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.


Photos / Screenshots from the "Apache" recording of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster[edit]

Hey everyone, I'm bringing up this photo hosted on the Commons in particular: "ColumbiaFLIR2003.png", which is a frame from this source video on YouTube, posted back in 2008. I wanted to make this image the infobox photo for the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster page on Wikipedia, as it depicts the most historically significant and memorable part of this tragedy. However, from prior mentions on Wikipedia talk pages and in the Commons' Village Pump, there's concerns about its "freeness" to use on Wikipedia and other sites, specifically because the helicopter's camera was operated by a foreign crew, either Danish (as per the CAIB Report Vol. 1), or Dutch (as per YouTube and Reddit comments and "public knowledge", as well as an unsourced article on the aviationist.com). Still frames from the original Apache recording were used and presented in the CAIB report Vol. 1 and 3 (published in August 2003), the Columbia Crew Survival Investigation report (2008), and the Loss of Signal Aeromedical Investigation Report (2014). All three of these are NASA documents authored by government employees, and none of them mention a linkable source for the original Apache video, besides that it was a military source coming from a helicopter, which is public knowledge. Something else to note is that the YouTube video where the Commons image comes from is clearly edited, specifically at the end with the slow-motion and increased zoom at the end.

So given all of the above, and previous discussions / context, is this photo, ColumbiaFLIR2003.png free-to-use or not? If it is free, should anything be changed to its Commons description to make that more clear? If it isn't free, it probably should be removed from the Commons, and if that happens, I should be able to use this photo or a similar one of the re-entry in the article under free-use, since there would be no freer options available. SpacePod9 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Kylesenior, Prosfilaes, LPfi, and Carl Lindberg as commenters in that section and UnderworldCircle as uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see this was previously discussed a few years back at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07#Footage_taken_by_Netherlands_military_pilot,_using_US_equipment,_on_training_in_US? PascalHD (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think my opinion has changed. Any editing of the video was mostly like by US government employees. It may well qualify as a work for hire under U.S. law, making it PD-USGov anyways. I doubt we'd ever know for certain unless a lawsuit was filed and the details of the contracts were spelled out and judged on. To me, this falls into the "theoretical doubt" area, well below the COM:PRP threshold. It's probably fine, and near certain to never find out for sure. I'd vote keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt that USA military would allow a foreign trainee to retain any copyright over such (very sensitive) images. There must be a clause buried in their contracts where they agree to relinquish any claims to copyright. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am afraid I don't have anything to add to it. I never got any more details on it and I am not familiar enough with the law. Kylesenior (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The description and the licensing don't match. The description says it's the product of "two RNLAF (Royal Netherlands Air Force) pilots", while the license says it's "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government". Either the description needs to be corrected, the license needs to be changed. Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PD-USGov is also for works which are effectively "works for hire" of the U.S. federal government. Not directly in the legal text, but the legislative comments say that. It's just that there is a wide range of government contracts, and many of them would not fit under "work for hire". If U.S. personnel were directing activities though, this one probably does. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, here's a quote from the book Bringing Columbia Home: The Untold Story, authored by Michael D. Leinbach (the KSC Launch Director for STS-107) and Jonathan H. Ward, the former I believe is who is narrating here. Pages 158-159, "The pilot of an Apache helicopter, who was returning to Fort Hood from a night training mission when Columbia broke up, recorded a particularly important video. Seeing unusual streaks in the sky ahead of him, the pilot trained his targeting cameras on the smoke trails. Realizing later that he had witnessed Columbia's disintegration, he personally drove the tape to Barksdale and played it for Dave Whittle and our leadership team. The tape itself was classified, but he allowed us to record portions of the video showing the breakup. In the same book, an annotated frame from that recording (which is identical to the below photo from page 1-76 of the Crew Survival Report) is credited as a "NASA photo" (9 pages before p. 139). Presumably the recorded video the NASA team obtained was then made public and ended up on the internet that way. But now I've got a question for @Carl Lindberg, would the annotated photos in the Crew Survival Report qualify for PD-USGov because they were presumably annotated by US Government employees, even if the original classified video came from a foreign crew, presumably Danish or Dutch? SpacePod9 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SpacePod9: I'm guessing the "allowed" was because its U.S. government owner normally classifies footage from those cameras, but that particular footage was of course a different situation. I don't think that statement had anything to do with copyright ownership (though if classified and kept by the U.S., it would be another argument that it is PD-USGov). Any annotations would be PD-USGov, though much of the time those probably don't have enough originality to create a copyright. The photographic copyright would be unchanged by adding annotations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright notice Q - Art exhibition catalogues/publications[edit]

Question re: copyright notice formalities for published works of art in the US. If a pre-1977 work was published for the first time in a catalogue for an exhibition, does there need to be a separate copyright notice for the individual work, in order for the copyright to have been correctly established? Obviously a copyright marking for the publisher covers most original content in the publication, but would that also the art reproduced in the book?

Specifically I'm thinking about Méret Oppenheim's Object (1936). It was first published in the United States in the Museum of Modern Art's catalogue for the exhibition Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism (1936-1937). The catalogue is available online mostly in whole. The book itself has a copyright notice for the Museum of Modern Art trustees from the year it was published, as well as a 2017 copyright notice from their digital upload. But there are no additional copyright markings or rights credits for individual works. Would the overall copyright marking cover the individual works, and if so, how would copyright ownership be established there if MoMA technically claimed the copyright for these individual works?

Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any takers? 19h00s (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2023 11 14 - Yfirlitsmynd yfir varnargarða - fylgiskjal minnisblaðs.png[edit]

Hi, I have some doubt about the license of this file as this doesn't seem to be either "acts, regulations, administrative provisions, court rulings". And this is a derivative work of a satellite image. Opinions? Yann (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it seems like a com:derivative work. Mhhossein talk 04:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly restricted?[edit]

I am currently working on an article on Wikipedia and was wondering if these files are ok to upload. The description says that they are "Possibly Restricted - Some or all of this material may be restricted by copyright or other intellectual property rights restrictions", but wouldn't the files fall under PD-USGov as the films are taken by US servicemen?

