deleted? That's above my paygrade so I thought I'd drop a note here (I've also mailed back to the Archives suggesting they might want to look into their Flickr categorisation). Obviously I'd like to keep them on the Olive Morris page but only with a fitting attribution. Thanks for any help and if any action needs to be taken, I'll note again that these photos are part of a batch. Mujinga (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga: I don't know the UK copyright legislation, but it seems you are right that they probably aren't PD (COM:UK says the term is 70 years from publication if the author was anonymous, which would mean PD in 2041 if the year 1970 is correct). For the Black Panthers' paper, I don't understand why the Police would own the copyright though. On Wikipedia in English (i.e. that article), they might still be used on the basis of fair use, if uploaded locally there. I don't know the fair use legislation across the pond either. –LPfi (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
If the photo of the demonstration was taken by the Police and distributed to news media, it might be under crown copyright and first commercially published in 1970, and thus free already. –LPfi (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes it is a strange one. Fair use wouldn't extend to having the pix on the page for Olive Morris I think. This flowchart is helpful to some extent but then it depends on what "published" means. I suppose the police own the copyright on the photo of the newsletter, they def didn't make it! As a sidenote, the National Archives listing it under "Crime" is pretty bad. Mujinga (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Institutions uploading "no known copyright restrictions" material to Flickr are supposed to carefully vet the copyright before doing so. We tend to accept those at face value, unless it's a derivative work of some kind, or the country of origin was different than the institution's country (in which case it may not be PD in the country of origin). If the material was Crown Copyright, and it had been transferred to the National Archives, I believe they can actually manage that copyright. Some government departments manage their own works, but I think the National Archives is the main administrator for Crown Copyright (per this page) so they would have the right to license the works. The Flickr license is either for PD works, or copyrighted works where the institution is giving up copyright completely. It looks like the photograph above was uploaded to Flickr in 2016, which was before Crown Copyright could have expired, so I would imagine it would be reason 3 or 4 on {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} which would apply (which represent an actual license). {{PD-UKGov}} may apply to it as of 2021, though not sure that city government falls under Crown Copyright -- but if works were transferred to the National Archives, I would tend to just accept their copyright statement. The photo of the poster may be more problematic -- don't think that qualifies for FoP, and is a derivative work, so the copyright status of that is beyond that of the actual photo, so that may be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I've replied to the National Archives and said they might want to check out what's happening on their side. Is there anything else I can/should do to fix the licensing? Mujinga (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Not sure there is anything to fix in the license. {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} is the license tag, really -- we are relying on their judgement on Flickr, so that is the best information we have. I guess one academic question would be if the metropolitan police images fall under Crown Copyright or not, and if not do the National Archives administer that copyright anyways for old works. However, the Archives already made their decision when uploading it to Flickr -- that upload is part of the organized Flickr Commons initiative (nothing to do with us), and regular Flickr users can't mark their uploads that way. The poster may be out of their hands, though. That license may apply to the photograph, but almost certainly not to the contents. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

category:Stanford bunny

Per w:en:talk:Stanford bunny#Bunny image, we should ascertain what the copyright status of the original figurine is (or was at the time of scanning). Arlo James Barnes 12:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The data set is free to use as long as credit is given. The original scan falls under fair use. There is no issue here. Please stop marking pages for deletion because you have a hunch. Zzubnik (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Rules on filipino logos?

what is the TOO for the Philippines? please have a look at Special:ListFiles/ToyotaGRGirls. -- RZuo (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This is another sockpuppet of Yuiyui2001 (talk · contribs) who keeps uploading what seem to be imaginary police badges from the Phillipines. Will flag it at COM:AIV. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

replica of sculpture in public place

I have a question about the copyright of a replica of a sculpture. The sculpture itself is located in a public place in Amsterdam. Photos of this sculpture can be published with a free license, because there is Freedom of Panorama in the Netherlands (COM:FOP Netherlands). These photos can be found in Category:Amsterdams Lieverdje. The original sculpture has been designed by Carel Kneulman, who died 2008, so the copyright of the sculpture lasts until 2079. It might also be that Hunter Cigarette Company owned the copyright, because it was made on their request.

Replica's of this statue have been made (from 2006)[1] as a trophee for a prize. A picture of the trophee has been uploaded by User:Kattiel, File:Roze lieverdje 2022.jpg. On VRT, we received permission to publish this image form probably the photographer. My question is, can we safely licence this image with CC-BY-SA?

I do not know whether the original copyright holder gave permission for making the replica. Your opinions are appreciated. Ellywa (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ https://rozelieverdje.nl/archieven/

Eiffel Tower at night - anew

In light with this very insightful DR I just now accessed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel Tower in pink, Paris - Oct 1, 2021.jpg, there should be a formal, Commons-wide agreement on how to deal images of the famous tower at night, as we already have restored several of them, now at Category:Eiffel Tower at night. Plus the said category now contains dozens of new imports from Flickr.

