Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/12

incorrect claims of authorship

While doing some clean up on the article for Olga de Amaral on English Wikipedia I notice quite a few photos of her art work uploaded to the commons. The uploader has made multiple uploads for two artists, Category:Olga de Amaral and husband Category:Jim Amaral . I suspect that each of these images should be tagged with "picture cannot be in Commons without OTRS-permission". I can tag each one, but think there must be a way to tag them as a group. Could someone direct me to the instructions for this? Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, By the name, I guess that this user is of the artists' family. I let this user a message asking for confirmation of the licence by email. If this is not done within a few days, the files should be tagged for deletion. Yann (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

i think we can skip this step, since the uploader was active when uploads had been DR before.

use com:vfc to batch tag. RZuo (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was easy! I agree, the uploader ignored previous requests to provide licenses and have batch deleted.. Thank you Yann and RZuo WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Crown copyright and OGL

Does image marked with Crown copyright (in UK) are necessarily licensed under OGL? Examples are images from https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk, https://www.army.mod.uk/ and https://www.raf.mod.uk/ A1Cafel (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The Royal navy page at least is explicitly under the OGL. Felix QW (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyright

The file i uploaded was provide by my client and that is his business logo and i used his business wesbite as the url for the copyright and i dont know what to do again Afolabi bisola (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you should read Commons:Copyright. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That sock of Juliusiji was globally locked thanks to BRPever.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Threshold of originality for linguistic maps

This map comes from Schwartzberg, Joseph E. (1978). "Currency of Selected Languages and Scripts". A Historical Atlas of South Asia. University of Chicago Press. p. 102. ISBN 978-0195068696.

According to {{PD-map}}, maps that "consist[] entirely of information that is common property and contain[] no original authorship" are "ineligible for copyright". So:

1. Can I upload the above image to Commons?
2. If not, can I draw a new map on another background (or make a new request on Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop) that would exactly follow the lines of the above?
3. If not, can I draw a new map on another background that would use the above map as a source of information/facts but would not exactly follow the same lines? In that case, should this new map cite the above map as its source? as a reference?

A455bcd9 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

This map is clearly too original to be uploaded. However information itself is not copyrightable, so second one should be fine. Borysk5 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Borysk5. Is this a general rule? If so, should we add something to Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Maps and Commons:Map resources? For instance: "Some maps may be too original to be uploaded. However, information contained in maps is generally ineligible for copyright. The information from a non-free map can therefore generally be used to draw a new map on a free background. If you have any doubt, ask a question on the Village pump copyright section." A455bcd9 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Maps_&_satellite_imagery says: "You may not upload copies of copyrighted maps to Commons or trace or even redraw such a map yourself. Any map you create yourself must be wholly based on public domain sources or on sources that have been released under a suitable free license."

So can we redraw the above map? A455bcd9 (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to say that the second one is not fine, as it would still be a derivative work, but the third one, referenced to the map as a source, is perfectly ok. Felix QW (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

File uploading and copyright

hello here, i need help on uploading file on commons

i help my friend to uploading his picture and he provide me with the url to his website where the picture can be found and his name as the owner of the image which i choosed this is not this is not my own work and i included in his website url in the where the digital flies came from box and his name in the author/owner box and i published it but i got a notification that it doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

what can i do or the solution, looking forward to a helpful reply please

thanks Evelyn0404 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The easiest thing would be for your friend to make clear on his website that the file is under a suitable license (such as the CC-BY 4.0 attribution license). Then you could select that license in the upload wizard. Felix QW (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Evelyn0404: Hi, and welcome. File:Jason Brian Fox.jpg has no license or copyright tag at all. The source website https://www.jasonbrianfoxart.com/ says "All images copywrite 2022"[sic]. We need permission not only from the photographer for the photo, but also from the painter for the six paintings behind him on the wall. Please see VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

he is the painter of the painting behind him Evelyn0404 (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

i mean my friend in the picture is also the painter of the painting behind him Evelyn0404 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

So what we need then is VRT permission from the photographer and from your friend. Felix QW (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

a mail has been sent Evelyn0404 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

File:IreneCara1983disco.png

Hi, please note the file File:IreneCara1983disco.png (and its almost a duplicate copy), uploaded by the participant Oscar Antonio (for article Irene_Cara). The image on the file does not look like the source he cited (https://www.discogs.com/es/release/8980783-Irene-Cara-What-A-Feelin-Qué-Sensación). On the file the singer is holding one hand forward, but on the source both hands are pointing down. And on all the covers and versions (=69) of this album both hands of the singer are down (discogs.com). So the source is wrong and where is the real source and what license is there is unknown. Is this a fake source and shouldn't this file be removed for violating the rules. In the past, for example, the English wikipedia used to post a proprietary image in the article. Lasius (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The pose corresponds to another image at the source page though; as a separate source is given for the background, perhaps the uploader assembled the montage themselves? Felix QW (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

By the tag used on the image itself, it is not in the public domain in the USA, and that is a problem. It should be deleted here for that reason alone, although it is currently in use on the Polish Wikipedia main page's In the news section. Felix QW (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Will you be able to arrange this removal procedure? Lasius (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Felix QW: Besides, this image2 is taken, judging by the link downloaded from black-and-white Argentinian version with raised hand (in other countries they are almost all color) of one of the album images (all 69 versions of this album on discogs discogs.com), that is the derived colored work with the added grid was already uploaded. Nor is the point. Moreover, this supposedly Argentinian version bears a small indecipherable inscription on the finger level of the left hand and so differs from the source mentioned in the link (where the signature is not visible, being apparently at the bottom border of the cover image). Isn't this a forgery of the source? After all the downloaded file with that signature is more like the images from other countries (there is such a very similar signature), where there is not such a short period of copyright freedom as in Argentina (25 years, but more often 75 and 90 as in the USA). Lasius (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Who could renew a copyright?

There's an issue on three DRs--Commons:Deletion requests/File:Standard French grammar, (IA standardfrenchgr00fras).pdf, Commons:Deletion requests/File:George Eliot's Silas Marner,the weaver of Raveloe, (IA georgeeliotssila00elio 1).pdf and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hawthorne's The house of the seven gables; (IA hawthorneshouseo00hawt).pdf--that's about who can claim renewal, whether or not we can assume work for hire and then dismiss the renewal as invalid. In my opinion, short of pawing through decades-old paperwork that likely doesn't exist, in most cases we should assume that the author/widow/child of author doing the renewal had the right to make that renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not uncommon to find copyright renewals by heirs of the original author when investigating copyright renewals, and it is not always the case that the original registration was done by the author. A common case is a separate renewal by the heirs of a work published in a periodical registered with a single copyright registration by the publisher of the periodical. Another common case is a Section 203 termination. My position is that if the US Copyright office accepts and publishes a renewal, the renewal is presumptively valid. With a record of a renewal accepted by the US Copyright office, I think we should accept the work as renewed unless we have a photo/scan of the original work-for-hire contract or evidence that the renewal was successfully challenged in court. —RP88 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone with ownership (or part ownership, via license) had standing to renew, I think. If it was a work for hire (meaning actual employee; the term is strictly defined in law and usually would not apply to book authors), then only the company would have rights -- the human author would not. The U.S. Copyright Office circular is here; there is a section of "Who May Claim Renewal". If it was a copyright assignment via contract, then the extended term would only "vest" in the assignee if the original author was still alive on the renewal date, i.e. they had the ability to assign the extended copyright to the original contract, and they had promised to do so. They did not have to do that, and if they had died, then the rights for the extended term definitely revert to the heirs. The heirs then have full right to renew. See Stewart v. Abend. I think there was a later case which clarified the date of vesting, which I think was the date the renewal was filed, not when eligible. If it did not vest (or the original author did not promise renewal rights) then the renewal can therefore be done by someone completely different than the original registration, which may have been the assignee. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• The copyright issue in this case is different from that at issue in Stewart. There, the copyright was unambiguously held by the original author, and he (or, in that case, his heirs)—in this case, the copyright proprietor and the author are (or may be) distinct. RP88: I think you give too much credit to the investigative potential of the Copyright Office. As they state in their various circulars, they take the representations of those seeking copyright or renewal at face value, and any misrepresentations (malicious or otherwise) are not looked into absent a court case. Where the renewal notice clearly contradicts the original copyright notice and CCE item, I think that we can conclude against the determination of the Copyright Office. Carl Lindberg: In these cases, the issue is whether the company listed as the copyright proprietor on the original work (and in the CCE item) was actually the copyright owner, or whether the author was and maintained the ability to renew said copyright. The circular you cite is of no use, as it references the definitions employed in the 1976 Act; the 1909 Act does not define the terms to any degree of specificity. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's not about giving "credit to the investigative potential of the Copyright Office", it's about the value of the evidence presented. The Commons precautionary principle asks us to weigh doubts about the freedom of the works Commons hosts. The fact that a renewal was filed indicates that there was someone who claimed they own the copyright, were willing to pay the renewal fee, and were subject to a federal felony charge if they were fraudulent in the claims in their renewal paperwork. To rebut such a claim I'd like to see stronger evidence on the other side. For example, a copyright lawyer's opinion letter stating that they have reviewed the renewal paperwork and in their opinion the renewal was invalid, a retraction by the claimant stating that their renewal was in error, a legal case in which the renewal was found to be invalid, etc. In this case we don't have any evidence that the renewal was invalid, all we have is that the fact that the parties names are different introduces the possibility of one more way that the renewal might be invalid. —RP88 (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The 1909 law did specify that you had to be an "employer" in order to be a work for hire, so the courts had to define employment, and there were varying standards. Commissioned works sometimes were. Per this paper, things like encyclopedias and movies (which involve getting rights to many copyrights) were given the special treatment in the 1976 work for hire definition, and all sides were generally agreed that things like novels were not works for hire. While nothing is 100% certain with any of this, as far as I know most book authors (and musical composition others) often got their rights back after 28 years under the 1909 act (such as the Stewart case). Given that there is a renewal, which is usually prima facie evidence of the existence of the copyright, you have a pretty difficult road to disprove that in court. You would have to prove that the work was "made for hire" under 1909 Act rules to begin with. While easier than today, that's far from certain. The original copyright proprietor could have been anyone else (including a company), but that does not indicate that something was indeed a work for hire -- if you sold the copyright, the new owner could then register the work. If the original work was a work for hire, I don't think the Copyright Office would allow the renewal from the author. If something was clearly a work for hire, and some evidence for that, I'd agree. But I think usually books were not. I don't think we can come anywhere close to concluding against the determination of the copyright office -- we would need some solid evidence of the work for hire status, especially for situations (book publishers) where they usually were not. The Compendium does say they will not try to decide on employment status, but they do say A renewal claim as "author" will be questioned when the original records of the registration state that the work was made for hire. If the original registration did not specify that it was a work for hire, then there's a good chance it was not. It's possible the question could end up in court, but COM:PRP would apply if there was a serious question either way. Do you have any court case precedents where publishers got "work for hire" status on works like these? Granted these seem to be editors, not full authors, but no evidence they are employees either as far as I can see. We need stuff to be PD beyond a significant doubt, and the existence of a renewal means there is at least an argument that the copyright still exists. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Freedom-of-Panorama case-law in Spain?

As this DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Meninas, Plaza de Santa Bárbara.jpg concerns quite a number of images on Commons, I want to invite users with knowledge about FoP case-law in Spain to the discussion. The main question is: does an installation of sculptures for a few weeks in public space fulfil the legal condition „permanently installed“ of the law? ‒Túrelio (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, The issue is what happened to the sculptures after they were moved. Was it destroyed? Moved to another public place? Moved to a private place? IMO in the first 2 cases, it is OK, but it is not in the last case. Yann (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As I was told by a photographer, they are sold during the exhibition-period and thereafter removed from public place (likely to where the buyer wants them). This is an annual event (since 2018, so far). --Túrelio (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

About derivative works

If CC-BY-SA-3.0 is compatible with CC BY SA 4.0, and CC BY SA 4.0 is one-way compatible with GPL, does it mean that CC BY SA 3.0 is compatible with the GPL? --Matr1x-101 {_{user page} - ^{talk with me :)} - _contribs!} 19:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Cricket test match images at Perth Stadium