Also, one clip from Reel 12 in particular is also featured here where the film is posted as being public domain (check around 7:26 on Reel 12 and around 0:57 on the other film for comparing the two clips). Alin2808 (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An update since I didn't receive any replies, I've also found this report for the mission which states that the newsreel movies were taken by the the 1st Combat Camera Unit. Alin2808 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this image public domain?[edit]

Moved from Commons:Help desk

Could the image of Bradley on page 68 of this USGS report be covered by Template:PD-USGov? BhamBoi (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BhamBoi: my take (though you might want to seek more expert opinion at COM:VP/C) is that it would probably come down to the status of The American Journal of Science Bradley Volume (1960). As a U.S. federal government document, the USGS report is presumably public-domain when handled as a unit, but if the image in question is copyrighted then its inclusion in the document is somewhere in fair use territory (and we can publish the document as a whole despite its containing copyrighted on something along the lines of a de minimis basis). The image as such doesn't become public domain just because it is included in a federal government document. Otherwise, the government could take away anyone's copyright by publishing their work in a federal document. - Jmabel ! talk 05:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By stating: "Photograph from the USGS Denver Library Photographic Collection, Portraits, in the “Last Name A–B” folder; published in The American Journal of Science Bradley Volume," I'm led to think that it was a USGS file, thus government PD, but later republished in the journal volume.
For reference, a link to the Bradley Volume is here, and the image appears in this article. BhamBoi (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
USGS having it in a collection doesn't mean it was taken by a U.S. government employee. Again, you might want to seek more expert opinion at COM:VP/C. - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will. Thanks! BhamBoi (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that anything that was published before 1964 and first published in the US and did not have a proper notice and renewal is in the public domain, though. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an update, I have not gotten a response from this board yet but would the image linked above be okay to upload to Commons? BhamBoi (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png[edit]

Hi, This file was undeleted as per this request, but there is a disagreement about its copyright status. There are more requests on COM:UDR#Various professional wrestling logos. More opinions needed. Yann (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I renominated this file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png. Yann (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I upload a screenshot of a tweet promoting Wiki Loves Monuments which only uses an image from Commons and a message[edit]

Hi all

I would like to upload a screenshot of this tweet by UNESCO which encourages people to enter Wiki Loves Monuments, the image used on it is from Commons

I assume there is no issue in doing this? Just want to double check (I wrote this tweet and some others when I worked there)

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, since Twitter may be throwing ads (etc.) onto any given screen I can't swear by what is in your screen shot, but as long as you indicate the source copyright status, and license of each copyrightable element, and you comply with any licensing (e.g. assuming that main image is not PD, there will be some consequence for the licensing of the screenshot as a derivative work), this should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 23:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much Jmabel I just wanted to make sure the text wasn't a problem, or there were specific rules for screenshots from social media. John Cummings (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text there (at least what I saw) is way too generic for copyright. Depending what you get on your screen, we might have some cropping or blurring to do. - Jmabel ! talk 01:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading pre-1929 photo with no date[edit]

I would like to upload this photo[1] from this webpage[2] of Homer Stryker as a child. The photo is undated; however, since Stryker was born in 1894, the picture was undoubtedly taken before 1929; however, the photo is also not 150 years old. Would this photo be acceptable to upload? Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this is {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Yann (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Thank you! Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, not sure where you got 150 from, for most relevant purposes the period is 120 years, and that's clearly passed for this one. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swedish FoP[edit]

Hi all,

As a representative of Wikimedia Sverige, I've had the opportunity to participate in a public inquiry convened by the Swedish government, to review and propose modernizations of the exceptions and limitations within Swedish copyright law. Such inquiries are the first step of the Swedish legislative process. One of the key areas under review is the freedom of panorama provision, and today, the proposal was handed over to the Minister for Justice. The proposal is available here.

The proposal contains several aspects beneficial to the Wikimedia movement. However, one significant obstacle remains with regards to freedom of panorama (regrettably, I'm not the sole representative involved in the inquiry… :/ ). While we intend to keep advocating to eliminate this obstacle throughout the political process, I'm eager to hear your thoughts, and particularly your arguments that could be employed to continue the fight within the parliament.

The proposal permits the use of all kinds of works permanently placed on or next to public spaces for reproduction through any means, including 3D digitization. It specifically highlights that Wikimedia platforms should be allowed to organize and structure databases of public art, such as the Offentligkonst.se project that Wikimedia Sverige managed.

Nevertheless, the proposal is restricted for some cases of "förvärvssyfte," a Swedish legal term that should be understood as using something to make financial gain. That is, the provision prohibits the reproduction of works permanently placed on or next to public spaces for financial gain, similar to the Danish and Norwegian Freedom of Panorama provisions. Presently, Danish and Norwegian Freedom of Panorama is not accepted on Wikimedia Commons.

The proposal acknowledges that all commercial uses are not excluded, permitting both businesses and private individuals to use these works, even for commercial purposes, as long as financial gain is not the general purpose. Determining the threshold for financial gain is obviously challenging, but the committee report submitted to the government emphasizes that this restriction is vital to adhere to the 3-step test.

Several Swedish lawyers I've consulted with are perplexed by how Wikimedia Commons can allow Belgian public art but not Danish and Norwegian. The Belgian provision replicates the second step of the 3-step test verbatim, which according to these lawyers also should effectively prohibit economic exploitation of such works. One lawyer even saw the Belgian provision, with the wording from the 3-step test, could be more restrictive than restriction for "förvärvssyfte".

I'm keen to hear your views on whether restrictions for "financial gain" are incompatible with Wikimedia Commons and CC BY-SA. If so, what distinguishes such restrictions from reproducing the second step of the 3-step test in the law? And perhaps further, how we can allow FoP works at all, when all exceptions and limitations, at least in EU law, are restricted by the 3 step test?