The question now: is Eiffel Tower at night acceptable at Commons or not? If the latter is true, then perhaps 90% of "Category:Eiffel Tower at night" are doomed to be "nuclear bombed" (including several that I requested to be restored at undeletion requests, except some de minimis cases).

Note that France is perhaps the most protective in art, whether architecture, sculptures, paintings, novels, or even light shows and sound media, and French managements are there to shield the artists' outputs (e.g. CEVM management is the guardian of Sir Norman Foster's output Millau Viaduct).

Pinging all involved users from the DR for this discussion: @Ezarate, Basile Morin, Brianjd, Buidhe, King of Hearts, Yann, Benh, A.Savin, Ikan Kekek, and Taivo: _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

There is also the possibility that normal lighting is OK, but special stuff like the pink lighting is not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Which files were restored, and what was the reasoning behind the restoration? It would be important to state that, if we are to have a knowledgeable discussion on this topic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: the recent restoration requests are in the following:
Note that this list is not exhaustive; there are more undeletion requests of the same matter spanning from 2019 to many years ago, like this one from 2011. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I closed the DR and I'm convinced, that my closure was correct. Hundreds of photos in category:Eiffel Tower at night should be deleted (not 90%, though). Taivo (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, JWilz12345, Taivo and King of Hearts. I am not a lawyer and have no expertise in copyright law, but my feeling is, if the undeletions were correct for the reasons given, there's no good reason to eliminate the category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Ur welcome. Hmm, perhaps those that show no ordinary lighting (like illuminations of EU flag, or flags of all nations)? This may be problematic for an illuminated Eiffel Tower draped with Ukrainian colors (blue and yellow) with regards to Paris' showing of solidarity with the beseiged nation in relation to the recent events in the Eastern Europe and vicinity. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Who has copyright over nations' flags, though? Is it the lighting or the image that's at issue? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: the colorful lighting perhaps, being thought of by the lighting director or designer. In some past UNDEL, some users said that the copyrighted lighting display refers to a particular light show in the 90s, as stated on the notice on top of Category:Eiffel Tower at night. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Right, that could well be the case. My comment about a light show of a country's flag, though, is that the copyright for that show could be held by the country in question for the image and/or the lighting artist for the light show, and I don't know whether one or both would hold a copyright. For example, the U.S. flag is quite old. Does anyone hold a copyright for it? And aside from being old, as an official document, isn't it public domain? What would the equivalent law be regarding the Ukrainian flag? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I cannot see any argument for a flag's copyright applying here, unless the light show exactly replicated the flag itself. Rather, it would be the copyright of the light director's company.
That said, the argument that non-light-show lights (i.e. neutral lights) would not have a copyright does make sense. No creative effort goes into flipping a switch, whereas there is at least a modicum of creative effort in choosing a light colour and pattern. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Normal lighting would have an equal claim to copyright protection, much like lighting a person or other three-dimensional photographic subject would contribute to that copyright. Or put another way, there's no such thing as merely "flipping a switch" here: the exact placement of lights, their luminosity and colour temperature, diffuse or sharp, where to not place lights, and so forth, are all inherently creative choices. Xover (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Logo copyright status

Hello everyone! I want to ask you if this logo meets or not threshold of originality. Thank you

ツSenador Tell me! 00:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Your link resolves to a blank image. Do you mean the logo in w:en:File:Allbritton Communications Company logo.jpg? The uploader to English Wikipedia tagged it as a non-free logo, but we are not bound by that opinion. This is the logo of a US company, so we should be guided by COM:TOO United States. This appears to be a marginal case, I would not upload it but I would probably not nominate it for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Austro Hungarian war artist

What would be the status of a work produced by an "official artist serving with the Austro Hungarian army 1915-1917", while undertaking that role, if they died in 1994? Is there an equivalent of the UK's crown copyright, which renders the death date irrelevant? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The copyright status of any such image will be governed by the laws of the countries that Austro-Hungary disintegrated to. There is no such thing as an Austro-Hungarian crown copyright. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
If Australian copyright law is any guide, copyright tends to belong to the employer when the artist is under terms of employment. I doubt the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that abstract entity, can sue you from beyond the grave.
Nielshutch (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
This "work for hire" concept exists in some countries (notably in the US), but not everywhere. So you should not assume you can apply it to other countries. Even if it does exist, while the copyright might belong to a company or similar (like in the UK), but the actual term of protection could still be tied to date of death of the creator, i. e. a human being (also like in the UK). --Rosenzweig τ 08:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know of any Crown copyright equivalent in Austrian law. --Rosenzweig τ 08:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no such equivalent. {{PD-AustrianGov}} and {{PD-Hungary}} apply to official documents only but not to "official" paintings. If the artist is not named and the painting is not signed, however, you can use {{PD-EU-anonymous}}. On the other hand, the "official artist" phrase returned a search result for Kalman Kemeny though, and those images are still copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