I'm wondering what the general opinion on uploading images from Cricket test matches at Perth Stadium is. I took some of the Australia versus West Indies test match on Friday. Now, Cricket Australia's condition of entry (see here) state I must not for anything other than private, non-commercial and non-promotional purposes make any video or sound recording or take any photograph; or ... assign all copyright and all other intellectual property in any such Recording to Cricket Australia (some further clauses omitted). Does this condition, for the purpose of uploading such images to Commons, actually not make me the copyright holder and therefore prevent me from uploading, especially as these images could potentially be used for commercial purposes? I have come across a similar clause for AFL games at the stadium and decided not to upload because of such a clause. Calistemon (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Commons:CSM: "Photographs taken by yourself in a museum or the interior of a building/monument are deemed acceptable here, provided they do not show copyrighted works. If the museum's house rules forbid photography, a breach of that rule is an issue between the photographer and the museum, but does not affect the copyright status of an image. If the museum's house rules were a valid contract, it would bind only the parties of the contract: the photographer and the museum. Wikimedia Commons and all other third parties are not subject to such a contract" Tl;dr they can ban you front their events if they find out, but it has no effect on copyright ownership so you can upload them. Borysk5 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The only point of difference may be that the way the contract is worded assigns copyrights of certain photographs to Cricket Australia rather than simply forbidding them. Thus the contract may indeed have outward effects since it affects the copyright status of an image. Felix QW (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Felix QW, Borysk5, and Calistemon: An assignation of copyrights clause in such a one-sided contract would likely be deemed by American courts as unconscionable; an Australian court may disagree. @Clindberg: What do you think?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there is any history of a copyright transfer being valid by virtue of an adhesion contract. If you have to sign something on the ticket, it may have some teeth but otherwise probably not. I don't see a clause in their copyright law specifically, but searches seem to say Australia is similar in that transfers must be in writing and signed by both parties. For example this says Australian law requires that assignments be in writing and that both you and the new owner sign it to make it legally binding. In general, I don't think we would (or should) respect such a clause unless a court actually rules something like that is valid (and even then, if there is any question, I would go with whatever the author wants to do -- if they believe they still own copyright, should probably allow it). Even with the wording, you can argue you took it for personal reasons, then decided to upload it only later. If the uploader would prefer files be deleted rather than run any legal risk, we should respect that though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your advice. I will look through the images and see which ones may be useful to the project. Calistemon (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Relevant law here is Copyright Act 196(3): "An assignment of copyright (whether total or partial) does not have effect unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor." Borysk5 (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Borysk5: Thanks! Noting that the quote is from Part X, Division 4, what are the penalties for alleging that the assignment can be via "Ticket & Entry Conditions"? Here on the other side of the world, that strikes me as fraud.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Borysk5: Your section 196 argument is interesting. But what is meant by "signed"? – The Act doesn't say. In the old days, it would have meant, and meant only, applying your signature to a piece of paper using a pen or perhaps a rubber stamp. But nowadays, it may also mean clicking a "sign" button on an online form. After all, isn't that the way people uploading images to Commons purport to grant a Creative Commons licence to all and sundry? A better argument, I would have thought, against any valid transfer of copyright under CA's contract of adhesion terms and conditions might be that Calistemon was taking his photos for "private purposes", ie for the private purpose of donating his photos to a charitable organisation (ie Wikimedia) free of any charge to the charitable organisation (or anyone else for that matter). After all, if I want to make my images available to everyone on that basis, isn't that a private, non-commercial, non-promotional decision made by me? Bahnfrend (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bahnfrend: For other websites, yes. However, we have a higher standard because we aim to have all the contents of our media repository usable commercially - see COM:L.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: But the issue is a matter of construction of a contract to which only CA and the uploader are parties. Wikimedia is not a party to the contract, and therefore its purposes, whatever they may be, are irrelevant. More specifically, this is the issue: What is the uploader's purpose? If that purpose is to make a donation to a charity, whatever the charity may be, then in my view it's probably a private purpose, ie philanthropy. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It is the uploader's risk to take, for sure. They need to know their own law -- we can point to what we think is the case, but we aren't lawyers so we can only search on the net. Your position would likely be arguable (I mentioned a similar argument earlier), though it's probably moot. Would have no idea how a court would take those arguments. On your first question, giving a non-exclusive license is not a copyright transfer -- it does not require a signature. But yes, electronic signatures these days might apply when they are needed, but not sure that a simple "OK" is enough either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis Picture Copyright

As it was brought up awhile ago in the C. S. Lewis talk page on the English Wikipedia, could this image of Lewis (and the one of Tolkien while at it) be allowed on Commons? JamesTheLaptop (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@JamesTheLaptop: For Lewis, you would have to do research like at Commons:Deletion requests/File:J. R. R. Tolkien, 1940s.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"for exclusive use on Wikipedia"

The author of File:Coeliac Disease.png uploaded it on the English Wikipedia "for exclusive use on Wikipedia" and added: "Please do not add this diagram to another wiki without seeking my prior consent. This image is for use in the English Wikipedia"

However, the image was later automatically migrated to Commons.

What should we do? A455bcd9 (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

the author - who appears experienced according to their user page on en:wp - used conflicting requirements, CCBYSA3.0/GFDL and this additional requirement. I would say keep until a deletion request is received from the author, @WikipedianProlific: . Then we can reconsider. Hope they will see the ping. Ellywa (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

They haven't contributed on Wikipedia since 2010 so I'm afraid they won't see the notification. I've just posted a message on their Wikipedia talk page as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Der Lange, who moved it here using a script.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Was CC by-sa used on the original upload, or only after transfer here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: The upload was tagged with GFDL-self when uploaded in September 2006 to en.wiki, updated to GFDL-self-with-disclaimers by Cydebot in May 2007 as part of the GFDL standardization. So it appears it was eligible for the image license migration save for the "exclusive use" clause. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

IMO we cannot keep this image with the disclaimer. So either we determine that the disclaimer is not legally operative on the GFDL and/or CC license, or we will have to delete it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• The file description states, "Diagram to show the different stages of Coeliac Disease. Drawn in adobe photoshop 7.0.1 for use in the en:Coeliac Disease article. Drawn by me, en:User:WikipedianProlific for exclusive use on Wikipedia. Please do not add this diagram to another wiki without seeking my prior consent. This image is for use in the English Wikipedia. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)". That appears to be contemporary with the uploading of the file. There is no apparent permission for the file to be on Commons, so it should be deleted on Commons. The author's contemporary intent about the license restriction is absolutely clear, so I do not see the author being bound by less restrictive requirements of a standard license. Glrx (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coeliac Disease.png Glrx (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I checked the deleted history of the original file description page on the English Wikipedia and found that the original uploader did remove the restriction in August 2007. Someone else who is also an admin on the English Wikipedia should able to access the link and confirm this. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

FOP in Qatar

So COM:FOP Qatar is being discussed quite a bit, partly because of the World Cup, and I'll admit that I'm far from an expert. Based on the discussion, it would seem that File:2022 FIFA World Cup Korea Uruguay 01.jpg is a candidate for deletion because it clearly shows the roof design and other architectural elements so I added {{NoFoP-Qatar}}, but it was reverted because of a VRT ticket. Now, the VRT ticket verifies Korea.net's licensing of the photo, but it seems irrelevant to the question of whether the architecture is copyrighted. Or am I misunderstanding something here? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the VRT ticket is irrelevant to the permission of the architecture. However, the stadium may be under de minimis because the focus is on the football match and the audience. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@A1Cafel Thank you for responding. My opinion is that the roof design does constitute an architectural element. Would it be fine to crop out the roof since it's not an integral part of the photo? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

More questionable renewals

So w:Cordwainer Smith, a.k.a. Paul Linebarger (1913-1966) has three renewals under his name:

R601310. Ria. By Felix C. Forrest, pseud. of Paul M. A. Linebarger. © 21May47; A13849. Paul M. A. Linebarger (A); 26Mar75; R601310.

R618689. Carola. By Paul M. A. Linebarger, pseud. of Felix Forrest. © 21Jan48; A21648. Paul M. A. Linebarger, pseud. of Felix Forrest (A); 19Nov75; R618689.

R655579. Atomsk. By Carmichael Smith, pseud. of Paul M. A. Linebarger. © 22Apr49; A32849. Paul M. A. Linebarger, pseud.: Carmichael Smith (A); 23Feb77; R655579.

The second one confuses pseudonym and author, but I suspect that's harmless error. But they're done in the name of the author, Paul Linebarger, who was dead 9 or 10 years by the day of the renewal. Given that part of the point of a renewal is to give notice of the new holder of the copyright and renewals of works by dead authors should be done by widows, children, etc., as set out in the law, would this be enough to put these works in the public domain?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Doubt it. Errors in the name of a copyright notice never lost copyright. The renewal may have simply been done by his estate -- copyright does not necessarily go directly to heirs. Often the executors control copyrights for some time. If the original was a work for hire, they are not valid, but otherwise to me they likely are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• I would say that they are. The Compendium is fairly clear on that point. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Ah, that is interesting. That is pretty explicit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

ExploreTheMed

File:Crusade 2.jpg comes from explorethemed.com which says: "Unless otherwise stated, all maps on this site are © ExploreTheMed"

Doesn't look free to me. Same for File:Übersichtskarte Evora Provinzen.jpg and File:The Crusader States (1200).jpg.

Did I miss something? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not see a free license, so you should nominate them for deletion. Glrx (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yann did it. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Smile to Jannah

Hi, File:National Anthem of Palestine (Vocal).ogg and File:Mohammad Rizwan.png were imported from Smile to Jannah on YouTube by a new user. The license on YT is free, but I have some doubt about the validity of the license. Could someone confirm please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Languages updates of Template:PD-Canada

Languages versions of Template:PD-Canada will need to be updated, if users speaking the languages can help. The English and the French versions have been updated. Other versions remain to do. The modification is in condition number 3 of the text. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

German version is done. --Rosenzweig τ 13:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

EP Media

Hi. I wonder whether files obtained from https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu and other kinds of files that obtained from the social media account related to the EU (like https://twitter.com/UE_Madagascar) can be licensed with {{European Union Government}} or not A1Cafel (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. "As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged", from legal disclaimer from website you posted: [1]. Borysk5 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The no-derivatives restriction of europarl is considered not free. Someone tried to create a template in 2007 and it was not accepted. Someone tried to recreate a template in 2016 and it was not accepted. See previous discussions, for example Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/07#European Parliament. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The initial license may not be free enough, but images from Euranet with a free license should be OK. This is an official account, and we would be quite arrogant predenting that they don't know what they are doing when publishing images under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yann and Asclepias: Should we nominate files like File:Meloni Metsola (9).jpg for deletion? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The photo does not have a free license, so yes it can be deleted for copyvio. (The uploader used a wrong template on Commons. The text of the EUG template specifies that is for EU institutions that have specifically adopted a policy implementing free licensing. That is not the case of the EU Parliament.) (The present file cannot be kept as things are, but if the photo eventually gets offered by the EU under free license somewhere, it could be taken from there.) -- Asclepias (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with multimedia.europarl.europa.eu--A1Cafel (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

New logo for the AIP

The new logo for the American Institute of Physics has just been added to Commons at File:AIP Logo.png. I can find no indication on the AIP website that they have licensed their logo as CC BY-SA 4.0 as the upleader says. However, is this logo below COM:THRESHOLD and can it be kept as such? StarryGrandma (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comparing this to the Arrows logo, this looks like it’s below TOO US. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks StarryGrandma (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Dallas, Texas, 22 November 1963

Hi, More information needed about copyright for File:HSCA-z161-Croft-6-44.jpg. I changed {{PD-USGov}}, which is obviously wrong, to {{PD-US-no notice}}. Now I found a much better quality version of it at [2] (direct link), even in color. This is exactly the same picture, so it should have the same copyright status, isn't? Yann (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

One question is whether the publication in the reports was actually authorised by the photographer - the story narrated here makes that at least somewhat doubtful, and the National Archives representative's statement to an earlier question is not particularly helpful either. Felix QW (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Hudson Exh1-Willis20-183.jpg is another file which had the wrong license. Any idea? Yann (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

PD-US-no_notice is the only hope, but I can't quite bring myself to really believe that. The photos were certainly willingly given to the investigative teams, but not sure that would qualify as publication -- that is pretty much a textbook case of limited publication. There are certainly good fair use arguments for using them in materials related to the assassination, if there to illustrate a point, but full-blown PD I'm not sure I see how, at least without further statements from the authors. The presence in the report I doubt qualifies as publication without notice. The Zapruder film, frames of which were also in the report, certainly retained its private copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Thanks for your input. There are several other images with such uncertain copyright status in Category:Dealey Plaza on November 22 1963. Why publication in the Warren Commission report doesn't count? What about {{PD-US-not renewed}}? Yann (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It may not count as authorized publication, basically. They were fair use, and became public records, but the copyright would likely remain. If the authors were approached with permission to use them in the report without notice, that should do it, otherwise I would probably assume technically unauthorized use (but fair use) by the commission. There should be some action on the part of the copyright owner which would lose the copyright for them -- giving copies to investigative bodies would not be enough though. Was there any other action or statement we could point to? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As for PD-US-not_renewed, don't think any of the associated works were published until at least 1964, were they? Again, the initial publication would have had to be authorized by the copyright owner as well. It would only be works published before the end of 1963 which would have needed renewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

So we need to investigate when the images were first published. There is also File:Texas School Book Depository 22 or 23 November 1963.jpg, claimed to from the FBI, but "from unknown source, from the Internet". Not very good. Yann (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• I think the commission report is a valid publication, and that the photographs were published with authorization (as the government got the images to use in the report), and that such publication (with authorization and without a copyright notice) makes the photographs PD-US-no notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ok, so I uploaded File:Robert Croft photo showing JFK's car on Elm Street.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Encouraging a new user to use COM:F2C

Hi folks.

Been thinking away at this for a few days, and I'm not sure how to put it across. A relatively new user has been uploading what appears to be their bus photos onto the Commons, which they have subsequently put on Wikipedia. They seem to be very willing to engage with the Commons and the greater Wiki project, but taking a look at what appears to be their Flickr page (they seem to both go by Josh, so the hope is that they are the same person) the corresponding posts on Flickr are under an 'All Rights Reserved' license.

See for example, File:Stagecoach North East - Pride 10638-SN16 OYD.jpg, actively being used on w:Stagecoach North East which correlates to this Flickr post - note the license.