Any thoughts and input here will be extremely valuable as the process continues. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your message. Could you please explain, or link to an explanation about, the 3 steps you mention. Yann (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, I thought I linked it! This is the English Wikipedia article on the 3 step test and here you find EU version. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Luth (WMSE) regarding Belgian FoP, the latest version no longer contains what you said. For proof, see here. You may use Google Translate to translate Article XI.190 (2/1°). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically, the current Belgian FoP wording has removed the three-step test-like wording, making it compatible with free culture and commercial licenses such as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-zero, and PD. I have some reservation that too much adhering to three-step test may result to Sweden being one-step backward in terms of free appreciation and enjoyment of Swedish public monuments by anyone for any purposes. The Spanish FoP was almost revoked here because of two Court rulings that treated the three-step test as a restriction to commercial reuses of Spanish public monuments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @JWilz12345, this is very helpful. Do you have a link to the discussion on Spanish FoP? What I don't really understand in that regard is how the Commons community views the 3 step test in general? I mean, all EU countries are bound by the 3 step test in the Infosoc directive? Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Luth (WMSE) it is at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#NO-FOP in Spain?. MarcoAurelio gave some insight regarding the Spanish FoP and the Three-Step test issue.
The application of Three-Step Test here is somehow controversial. This is because it can lead to courts ruling that all non-commercial uses are not allowed, directly conflicting COM:Licensing that is anchored on the Definition of Free Cultural Works, in which commercial uses should not be forbidden by law. This free cultural works definition is what essentially supports the mission of Wikimedia Commons of providing freely-licensed content that anyone in the world can be freely reused, not bound for copyright restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your comments and for the links @JWilz12345, it is a very interesting read from @MarcoAurelio. I think that Marco Aurelio's wording under commercial use of media here is similar to what the lawyers referred to in their comments on Belgian FoP: that the second step of the 3-step test (especially the version in the InfoSoc directive (art. 5.5)) could be understood as very restrictive when it comes to commercial reuse, whereas the Swedish proposal outlines several ways in which commercial use would be completely legal, even though all commercial uses are not (depending on the purpose).
I am very well aware of Wikimedia Commons mission! But I suppose that my main question here is how to find room, given that all EU countries are bound by the 3-step test, for "enough" commercial use according to CC BY-SA, while still being compatible with the 3-step test? Providing such thoughts from the Commons community would be very valuable in my attempts to broaden the proposal and guarantee, to the extent possible, that the law ends up being compatible with CC BY-SA. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Luth (WMSE) take note, the law should also comply to two most liberal licenses too: CC-zero and PD. Users may share images under {{CC-zero}} or {{PD-user}}. The law should not restrict any commercial uses that are permitted by these two most liberal free-culture licensing. If not, then the future Swedish FoP becomes incompatible. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted, but what would the difference be? Are there any differences in what commercial uses are allowed under CC BY-SA, CC BY and CC0?
The discussion whether CC0 is compatible with EU law is of course another story… Still, there is no proposal to add an attribution requirement in the exception, and definitely nothing amounting to to SA. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the FoP to be proposed should not prohibit the following free uses: post cards, calendars, tourism souvenir items, travel websites or travel portals, stamps, TV and Internet advertisements, commercial vlogs on YouTube or TikTok, and website development (if the websites are commercial; that is, they are supported by advertisments). Of course, unreasonable use is not allowed, just like German FoP's prohibition to alter or edit the image (to the point it no longer resembles the work seen as it is found by the Wikimedia/Flickr/500px/Pexels/Unsplash photographer) and Dutch FoP/Brazilian FoP's prohibition to edit out surrounding elements like the ground and the sky. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this very concrete list. It helps a lot! But can you clarify how the prohibitions for altering or editing the image restricts commercial use?
In the proposal, it is allowed to use the artworks in any way (including everything you mention) but not for any purpose. Would your view be that everything on this list would need to be allowed freely (edit: that is, for any purpose)? In that case, do you have any thoughts on the compatibility of e.g. TV advertisements and the 3-step test? Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Luth (WMSE) for both of your questions, I think I may call here three people who have sufficient familiariy on FoP: @Abzeronow, Clindberg, and Rosenzweig: . Anyway, other users should participate here, not just two of us with Nemo and Jeff G.. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for adding them here! I agree, it would be very useful to have a broad view from the community on these issues, for everyone I hope but for me in the legislative process that will follow in Sweden. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I generally agree with Rosenzweig's interpretation below, if Sweden explicitly has a noncommercial-only FoP, then we should regard Sweden as similar to their neighbors Denmark, Finland and Norway. I'll watch this discussion but I don't have much to add since I'm not a lawyer. Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposal is not a non-commercial only FoP, but an FoP with some restrictions on commercial reuse (when it is done for "financial gain"). I will of course try to broaden this proposal in the legislative process but I am trying to figure out if it is a matter of degree rather than kind before reaching a proposal that Wikimedia Commons would accept. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. "Financial gain" is nebulous sounding, but if legally interpreted as a non-copyright restriction like personality rights, I believe it could something workable for Commons. Hopefully WMF provides the necessary legal support to this. Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For altering/modifying part, I think such acts damage the integrity of the artwork and may lead to artist filing lawsuit against the reuser. Of course it is more on moral rights but we generally respect restrictions to editing notwithstanding the demands of the free-culture CC licenses, and non-invasive edits like non-substantial cropping are tolerated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(edit conflict) It's a reference to the w:en:Berne three-step test. The three-step test is problematic (it should never be enshrined into law), but it's also a kind no-op provision because it's required by the InfoSoc directive for all copyright exceptions anyway, and it would probably be harmonized by the CJEU where needed.
Eric, can you clarify whether a definition exists in law for "förvärvssyfte", whether case law exists for it, and how it would be interpreted in cross-border situations? Nemo 14:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But more importantly, if those lawyers think the "förvärvssyfte" restriction is less restrictive than the three-step test, then they should advise to not add such a restriction at all in the law, given it would be redundant with article 5(5) of directive 2001/29/EC. Nemo 14:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no legal definition, but there is a lengthy paragraph in the constitutional commentaries. I can try to translate the relevant paragraphs, would that help?
In general, Swedish legislators tend to want to make sure that implemented laws already fulfill the 3 step test, so that users don't need to know the details of this abstract principle. So the idea from the lawmaker would be that a "translation" of the second step of the 3 step test in a Swedish implementation would be to restrict the exception with this "förvärvssyfte". Do you have any good ideas for arguments against that? My main argument is that it makes it much harder for a global movement, since all national or language based definitions make it much harder to understand laws across borders. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has any court enforced the three-step test enshrined into law? If not, could we safely ignore it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Jeff G. Yes, Wikimedia Sverige lost a court case in the Supreme Court on Freedom of Panorama, where the supreme court says that courts have to apply the 3 step test when judging individual cases of use based on limitations and exceptions to copyright. But I don't think that any EU country can ignore the 3 step test? I see that Portugal, Poland, Czechia and Croatia, for example, all have implemented 3 step test verbatim in national law, but Wikimedia Commons still accept FoP from these countries. Do you know of any discussions on this here on Commons (that is, the compatibility of 3 step test and commercial FoP?). Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's the court case for reference, but unfortunately in Swedish: https://www.domstol.se/hogsta-domstolen/avgoranden/2016/36003/ Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Luth (WMSE): Thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me that each country can determine the "legitimate interests" of authors in their law. I think clearly the Berne Convention prohibits these copyright exceptions from allowing an outright copy -- a sculpture of a sculpture, or a photo of a photo or painting (cropped to the original) -- which would compete directly in the marketplace. But beyond that, countries may have a fair bit of latitude. For example, in the U.S., in USC 17 120 they explicitly define the scope of architectural copyright as not including pictorial representations of any building located in a public place. So, such photos are not part of the architectural copyright's "legitimate interests". There is no such provision for sculpture, but that may simply be a U.S. choice based on their situation with past "norms" on what people expect to be able to do, and not criminalizing them (given that the U.S. had no real architectural copyright at all before joining Berne and such photos were common). The U.S. though explicitly does not consider the text of the Berne Convention to be legally binding, while many other countries do (ones which permit self-executing treaties).