1914 recording in Sorbonne University

Hi, Who did hold the copyright of these recordings, made from 1911 to 1914 in Sorbonne University, Paris? In some cases, the performer is not mentioned, but in other cases (freely available in Gallica), s/he is a well known personality. The recorder is Ferdinand Brunot (1860 – 1938). Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

In theory such recordings come with multiple copyrights: First of all there would be the text that is spoken or read in the recording which may not necessarily be the speaker's own work but could have been written by someone else. I think the recorder Brunot can be neglected because as far as I can see these are not musical recordings that come with a mixing and sound engineering, but simple audio records. I think the type of performance by the speaker like intonation, emotional appeal and so on would also be copyrightable if they are not the original author of the text. So you may want to concentrate on the origin of the texts. Where there is no information on the speaker or original author, {{PD-EU-anonymous}} and {{PD-US-expired}} should apply. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Original texts are folklore or traditional songs, so if there was any copyright, it expired since long. My concern is more about the performer's copyright, when not anonymous. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Reimagining into the public domain

I need to portray a copyrighted magazine cover. The important part I want is a text box which is 5% of the cover, and which is public domain by {{PD-text}}. The rest of the image ideally should communicate the artistic tone of the original work.

The original magazine cover is on the publisher's website as issue 915, 3 February 2003.

Here are my re-imagined works. I made these by applying every photomanipulation tool I could find to the original image, including recolor, darken and lighten, add spots, blur, swirl, enlarge, and push.

I am aware of Commons:Derivative works, but I do not see that it applies to this case.

In Wikipedia people read and remix texts to create new works. I am looking for advice on reinterpreting a magazine cover to create a new work beyond the copyright of the original photo which inspired it.

Who has opinions about the suitability of the above increasingly abstract interpretations for hosting here on Commons?

If none of these are suitable, what advice does anyone have for me illustrate this text box in context? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IMO all of these are OK. Any copyrighted element is blurred enough. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Colorized images

A batch of colorized ship photos have been nominated for deletion on the basis that the act of colorization is creative enough to warrant copyright protection. The B/W images, from the US, UK, France and Japan, are out of copyright so that's not an issue. The colorizer is Japanese and Japan has a high TOO; would that be the standard used rather than the country of origin of the photos?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Image of 12th century mosaic.

Quite some time ago (July 2017 to be precise) I submitted a file to Wikipedia. It was a photo of a 12th century mosaic from the Palatine Chapel in Palermo which I had photoshopped extensively (to remove architectural distortion, glare, etc). Someone decided it was possibly infringing copyright, and it disappeared.
The pretext given, from memory, was that all surface decorations to buildings were 3D and therefore copyrighted. It sounded nonsense at the time; I have since checked local (Australian) copyright laws which seem to indicate this is not so - especially since the building is open to the public.
The old file (File:JacobsLadderPalatineChapel.jpg) has long since disappeared from this site. I wonder if it is worth resubmitting it. If so, how would I designate its copyright status to avoid future conflict? (Clear & simple instructions would be appreciated – most advice given on Wikipedia seems TLDR!)
Nielshutch (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason for deletion was probably that the original photo was made by Richard Stracke, not by yourself. He owns the copyright of the photo. The mosaics are in public domain without doubt. Ellywa (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
There are a few mitigating factors, though.
1. Copyright in original artworks belong to the creators, in this case 12th century artisans or their employers. Photographs of them do not create an independent copyright in themselves, according to the United States District Court of N.Y. (in their 1999 ruling in favour of Corel Corporation against The Bridgeman Art Library). A fine point in law, no doubt...
2. My own modifications were extensive and time consuming. (By your own argument, I could probably assert a copyright of my own in the end material.) I doubt many would identify the results with any photo by Stracke, nor would its reproduction resemble anything but the original mosaic - or so I would hope.
3. The mosaic concerned is of great cultural significance. It is important for people to see it. My concern was to achieve a frontal representation of the work, rid of any obtuse camera angle, mood lighting or distracting surrounds. The aim is to provide a clear representation of the work. In this, I think I succeeded. Otherwise, the only current version of the mosaic on Wikipedia is a shocker (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacob%27s_staircase.jpg).
Admittedly, I am used to dealing with artistic reproductions where "scholarly use" is a valid defence under copyright law. Still, I can't see how anyone's interests are damaged by making such an image widely available. As for this business of 3D decorations encrusting a chapel having automatic copyright...perhaps you could explain that to me.
Nielshutch (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The issue is not the mosaic, but the whole picture. A picture of only the mosaic taken perpendicularly may be accepted under the PD-Art rationale, but not this one. Yann (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
"Taken perpendicularly"? I presume you mean taken from scaffolding erected in the nave, several meters above floor level, with floodlights all around. Sorry, can't help you with that. Nielshutch (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nielshutch: My message is more theoritical than a suggestion. I mean if a third party takes such a picture, it could be accept under the PD-Art rationale. If you take the picture, the issue is moot, since the copyright would belong to you. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
A drone would be simpler than scaffolding, but getting permission would still be difficult. This mosaic is also shown more clearly in File:Cappella Palatina (Palermo) 16 07 2019 11.jpg, but this is probably too blurred for your purpose. You could request a better image at w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sicily, or add an Image requested tag to w:en:Talk:Cappella Palatina, or to w:it:Discussione:Cappella Palatina (Palermo). Verbcatcher (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the lead to that image; I hadn't noticed it before. It's not bad – a little blurred as you say, and with a red bias and distorted perspective. I rectified such failings on the image I tried to upload. At twice the width it also includes the related scene to the right, of Jacob wrestling with the angel. (All done without a drone, in the comfort of my own home! Perhaps someone could have a go at the version here.) I'm not after any other image myself, but I thought other people could do with one.
I still think photographers' copyrights in these cases is generally overstated, and far outweighed by the merit of the original work. But I can understand Wikimedia being cautious; these are litigious times. Aggressive players, like Getty Images and Alamy, will serve lawyers' writs on anyone. Not that there seems to be much merit in their copyright claims; they are simply commercial bullies. And what sincerity can they claim, when they slap their own ugly logos all over reproductions of ancient works of art?
Nielshutch (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
P.S. I will accept the commission to photograph the mosaic (by drone &/or scaffold) if you will pay for my return ticket from Melbourne to Palermo. [Covid allowing]
But who will own what copyright?
Nielshutch (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