From the offset, I really, really don't want to see them have their posts removed. They're high quality and quite informative for some articles relating to buses in North East England - see File:Go North East - ELECTROLINER 9048-LY71 GJE.jpg, currently the only photo of a StreetDeck Electroliner so far on the Commons, which correlates to this Flickr post; unfortunately, the timestamp made me think this was taken in December rather than February when I rewrote the caption for it on w:Wright StreetDeck. I've been mulling posting on their talk page about how to use COM:F2C (the only caveat being they're uploading their photos onto Commons through Android), but I've been concerned that I might come across as too harsh or being unintentionally misinformative; copyright law and how it applies on the Wikimedia Commons isn't exactly my strong point.

I was wondering whether someone could come over to their talk page and explain the COM:F2C process to them? And if they're willing to, whether they would be able to set their Flickr posts to the right license? I'd like to see these images stay up and I'm concerned some overzealous user may assume the images were wrongfully extracted from the Flickr page. Hullian111 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Since the license on Flickr isn't free, they couldn't use F2C. Also although it is probable than Josh r06 and https://www.flickr.com/photos/189582233@N06/ are the same person, we don't really know, so it would be much better that the license on Flickr should be changed. I let them a message. Yann (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, asking them to change the license was what I was aiming for. Thanks for summing it up in fewer words than I'd have done - hopefully, they'll respond and be happy to change the licenses. Hullian111 (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yann Bad news: they don't want to change the 'All Rights Reserved' license. Looks like the images may well have to go. Damn it, this is the second time I've been stung by another user's copyvio now... Hullian111 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

He may prove his identity via COM:VRT. But it doesn't make sense. Once the images are uploaded to Commons under a free license, it is possible to copy the Flickr versions (although some people disagree). Yann (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess the only reason I can think of is that he doesn't want to advertise the free license to the Flickr-using public? Felix QW (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

permission / documentation from the subject [person] in the photograph

TLDR: I'm trying but suspect I don't have enough legit evidence or du diligence presented to share the photo, though I have an email from the subject, help is much appreciated! I am learning.

After much reading and searching help and instructions, I am overwhelmed and need assistance please. I received a photo from a subject in the photo, with a request to replace their image on their personal page with this new photo. I did not take it the photo. And, the person in the photo was on a film location shoot - the author/owner who took the photo, is the partner on the film being shot. What specifically, and who, do I ask for and what do I ask to obtain in order to make this clearly released for sharing in the Wikimedia Commons? Apologies - I will work on creating a form or steps for myself - the documentation I find is just too much for my level and I don't want to give up. Thanks! So the image is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elizabeth_Stephens_near_Cambria,_California_in_2016.jpg - BethJaneToren (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@BethJaneToren: Hi, An e-mail from Annie Sprinkle following the procedure of Commons:VRT should do the trick. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

War uniform insignia, badges and patches

Is it possible to clarify the rules around uploading 2D images of obsolete WWII and earlier uniform insignia? The original manufacturer is unknown and in many cases, the Country of manufacture can't absolutely be confirmed either; neither can the original owner in most cases. These would be vintage, original items from my own collection thus images of items I personally own and have photographed/scanned myself. Some items may have initially been of private purchase at the time from the PX/NAAFI or a private tailor. They would be over 80 years old from WWII and over 100 years in the case of WWI items. A much better place (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Does a "trivial simplification" of a work create a new copyright in countries with a low ToO?

I know that in the United States, the simplification of an existing work is not considered to be original enough for copyright protection. In the linked example, the derivative work would fall into public domain as soon as the copyright on the original logo expires. But is this still true for countries with a low threshold of originality?

On the English Wikipedia, there are some New Zealand government logos (such as en:File:CrownLawNZ-logo.svg and en:File:JusticeNZ-logo.svg) that are marked as non-free. However, they only comprise of a simplified version of the coat of arms of New Zealand (which is old enough to be public domain) and some added text. It's my understanding that the threshold of originality in New Zealand is "not high." Would these simplifications generate a new copyright in New Zealand? Ixfd64 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ixfd64. In the case of COM:COA, the blazon (i.e. the written description) is typically not eligible for copyright protection, but individual visual representations based upon the blazon are. So, if you can find the blazon and then create an original visual representation of the coat-of-arms based on it, you can release your version under a free license if you want. However, if you incorporate elements into your version that were created by others and are copyright protected, then you might need to treat your version as a COM:DW and can't upload your version without the consent of these others. You can, however, use public domain elements or other freely licensed elements in your version, though in the latter case you might need to provide attribution to comply with the licensing of the original element. Of course, there's no guarantee that whatever version you create will be used, particulary if it's not deemed to be a very accurate or good representation.

Is the NZ COA you're referring to the File:Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg being used in the main infobox of the English Wikipedia article about en:New Zealand? That seems to be someone's visual representation of the COA's blazon and not something official created by the NZ government or sourced to a New Zealand government website like this; so, it's possible that any versions of the COA (as revised in 1956) that are found on official NZ government wesbites might still be protected by copyright per COM:New Zealand.

Finally, in order for Commons to keep something as PD because it's too simple to be eligible for copyright protection (i.e. below the TOO), it would need to be PD in both the United States and the country of first publication (country of origin). I don't see how any of the COA files you've linked to above would be below the TOOs of either the US or NZ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for the detailed response. It does seem very likely that the coat of arms in the logos are original representations as opposed to derivative works of public domain material. In this case, the logos would be non-free. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

A derivative work is still, by defintion, protected by copyright (i.e. non-free); it's just that there are multiple copyrights that need to be considered and not just the copyright claims of the derivative work's creator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kantordesaaliyanrogojampibanyuwangi2015.JPG

Actually, I'm really confused by @Gbawden: 's kept decision, according to their decision, it talks about "copyrighted artistic works" which I don't see here, but my reading of COM:FOP Indonesia looks like that that isn't OK for buildings either which Gbawden didn't account, is this decision meaning that FOP Indonesia section was written wrongly? There's in fact FOP available for buildings here? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Liuxinyu970226: Rather than that, I would say that nothing in article 9(1) allows for the architect of a building to restrict he who photographs it, which would allow FOP generally speaking. The CC ID article seems to misunderstand the law. It makes mention of the so-called “moral rights” described in article 5(1) for the claim that it protects the rights to create derivative works; however, such a right is an economic right (see article 9(1)). The listing of economic rights is exclusive—it contains no general “catch-all” provision—so for FOP to be prohibited, it must be a part of one of the economic rights listed therein. However, none of the rights listed in that article can be read to prohibit the taking of photographs of architectural works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• @TE(æ)A,ea.: "What is not written is allowed" does not apply to copyright statutes. The lack of FOP simply means there is no FOP whatsoever, even non-commercial use is not allowed. This means for the likes of Yemen, Oman, and Nepal where nothing is mentioned, private use is the only legal form of use of copyrighted public art and buildings. In our case, our intellectual property office has said in November 2021 that the lack of FOP simply means there is no FOP (Philippine Star article). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• JWilz12345: I agree with your basic premise, that what is not written is not allowed, but I come to a different conclusion. There is no general law prohibiting or limiting photography, so the prohibition on taking a photograph of a building could only come from the proprietor of the copyright. The so-called “moral rights” are not in issue, I believe, but only the economic rights. The economic rights of an Indonesian author (holder of copyright) are expressly given out in the statute, in article 9(1), and it is stated later in that article that anyone who wishes to exercise any of the exclusive economic rights listed in said article 9(1) needs the permission of the proprietor of the copyright. This means that the proprietor of the copyright in the design of a building can only restrict the exercise of those economic rights which are given him by the statute in article 9(1). The point in my initial comment is that none of the listed economic rights give the architect of a building the exclusive right to take photographs of it. And, as what is not written is not allowed, the owner of the copyright in a building has no right to restrict he who photographs his building. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• @TE(æ)A,ea: photography is a form of reproduction in two-dimensional form. That is why here in our country, we are not allowed to take photos of pages of textbooks and post them on social media because it is only reserved for publishers. Be bold to do so and you get a direct message from publisher via Messenger requesting you to delete your post. Similarly, photography of modern or contemporary buildings and other forms of public space works in Indonesia for purpose of distributing these pictorial reproductions over IT technology, like the Internet, can only be done so legally if the form of use is not lucrative to architects or artists, like on Facebook (since it appears Indonesian architects are OK with Facebook as Facebook does not mandatorily provide Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike licenses to its users, unlike us here in Commons). The article you cited already provides restrictions. But assume the owner of copyright is prohibited from exercising rights, then the author comes into play. Architects are among the so-called work authors. If the building owners are prohibited by architects from exercising their rights, then the architects themselves perform that rights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• JWilz12345: The owner of the copyright (“proprietor” by my usage, following U.S. terminology) is the architect, who is the “author” (equivalent) for building designs. As even Commons acknowledges, photography of two-dimensional works is different from photography of three-dimensional works. Where the purpose of a photograph is to accurately depict an existing two-dimensional work, that photograph is a “slavish copy” of the original work (for which see {{PD-Art}}). However, that same logic does not apply to photographs of three-dimensional works: those photographs cannot be “slavish copies” of three-dimensional works, such as buildings, in the sense of prohibiting a new copyright. And because photographs of three-dimensional works (such as buildings) cannot be “slavish copies,” they cannot be “a form of reproduction” of such works. This is unlike scanning a textbook: such photographs would be attempts to depict the textbook pages (the existing two-dimensional work), and would thus be “slavish copies” which count as reproductions. To your last point again, just to be clear, the owner (or proprietor) of the copyright in the design of a building is the architect who designed the building, and my claims refer to such person(s) in particular (not to the owner of the building, who is not relevant for copyright purposes). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• @TE(æ)A,ea.: I read the Section again, and it appears you misread the subsections 2 and 3. The "person" referred to is not the author or copyright holder, rather all of us (users, photographers, etc.). Subsection 2 simply states that persons (users) that do or are trying to do things enumerated at the first subsection should always get licensing permits from the author/copyright holder. Subsection 3 is actually redundant, but seemingly added for emphasis: users should not make profit over or reproduce copyrighted Indonesian objects without prior permission from the author/copyright holder.

• (2) Every Person who exercises the economic rights as referred to in section (1) is obligated to obtain permission from the Author or the Copyright Holder.
  (3) Every person is prohibited from exercising Reproduction and/or Commercial Use without any permission from the Author or the Copyright Holder.