The way I have looked at it is that many countries have decided that in exchange for the notoriety and publicity coming from public (or maybe private) authorities choosing their work to be permanently in public, there is a certain limitation of rights which comes with that -- such authors should not gain rights over pictures of the public area as a result, really. I would think that any FoP provision would be limited to its depiction as seen in public; if you crop away or otherwise remove the public context then it would be more of a straight copy or "normal" derivative work which would indeed prejudice the normal interests in a work, if it had not been in public. Outside of that, countries seem to have latitude on how they treat them -- some disallow photos where a sculpture is the main subject (just allowing photos of the wider scene, similar to "incidental" inclusion) or disallow only commercial use, while others allow both -- at that point, that type of photo would seem to not be part of the "legitimate interests" of the underlying author. So to me, it's a matter of what a country's legislature and/or courts deems "right" or "wrong" for themselves. We would need to follow that per-country, of course. Ambiguous phrases like that tend to be interpreted different country to country (and even court case to court case), so not surprising to me there are disagreements. But I think it's within a country's right (such as the U.S. with architectural works) to define "legitimate" in some of these edge conditions. It may be considered a way to not dramatically increase an author's rights they gain by having it in public, really -- photos of a private sculpture are not going to happen nearly as often, or give artists nearly as many opportunities to file lawsuits, as numerous photos of a public work do. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess it's really a matter of how the limitations to FOP are interpreted and handled in each country. If commercial uses of FOP are generally denied by high-level courts because of the three-step test mentioned, I think we should disallow FOP images from those countries so that we can still comply with our free media only requirements. For Spain that was not really the case (if I remember it correctly) because there were only two cases from lower courts, at least that's how I interpreted it. I don't know about the situation in the countries that were mentioned (Portugal, Poland, Czechia and Croatia), I hope courts there don't interpret FOP in that way. If Sweden explicitly disallows some commercial uses right in the law, we might have to treat Sweden like Finland, Norway, Iceland and Denmark - FOP not applicable as far as Wikimedia Commons is concerned. --Rosenzweig τ 21:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Luth (WMSE) both Rosenzweig and Abzeronow are right. Commons can only accept freely-licensed content. For me, commercial purpose and financial gain are just the same, no matter how Swedish lawyers and legislators try to differentiate both. A post card publisher that sells their post cards earns, so their commercial activity involves financial gain. Similarly, for-profit website developers who use images gain profit by embedding or adding advertisements. The same is true for travel portal websites. It is not logical to differentiate commercial purpose and financial gain.
If the restricted FoP pushes through and becomes part of the law, then we have no choice but no longer accept Swedish landmarks/monuments designed by architects and/or artists who died less than 70 years ago, depending on the outcome if the restriction applies only to sculptures/murals or extends also to architecture. It is also worth knowing if the restrictions are retroactive or not. In the case of Vietnam, they restricted FoP to non-profit or non-commercial use only by 2023, so new uploads from January 1, 2023 onwards are no longer allowed. Older uploads before 2023 are retained because the law is not retroactive. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I understood the limitations correctly it is more like limitations in the use of photos with people. Basically personality rights for buildings. If the limitations are the same we should also accept these photos. GPSLeo (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say @JWilz12345 that I disagree with your interpretation that commercial use and purpuse of financial gain is the same, and especially if the Swedish legislature by law differentiates between the two of them. The issue here is if a prohibition of purpose of financial gain still leaves enough commercial room. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Luth (WMSE) you didn't specify what are the so-called acts of financial gain that are to be prohibited by the proposed change to Swedish FoP? Are those copyright-related or non-copyright related (like trademarks, personality rights, museum use restrictions, et cetera)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for these comments. Do I read you correctly, @Rosenzweig, that a FoP legislation needs to allow all commercial uses for FoP images to be allowed on Wikimedia Commons?
I'd like to reiterate here that I don't think that this is an issue of national courts in our case but the EU court and the mentioned InfoSoc directive. It would be interesting if someone could clarify how a fully commercial FoP provision would be compatible with the second step of the 3-step test in its InfoSoc version? Arguments along these lines would be very useful in the legislative process. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Luth (WMSE): Per Commons:Licensing “Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. ” Therfore I don't see how anything that explicitly forbids some commercial uses can be acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 11:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For curiousity @Rosenzweig, how do you read that in relation to restrictions due to trademark law? Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just take a look at Commons:Licensing. The very next sentence there says “The use may however be restricted by issues not related to copyright, though, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and the license may demand some special measures.” --Rosenzweig τ 12:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But if only content that can be used by anyone, anytime for any purpose is allowed, how come that Belgian FoP images were allowed when the 3-step test was part of the Belgian law? Or why are e.g. Polish FoP images allowed, that explicitly restrict purposes (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland#Freedom of panorama)? Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would be good if WMEU could create a professional legal evaluation of this question. GPSLeo (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The InfoSoc directive is pretty much the same wording as Berne -- do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder. So what is a "normal exploitation" and what are "legitimate interests"? Those terms are not defined. For one example, there was the case described at de:Hundertwasserentscheidung -- that was a photo of a copyrighted building in Austria, taken from a private apartment across the street, and sold as a poster. Selling the poster was legal in Austria, but not in Germany which required such photos to be taken from a public place. If the three-step test was interpreted as not allowing commercial use at all, then the Austrian law is invalid. That seems to be a different dividing line on "legitimate interests" -- for Germany viewpoints of a building that everyone can see should not be part of the "legitimate interests" of the architect for making money. In Austria, any viewpoint of a public building would seem to not be part of their "legitimate interests". So each country seems to be able to define that for themselves. If the act of putting something in public dramatically increases an author's chances to make money, to the detriment of many other people, it may well make some sense to put some limits on that. I'm not sure that many court cases examine that three-step test wording in particular as they will usually go by the wording in the country's law, but the Hugenholtz and Okediji interpretation mentioned on the Wikipedia article seems way off to me. Obviously, you can't allow something that amounts to a copy -- that definitely interferes with the "normal exploitation" of the original work, before it became public. Beyond that, there is lots of gray area.
As for "commercial use", that can be a tortured term. As Commons uses it, it is strictly in relation to copyright -- things like trademark and publicity rights are considered non-copyright restrictions and are treated differently (it just has to be legal for Wikimedia to host the image, without worrying about how some uses may violate those other laws). So prohibiting "commercial use" in a trademark context is fine; that has a completely different meaning despite being the same words. Our question is if a possible commercial use (i.e. one that makes money in some way) could result in copyright infringement particularly. With photos of course, there is gray area there -- we allow de minimis inclusion of copyrighted works. If you crop an image to the copyrighted object, that ceases to be de minimis and would not be allowed. Same if something is "incidentally" included, like the Louvre pyramid in a photo of the entire Louvre plaza. So our policies have some leeway and interpretation. The question is more, is there a possible use of the photo exactly as uploaded, which could result in a copyright violation, per the copyright law, simply due to its commercial nature. If selling postcards of a photo of a sculpture or building is OK, it would seem to be fine. Moral rights are also considered non-copyright restrictions; we are more about the economic right in particular. I don't completely understand the limitation that Sweden is contemplating, and if that could result in a violation of copyright specifically or some other Swedish law (a very different situation for us). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are several differences between the 3-step test in the InfoSoc Directive and the Berne Convention – the context differs, where the former closes an exhaustive list of accepted limitations, and it also explicitly concerns applications of the limitations in the article and thus does not work as a general interpretation principle such as in Berne. This turns the InfoSoc 3-step test into a rather special version of the 3-step test. But you are right that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has not defined 'normal exploitation' and 'legitimate interests', giving some leeway for national interpretation (until the CJEU harmonizes these concept). My understanding is that the Swedish proposal perfectly allows users to add a CC BY or CC BY-SA license on reproductions of FoP artwork (as the proposal does not prohibit commercial use) but that does of course not mean that Wikimedia Commons accepts such FoP images. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think GPSLeo's formulation of "Basically personality rights for buildings" is on the mark. We're going to have to see where the courts actually draw this line. For example, we certainly accept that in the U.S. a photo of a person cannot be used to imply an endorsement they didn't make, and hence cannot be used in an advertisement without their permission. As far as I can tell, the same also goes for the use of someone's image on trading cards. It seems to me that if this turns out to be something like that, we should probably accept it on that precedent. I'm going to guess (though this is only a guess) that it will turn out to be fine to use these in any "normal" way in a book, magazine, website, etc., and that all that will be excluded will be directly monetizing the image as such, and I bet even a lot of cases of that will be tolerated. It's going to be interesting to see what they say about postcards, for example, or selling such an image as a stock photo. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel (also ping @Rosenzweig and Clindberg: here) will this have a bearing on our treatment on Norwegian and Finnish FoP for monuments? @Eric Luth (WMSE): basically says that the proposed Swedish FoP would be more or less similar to Norwegian and Finnish FoP here. But Eric may need to clarify if the Norwegian and Finnish FoP do allow commercial use of public monuments just like what Swedish lawyers claim (this is per what Eric said: "Several Swedish lawyers I've consulted with are perplexed by how Wikimedia Commons can allow Belgian public art but not Danish and Norwegian.") And again, the restrictive three-step test style in the Belgian FoP has been removed in the current version of the law, so the use of Belgian FoP here as an example is now moot. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we have taken Norway's law to mean you can't sell a postcard if the sculpture is the main subject of the photo. It's OK if it's part of a wider scene, but we typically allow that type of picture anywhere as I don't think we have been shown a court case from any country which has ruled a photo like that an infringing derivative work. Finland is pretty much the same -- buildings OK, sculpture not, with the same qualification. That would still be an improvement on the current situation in Sweden, where it's clouded by that court case. Non-commercial use where the statue is the main subject is fine without permission, so it would be legal for Wikimedia to host. If that is the distinction -- photos where the sculpture is the primary subject versus photos which included it as part of the scene -- then no change. I'm only going by the English translations though which may miss nuances in the original language. If there is an implication that the "for gain" or "used commercially" in Finland/Norway's laws more refers to using it in advertisements only as a form of publicity rights, then less sure -- but if using it in advertisements is a copyright violation of the economic right as a derivative work, with the full penalties which come with it, still not sure it would be OK as that is a restriction based on copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Street art and FoP in Norway[edit]