New Flickr account

User:CatDog2020 has been uploading copyright-protected photos. In the past few days, I asked that two of the photos be speedy deleted because I found both on commercial websites. Now, those deleted photos and more have magically appeared on this Flickr account, opened in March 2022, and with no copyright protection. This editor has been adding the photos to this Wikipedia draft. Thanks for your advice on dealing with this. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677. This sounds like a case of COM:LL. It's possible that the uploader just is misunderstanding what COM:Own work or COM:L means and you can try explaining this to them on their user talk page and see if they will request that the files be deleted per COM:CSD#G7. This will give them a chance to correct the mistake themselves and perhaps avoid being sanctioned in any way. You could also explain or ask them to take a look at COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? for reference as well. It's possible the files can be kept if the copyright holder is willing to give their COM:CONSENT. On the other hand, if you think the uploader knows exactly what they did was wrong and just doesn't care, you probably should ask for assistance at COM:ANI since the files can't be kept per COM:CSD#F6 and the uploader's behavior may need to be reviewed by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I'll leave the uploader a message. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Marchjulythank you for your help and you're exactly right. I'd appreciate the help. I have exclusive rights to the photos here I know the photographer and artist im writing about personally. CatDog2020 (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@CatDog2020: Please look at the posts left below by JWilz12345 since they explain one way for you to resolve this. The file was nominated for deletion by a Commons administrator named Yann. Yann can also probably answer any questions you may have about this or the other files you uploaded. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you CatDog2020 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello Magnolia677, This is my first go around on this platform, also first time discussing how to do things on this space. I assume this discussion is to keep things open. Since you've been so open about this I'd love to have your help. Thanks, please feel free to connect with me. CatDog2020 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@CatDog2020: (non-admin comment here) there is a process for the photographer/artist to send permission for your use of Creative Commons license. See COM:VRTS, specifically COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. The copyright holder must send a correspondence to Wikimedia Commons via that process. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Note that also applies to deleted files: contact the copyright holders of the deleted files and ask them if they are willing to release their photos/artwork under free license you chose. They too must send VRTS correspondence. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User adding non-free content from video game

OkinaMatara is uploading photos of Touhou Project characters and the creator of the series to Commons.

Thing is, fan content of the game is generally under a free license (see guidelines here). There are Touhou fanart images such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marisa_get_out.png but I don't know about ripping stuff from the games compared to fanart. Wizzito (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, pictures of the creator aren't really allowed w/o his permission (see rule "Though not relevant to Fan Content, posting or modifying photos of ZUN himself without ZUN's permission is prohibited." on the guidelines page) Wizzito (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Is File:Qualcomm-BREW.png below the threshold of originality?

I have a vector version of the same logo, but I'm not sure if I should upload it as it looks slightly complex to me. The file is marked under CC BY-SA but I really doubt that Qualcomm (the original author of the logo) would license anything under that license...

If it turned out to be above the threshold of originality, would a text-only version be OK as well? Thanks. SergioFLS (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@SergioFLS: It doesn't claim to be below the TOO. I tagged it as needing permission (from Qualcomm).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I fixed the license. Yann (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
In answer to the second question, I think text-only vector versions are handy even when we also have a text-and-icon and/or icon-only version. Arlo James Barnes 20:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded the file: File:Qualcomm-BREW.svg. I hope it doesn't cause any problems. SergioFLS (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Are camouflage patterns copyrighted?

Would camouflage patterns be copyrighted if they were not created by the U.S. military?