• It would be surprising that the author is prohibited from exercising things just because he does not have permission from...himself(?!!!) or from nobody(?!!!). Again, "person" in this context is us. Article 1 defines person as "a natural person or legal entity."
• With respect to photographs as reproductions, photos of buildings and sculptures are copies of 3D works in two-dimensional form. It is a modern form of pictorial reproduction, which in the past was only possible by painting. During the olden days, German painters would paint cityscapes, including buildings and sculptures, and relied on German panoramafreiheit so they can legally sell their paintings even without architects' or sculptors' licensing permits. For today's era it is more of photos of such things.
• Architects and sculptors had the right to control peoples' 2D pictorial copies of their works. Gaylord succeeded in suing US Postal Service over the latter's use of his Korean War Veterans Memorial. In France two separate court cases in 1990s ruled that post cards showing Grande Arche and La Géode dome were copyright violations, since the post card makers had no permits from the architects of those famous Parisian landmarks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• IMO you confuse several things. 1. Yes, pictures of famous buildings can't be uploaded on Commons from countries where there is no freedom of panorama, but there is no such famous building here. Only a simple gate, and an ordinary building in the background. 2. Items with a copyright be reproduced when there are de minimis (see also Carl Lindberg's message below which explains that better than me). 3. It is not because of freedom of panorama that old German painters were able to reproduced things. It is just that there wasn't a copyright on everything, and that copyright was only rarely an issue for artists. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Yann: 1. I don't know why "famous" should be a requirement for such a deletion, under this logical everyone can upload photos of their own bedrooms (then whose bedroom can be "famous"?) and no one should nominate em for deletion? 2. There are two violation examples also listed at COM:DM, then why this file can't be one of both violations? 3. "wasn't a copyright on everything"? Again, COM:TOO Indonesia is low, though not sure whether it's COM:TOO UK-like very low, so there are indeed some stuffs which can be public domain in US but copyright-able in their home country. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Liuxinyu970226: 1. Yes, there isn't a copyright on everything. Mundane buildings often don't have a copyright, when having a pure utilitarian design. 2. De minimis means the item isn't the central and unique object in the picture. Threshold of originality in Indonesia being low or not doesn't matter to accept something as de minimis. 3. And yes again, there wasn't a copyright on everything. For example, folklore isn't concerned by copyright. Again, threshold of originality has nothing to do with that. Yann (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Yann: I don't confuse things, rather I respond to @TE(æ)A,ea.: 's claim that photos of architecture and monuments are not 2D copies of those works, which is plain wrong. TE(æ)A,ea: taking photos is a modern form of mechanical reproduction of the said works, in contrast to the paintings and drawings of the same type of works which were the 19th-century forms of mechanical reproduction of the said works. If pictorial representations are not copies, then how come Germany implemented the first freedom of panorama legal right in the 1870s? Because drawing, painting, or photography of buildings and monuments are just forms of mechanical reproductions of those works. Mechanical reproductions are also copies. You may need to read this 2017 paper by Dulong de Rosbay and Langlais, in terms of considering photography as a form of 2D reproduction or 2D copying of the said works. Majority of copyright laws, including Indonesia's, follow Berne standards, in which photography is considered reproduction. The PD-art and "slavish copies" rationale for 2D works are irrelevant on photographs of 3D works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• @JWilz12345: I was replying to Liuxinyu970226, not you. Yann (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Yann: I'm referring to your reply below my comment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: For example, folklore isn't concerned by copyright.? Isn't this example contra with COM:Chad#Public domain and folklore: not free, COM:Malawi#Expressions of folklore: not free, COM:Mali#Expressions of Folklore: not free, COM:Niger#Expressions of folklore: not free, COM:Republic of the Congo#Public domain and folklore: not free, COM:Sierra Leone#Folklore and COM:Sudan#Folklore: not free? Or these sections are all lying? (though not sure whether there are non-African opposite examples available). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: Commons still accepts works of folklore from those countries. Although stated in their copyright laws, the restrictions are not related to copyright because it is the owner (the state or the government) that puts restrictions. Many folkloric works are authored by folk or indigenous peoples hundreds of years ago, thus there is no more valid copyright claim (since their ancestors have died many years ago). See also COM:Paying public domain. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• JWilz12345: Mainly to your third point: the “thing” the author is prohibited from exercising is the right to prohibit people from taking photographs, not a right (inherent in the author) to take photographs. Now I will quote at length from the Act, to elucidate my position. Article 4 states: “Copyrights as referred to in Article 3 point a are the exclusive rights comprising moral rights and economic rights.” Article 9(2) states: “Every Person who exercises the economic rights as referred to in section (1) is obligated to obtain permission from the Author or the Copyright Holder.” These two provisions, read together, mean that the author (architect, copyright owner) has certain exclusive rights, elucidated in article 9(1), and that potential reusers whose use overlaps with the rights listed in article 9(1) (and, in that section, given exclusively to authors), need to have permission. This means that a use of the work not listed in article 9(1) does not need the permission required by article 9(2), because the restriction on reuse given in section (2) is limited to those economic rights described in section (1). U.S. and French cases are, of course, not relevant to Indonesian case law. It cannot be that every potentially imaginable use of a work is a “Reproduction” of that work; otherwise, the remainder of article 9(1) would be surplusage. And, as I have argued above, the production and distribution of photographs of buildings (three-dimensional works) is not a “Reproduction” of those works in the same way that a photograph of a page of a textbook, as the latter case is a “slavish copy” of the original which cannot be entitled to an independent copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• But, "adaptation, arrangement, or transformation of the Works" is also one of the rights listed in 9(1), and such also requires permission from the original author. I don't think it's derivative for other reasons, but derivative works would still need permission from the underlying author (as generally required by the Berne Convention). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• The U.S. explicitly does not make photographs of buildings in the scope of the architect's copyright, but photos of sculptures are derivative works (there have been multiple rulings to that effect in recent years). Most other laws simply have architectural copyright treated the same as sculptural, such that photos are derivative works, unless there is a FoP type exemption listed that allows photos in particular cases. For buildings, there are precious-few actual cases we know about -- in fact just one I think, on the Hundertwasserhaus in Austria for a poster marketed in Germany, has actually been ruled infringement. A French case found a photo was of a wider subject and therefore not derivative (the copyrighted object was deemed just an "accessory"), which implied that some other photos could be derivative. We don't have counterexamples though, so we follow that logic. I'm not sure what is different about Indonesian law... article 9(1) gives both "Reproduction of the Works in all its forms" and "adaptation, arrangement, or transformation of the Works" as among the economic rights, and surely a photograph would be one or the other (or both). Article 9(2) would seem to say you need permission to do those, at least for commercial use. I don't see any particular differences in treatment for architectural works in their law, although the actual owner of the physical work is allowed to use photographs in some situations without permission from the copyright owner, but most usages do it would seem. But, I don't think this photo is focusing on any particular work, and you can also argue threshold of originality on some of the items as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

̈ ̈*FWIW I looked at COM:FOP which says "..allowing unrestricted uses of images of copyrighted artistic works in public spaces for commercial purposes." That indicated to me that there needs to be some level of artistic work in the photo, which I do not see. I would consider a modern building to be excluded by virtue of its design, but this structure has no architectural merit and there is no artistic work, hence my keep decision. Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gbawden: Doubtful, there are several subjects within the image which at the very least lead me to believe it can be copyrightable:

• The yellow flag left of the gate, which can't let you feel it as an artwork?
• The crown (iirc) on the middle of roof of the main building, though I also agree with its DM status
• The ALIYAN... pillar left of the gate, which is to me a violation of DM per its #6:

“

Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful.

”

• And again, the buildings

From the part you copied here, it looks like you didn't mention:

“

Several users and contributors have claimed that freedom of panorama exists by virtue of Article 43(d). However, the 2018 statement of Creative Commons Indonesia asserts that this is a restrictive provision, in which every image showing copyrighted architecture and public art must bear a statement claiming that the use is not for profit.

”

Probably Nat knows more on its restriction levels. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

IMO there is very little to get a copyright here. The gate is certainly too simple to get a copyright, the flag and the board are partially hidden, so whatever copyrighted content can be considered as de minimis. Idem for the building in the background. Yann (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: The {{Information}} template of source codes in that file was nearly empty, now you insterted @Aryphrase: as author and Own work as source, now I wonder whether this is true? Is this building made by that user? Or if that's indeed photographed by that user what's their purpose? Without descriptions this file may lead several assumes on whether it meets DM requirements or not. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: I only completed the information based on the date in EXIF data, the "self" from the license to which source="own" and author can be deduced. Yann (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: the author field is for the photographer. The name of the architect, in my opinion, is best added at description field. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: I doubt there is a copyright on the ALIYAN pillar. It is not artistic in any way, and it only displays text. Moreover it is barely readable, so it is de minimis anyway. The only item in the foreground with a copyright is the flag, but it is partially hidden. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree on the keep, as I'm not sure that the photo is focusing on any particular work in question, but a wider scene. Those are usually not derivative works; just photos focusing on a work (or intentionally including it when it was not "inherently" there) are usually a problem. This aspect is mentioned on the Commons:De minimis page though it's a bit different concept. The simple fact that a copyrightable work appears in a photo is generally not enough to delete; the few examples we have from courts seem to allow photos of wider subjects that include copyrightable elements (like a photo of the Louvre square which includes the pyramid; just photos focusing on the pyramid are a problem). I'm not aware of any court decision that has ever ruled a photo like this derivative. The Ets-Hokins decision in the U.S. is also quite similar -- a photo of a bottle with a copyrightable label is fine, just a photo focusing on the label is a problem. At some level, photographers need to be able to own their own photos, without them being subject to derivative rights on every little thing in them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyright of a modified image.

Is the blurring of faces on an image significant enough modification that results in a new copyright for the now modified image?

I asked this question at the WP help desk and received an opinion, but I was directed to ask this question here. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 22:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess that might be depend on how significant the blurring is as well as the copyright laws of the country of first publication or country of origin per COM:BLP. Generally, the modification of a copyright protected image or the use of such an image in a new work needs to be a creative enough modification to be considered a COM:DW. Slavish or mechanical reproductions are generally insufficient to generate a new copyright as explained in COM:2D copying. Even if a modified version is creative enough to generate a new copyright it wouldn't void out the copyright of the original unmodified image. If the files you want to modify have been uploaded to Commons, you can can modify them, but you will need to make sure you comply with the licensing of the original file. You should upload the modified version as a separate file and then link them together using a template like {{Image extracted}} or {{Retouched picture}}. You should also try and use the same licensing for your modified version as is being used for the original image. One other thing you should understand is even if the modified version is OK to be uploaded to Commons, there's no guarantee that it will be used by any Wikimedia Foundation projects. There's also no guarantee the unmodified versions will be deleted from Commons or can't otherwise be find through an online search. Even if, by chance, they're deleted from Commons, Commons can't control how they're being used by others out in the real world. So, in a perhaps unanticipated way, any attempts to blur the faces of people by modifying the original image, might actually bring unwanted attention to the original image per a phenomenon called the en:Streisand effect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The image in question has already been deleted/selected for deletion because the image was claimed to be public domain, but was actually copyrighted. However the image (as far as I know) was never released without the 5 blurred faces in it because they were and possibly still are in US Government service. The image is of Delta Force veteran Larry Vickers (whose face is not blurred) receiving the Bronze Star medal for participating in operation acid gambit. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 02:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Never mind Marchjuly. Unless you have anything to add, I believe I have received my answer over on the wikipedia help desk. Thank you for your initial reply. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 18:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Photo of highpoint marker - ok to upload?

I recently took a photo of the National Park Service highpoint marker at Point Reno, the highest natural point in DC. Is this OK to upload even though the marker itself isn't my own work? Thanks for advice in advance. Supervocalic15 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It's PD-US-Gov and PD-text; not anything I'd worry about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Details at COM:Cyprus

Our treatment of the copyright situation in Cyprus seems a bit thin; in particular the terms mentioned there are pma+70, but the English translation of the 1993 version of the Copyright Act gives pma+50 as the applicable term, with the next amendment (from which point onwards the text is only available from WIPOLex in Greek) only in 1999. This would have an impact on URAA copyrights, even if term lengths were increased retroactively, since for that calculation the situation on January 1, 1996 is relevant. Could someone perhaps give this reasoning a sanity check before I make a mess at COM:Cyprus from my limited understanding? Felix QW (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much. Looks like the 1976 law was 50pma, but some things were 20 years from publication. In 1993, those certain things got moved to 50 years, but I don't think it was retroactive (the law did not explicitly say). The 2002 law, effective July that year, retroactively went to 70pma as they were about to join the EU. So yes, on the URAA date, Cyprus was 50pma, with a couple types of works being a bit shorter. en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights has the 50pma, but has not been updated to note 70pma today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny (1972)

This time I'm reviewing and discussing the copyright for the film in a quick way. Here's why:

• The film came out in December 1972 that applies to the pre-1978 works. None of the copyright notices appeared at the beginning, the middle (including Thumberlina and Jack and the Beanstalk), and the end after Richard (or Barry or a distributor) probably forgot to put it. I doubt it would be public domain automatically.
• I looked it up in the post-1978 catalogs on the US Copyright Office website. There is PA0000475709, where Richard filed a registration for the film on August 13, 1990. Is anything legally invalid with it?

Pinging @Clindberg here.

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 12:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC); edited: 12:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You can register a work at any time, if it's still under copyright. It's the renewals which had to be at specific times, but those are irrelevant for 1964+ works. Registrations mainly mean that any copyright violations have an automatic monetary penalty, instead of being limited to actual damages. The Copyright Office might have been unaware of any copyright notice situation on previous publications. Note that publication happens when copies are sent out to movie theaters, or maybe at least a distribution company. If all viewings of a movie were under control of the producers, then it could still be unpublished. If it was published, then the copies distributed at the time needed a copyright notice. Were there any notices, anywhere? Copies distributed after 1989 would not need them. The copyright registration says publication occurred in 1986, although it also says there was a copyright notice in the film which gave a date of 1972. If the Copyright Office gave a registration, they must have considered the copyright notice valid, at least on the copies submitted. If the copyright notices were different (or missing) on the versions distributed in 1972, then you'd have to be able to prove that. I would respect the copyright registration, though there is a question if the copyright would expire in 2068 or 2082. I'd probably guess the earlier date given the date in the notice, and that maybe the 1986 date might have been for slight differences in the video cassette distribution -- if there were any copyrightable additions to the videocassette version, those would have a longer copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The 1964 Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer special (which I just remembered has its anniversary today, heh heh) has something similar going on; there's a typo in the copyright notice (the year given is MCLXIV (1164) and not MCMLXIV (1964)) and has been subject to substantive revisions over the years, yet the original special was registered as PA0000393260 in 1988 and renewed as RE0000578253 in 1992 (not that the renewal matters for ours purposes). The original registration says "C.O. correspondence", so perhaps the Copyright Office already asked about this? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Works could be registered at any time. I don't think years were required on motion pictures -- just on a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work -- so that mistake is not likely to mean anything. Other types of works just need the copyright word/symbol and name of proprietor. The registration usually has a field for date of publication that must be entered in, so I'm sure the date came from that, but sure they may have asked for clarifications on just about anything. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Required or not, movies usually include the year in their copyright notice, and a website with all the copyright cases lined that now seems to be gone, or at least unfindable, listed a 1944 movie that said 1934 in the notice and thus the court said it needed to be renewed in 1962 instead of 1972. (I'm sure the years are plus or minus, but I know it was early by a decade, and about that time.) It could be argued that an 1164 date needed to be renewed in 1192 and even if that had been done, it would have run out by 1964, putting it immediately in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

True, there was a rule that the year in the notice did indicate year of publication if it was earlier than the true date. More than one year later than the true date was deemed invalid. On the other hand, not sure an obviously-wrong year like that would qualify, as opposed to something just a few years earlier which the public years later wouldn't necessarily know was incorrect. It's possible the Copyright Office got copies with a corrected notice, and didn't know of the earlier mistake. Or, they deemed that the shown year a mistake so obvious as to be ignorable. I think you are talking about www.copyrightdata.com, which does mention The Last Time I Saw Paris as making a 1954/1944 mistake in their Roman numerals. That page does not cite a court case or any other source for their information (while they are given as a source by many other sites), but may explain why the Copyright Office never printed a renewal. The music from that movie was renewed by MGM though, in a series of separate renewals. I can't find the original registration to see what year was shown on it. However, they did print a renewal for this one. Hard for me to not take that at face value. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And because of this, that's literally what NOT to register a pre-1978 work over production issues causing lack of or erroneous notice. I have a question, can I upload anything related to the film here, including a full video and screencaps? If yes?