Hello everyone,

I've recently uploaded this image of a mural in Norway. Would you say it is covered by Norwegian FoP, which does not apply "when the work is clearly the main motive"? What about the rest of the images in Norway's street art category?

Thank you for your inputs! Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I followed your link here hoping to understand what you meant by "motive" (an odd word in this context) and found that the word does not even appear on the linked page. I take it that you mean "when the work is clearly the main subject," a wording that does appear on the page. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me that the mural is the main subject. If you eliminated it, the picture would not be of much interest. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, apologies. There seems to be a bit of an inconsistency here: the page I linked states "when the work is clearly the main subject", but the {{FoP-Norway}} template says instead "when the work is clearly the main motive". I agree that the latter is a bit odd, motif or subject would be clearer.
When I took the picture, capturing the mural was indeed my main intent. However, I don't agree that the picture would not have much interest without the mural, as I think there's some abstract merit in the composition and play of colours. I'm unsure though if that's enough for FoP to apply. Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Julesvernex2 at best, edit to censor out the mural and upload it as a new file, and you can categorize it at Category:Censored by lack of FOP to show the effect of limited Norwegian FoP for distribution of public art images online under free licensing. The original file has to go. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, I'll do that and start the deletion request process. Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s a pity for such a nice photo, but probably unavoidable. – I have taken the liberty to update the English wording of {{FoP-Norway}} to use the term “subject”, too; the term “motive” was probably a false friend (in German and probably in other languages, “Motiv” is the normal word for the subject of an artwork).

WW1 Propaganda Posters[edit]

I recently came across some references to https://www.ww1propaganda.com/ which seems to be no longer online, but can be accessed through archive.org. I thought that all these posters could be a good addition to Wikimedia Commons. The copyright side of this should also be not a problem since it's all WW1 propaganda posters which should all be in {{PD-old}}.
My question now is if this is consensus for most people here (or if there will be a DR within the first five minutes after being uploded) --D-Kuru (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If these are European propaganda posters, then the author of the poster would have needed to have died before 1954, and there are definitely cases of German propaganda poster creators living to 1954 and beyond. So death dates of authors has to be checked before uploading here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume You'd also have to account for the URAA along with the normal term, which I assume probably wouldn't have lapsed yet or whatever when the copyrights were restored by it in a lot of cases. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are all from the 1910s. They are definitely public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup. As Abzeronow indicates, U.S. law is not a factor here, because these were published before 1929. If you can establish an author having died before 1954, that puts you in good stead in most European countries; also, for some countries, anonymous or collective works only get 70 years from publication, so those would be good as well where applicable. - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My bad. I stand corrected. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, interesting, but they have a proeminent watermark, and the first one is already on Commons, copied from the LoC. They are probably better sources for these posters. Yann (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FOTO'S STUUT[edit]