Some sources like [2] and [3] say they would be copyrighted, but there are many images of camouflage patterns being used on Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

They seem quite complex, there's definitely creative labour exercised here; I guess case law would give precedent one way or the other. Arlo James Barnes 05:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I upload a screenshot of Google search result?

Hello, I have this screenshot and I want to use it on ruwiki’s technical forum. Does it violate any copyright rules of commons.wikimedia.org? For example, File:Google Homepage.svg has Licensing: “This work is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship”. DenBkh (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Your screenshot has more icons than the homepage one, but they are all fairly simple so they might not contribute to originality (I see the homepage one didn't consider the multicoloured magnifying glass a dealbreaker). And the excerpted text from Wikipedia in the results snippet would of course fall under the By-SA license. Arlo James Barnes 05:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Files of paintings created 100s of years ago

Hello. I want to open up a store and put picture files of paintings hundreds of years old on blank objects and sell them. Most of the info under permission said a tag must be used to say why something is in the public domain. Is that for me to do, or for the person who uploads the file to Wikimedia?

I live in the United States. On the back of greeting cards and in the item descriptions that provide information on the artwork, am I supposed to use some sort of public domain tag, like PD-US inside two squiggly brackets? (I put the whole tag in there before, but then a huge notice came up so I removed the squiggly brackets and just wrote the words "squiggly brackets" instead.)

I have never seen tags like that on the back of greeting cards or in descriptions of items that have public domain works on them.

Thanks. -- special:contribs/SwoossieLou 20 March 2022 04:00 UTC

Can you be more specific about the files you are trying to upload? That might help us assist you in finding the proper template (the bit between the double curly braces). It sounds like you probably want one of the template:PD-old variants, but context is always helpful. Arlo James Barnes 05:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The request for a tag is for the uploader or for anybody that could help. It is also a warning to you: if the uploader hasn't explained why something is in the public domain, it might very well not be. If the works aren't from the USA, it is often the tag for the USA that is absent; as the rules for USA mostly are based on publication and elsewhere mostly on the lifetime of the author, one cannot be inferred from the other.
Most old works are PD in e.g. Europe, as enough time has elapsed since the death of the author. As their copyright never was registered in the USA, they didn't get copyright protection there – except those still under copyright in their country of origin in 1996, as the USA joined the Berne convention at those times. Details vary by country, but if a painter was dead by 1895, their works should be in the public domain nearly everywhere. Unpublished works (i.e. recently published works) are a problem area.
Most of those paintings are probably in the public domain in the USA, and as I understand it, you don't have to tell anybody anything in those cases. I would very much like there to be some information, such as the name of the painter, the title of the work (if known by a title) and the year the painting was painted – out of principle and as possible buyer. How much information is reasonable depends on the object: if it is a table, you could print out all the Commons file description page and put it somewhere discreet, while if it's something small, just the essentials would make more sense.
In some cases there may still be a copyright or copyright-like right demanding specific measures. Check the licence templates on the file description pages and ask if anything is unclear.
–LPfi (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
It'd also be nice to hear how the project succeeds, and many uploader appreciate a comment on how their uploads have been used. –LPfi (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Michael Anthony Caruso.jpg

Would some others mind taking a look at File:Michael Anthony Caruso.jpg? It looks like a professionally taken promotional pic that might be being erroneously claimed as "own work". There's no EXIF data or source link provided which helps to verify the "own work" claim, and the same image can be seen used on the cover art for the single "Shooh-Rah" released by the artist en:Michael Caruso (musician) here, here and here. The single seems to have been released in May 2013 or August 2013 which predate the file's upload to Commons by more than two years. The cover art doesn't show the entire image, but the time difference seems to indicate the original photo wasn't taken in November 2015 as the uploader is claiming. For reference, the uploading of this file is the only edit the uploader made on Commons, and there's no record of them making any other edits on other WMF projects; so, it seems unlikely that querying them directly about the file would clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

PD-logo?

Any opinions on whether File:Academy Logo and Emblem.jpg might be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States? The logo seems simple enough, and it looks like it was uploaded by someone connected to the en:American Academy of Dramatic Arts. If it's not PD, then it probably needs to be COM:VRT verified to be kept under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is simple enough. Ruslik (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Twitter pics posted by Government of India

Does the Twitter pics posted by Government of India fall under the open license of Template:GODL-India? Specifically @PMOIndia and @CMOPb. Please ping me when you respond. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The first is yes apparently. The second is less clear because it was created by a state government. Ruslik (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Shoemaker-Levy 9 disintegration at Jupiter.gif and File:Max Planck Institute Shoemaker–Levy 9.gif

Could someone please have a look at the copyright status of these two files?