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 10:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC); edited: 23:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• If the film was actually publicly shown in 1972, then it was published in that year (according to the rules for publication of motion pictures). The 1990 registration appears to be for a 1986 videocassette release, not for the original film release (thus the description of “2 videocassettes”). Registrations for works produced before 1989 need to have been made within five years, so PA0000475709 can only apply to that (and whatever copyright was in the 1986 release). Assuming, as Harvett says above, that the film (from 1972) had no copyright notice, then it is in the public domain in the United States per PD-US-no notice, the 1990 copyright registration notwithstanding. I can find no 1972 registrations for this film, either. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • What rules are you talking about? By the modern statue, "Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." I know of several pre-1978 cases that ruled that broadcasting was not publication, and I can't see why a showing limited to people who were physically there would be publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Delivering copies of a motion picture unto a distributor with the intention that said distributor intends to show the work publicly constitutes a “general publication” of said motion picture. Compendium of U.S. Copyright Practices (1973), section 3.1.3(III)(a). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me think about publication. The film was seen exclusively in Pirates World or the rest of Florida and was presumably supposed to be published.

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 00:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC); edited: 00:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that was the moment of publication. Not simply that the motion picture was shown -- if a showing was under control of the production company, it was not publication. But when copies were sent to distributors, publication happened at that moment even before being displayed. There were actually several court cases that pretty much confirmed that definition, which is now codified in the current law definition. This movie was most likely published in 1972, given there is a distribution company listed. On the other hand, any PD copyright claim would be based on the notices (or lack thereof) in the actual copies distributed in 1972. There was no five-year limit to submit a registration -- that could (and still can) be done at any time the copyright is still valid (it was even possible to submit the registration along with the renewal at the 28-year mark). However, if you published without notice between 1978 and 1989, you did have a five-year limit to register as one of the steps to regain your copyright. So if a 1986 publication happened without notice, it's possible a 1990 registration could save the copyright. The 1990 registration might also cover the original movie, but could not serve to save a publication without notice. However, if it was only the year that was wildly wrong, not sure courts would go for that. Courts would have to rule based on the 1909 law, but there is always some latitude and they may be less inclined to be harsh these days. If a type of work required a year in the copyright notice, it would be a stronger case, but an obviously-incorrect year might well be considered the same as a missing year, which was OK on some sorts of works (including motion pictures). As the Compendium (linked above) said, The Office will recommend use of the year date on motion pictures, Classes L and M; however, motion pictures without the year date may be accepted but a cautionary letter will be sent. So that did not invalidate copyright; the only claim would be that you might assume the 28 year clock started a thousand years earlier, thus the renewal was late. If it was me, I would not upload, but you'd have to judge the risks yourself. It's possible it could be nominated for deletion; it may be community (or admin) decision if there was a significant doubt as to the public domain status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Given that there’s a decent chance (judging by the general opinion in this discussion) that it is in the public domain, I would recommend uploading the film, as that would help with conclusively determining copyright. If there’s something in the film that makes it appear that it is still copyrighted, a deletion discussion can be started at that point: and that discussion will be made easier by the existence of the film on Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

After I updated the copyright status on the Wikidata entry, let me handle it this time.

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 02:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Original manuscript of "The Portrait of Mr W.H." by Oscar Wilde

I would like to upload it to Commons, but in order to do that I need to be sure that's in the public domain both in the UK and the US. (If it's copyrighted in the UK but public domain in the US, I'd like to upload it to English Wikisource.) For reference, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States.

Other versions of this story are in the public domain in the relevant jurisdictions.

• The original publication in Blackwood's Magazine in 1889; Oscar Wilde died in 1900. s:en:File:Blackwood's Magazine volume 146.djvu
• The expanded version based on the manuscript, published in 1921 in the U.S. File:The portrait of Mr. W. H (IA portraitofmrwh01wild).pdf
  • Relevant to the copyright status of the underlying work, U.K. copyright on the content of this expanded edition expired in 1992.

The question I would like help answering is whether the manuscript contains content not published in the 1921 edition, and if so, when it was first published, because this will affect its copyright status in both the UK and the US. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, that is the question. Are there links to the two versions? If it's just typesetting differences and that sort of thing, it should be fine, but if there was additional material then we'd need to know when the manuscript was published. (BTW, the copyright probably expired in 1972, 50 years after publication, and not restored in 1996 when works got retroactively extended to 70 years). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Thank you for correcting my arithmetic error :) The two published versions are linked above; "The Portrait of Mr W. H." is the first story in Blackwood's Magazine. The manuscript is at https://editions.covecollective.org/content/rosenbach-manuscript-oscar-wildes-extended-portrait-mr-wh. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and National Ignition Facility images need to be deleted

There are a few hundred images in Category:Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Category:National Ignition Facility, and their subcategories so I'm not sure how to nominate them all for deletion. The problem is that they were almost all created by Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, not by a government agency or employee. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC runs the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and National Ignition Facility under contract from the U.S. Department of Energy. They release all of their images under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which is not compatible with Commons. According to their disclaimers page:

"LLNL-authored documents including, but not limited to, articles, photographs, drawings, and other information subsisting in text, images, and/or other media, are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. Accordingly, the U.S. government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. government purposes. All documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws. Permission to reproduce may be required."

It looks like this was previously discussed back in 2009, with the conclusion being that the images can't be hosted on Commons. However, no action was taken at the time other than the deletion of a single image. Could someone who knows how please nominate all of these images for deletion (with the exception of any images created by 3rd parties). Thanks! Nosferattus (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Some are copied from Flickr where the source mentioned is U.S. Department of Energy, e.g. File:SF 11 151 (26405483030).jpg from [3]. Yann (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: I have no idea why that image is in Category:Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Nothing at the source says anything about LLNL or related facilities, and it's tagged "Oakland", which is not where LLNL is location. Are there other examples? Regardless, anything actually created by the U.S. Department of Energy should be fine. Most of the images I've looked have been attributed to either Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or Lawrence Livermore National Security. Nosferattus (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Seen from here, Oakland is quite close to Livermore. :o) And since, according to WP, LLNL is "primarily funded by the U.S. Department of Energy", it is not surprising this mistake was made. Yes, there are several like this one. They should be removed from that category obviously. And yes, the permission from LLNL is not sufficient for Commons, so we can't keep the files coming from LLNL. Yann (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Restorations and copyright

The National Gallery in London just completed a major restoration of The Nativity by Piero della Francesca. I know that we can use {{PD-Art}} for reproductions of public domain artworks (despite UK law differing), and we have a scan of the pre-restoration version here on Commons under that. However in the restored version there are quite significant changes, most notably the faces of the shepherds. Do we consider those significant enough to create a new copyright? Or do restorations not meet the threshold of originality since they are attempting to recapture the original PD work? the wub "?!" 22:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg

Would some others mind taking a look at and assessing the licensing of File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg? This started out as a discussion over on English Wikipedia, but it seems to be something better off discussed here on Commons. The main issue that orginally led this to being discussed seems to be that the webpage given as the source for the file can no longer be accessed and this is making it hard to verify the file's licensing. An archived version of the webpage can be found here, but it doesn't show the photo. An additional concern of mine is whether the website given of the source is actually the copyright holder of the photo. An English Wikipedia article about the photo can be found en:Raising a Flag over the Reichstag and the photo is attributed to en:Yevgeny Khaldei. What's not clear per COM:Russia is whether photos taken by Russian soldiers as part of their official duties are within the public domain or whether they were eligible for copyright protection. If they were eligible for copyright protection, then it's not clear who owns the copyright over them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is an issue with the license review. Whether they have rights to license the image, is probably the question. A very old discussion on this was at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Reichstag flag.jpg; the image was deleted then. It does sound like there were multiple photographs taken at the time, and it's possible that only one was really published in 1945, and some slightly different ones since. I'm not sure which this one is, but maybe it was something that mil.ru published for the first time, and maybe they have enough rights. That original DR was done at a time that Russia was retroactively restoring works to 70pma; I don't think there is any doubt that the copyright term lasts for a good long time yet in Russia. For the original published in 1945, it could get more "interesting" -- if it was simultaneously published in the U.S., i.e. within 30 days, then the lack of copyright notice meant it lost its U.S. copyright, and it would also not be subject to the URAA. If you could identify other countries that it was simultaneously published in, then the "country of origin" becomes the country among those with the shortest term. If you take that logic, you could have a very unexpected country be the country of origin, and maybe it could be PD by the rules in that country. Maybe Italy or Sweden? I think that would be the only way it could be PD. If we are using Russia as the country of origin, we'd have to decide that mil.ru had enough rights to license it that way. I'm not sure what relationship that site has with the copyright owner. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag (original).jpg is a more recent DR, which caused usages to move to this file, where someone did confirm the mil.ru license. So no problem assuming that license was given, but less sure as to its validity. But it was examined in that DR three years ago. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems to have been published in Russian Ogoniok magazine on May 13th, 1945. So any simultaneous publication would have to have taken place before June 12th of that year.

On the other hand, if mil.ru really is the website of the Russian military, couldn't photographs made by a soldier (or "military photojournalist", as seems to have been his position) as part of their official duties be considered "works for hire" for the Soviet military, who would therefore be able to license it however they please? Felix QW (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Clindberg and Felix QW for your analysis. Of course, it's possible that members of the Russian military are like members of the US military in that works created as part of their official duties are PD. It's also possible that such works are works-for-hire. Is there anyway to document such a thing though for Russian military personal like Khadei? Is it just enough just to go by what the mil.ru website is saying? I didn't find anything about this in COM:RUSSIA. The first DR about this file seems quite contentious and the file might've ended up deleted simply per COM:PCP since it couldn't be demonstrated for sure that the image was OK for Commons. The subsequent DRs had much less users participating in them and seem to focus on the licesning claims made by the mil.ru wesbite as opposed to anything in Russian copyright law. What's further complicating things is that the file's uploader appears to be currently blocked on both English Wikipedia and Commons; so, there's no way to ask them for clarification. The whole question of the file's licensing seems to somehow be connected to a discussion at en:Talk:World War II#Collage, which then led to en:WT:NFCC#Russian Ministry of Defense site, which in turn led me to starting this VPC discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I imagine most any work done by a government worker was property of the Soviet government, given that copyright really didn't exist at the time for them. Since then copyright has been restored, but I'd have to guess that ownership of the copyright would remain with the military or government, as it does basically everywhere else. It was a military photographer after all. The term would be based on the author's life, as normal, but ownership would be with someone else. So I think it's pretty clear that the copyright has been restored in Russia, and not PD there. However, if mil.ru is the Ministry of Defence's website, they would seem to have the right to license it, and it would appear that license existed when uploaded. We don't need to hunt around for oddball country of origin arguments (which would need some evidence of publication in 1945 elsewhere) that way, which is far better. The license was confirmed in the 2019 DR; that part did not seem to be under question. The license did not exist during the first DR, and Russian law itself changed on Jan 1 2008, right around the time of that DR -- nobody liked to think about reams of works exiting the public domain, particularly for Soviet works, though the effects have been made more clear since (retroactive restoration to 70pma in 2008). There might be some arguments for PD status, but would need more evidence than we had (or have, as far as I have seen). You would need to bring some good arguments to explain why their Ministry of Defence does not have the right to license works made by their soldiers, I think. The fact the uploader has been banned should be immaterial -- if we have evidence of licensing status separate from their own word, that is fine. We never delete works uploaded by banned users, unless we were relying on good faith and their actions bring that into doubt. This one does not -- just the license on mil.ru which would seem to be quite valid. The other DRs were about deleting related photos which did not appear on mil.ru and therefore don't have a license (that we know of). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional analysis Clindberg. Just to clarify, I wasn't implying that the file should be deleted just because the uploader's account is currently blocked; I was only trying to point out that the uploader is currently unable to comment on the image's copyright status or participate in any discussions related to it. As for the other points you make in your post, they all seem reasonable to me; in other words, if the image is fine as licensed for Commons, there should be no problem with people wanting to use it in any Wikipedia articles even if the source website can't currently be accessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you guys.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: A splitting of hairs perhaps, but just want to clarify that this image isn't PD as you posted on English Wikipedia; you still will need to comply with the terms of the license it has been released under by mil.ru since the image is still being treated as protected by copyright. This probably won't matter when use the image on Wikipedia since attribution will be provided when using the file since clicking on the image will link to its Commons page where it's properly attributed. It could perhaps matter though if you decide to modify the image in some way or use it outside of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Did I understand you correctly that CC or GPL is not PD? Then what is considered PD? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Creative Commons and public domain aren't really the same thing. en:Creative Commons licenses are typically for content that is still considered protected by copyright, but content that its copyright holder wishes to make more available for others to use under certain specific terms. There are various types of Creative Commons license, with some being more restrictive than others. en:Public domain is generally content that might have either been once protected by copyright but is no longer eligible for such protection for various reasons, or content that was never eligible for copyright protection to begin with (again for various reasons). Creative Commons content needs to be used in accordance with its license; anything else can be considered a copyright violation. Public domain has no copyright holder or restrictions per se and it can be freely used by anyone for any purpose without worrying about violating someone's copyright or complying with someone's conditions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issues with User:Rikster2's uploads

I was looking at File:Mike Gminski Duke.jpg and was surprised to see that it was uploaded by someone besides myself from a Duke University yearbook, as I thought I had thoroughly searched all the Duke yearbooks from the 1960s and 70s and grabbed every useful sports image from years that didn't have a copyright notice. Turns out, the Gminski photo was from the 1978 yearbook, which, as I've noted in the description of Category:Duke University yearbooks, includes a copyright notice and thus has not entered the public domain.