IK ZOU GRAAG IN CONTACT KOMEN MET DEGEEN DIE DE FOTO'S VAN sTUUT IN HET tROPENMUSEUM HEEFT GENOEMD. IK WEET NIET OF HET FOTO'S ZIJN DIE MIJN GROOTVADER, E.H. Stuut heeft gemaakt of een andere Stuut. Ik begrijp dat de mogelijke leverancier geen mail wil ontvangen maar wel wil reageren op een vraag op de site, maar ik heb geen idee hoe dat moet. kan iemand mij helpen? 2A02:A441:E0A7:1:862:7A0E:F977:C21A 19:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google translate from Dutch: I WOULD LIKE TO CONTACT THE WHOSE PHOTOGRAPHS OF STUUT IN THE TROPENMUSEUM. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE PHOTOS THAT MY GRANDFATHER, E.H. Stuut or another Stuut. I understand that the potential supplier does not want to receive emails but does want to respond to a question on the site, but I have no idea how to do that. can anyone help me?
If you are wanting to know about a file stored on Wikimedia Commons, please post a link to the file. If you are asking about files stored on the museum's website, a link to the file on their website would also be useful. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The request seems to be related to these images: Category:Photographs by E.H. Stuut Julesvernex2 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the OP is the same person who posted from a user account at the HD (reverted by Yann as a test) and at the main VP (in the Jan. 18 §). I recommend that further discussion take place in the latter thread, as it doesn‘t seem to be a copyright issue as such.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When Odysseus1479 says "that latter thread" I assume he means COM:VP#photographs E.H. Stuut, overleden 24 november 1931. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly copyrighted image[edit]

Hello!File:Felixleeskzz.png is likely copyrighted. Noticed it after it was added to the English Wikipedia. After some reverse image searching, I was able to find the full version of the image (albeit, from Reddit), with a watermark for this company, MBC. I cannot speak Korean, so my search ends there, however I figured it's best to bring it to the attention of admins here. Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a red carpet photograph, so there will be multiple versions and authors. In this case, the Reddit link you provided (to a gallery of multiple images) includes one of the same moment and angle as uploaded here. I have marked it as a copyvio for speedy deletion but someone may prefer to switch to a regular deletion discussion to cover the slim possibility that this was from a different camera in almost exactly the same position that captured the exact same moment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source url deleted[edit]

The only source url of File:Kenkichi Tomimoto and Shinichi Sasagawa, circa 1917-1918.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto (right) with unknown, circa 1917.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto, his family and his mother in front of his workshop, 1918.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto in front of his house, circa 1918.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto (left) with unknown, circa 1917.jpg, File:Kenkichi Tomimoto and his family, end of 1917.jpg is cancelled from internet. Can you delete them since they haven't another source now? Nanafuji (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have amended your comment to convert file names to links. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I have denied deletion, as there is no valid reason for that. Yann (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see Nanafuji has been blocked. However, for reference of other editors, I have added an archive link to the source from WayBackMachine. All files above came from the same source document. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because sources go away, does not mean deletion. If we have verified the license, or the license does not depend on the source (such as in this case and most other PD licenses), they are fine. We shouldn't upload files in the first place if keeping them was dependent on their continued existence elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Hindu–Arabic numerals images are almost certainly copyright violation[edit]

The image File:Evolution of Hindu-Arabic numerals.jpg is a very lightly modified version of a diagram from Karl Menninger's book Number Words and Number Symbols (1969), page 418, originally published in German (1934) as Zahlwort und Ziffer. This is a very clear copyright violation, though the author user:Hu741f4 claimed this as their own cc-by-sa licensed work.

A couple other images are almost certainly also copyright violation: File:Numeration-brahmi fr.png is translated into French, and according to the image description got the numeral images from Datta and Singh (1935) History of Hindu Mathematics which according to w:History of Hindu Mathematics and IA is in the public domain (I am not sure if that is accurate; the copyright page of these scans says "all rights reserved"). I can't immediately tell if this is true and the uploader user:Piero remade the image, or if this was also just scanned from Menninger then overwritten with translated labels, but either way this diagram is too closely based on Menninger's diagram to not be a clear-cut derivative work, and it's especially shady that there's no attribution to Menninger. This was then translated back into English as File:The_Brahmi_numeral_system_and_its_descendants.png by user:Tobus. Again Menninger is not credited, and this one has a description page which no longer makes any claims about where the glyph images come from.

It would be nice if someone would redraw an image that is not such a blatant ripoff. The wide use of these images across Wikimedia projects testifies to their importance. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 23:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not obvious to me that there is anything copyrightable there. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The precise layout, labels, and content of a diagram are assuredly copyrightable. The generic idea of drawing a tree is not copyrightable. So if you take the raw data for the chart (collection of re-drawn glyph shapes, historical connections between sets of numerals) and then hand it to someone who never looked at the original and ask them to draw a new diagram, what you end up with is going to look substantially different from the original, and should be free and clear. But just directly duplicating someone else's diagram without attribution is (a) very likely copyright infringement, and (b) unethical plagiarism. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 08:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, these are not original enough to get a copyright. These are factual descriptions, and only a few words. Yann (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you @Jmabel or @Yann a copyright lawyer/expert, or just laypeople speculating based on personal desires? My somewhat experienced layperson's understanding is that the "factual description" part is not copyrightable, but the choices made in the diagram (how to lay out the numbers, how to lay out the boxes, the choice of labels, the precise choice of examples to use, the specific drawings of the numerals, the choice to put a vertical divider between 1–5 and 6–0, the style of the arrows, etc. isn't something you can just copy wholesale and then pass off as your own original work. It's extremely unlikely that someone will sue Wikimedia in this case, since it's an 89-year-old diagram by an author who has been dead for 60 years, which has been widely copied in the mean time, but that's a different question than whether the work is copyrightable or not. But it also shouldn't be hard for someone to draw a new better diagram, especially anyone willing to do some additional research to find better examples; I'd recommend e.g. using colorful backgrounds instead of solid boxes, arranging the numerals in 2 rows for each set, adding a couple of other examples of further evolution of the Sanskrit numerals to make the diagram less Eurocentric, etc. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jacobolus: I'm not a copyright lawyer, and in my experience there are probably a dozen, maybe two dozen, people on Commons who are more expert than me on copyright (most notably Carl who replies below), but I'm certainly more than routinely knowledgeable. I don't particularly feel like rattling off credentials and history here, but since you raise the subject: are you a lawyer, and if so in what country, and do you have any particular specialization in copyright? - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I am not a lawyer, that's why I say "my layperson's understanding". I'm not trying to be passive aggressive. Copyright law is just somewhat tricky. I think Wikimedia should err on the conservative side, absent specific legal advice. –jacobolus (t · wp · wt) 21:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1934 original appears to be here, on page 233 of Zahlwort und Ziffer. Our graphic is pretty clearly a copy (using the same exact glyph drawings) with the Shang numerals added at the top. Our image was copied directly from here (same faded lines on the top box), an article called The Evolution of Mathematics in Ancient China by Frank Swetz, on page 31 of a book called Mathematics: People, Problems, Results edited by Douglas M Campbell and John C. Higgins of Brigham Young University (each article had a different author, dozens of them). It was published in 1984 and has a copyright notice by "Wadsworth, Inc.". The article says If one views a popular schematic of the evolution of numeration and places the Chinese system in the appropriate chronological position, an interesting hypothesis arises, namely that the numeration system commonly used in the modern world had its origins 34 centuries ago in Shang China! (and no further credit that I see). So, the Shang element at the top was an addition by that author, with the rest a direct copy. Unsure if it was (and is) considered a "popular schematic" such that it was commonly copied and considered general property, or not eligible for copyright in the first place, or only because the original book was probably public domain in the United States at the time.
It was obviously copied. But, none of the numerals or labels would have a U.S. copyright. It would come down to "selection and arrangement". They are arranged chronologically, which is not original, and vertically, also not really original either. The placement of the East/West Arabic, bit more likely but extremely thin. The choice of which ones to include, the "selection" part, may have a bit more merit (especially the ones at the bottom). It's not all that many elements though. Certainly the original upload, with an "own work" claim which was clearly a scan, and with no credits or context, is bad. It would be an extremely thin copyright, protecting mostly exact copying, with almost any other variation not being derivative. And it's possible this diagram was routinely copied. Still, it rubs me the wrong way that we have an exact scan from still-copyrighted works, where there is a slight question of copyright, when it would be rather easy to make an original representation showing the same idea, or copy a similar comparison from an out-of-copyright work such as this or here or I'm sure many more (those cite some others). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, rev del these 3 files.[edit]