I nominated File:Shoemaker-Levy 9 disintegration at Jupiter.gif for deletion but am not sure whether I made the right call due to conflicting information. Both were downloaded from this gallery at the NSSDC, which is known to host non-free content. Furthermore, the two images in question seem to come from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, whose copyright policy does not indicate a free license. However, the NASA website lists a NASA employee as the author and curator. It's possible that the authorship claim only refers to the website rather than the images. Could someone please double-check before I nominate the second image for deletion? Ixfd64 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ixfd64, these are perfectly reasonable nominations. Publication on a NASA website does not automatically release an image into the public domain. Plus, as you surmised, the NASA employee listed at the bottom of various pages is simply the person who wrote and/or is responsible for that particular page, and does not indicate the photograph's owner. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I've nominated File:Max Planck Institute Shoemaker–Levy 9.gif for deletion as well. Which is a huge shame because it is an amazing animation. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Please delete a "version" of a file I uploaded

While uploading a valid screen-grab from C-SPAN to File:Ketanji Brown Jackson - Confirmation hearing day 1 - 21 March 2022.jpg, I accidentally clicked on the wrong image in my folder. I promptly uploaded the correct version (which is now the current version). Could someone please speedy delete the wrong one which is identified as [4]. Thank you, --SVTCobra 02:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done - FitIndia Talk ✉ 16:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Spirit of The Commons

How might we handle images like [5], labelled as "No known copyright restrictions" on Flickr, with a text note saying:

(Copyright) We're happy for you to share this digital image within the spirit of The Commons. Please cite 'Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums' when reusing. Certain restrictions on high quality reproductions and commercial use of the original physical version apply though

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We should handle them by not uploading them here. At least as long as we don't know what they mean by "certain restrictions". --Rosenzweig τ 23:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Those restrictions are irrelevant, since, they say, they apply to "high quality reproductions and ... the original physical version", not the web versions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Why not ask them what they mean exactly by "Certain restrictions on ... commercial use of the original physical version apply though; if you're unsure please email archives@twmuseums.org.uk" ? --Túrelio (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
That's not what I'm asking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

What U.S. copyright tag should be used on this file and please, explain why?

Here: [6] Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It entered PD in China in 1987, so it would be {{PD-1996}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Frances Wolseley photographs

[Also asked at en:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Frances_Wolseley_photographs]

I have found two portrait paintings of Frances Wolseley ([7], [8]) that meet the copyright criteria of Wikimedia Commons but there are several photographs online whose copyright status is not clear to me:

  1. The one at page 59 here is dated 1912 with copyright attributed to "Wolseley Collection, Brighton and Hove City Libraries". There's another, from c. 1890, at page 54 with the same copyright attribution.
  2. The image of Wolseley mowing appears on several web pages. Most if not all seem to be stock photos but the caption suggests to me that the photograph was published long enough ago to meet the criteria of the Commons.
  3. This one is apparently attributed to "C. T. L. Clarke" but I could not find out who that was.
  4. This one is from the subject's 1916 book and is attributed to Coydey Photo Brighton, about which I can find nothing online.
  5. This 1908 photograph from ODNB/NPG is attributed to Bassano Ltd, but the name of the photographer is missing. Bassano himself had retired in 1903.

Which, if any, of these is fine to upload to the Commons? Surtsicna (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

On further inspection, this 1934 painting might not be suitable either since I cannot find out when the artist died. Surtsicna (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  • The 1908 Bassano portrait has an NPG source here; unfortunately that is the glass negative and was given to the NPG in 1974. Being created in 1908, the original copyright expired in 1959. However, the UK's restored copyright would be 70 years from publication, and we don't know for sure if Bassano actually published this in 1908. If they did, it would be {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Same if it was not published at all before 1979. But if first published in 1974, it would actually still have a valid copyright in the UK. NPG claims copyright, but it's not clear if that is just for the digitization. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
You've been tremendously helpful! Thank you, Carl Lindberg. Surtsicna (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure

I need an administrator to edit the text in a copyright template. Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure has a problem, the text in English says "Please use this template only if you have proof that the author never claimed authorship or their authorship never became public in any other way." Then again under Germany it reads: "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright" it is redundant to the claim already made in the overall text of the template. It was added before the template was locked. The section on German law should only contain information that differs from EU law, such as the clawback clause, that allows copyright to be restored if the creator of an anonymous work becomes known.

So please remove: "Please use this template only if you have proof that the author never claimed authorship or their authorship never became public in any other way." It is redundant and having the same thing written twice with slightly different wording is causing confusion. --RAN (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status of 1963 painting

What is the copyright status of a painting done in 1963 (in the US), but has no copyright data? Bubba73 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the publication date. Ruslik (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Paintings from that date should be presumed copyrighted without further evidence. However, if you find evidence that it was published before 1978 (which includes public display in a gallery which does not forbid photography) with no copyright notice, then it is PD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
It was painted in 1963 and lithographs were distributed in 1969. Does that count as publication? Bubba73 (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is a publication, but everything will depend on whether there was a copyright notice. Ruslik (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I have one of the 1969 lithographs, and it has no copyright notice on it. So it was published in the US before 1978 without a notice. Bubba73 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Are these two images from the Philippines acceptable here?