The copyright notice in that yearbook is hidden way at the back, so maybe they just missed it. But on a whim, I checked out a few of Rikster2's other uploads. File:Richard Washington UCLA.jpg came from the 1976 edition of UCLA's "Southern Campus" yearbook. The copyright notice in that yearbook is right on page 4 and is pretty hard to miss. Then I checked File:1973 Virginia Tech basketball team.jpg, and again, a copyright notice on page 15 (page 25 by the PDF's count) of The Bugle (1973).

I'm not sure what to do at this point. Not all of their uploads are copyright violations – I checked File:Zaid Abdul-Aziz ISU.jpg, and I could not find a copyright notice in the 1968 "Bomb". It's rather tedious to check them all, as Rikster2 never included links (and I think some of them might not be freely available to the public – I've noticed every time I google one of these, a link to the paid site e-yearbook.com comes up, so I suspect Rikster2 may have gotten them from there). Any suggestions on how to handle this would be appreciated. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some of the uploads made by the user, and I don't believe he deliberately ommited the copyright notices. In some cases such as the Chanticler 1978 Yearbook the copyright is almost "occult" (p. 270) and can be easily missed if you don't go through the entire book.

To be frank, I don't see bad faith in his contributions so they are not obvious copyvios. Fma12 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Certainly I didn't intend to accuse Rikster of acting in bad faith, but a copyright violation is a copyright violation, even if the uploader thought they were in the clear. You have to be pretty thorough before you can claim something is {{PD-US-no notice}}; I always check for many pages at both the front and back of a yearbook, and probably look at 40+ pages before I determine that it's probably public domain. My feeling is that we need to either individually check every photo or we need to consider mass deleting them, because if 3 out of 4 of someone's uploads is a copyright violation, that's too high of an error rate. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing was an intentional copyvio and none came from pay sites (I google “<University name> yearbook>”). Do what you like but it does seem like you shouldn’t mass delete because not every picture I have uploaded has come from a yearbook (including a number I took myself so I know those aren’t Copyvio) and not every yearbook is under a copyright notice. You may not have meant to accuse me of bad faith but it kind of came across that way. Rikster2 (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rikster2: Not all yearbooks have copyright notices, but some do. Before upload, we need to show some evidence that there was none. Did you check for any, or just uploaded under the assumption there was none? Obviously photos you took are fine; this is just about the ones taken from yearbooks. We need to give potential re-users some evidence of that status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately, the burden for establishing that a file has been released as licensed falls upon the file’s uploader per COM:EVID. Of course, it’s not always easy to narrow down a photo’s en:provenence and check whether it was ever published with a copyright notice or whether it was renewed if it was. So, good-faith assumptions are often made based on other similar content either from the same sources or similar sources from the same time period. This, however, means good-faith mistakes are also made and these should be dealt with when they’re found later on. In a case like this, it would seem to be a big help if the uploader would revisit their uploads and start separating out files for which the copyright status might have issues with COM:PCP. Any files that can’t be clearly demonstrated to be PD for a lack of notice should be reexamined and clarified. Perhaps by doing this, the uploader can narrow down the number of files needing reassessment and prevent any ones that are clearly OK from ending up discussed in a DR. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Logo presumed to be PD

Would some others mind taking a look at File:Animal liberation.png? It's licensed as {{CC-zero}}, but I'm unable to verify that license. It's sourced to vegansymbols.com which basically states that the logo is presumed to be PD clip art, but offers nothing in support of such a claim. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I found a similar design as far back as 2006-05-16 at http://web.archive.org/web/20060516095559/http://www.idealshop.com.br/loja/images/AL.jpg , which had a copyright notice as of http://web.archive.org/web/20061222103438/http://idealshop.locaweb.com.br/loja/ (http://www.idealshop.com.br/loja/ redirected there at the time). Adobe stock has the raised fist at https://stock.adobe.com/images/Raised-fist-on-red-fabric/336467988 and Alamy had it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 06:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it probably needs to be deleted. Nosferattus (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The image should be deleted unless free versions of the paw and fist images are found. The non-free Adobe Stock image may be a derived work from a free fist, but it may also be the original work. If we do not know, then we should delete the image. Glrx (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Animal_liberation.png Glrx (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Photos of members of the first Knesset

Commons hosts a number of portraits of members of the first Knesset which were made between 1949 and 1952 (see Category:Members of the First Knesset). All those images have a PD-Israel tag, but no PD-US tag since their Israeli copyright episode expired between 1999 and 2002, and thus too late to escape URAA restoration. Any opinions on what the best way forward is with those images? Many of them are in use on enwiki, for instance, to illustrate those politicians' articles and could be employed under fair use there if one would transfer them. Felix QW (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

They might be OK to use as non-free content on English Wikipedia (please understand that en:fair use and non-free content aren't the same thing when it comes to English Wikipedia), but only if it can been demonstrated that their use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. The two criteria that probably are going to be the hardest to satisfy are criterion #1 and criterion #8. If any of the members of the first Knesset (sorry I didn't check) are still living, then that would pretty much make any non-free image non-policy compliant and unable to be used per criterion #1. If none of the members are still alive, a free image would still be preferred to a non-free one even if it means using a lesser quality image. Obviously, you can't take a new photo of anyone who has died, but a reasonable search should be made for a previously taken photo which has been already released (or could possibly be released) under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder. If such a search is made and no free image is found, then perhaps a non-free one could be uploaded and used instead. If the non-free image is being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of one of the member's stand-alone biographies, then criterion #8 shouldn't be a problem. If, however, the image is to be used in another way or in another article (e.g. to illustrate an entry in a list article), then it's going to be hard to argue that criterion #8 is being met and that the use is policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed answer! Of course enWiki have to see what they do with the non-free images. I was rather wondering if there was any chance to keep them here by some copyright exception I was not aware of. This does affect quite a number of images taken in early postwar Israel, including a recent picture of the day that originally brought the issue to my attention.

For instance, according to our template, in the UK, Crown Copyright expires globally, not just in the UK and seemingly regardless of American copyright law.

If perchance the same holds for Israeli government photos and the Knesset portraits can be considered government works, they may be fine.

Not that I believe this to be the case, I would just like to make absolutely sure before I start a DR and cause needless disruption if everything is in fact fine. Felix QW (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Photos from Alexandria ad Aegyptum

So I would like to use some photos published in the book Alexandria Ad Aegyptum by Evaristo Breccia in a Wikipedia article I'm currently writing but I am unsure whether they're public domain in my jurisdiction (Germany). I hope this is the correct place to ask about this.

Link to the English edition published in 1922: https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-rbsc_alexandrea-aegyptum_DT73A4B72131922-18824/page/n221/mode/2up

Link to the original French edition published in 1914 (so all the photos must've been taken before 1914): https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6240587f/f19.item

Both the English and French editions of the book were published by the Istituto italiano d'arti grafiche in Italy, the photos in question were taken in Egypt and the people who likely took them appear to have been German, Egyptian and Italian nationals (though with some of them I can't be sure).

The main problem is that there are no credits given for individual photos. Breccia just gives a list of all the people whose photos he used for the book in the book's preamble but doesn't specify which photo was taken by which person. In the English edition, he says that most of the photos were taken by "Mr Reiser" but in the original French he says that most of the photos were taken by the atelier of Mr Reiser. This is almost certainly referring to the Alexandrian atelier of German photographer Andreas Reiser. However, he died in 1898 so it's unlikely that he personally took these photos. It's possible that they were taken by his son Lucien Reiser, his partner Anton Binder or just by some random employee of the atelier. He also mentions receiving photos for the book from Dr Arnoldo Rietti who appears to have died in 1930, from Mr C. Mamlouck (spelled Mamluk in the English edition) and from Mr Mohamed Saoudi (spelled Saudi in the English edition). I am unable to find much information about Lucien Reiser, C. Mamlouck or Mohamed Saoudi online so I have no idea when they died.

I am wondering whether these photographs count as anonymously published works. I mean, it's impossible to actually assign a specific photographer to a specific photograph, all you can say for sure is that it must've been one of the people listed and/or some unnamed people associated with the atelier Reiser. But I don't know if that counts as anonymous. And it's possible, even probable, that at least some of these people have been dead for over 70 years but for most of them I have no way of backing up that assumption.

And if the consensus is that they don't count as anonymously published, I was wondering whether there's any sort of scheme in place where I could ask a US user to upload photos for me? Since it's my understanding that these are definitely in the public domain under US law. Not-A-Kitty (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In USA all these photos are in public domain as {{PD-1923}} (published in 1914). As to the French copyright, everything will depend on the dates of death or you can just use {{PD-old-assumed}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! The French copyright shouldn't come into it since these photos were created in Egypt, presumably by German, Egyptian and Italian nationals, and published in Italy. Though Italy also uses death + 70 and Egypt uses death + 50 (but I can only find the date of death of one of the people credited). I don't know if the Italian copyright law even comes into it, though, since the photos themselves were created in Egypt? So going off of Egyptian copyright law, I could maybe use PD-old-assumed but not going off of German copyright law (which is my jurisdiction) which uses death + 70 and it hasn't been 120 years since the date of creation (assuming the photos weren't created too long before the book was first published).

But German copyright law has an exception for anonymous or pseudonymous works which is publication date + 70. So I'm wondering whether the fact that individual photos have not been assigned to individual authors lets us count them as anonymous. Or alternatively, whether there's some sort of Wikimedia Commons scheme where US users "adopt" photos that aren't public domain outside the US and upload them for non-US users? Not-A-Kitty (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

If no author is mentioned in either of the editions, then they can be uploaded with {{PD-France}} and {{PD-US-expired}} (I can't find any, but I didn't read the whole book). Actually, the first place of publication may be Bergame, Italy, as mentioned in the title page. The images are numbered, and there is usually a table of illustrations in this kind of books, but I can't find it either. Yann (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say that if credit was mainly given to a company, that would count as anonymous. If credit was given to an individual, then we would need to find when that individual died. But if published without naming an author, that is essentially what anonymous is. They are obviously fine in the U.S., but if first published in Italy, then that is the country of origin, and they would need to be PD in Italy today. If they are anonymous, they are fine ({{PD-anon-70-EU}}). If they are snapshot-type photos, they could even qualify as {{PD-Italy}} (although, that would not apply in Germany, where they would be copyrighted for normal EU terms so if you are uploading from there, there may be something of a risk). If there is a named individual, we would need to find when they died (it's not anonymous), and if we don't know that, it would have to be 120 years old to qualify for {{PD-old-assumed}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! The photo credits are given on pages X and XI (page 12/13 in the Archive.org document) but as mentioned, it's not specified anywhere in the book which of these photographers is responsible for which specific photograph(s). I assumed the country of creation would take precedent but thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding on my part. Under Italian law they do indeed appear to fall into the snapshot category and the photos that were taken by the "atelier of Mr Reiser" would definitely fall under PD-anon-70-EU (though I don't know which specific photos those are). I'll probably just risk it. Thanks for the help! Not-A-Kitty (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyright transfer in Switzerland

In Switzerland, is it legally possible for an employee photographing in the course of his duties to have his copyright on his photos transferred to his employer by means of an employment agreement, verbal contract, or written contract, or at least to allow his employer to license photos on his behalf? I have seen here that it is not possible in Germany.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 18:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I would be very surprised that it is not possible. If a company employs a photographer, surely the company controls the copyright, isn't? The details of the contract may differ from one country to another, but the principle should be the same everywhere. Yann (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Some countries may have some technicalities different -- in the U.S., the work-for-hire company is actually the "author", in the UK, the company is the "first copyright owner" (as distinguished from the human "author"). I think Germany and some other countries such as France, the human author is always the first copyright owner, but there is generally a way for the employing company to have the economic right transferred, be that by employment contract or other agreement. Per this paper, Germany has recognized some forms of implied transfer in the past, though it may need to be explicitly in a contract these days. Note that moral rights are usually not transferrable, so the company cannot own those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Dubai Image Deletions by User:A1Cafel

Hi, I'm a longtime wikipedia user (I started in 2005 and have over 1200 pages created to my credit - I'm only saying this to indicate that I'm not an inexperienced user). I'm currently working on Dubai entries and for this purpose I've also tried to upload some images taken from Flickr (with the right creative commons status) to better integrate and complete the entries. Unfortunately all my uploads are deleted by user User:A1Cafel who says they are not good because there is no FOP in Dubai. But there is one thing I don't understand: currently there are already thousands of images of Dubai on commons which, as far as I can see, are no different from the ones I uploaded regarding the FOP issue. So I wonder: why are mine deleted and the others remain? I wish someone could help me understand. Thank you Mario1952 (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mario1952: if the photos show specific works of architecture as main or intentional subjects, then sadly your photos are off-limits here. There is really no acceptable freedom of panorama in Dubai, see COM:FOP UAE. Free uses of copyrighted architecture or monuments are only legal for broadcasting media. You must secure commercial license permissions from the architects of notable Dubai buildings, like Tony Wright of Burj al-Arab and Adrian Smith of Burj Khalifa, so that you can distribute those photos here under commercial licenses. Commons only accepts commercial-friendly licensing. Other photos are fine because these either: a) show the recent works of architecture as skyline or general cityscape images (COM:De minimis), or b) show very old structures whose designers have been dead for many years (I think UAE posthumous copyright is 50 years after the death of the author or artist). Perhaps you can host commercial photos on English Wikipedia for a meantime (since enwiki only respects U.S. law and has w:en:Template:FoP-USonly tag), if you don't want to ask for licensing authorizations from Wright, Smith, et. al.. Unsure if there will be more progressive reforms in UAE copyright law; they just last amended it in 2021 and the amendments became effective in January 2022, with the restrictive FOP virtually unchanged. Worst case scenario is to wait for the 50th anniversary since the death of the architects I mentioned. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Threshold of originality

Just a heads up about a discussion on enWiki, where this flag has turned out to have a copyright registration. As I had been quite sure this would be below the ToO in the US, is it worth adding it to the negative examples on COM:TOO? Felix QW (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That would make sense to me. It surprises me that a design that simple is registered with the U.S. copyright office in light of their decisions on American Made and Geek Squad, but alas. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I already did. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama when protected works are allowed if they are not the main subject

See Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#When pictures of protected works are allowed if they are not the main subject. I think we need clearer guidelines here. Any comments welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Can this image be transferred to Commons? if yes, how?