To avoid COM:DW issue.

  1. File:British Ambassador to the United States hosts the premiere of The Boys in the Boat in Washington, D.C.on December 14, 2023 - 1.jpg
  2. File:British Ambassador to the United States hosts the premiere of The Boys in the Boat in Washington, D.C.on December 14, 2023 - 2.jpg
  3. File:British Ambassador to the United States hosts the premiere of The Boys in the Boat in Washington, D.C.on December 14, 2023 - 3.jpg

Thanks you, -- Ooligan (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popeye cartoons under character copyright?[edit]

We have quite a few Popeye cartoons that presumably were not renewed in their own right, but due to Commons:Character copyrights, shouldn't these be under perpetual copyright? Popeye's first appearance was in a 1929 comic, which presumably is PD next year, and his first appearance in film was in a 1933 Betty Boop cartoon which I believe was renewed. Although I doubt his appearance in either matched his appearance and likeness in 1936 and beyond, so I think it's safer to undelete them later than 2025...

Here's the ones I could find that probably need to be assessed based on similarities to previous likenesses of Popeye:

@Yann: How do you make one to nominate several at a time? SnowyCinema (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SnowyCinema: Hi, and welcome. Please see Mass deletion request (manual tagging for standard deletion of a mass of files), which links to VisualFileChange AKA VFC (semiautomatic tagging and other operations for 1 or more files).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to add to this. I did some research on Popeye about a month ago, and it seems like his status is a bit more in-flux than assumed.
It seems he was first introduced in a weekly comic strip entitled Thimble Theatre, which was published in The New York Journal. However, I could only find one renewal for Thimble Theatre from 1956-1958, the 27-29 year range from 1929. This renewal is for a 1930 contribution. Additionally, I did a more broad search through the logs for "king features syndicate" which the copyright is attributed to, and I found no renewals for a 1929 work. Again this was only for 1930.
The original strip from a publication in a syndicated newspaper does feature a copyright notice physically, but without a registration he might never have been under copyright at all.
As for his shorts, the first cartoon was produced in 1933. That short was renewed in 1961. So honestly, I would consider the cartoon Popeye to be a derivative of the 1931 short. So those later shorts should be held off until at least 2027 when the short will be public domain. @Yann@SnowyCinema@Jeff G. SDudley (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AntiCompositeBot[edit]

A message by y AntiCompositeBot advised me to ask here about File:Msc.Can.3 0008.jpg. The image is not in copyright, and I think the information is both complete and consistent, but all help is welcome as the bot sounded like deletion was likely nonetheless. CRolker (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CRolker: It is finally complete 13 months after upload. Please be more careful. The bot does not withdraw posts.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks for the prompt reply! what exactely caused the problem? My guess what that the relevant tag {{PD-Art-100}} was required twice, so I added it. It's very useful to have such bots, but it would be even better if they gave hints as to what the problem was. atb CRolker (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CRolker: Are "valid copyright tag" in special:diff/716218907 and "our basic licensing policy" in special:diff/293048073 not enough?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me, it was not clear; I thought that the {{PD-Art-100}} tag I inserted 18 Dec 2022 would be enough, so at first I was confused what was wrong with it. But again, no offense: you do help the project, and more experienced users than me would probably not have been confused. All well. CRolker (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CRolker: That insertion was 3h33m after the post in special:diff/716218907.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help with copyright identification, for Wikisource[edit]

confused and new to this, just don't want to get anything wrong.

I got a PDF of The Retreat by Samuel Tuke (1813) from Wellcome Collections and as I am in the process of uploading it I can't figure out the exact license to answer with upon being asked for that information in Step 1 of the Release Rights section. The only information provided by Wellcome Collections is "Works in this archive created by or for The Retreat, York are available under a CC-BY-NC license" which isn't very specific. many thanks in advance. ScooterDooter (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ambigious PD-animal situation[edit]

These photos were taken by the rats pushing the button on the bottom of the frame, making them arguably PD-animal. However, in the only precedent I know of (the monkey selfie, of course) the situation was far less engineered than this one. Lignier picked the camera angle, not the rats, and the box was specifically designed to get the rats to take these pictures. There's also no precedent at all in France. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't strictly matter whether or not there is precedent in France — both because of how the French legal system works, and because Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States, not France. (Compare PD-Art and, in effect, PD-algorithm.)
Anyway, I do not think there is any human authorship here. The entire content of the images is determined by the rat positioning itself and pressing the button at a time not determined by the human. The presence of the button at the bottom is not enough to put human authorship in the image. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This could be interesting. Per court cases the copyrightable aspects are generally the framing of the camera, possibly the posing, maybe the lighting, maybe the timing, and other effects under control of the photographer. Who presses the shutter does not necessarily matter. But, most of those aren't done by a human here. A human did set the camera framing, but it's pointing straight at a blank wall -- might be a non-created framing and positioning given the rest of the setup. Humans did set up the lighting. A bit different than the monkey selfies, where the camera was also held by the animal so there could be no claim of framing (and it was natural lighting outdoors). Not sure authorship could be claimed here either, but it's a tiny bit closer than the monkey selfies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Town Meeting TV[edit]