Involved images:

These two images may be considered as derivative works of copyrighted elements (campaign programme screen for Bongbong Marcos rally and billboards for Leni Robredo rally). But are those works de minimis (that is, incidental or trivial to the images)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The second photo is de minimis surely. The first may be as well, but is a borderline case, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: done moving the Leni rally image to Commons via FileExporter. I remain cautious on the other file, but I want other users to weigh in on it or act upon it, considering COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle ("the producer of the program on the screen won't find out"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

About a document in French from 1957

Hello. Could you tell me if the following document, can be considered as belonging to the public domain, and can be used to copy images for Wimedia?
P. BOURRELLY. "RECHERCHES SUR LES CHRYSOPHYCEEES" printed in France, in 1957: see here online. Thank you for your response. GerardGiraud (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the author is Pierre Paul Charles Bourrelly, who lived from 1910 to 1995. It will enter the public domain in France 70 years after the author's death, which would be 2066. It will enter the public domain in the United States 95 years after publication, which would be 2053. So... no, can't be uploaded here for a long while yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
And if I myself make a drawing copied from one of Pierre Bourrelly's, does the same copyright apply? GerardGiraud (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@Clindberg: specifying, on the drawing, the mention "after Bourrelly. 1957" of course GerardGiraud (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. It'd most probably be a derived work, under the copyright of his in addition to yours, and thus publishing it without his consent would infringe on his copyright (even drawing it would, I assume, unless it's for "personal use"). –LPfi (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Latest copyright law in Canada

Officially, Canada would extend from 50 to 70 years pma before January 1, 1953. If this would be necessary by the end of 2022, according to these sources: [9], [10], [11] --GibbonConnection (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


The former article [as the above comment first was posted, i.e. the canada.ca one] begins:
"In today’s fast-paced creative economy, it is critical for Canada to maintain a comprehensive copyright framework to encourage creation, acquisition and commercialization of copyrighted content."
In today's fast-paced economy, who worries about copyright 50+ years from today? Who will be more creative if that time frame is extended? However perhaps "acquisition and commercialization" of cultural heritage will benefit.
It seems the government was worried about how the change would be detrimental to "a healthy marketplace", and asked for advice on "accompanying measures" to deal with it (a year ago). They talk about these issues as "possible impacts and implications" without hinting about the obvious problems on sharing, enjoying and building on the Canadian heritage. I am sorry they believed that they had to make the agreement, and that it would benefit "creators" in any way.
–LPfi (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
A longer time for monetizing is argued to encourage investment in the creation. However, the value of those last 20 years is devalued by any serious investor by the expected rate of return on investments in general. Firms typically have an expectation on 10–15% yearly returns. With a 10 % discount rate, profits 10 years from now are calculated as worth 1/3 of immediate profit, that 50 year into the future 1/200 of immediate profit. Those half percents of additional revenue will hardly encourage anybody to invest more. Even with unrealistically low expectation on return for alternative investments, the profit of additional years is largely negligible, even disregarding that rights to a 1970s film or song (on average) hardly are as valuable as rights to a contemporary one. On the other hand, if you happen to own a 50-year old work that is still of interest, you will have a windfall gain. The extensions of copyright terms are lobbied for to get the windfall gains. –LPfi (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you mean this date come to force on December 31, 2022, this will extend 70 years after the author's death (usually before December 31, 1952) based on this source: [12] --GibbonConnection (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems the new copyright term will get into force 1 January 2023. Works that were in public domain the previous day, 31 December 2022, should stay in the public domain. The copyright terms are always counted in calender years, not the exact date (read the first quote on the page you linked), so under the old law, if the author died in 1972, their work will be under copyright the rest of that year, and 50 more years, i.e. to the end of 2022. The works will then get an additional 20 year because of the new law, as their copyright never expired. For authors that died in 1971, the copyright expired 1 January 2022, and will stay in the public domain. I haven't read the law or any news about its actual wordings, so there may be some oddnesses, but this is the normal procedure when copyright terms are extended. –LPfi (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Ми тут. Ми в Києві. Ми захищаємо Україну.webm

Who has the ability to contact Ukranian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy (or his team members) to get copyright permission? --Txkk (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I request help from members of Wikimedia Ukraine, @Base, NickK, Tohaomg, and AntonProtsiuk (WMUA). --Txkk (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Trying to obtain permission — NickK (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Txkk (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone had this logo (File:Logo SavetheChildren.png) obtaining with OTRS permission by Save the Children Deutschland e.V., Pressestelle. However, this logo is copyrighted, but this logo has permission. --GibbonConnection (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, but your edit here would have been sufficient. De728631 (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
What about the OTRS ticket number? GibbonConnection (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Extensive change of licenses on Flickr

By going through uncategorized images I found some files from Christopher Michel and I noticed that they're license on Flickr was changed to "All rights reserved", so I've added {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. I've checked more files from Category:Photographs by Christopher Michel (contains more than 4,500 files) and I found about eight of ten files where license was changed.