The image in question is en:File:Jamba logo.svg. The U.S. Copyright office refused registration of the symbol part in 2022 [4]. I tried to transfer it to Commons but couldn't do it because one version was hidden. Borysk5 (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Borsyk5. You could upload a new version of the logo to Commons and tag the local English Wikipedia file for speedy deletion per en:WP:F8 or en:WP:F7 (as replaceable non-free use). Another option would be to simply replace the non-free version with the PD one you upload and then let the local non-free one be deleted per en:WP:F5. If, however, you really want to transfer the local file to Commons, you can tag it with en:Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons and then request that the older version or versions be restored at en:WP:REFUND. You need to make sure, though, that the older version or versions are the same as the version you want to transfer to Commons. Older versions of non-free files are deleted per WP:F5 and sometimes these older versions are not exactly the same as the most recent version of the file. Non-free files often are overwritten by users updating files even though in many cases this is not desirable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Borysk5: Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks ! Borysk5 (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Borysk5 (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Argentine architecture now object of copyright

The current version of the Argentine law, Ley N° 11.723 de 30 de septiembre de 1933 sobre el Régimen Legal de la Propiedad Intelectual (Ley sobre el Derecho de Autor, modificada por la Ley N° 27.588 del 16 de diciembre de 2020)seems to contradict what is stated on COM:FOP Argentina. Architecture is now explicitly listed as among the works of copyright. According to Article 1 of the current law (emphasis added): A los efectos de la presente Ley, las obras científicas, literarias y artísticas comprenden los escritos de toda naturaleza y extensión, entre ellos los programas de computación fuente y objeto; las compilaciones de datos o de otros materiales; las obras dramáticas, composiciones musicales, dramático-musicales; las cinematográficas, coreográficas y pantomímicas; las obras de dibujo, pintura, escultura, arquitectura; modelos y obras de arte o ciencia aplicadas al comercio o a la industria; los impresos, planos y mapas; los plásticos, fotografías, grabados y fonogramas, en fin, toda producción científica, literaria, artística o didáctica sea cual fuere el procedimiento de reproducción.

English translation:

For the purposes of this Law, scientific, literary and artistic works include writings of all nature and length, including source and object computer programs; compilations of data or other materials; dramatic works, musical compositions, dramatic-musical; cinematographic, choreographic and pantomimic works; works of drawing, painting, sculpture, architecture; models and works of art or science applied to commerce or industry; forms, plans and maps; plastics, photographs, engravings and phonograms, in short, all scientific, literary, artistic or didactic production whatever the reproduction procedure.

If architecture is indeed copyrighted in Argentina as opposed to what is claimed at COM:FOP Argentina, which states "neither are buildings mentioned among works to which copyright apply" (I presume older versions of Argentine law did not protect buildings), then perhaps Argentina is a no-FOP country after all? After all, the legal opinion by a scholar dates to 1999, perhaps the time architecture wasn't one of the protected works. Perhaps {{FoP-Argentina}} either becomes invalid (if the current law is retroactive) or must be renamed to {{PD-Argentina-architecture}} (if the current law is not retroactive, since it is clear that the professor's opinion applies to the time Argentine architecture is not among copyrighted works). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Mention people who participated at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 5#Argentina for this new discussion on Argentine FOP: @Manuelt15, Patricio.lorente, Eusebius, LPfi, Nard the Bard, Cambalachero, Alakasam, Alpertron, Elekhh, and Clindberg: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Check here the text of law 27588 (December 2020) that changes law 11723. It only makes changes to art. 36, mainly in stuff done for blind people. Nothing relevant has been changed since the last discussion. I have mentioned this discussion at wikiproject Argentina from Wikipedia in Spanish, in case someone else with knowledge in Argentine laws may notice this and provide further opinions. Cambalachero (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Info the Spanish Wikipedia forum is found at w:es:Wikiproyecto discusión:Argentina#Fotos de edificios. Added the link here for convenience. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It was already noted almost 10 years ago in Template talk:FoP-Argentina that, in the Template:FoP-Argentina and in the section #Argentina of the page Commons:FOP (later transferred to the page Commons:FOP Argentina), the wording "neither buildings are mentioned among works to which copyright apply" is wrong and that it seems it was always wrong. Apparently nobody fixed it since then. That wording is misleading if it uses the word "buildings" to hide the fact that works of architecture are mentioned as objects of copyright. As noted in 2013, that wording doesn't seem to come from anywhere. But that does not seem the basis of the 2010 discussion. The 2010 discussion was based on a quote of one small sentence extracted from a book, without quoting its context or its explanatory rationale, if any. From that quote, some users concluded that, even if works of architecture are objects of copyright, there is a "de facto" FoP for architecture. That may be actually correct or not. It's difficult to tell without context and a rationale. The 1999 edition of that book is 369 pages and its 2nd edition of 2019 is 520 pages [5], so there is probably some context that might be relevant before drawing a conclusion. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Asclepias: the application of a de facto FOP is tricky in other countries. At least in our country, our Copyright Office has stated in a February 2021 Zoom meeting between them and certain Pilipino Wikimedians that de facto FOP is impossible, as copyright laws are statutory rights and provisions like the freedom of panorama must be defined or indicated in the copyright laws, and cannot be magically made into existence only by legal studies or opinions. This reinforces no-FOP Philippines.

In the case of Argentina it gets tricky, but if the lawyer only meant taking of photos, then a red flag comes – it may be that he was just referring to photography and not the use, publication, or distribution of photos. But without much knowledge to the context of that particular lawyer's statement (in a book), it is difficult to know what the lawyer really meant. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Some discovery: @Asclepias: , I checked the 1998 version of the Argentine law that is available at WIPO Lex (WIPO Lex pdf copy). To avoid erroneus translations, I resorted to the original Spanish language text, since it is easily comparable to the pattern of the current text. Well, the users who claimed that "neither buildings are mentioned among works to which copyright apply" is wrong are right after all. Even in the 1998 law (a year before the Argentine lawyer's opinion), Argentine architecture was indeed among objects of copyright: "1. (Texto modificado por Ley N° 25.036). A los efectos de la presente ley, las obras científicas, literarias y artísticas comprenden los escritos de toda naturaleza y extensión, entre ellos los programas de computación fuente y objeto; las compilaciones de datos o de otros materiales; las obras dramáticas, composiciones musicales, dramático-musicales; las cinematográficas, coreográficas y pantomímicas; las obras de dibujo, pintura, escultura, arquitectura; modelos y obras de arte o ciencia aplicadas al comercio o a la industria; los impresos, planos y mapas; los plásticos, fotografías, grabados y fonogramas; en fin, toda producción científica, literaria, artística o didáctica, sea cual fuere el procedimiento de reproducción." The crucial part of this matter now falls upon the context of the lawyer's statement that "magically" made architectural FOP in Argentina existent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Painting frame

I'm wondering about the frame for File:Piero della francesca, natività, 1470-75, 01.jpg. My understanding is that frames for PD-Art paintings are considered to be separate from the painting itself and thus might be eligible for copyright protection in their own right per COM:PD-Art#When should the PD-Art tag not be used?. In the case of this file, it seems that the point was to show the frame based on the file's caption and sentence about it in en:The Nativity (Piero della Francesca)#Description. Is the frame a problem here and something needs to be cropped out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The photograph in question here is separately freely licensed so there's no problem. Frame is removed photo as a matter of policy when the photo is not freely licensed, because the assumption is that photograph of 2d object does not create new copyrights, while photograph of 3d object does. Borysk5 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

As a note, there is a {{Non-free frame}} tag for such images. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

There are three works, each with its copyright status:

1. the painting: documented, public domain

2. the frame itself: undocumented, probably creative enough to be copyrighted if recent, but it looks old enough and may probably be assumed public domain

3. the photograph: documented

3a. the central part of the photograph, constituting a photographic reproduction of the two-dimensional public domain painting: Commons does not allow its contributors to claim a copyright on this part

3b. the peripheral part of the photograph, constituting a photographic reproduction of the three-dimensional presumably public domain frame and of the uncopyrightable portion of wall: copyrighted by the photographer and freely licensed by the photographer, so no problem as noted above by Borysk5.

Your question is about 2. the copyright status of the frame. It would indeed be better if it was documented. The Wikipedia article notes a newspaper mentioning the frame, but access to the newspaper seems to require subscription.

-- Asclepias (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Asclepias: I did Google research and the gilded frame (which is gone now btw) was done by London's National Gallery in 1874. link Borysk5 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Good find. Maybe a note about it can be added somewhere in the description page? Not sure where. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

In the description page, I took the liberty of removing the template Non-free frame that requested the cropping out of this frame, because:

A. That template, and the related paragraph of Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, seem worded for cases of non-free photographs of free frames, not for free photographs of non-free frames. Photographs of non-free works being outside the scope of PD-Art.

B. There are cases where a free photo that includes a view of a non-free work can be cropped to remove the view of the non-free work, but that relates to a FoP situation.

C. Now that it is found that the frame predates 1875, the assumption that it can be considered in the public domain is strengthened, making it eligible to PD-old-assumed.

D. Commons already has photographs of the painting without a frame in Category:Nativity by Piero della Francesca.

E. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the Wikipedia article uses this photo to show the painting with the frame. This photo with the frame is useful. There is another one in the category, but this one is better.

F. Someone may always upload under a different file name a cropped version of this file to create an additional version without frame, if it is thought useful.

-- Asclepias (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It was published in 19th century without any notice about the author, so Template:PD-UK-unknown may also be used. It could be added in Summary as a third section, besides Photograph and Painting. Borysk5 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Borysk5 and Asclepias for sorting this out. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I cannot transfer facsimile of a 19th-century document from WPde

I cannot transfer de:Datei:Nietzsche Faksimile Vorrede Menschliches Allzumenschliches II.jpg. This file complies with the WCommons copyright policy (PD-Old-100). However, something is preventing me from transferring it to WCommons. Could someone help? Veverve (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

How do I go about this copyright suff ?

Thanks to everyone here!

I am new and want to know how to go about with the copyright stuff before publishing articles.

And why do I need to apply the copyright laws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njnvalues (talk • contribs) 09:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Read Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope. Borysk5 (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Njnvalues: Hi, and welcome. You may also find en:Copyright instructive.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Argentine laws and PD-AR-Gov

Hi all,

{{PD-AR-Gov}} currently reads:

This work is in the public domain in Argentina as a law, decree, ordinance or sentence issued by an Argentine state authority or court and published on the Official Bulletin.

Likewise, according to the Law 22,362, article 3, section f: "Letters, words, names, emblems and symbols used by the National Government, as well as the Provinces, Municipalities, Religious and Health Organizations", cannot be subject of copyright.

The National symbols of Argentina are regulated by Decree Nº 10.302/1944.

---

As an image regulated by an edict of a government, it is also in the public domain in the United States.

I went looking for the details of the edict exceptions in Argentina, and since neither the template nor COM:Argentina contain those or a proper citation I landed at Law No. 11,723 of September 30, 1933 on the Legal Regime of Intellectual Property (Law on Copyright, Modified by Law No. 27,588 of December 16, 2020) on WipoLex. But as far as I can tell, that law contains no special provisions for any kind of government work, and I can't find the … law, decree, ordinance or sentence issued by an Argentine state authority or court … language used in the template.

Further, I checked the cited "Law 22,362" about national symbols thinking perhaps it was there, but Law 22,362 is Law No. 22,362 of January 2, 1981, on Trademarks and Designations (As Amended by Law No. 27,444 of June 18, 2018). That is, it is trademark law, not copyright law, and article 3, section f prevents registering national symbols as trademarks not copyright.