Recently I was reviewing from the YouTube channel of Town Meeting TV, a public broadcaster, and although the videos have the CC-BY 3.0 license when reading the description of a video I found the following text:

This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

It is also present on other random videos from the same channel that I opened. Their official website http://www.cctv.org has on the footer also the CC-BY-NC-SA symbol. I guess they selected the "Creative commons" license in YouTube assuming they could pick any of the CC licenses. As there are a lot of images involved I would like to ask for opinions before opening a DR. Günther Frager (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The licenses are both valid. The videos are available under both CC BY 3.0 unported and CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Yes, they're mostly redundant, but there is no valid reason to delete these items. We can acknowledge the additional license offered in addition to the CC BY license. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reproductions of 2D Public Domain Works in Germany[edit]

I recently stumbled across some scans of drawings of Alexandrian archaeological sites done by August Thiersch on a website from the Technical University Munich. August Thiersch died in 1917 so the original drawings are definitely in the public domain in Germany. However, the website lists the scans as being CC BY-NC-ND. Now, it's my understanding that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works are themselves not copyrightable under German law but I'm by no means an expert on the subject. I e-mailed the website admins about it and they pretty much ignored my question in their reply and simply restated that the images were subject to the licence listed on the website. Was hoping that either someone with more knowledge of German copyright law could chime in or that someone in a different jurisdiction (like the US, where these would absolutely be public domain) could upload some of these for me?

These are some of the works in question:

Not-A-Kitty (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, as the author died more then 70 years ago, the images are in PD in Germany. Do you happen to know when these drawings were published? If these were published before 1929, the images are also in PD in the USA and you can use {{PD-US-expired}} when uploading the files to Commons. Ellywa (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they were published before 1964 and there was no renewal, or before March 1989 without following US notice requirements, they'd also be PD-US. Works from Germany by an author who died in 1917 aren't URAA-eligible. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Not-A-Kitty: The three paintings appear to be preliminary proofs of illustrations for a work that may or may not have been published at the time. Do you know if they were actually published in any form before they appeared on the website of the Technical University of Munich? If not, that's a problem, because there is an additional publication right in Germany, separate from the original creator's copyright. The first publisher of an unpublished work (as long as that work had previously fallen out of copyright, as was the case here) gets 25 additional years of protection. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Related_rights and en:Publication right. So if the university library first published them on its website in 2015 (for example), they hold the publication right, the NC license is binding, and the images would not be eligible for uploading to the Commons until 2040. That, at any rate, is how I understand the current law. Choliamb (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, binding in Germany, anyway. However, a few considerations.
  • If first published online, we should just apply US rules (per our practice for simultaneously-published works). See Template:Simultaneous US publication. A work first published online, which is accessible to US internet users, is first published in the US (and simultaneously in other countries), even if the author wasn't and the publisher isn't American.
  • In Germany, this work would be considered in the public domain (that is, its copyright has expired), but protected by a related right (which is technically separate). Should we reject works protected by related rights but not by the copyright (which can only vest in the originator and heirs)?
  • Also, if the work is redistributable in Germany under a non-free (NC) license, but actually free in the US (being in the public domain), could that be fine to post?
In any case, the US copyright status is as follows, according to the actual date of first publication. This is relevant for English Wikipedia, at the very least, even if the work is not accepted by Commons due to the community rules.
  • 1928 or earlier: definitely PD-US-expired
  • 1928–1963: potentially PD-US-not renewed + PD-URAA (if no US-form notice+renewal)
  • 1964–1977: potentially PD-US-no notice (if no US-form notice)
  • 1978–1989: potentially PD-US-1978-89 (if no US-form notice and no use of curing provision)
  • 1989–2002: copyrighted in the US until 2048
  • 2003 or later: PD-US-unpublished
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-old-70 and Cc-pd-mark-footer[edit]

From Template_talk:Cc-pd-mark-footer#PD-old-70

{{PD-old-70}} includes the well-known requirement You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. It has long been a requirement that a tag like {{PD-US-expired}} must be added in addition, or else material is subject to deletion despite being PD in its home country (and for once, without involving URAA).

Yet {{PD-old-70}} also includes {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}} https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ which places such content into Category:CC-PD-Mark. Yes, they're both PD. But their semantics are different.

So is that requirement no longer in force? Is {{PD-old-70}} alone sufficient? Either the template message should be revised, or {{PD-old-70}} should not imply {{Cc-pd-mark-footer}}, or at the very least we need to stop doing DRs for either missing a {{PD-US-expired}} or for {{PD-US-expired}} being later than 1929.

File:Avenue de Stalingrad with railroad bridge near Place Lamartine, Arles PK-F-EAB.2005.jpg as an example. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copy Rights[edit]

Good Morning I am trying to find out what we need to just show the dvd Patch Adams at our booth at a health and wellness shows in Wisconsin. My boss has the DVD and would like to show it but do not know if we need anything to say we have the right to play it. I would apricate if someone can help me. Thank You Dawn DawnTurnKey (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not something we can really help with, as it's outside our control.
That said, something like that DVD will be the publisher's copyright and you will need their permission to either watch it yourself, to show it 'publicly' (as here) or to hire it out like Blockbuster used to. If you read the small print on the DVD, it will usually tell you. Typically this includes the right to watch it privately (they'd not sell many otherwise), clearly prohibits rental for reward, but the rules for a free showing in a space that somewhere between private and public will be complicated and you're going to have to read that particular disc's licence statement. I'm afraid that's as much anyone outside the publisher can really tell you, speaking generically. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the US, the first sale doctrine gives you the right to watch it privately or rent it (Blockbuster just had to buy normal DVDs in the US), but showing it publicly is going to cost an extra penny; I've heard that they sent a bill of $300 for a PTA to entertain kids with The Lion King while running a fundraiser for their parents. MPLC looks to be a good bet in the US for proper commercial licensing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giuseppe Castiglione painting A Hundred Horses[edit]

A mid 1750s Qing Dynasty treasure, 12 picture folio of 3' x 25' scroll painting scanned by me and reassembled. My version is much improved from the one in the artist's wiki. I have several resolutions available and would like to know what is preferred and how to donate it. Dave42Hasse (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does Google Images determine the copyright status?[edit]

Google Images allows users to filter for images available under a Creative Commons license. But how does it determine the copyright status of the image?

For example, this page showed up when I applied the Creative Commons filter to my search results. However, the page in question does not seem to mention any sort of free license. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you click on each article, you'll find links to the source of the image, and all three are under a free license. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I see. I was searching for "Creative Commons" on the page. It seems Google checks for image attribution and follows any links to their sources. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=845476928"