The question now is, because of high numbers of files, if a bot should check Christopher Michels files and tag them {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. GeorgHH • talk   12:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Solargis maps and an additional restriction to CC-BY-4.0

There are a large number of maps (see Category:Solargis and Special:Contributions/SolarSoft) uploaded by @SolarSoft: that are stated to be under the CC-BY-4.0 license. However, a look at the download page (so this one for the world map versions, for example) reveals the following:

The maps and data have been prepared by Solargis for The World Bank. They are provided under CC BY 4.0 license with the following mandatory and binding addition (see Terms of use for more information).

The linked terms of use page states the following:

You are encouraged to use the GSA App and the Works to benefit yourself and others in creative ways. The Works are licensed under the Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution International license, CC BY 4.0, except where expressly stated that another license applies, with the following mandatory and binding addition:

Any and all disputes arising under this License that cannot be settled amicably shall be submitted to mediation in accordance with the WIPO Mediation Rules 3 in effect at the time the work was published. If the request for mediation is not resolved within forty-five (45) days of the request, either You or the Licensor may, pursuant to a notice of arbitration communicated by reasonable means to the other party refer the dispute to final and binding arbitration to be conducted in accordance with UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as then in force. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator and the language of the proceedings shall be English unless otherwise agreed. The place of arbitration shall be where the Licensor has its headquarters. The arbitral proceedings shall be conducted remotely (e.g., via telephone conference or written submissions) whenever practicable, or held at the World Bank headquarters in Washington DC.

Since the text referred to an addition (singular), I assume it's referring to this one paragraph. However, at least the Attribution section of the ToS seems to be meant to apply in the context of the CC-BY-4.0 license, and it doesn't seem this attribution text is currently used in Commons. There's also a section about the use of names and logos.

I'm no expert, but my impression and gut feeling is that such a restriction to a free license wouldn't be allowed on Commons; either the work is available under a certain license or it isn't, and any exceptions would probably need to be at least discussed to determine whether a license is acceptable for Commons or not.

However, user SolarSoft has been uploading these maps since 2011, and it seems that at least some of their latest uploads are overwriting old versions of these maps with new ones. It occured to me that this "mandatory and binding addition" may be a relatively new restriction, and it seems that back in 2011 this restriction didn't exist and the license was Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. I was unable to accurately date the existence of the "mandatory addition". The oldest archived, working version of the ToS of the current source website is from June 18 2021, and the user's latest upload 30 March 2021.

I also seem to recall there's exceptions with some kinds of maps when it comes to threshold of originality, but I don't know if such things apply here.

I don't know what needs to be done, if anything. But there are 500+ of these maps, and I think at least some of them are widely used in various Wikipedias, so I thought I'd bring this possible issue to the community's attention.

--Veikk0.ma (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice that 7(a) of the legal code states: "The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed." It is not clear if a user of the files can be said to have "expressly agreed" to the terms when they're just there on the page and the user doesn't have to sign anything or click "I Agree". In that case, the additional terms are unenforceable and the files are simply CC-BY-4.0. But even if they are enforceable, the terms don't actually violate the Definition of Free Cultural Works, so you could just think of it as another acceptable free license. It's not a ShareAlike license so there's no risk of Galapagosization, i.e. works under a particular ShareAlike license which cannot be remixed with anything else besides other works under the same license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Margaret Tomlinson, National Buildings Record (United Kingdom)

Would the works described here, taken for the w:National Buildings Record during WWII by Margaret Tomlinson, be Crown Copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

What tag to use for Indian satellite photos?

Recently I uploaded photos from the w:Indian remote sensing program which I downloaded from the USGS EarthExplorer website. I looked to see if anyone else had added their photos, and there weren't any. Today I looked up the copyright information. Resourcesat-2 data was originally under the copyright of the ISRO[13], page 6. In 2016, the USGS signed an agreement with the Indian equivalent of NASA, ISRO, which states that the "USGS may redistribute the Resourcesat-2 data on a public, nondiscriminatory basis without restrictions"[14]. Following this agreement, the USGS published select ISRO satellite photos on its website, specifically stating each photo was "public domain".[15]. It follows from this that all ISRO photos released by the USGS under the agreement are now in the public domain.

The photos I uploaded are all under the {{USGS}} tag, such as File:Great Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie, on March 20, 2022 R2AWF03202022280038, IRS AWiFS.png. Is that what I should be doing, or should I use another tag, or ask for a tag to be written for this?.

So far no one has scolded me for using non-public domain photos. If anyone has knowledge to the contrary that the USGS was wrong to label them as public domain, my recent uploads will need to be deleted. I don't expect that to be the outcome from me asking about it, but you never know.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If those are from Indian government websites then either {{GODL-India}} or {{PD-IndiaGov}} may apply. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems we need a new template, i.e. {{PD-ISRO}}. {{GODL-India}} or {{PD-IndiaGov}} do not fit these images. However we need to find the statement by the Indian government. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/03&oldid=647232182"