So, either I am very confused (not at all unlikely), or this template is inaccurate on several points. Help?

CC to Fma12 who created {{PD-AR-Gov}} and Aymatth2 that created COM:Argentina. Xover (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed Law 22,362 article 3 "f" refers to national, provincial and municipal symbols as "no subject of registration" whatever they are trademarks or not (this is not specified there). My interpretation is that the law prohibits any person to attribute copyright or attribution over those emblems.

Regarding the national symbols, all of the Argentine national symbols (flag, coat of arms, and anthem) are PD so they were created in the 1800 so PD-old applies as license. Current versions (like the coat of arms) were included at Casa Rosada website which has a Creative Commons 2.5 Argentina License.

Law 11,723 regulates copyright over photographs and other artistic works, and clearly the three Argentine symbols are PD-old-70 (article 5°). Fma12 (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Article 1 of Law No. 22,362 says The following may be registered as trademarks to distinguish products and services: … (my emphasis). Article 2 says The following are not considered trademarks and are not registrable: …. Then comes Article 3 which reads (all emphasis mine):

The following cannot be registered:
a) a trademark identical to one previously registered or applied for to distinguish the same products or services;
b) trademarks similar to others already registered or requested to distinguish the same products or services;
…
d) trademarks that are likely to mislead …
…
f) the letters, words, names, badges, symbols that the Nation, provinces, municipalities, religious and health organizations use or should use;

In addition, of course, to the entire law itself being specifically about "Trademark property rights" and not mentioning copyright anywhere in the entire text. In other words, I don't understand the mechanism by which Article 3 f would be applicable to copyrights.

But my main concern was the status of … law, decree, ordinance or sentence issued by an Argentine state authority or court … (I was specifically looking for whether there was an exception for official translations of these). Law 11,723 seems to be the main regulation of copyrights and it does not appear to mention government works at all, so I don't understand our basis for claiming that such edicts are public domain / exempt from copyright in Argentina (these are exempt in the US as edicts, but not in Argentina, and translations are not automatically covered). --Xover (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The portion about government symbols is indeed from their trademark law, and has no effect at all on the copyright. Per article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which is the same thing for trademark as the Berne Convention is for copyright, you can't trademark national symbols -- so that is just their trademark law implementing that aspect of the treaty. It does not belong in a copyright tag because nothing in it references any part of copyright law. I also have not found anything on the text of their laws, at least yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with Clindberg
  • {{PD-AR-Gov}} is incorrect. It refers to Law 22,362, article 3, section f, but this law relates to trademarks, not copyright. A law, decree, ordinance etc. obviously cannot be protected as a trademark.
  • The relevant law is Law No. 11.723 of September 30, 1933, on Legal Intellectual Property Regime (Copyright Law, as amended up to Law No. 27.588 of December 16, 2020). The only reference to government works seems to be Article 64, which says that government departments and agencies have to register their publications with the National Library of Congress. That implies that government works such as laws, decrees etc. are protected in the same way as any other works.
  • The copyright on national symbols may well have expired, though

Aymatth2 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

On the symbols, keep in mind there is generally no copyright on a symbol -- there is a copyright on each expression of that idea, i.e. each different drawing. See Commons:coats of arms. Some drawings are old and are PD, some drawings may be newer, and you can always make your own drawing which conforms to a written description. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Argentine laws and PD-AR-Gov – Break

• In light of the above, it appears there simply isn't a "PD-AR-Gov", and hence no legitimate use for {{PD-AR-Gov}} which should consequently be deleted. This affects 2067 files according to Jarry1250's tool, all of which will have to be checked and either tagged with an alternate license or deleted (but it looks like a lot of these are national and subnational symbols which have good chances of having other paths to either public domain or other compatible licensing). --Xover (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  • There may be copyright on a symbol image, such as File:Ciudad de San Juan (Escudo).gif or File:Escudo de la Ciudad de San Juan.svg, although anyone can make another image with the same description. So we should check the images to see when they were made.
  • Maybe an approach would be to rename {{PD-AR-Gov}} to {{PD-AR-Gov-Symbol}}, add a tracking category to the template, change the wording so it just applies to government symbols, emblems etc., then delete all the files that are obviously not symbols, and perhaps start review of the symbol files, changing from the redirect to {{PD-AR-Gov-Symbol}} for the ones that look ok. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

    Seems like a lot of work, although the overwhelming majority of uses seem to be emblems of some sort. For those, one would have to track down the individual sources, as most seem not to have been redrawn but taken from somewhere. Felix QW (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

    It would be a lot of work, and even where an emblem image is a copyright violation it unlikely to be challenged. That is why I said "perhaps start review". The first steps: rename, reword and delete non-emblem files would not take long. If there are no objections, I could start that. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

    • @Aymatth2: If {{PD-AR-Gov}} is renamed, it should be renamed to something like {{Invalid-PD-AR-Gov}} and display a notice that it isn't a valid license tag (but simply a temporary template to help with reviewing the copyright status of affected images). Nosferattus (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
      • @Nosferattus: I was thinking of renaming to {{PD-AR-Gov-Symbol}} and then changing the wording to say it needs another tag to show why it is free of copyright. Mock-up below. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is an image of a coat of arms or other emblem or insignia of Argentina or of a national or local government entity of Argentina. Images such as these are often protected by copyright. See COM:Argentina. Another tag such as {{PD-old-70-expired}} or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} must be supplied to explain why this file may be freely used.

Would prefer a template name not start with "PD-" if it's not a PD license tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Er, yes. Maybe {{Argentina-Gov-Symbol}}? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: I would prefer that it display nothing and just assign a category. That would have the best chance of helping people understand that the template is not a valid license template. My second choice would be to just display a clear warning message with red text and an alert icon. The content that you have proposed looks just like a real licensing template, which I'm afraid will confuse people. Nosferattus (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment Invalid or obsolete templates are usually tagged with the {{Deprecated}} template, such as {{PD-Spain}}.

Fma12 (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

How about displaying the following, plus adding the file to Category:Argentina gov symbols for review, a sub-category of Category:Commons maintenance content?

This is an image of a coat of arms or other emblem or insignia of a national, regional or local government entity of Argentina. Images such as these are often protected by copyright. See COM:Argentina. Please replace this tag with another tag such as {{PD-old-70-expired}} or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} that explains why this file may be freely used.

That way anyone looking at the file can immediately see it is problematic, and the maintenance category can be used for systematic clean-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymatth2 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 December 2022‎ (UTC) Once the files have all been reviewed, template becomes obsolete and can be deleted. @Xover, Clindberg, Felix QW, Fma12, Nosferattus, and Fma12: Any objections to this approach? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: That looks great to me! Thanks for your work on this. Nosferattus (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a very sensible approach! I am happy to help out with the clean-up efforts after I whittled away at enWiki's "disputed licenses" backlog a little more. Felix QW (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That is probably a good idea. Using {{Deprecated}} is done once the files have been processed, so as to not suddenly have bots tag all the files with "unlicensed" if we are going to be doing it manually. If we nominate the template for deletion, I think it gets a warning added to indicate it's not a good idea to use it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, go ahead. Fma12 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I have started {{Argentina-Gov-Symbol}}, and added it to File:Ciudad de San Juan (Escudo).gif as an example. Looks ok to me, but I will hold off making {{PD-AR-Gov}} redirect to {{Argentina-Gov-Symbol}} for a few days in case any issues show up. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The Civil Code especifies what material and inmaterial goods are privative and symbols are not among them. Symbols are actually non listed anywhere but official documents are listed under public domain. [6]http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/105000-109999/109481/texactley340_libroIII_tituloI.htm. Lmalena (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome

Ja, was denn nun? ES gibt eine Reihe von Fotos der Kuppel, die ganz eindeutig vom Dach oder aus der Luft aufgenommen wurden. Meines Wissens beides trotz dieses einen Urteils aus Frankfurt immer noch unzuläßig. Aber keine Anzeichen von DRs, kein Hinweis in der Kategoriebeschreibung, stattdessen ein FoPgermany template in mindestens einem der Bilder. Also wie jetzt DR oder nicht???? C.Suthorn (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Photo of text

As far as I understand, in a photo such as 1912 Locomobile Model 48 Torpedo (3829580618).jpg, not only the photograph, but the written work being photographed, must be released in the public domain. While it being publicly displayed might be a factor in fair use consideration, I am pretty sure it has no bearing on copyright ownership. Would it be correct to request deletion of a file such as this where we lack an appropriate license for the underlying written work, or is there an existing policy that permits us to keep such images? Josh (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this text original enough to be copyrighted? See: Template:PD-text. Borysk5 (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

A photo of raw text is out of scope, per COM:SCOPE. In this case there are graphic ornaments which appear copyrighted. Ellywa (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify a photo doesn't need to be released into the public domain for it to be OK to upload to Commons; it just needs to be released under a licese that is acceptable for Commons per Commons:Licensing. As for the text, there's no way for it to be "PD-text". Individual words are generally not eligible for copyright protection, but a combination of words (e.g. a book) can be when the combination involves creative input (e.g. a story or description). The sign in the photo is similar to what's discussed in COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs, so, even without any "graphic ornaments", the text itself is probably copyrightable on its own. A photo such as this seems to fall under COM:DW which means not only the copyright status of the photo, but also the copyright status what's being photographed needs to be considered. Typically, both of these things need to be released under an acceptable free license, be PD, or be a combination of the two in order for Commons to keep the file. Furthermore, this needs to be the case in not only the United States (where the Commons servers are located) but also in the country of first publication. In this case, the US appears to be both, but there's no freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works or extended textual works (even publicaly displayed ones) installed in the US after January 1, 1978, per COM:FOP US. Commons doesn't accept en:fair use content of any type per COM:FAIR; some local Wikipedia projects do, but many have quite restrictive policies regarding such content. Finally, the bot that verified the Flickr license only was checking the license of the photo that was uploaded. For obvious reasons, a bot is incapable of assessing the copyright status of what was photographed. Even though it was most likely OK to upload the photo to Flickr as fair use, unless the Flickr account holder is the same person who created the sign, the Flickr license can't also be applied to the sign. Most likely this is a case of unintentional COM:LL that can't be kept by Commons without the COM:CONSENT of whomever created the sign. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for the feedback. This is helpful in handling these cases going forward. Josh (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

WW1 propaganda postcard as public domain?

I would like to upload a famous propaganda postcard from ww1 but i have problem with copyright interpretation. Is the public material (postcard) copyrighted more than 100 years after publication? And how does this situation relate to the rights to the scan of the original postcard? I found a good quality scan of the postcard on the Birkbeck University of London website [7] (direct link to photo [8]). On webpage as the source of the scan was given as Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz. I searched the website of this institution and found this scan. Due to the structure of the site, I cannot provide a direct link to the image (but you can find it by searching for "Wilhelm ii postcard" - the postcard will be on the second page of the search results), or maybe this link will work. Unlike some of the other images posted there, this one is not covered by any non-distribution, commercial use, etc. clauses, but i can't download it without the watermark and apparently on this site these images are for sale (basket option itp.).
I see that many scans of postcards and propaganda posters from the same period are uploaded to Wikimedia and they are presented as public domain. Is this scan therefore copyrighted or is it a public domain and I can download version this image from Birkbeck University website and upload here? Sumek101 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

at first you should find out the artist who made the picture. In this case it is very obvious Golia. And then you have to find out, when did the artist die? If you stress google a little bit longer, you will find out that Golia is a pseudonym of Eugenio Colmo and that Colmo lived from 1885 to 1967. His work will be in PD by 1967+70+1= 2036. That is a couple of years ahead. --Goesseln (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

thank you for your help, I searched but couldn't identify the author Sumek101 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, which uses U.S. copyright rules only (maximum 95 years from publication), but as mentioned not Commons for a while, which also uses the rules from the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

World Cup trophy

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy there is no freedom of panorama in that country. Therefore, image: File:FIFA_World_Cup_Trophy.jpg (uploaded here in November 2022, photo taken in Italy according to source given) would be a copyvio considereing that it was designed by artist Silvio Gazzaniga (died in 2016).

I see a similar case with File:FIFA World Cup Trophy 2002 0103.jpg, where Japan does not have FoP either. On the other hand, file:FIFA museum, Zurich 08.jpg could be correct because FoP in Switzerland is ok.

Most of the times, it is not clear what copyright status those trophies have, at least not to me. Past DR (p.e. this or this) they were usually closed with those files deleted. But I have ultimately seen a higher tolerance to keep this type of files. Or maybe my perception is wrong? Fma12 (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fma12: File:FIFA museum, Zurich 08.jpg is not OK as Swiss freedom of panorama is for outdoors only. The relevant passage is: "Following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces." That ranges from interior staircases to stained glass works. Most likely sculptural works in publicly-accessible indoors are not covered. Worse, that trophy is in a public museum, and Swiss legal literature tends to exclude museum indoors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that anything has changed regarding Commons accepting photos of copyrighted sculptures. If these images are nominated for deletion, they'll most likely be deleted. --ghouston (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

PD-Art?

I'm not quite sure how a {{PD-Art}} license applies to File:Tommy Byars.jpg and File:Byars' Harley Davidson Shop.jpg since the files just seem to be personal photos. It's possible the photos are {{PD-US-not renewed}} and {{PD-old-70}}, and the "PD-Art" license was just added by mistake. It's also possible that I'm misunderstanding something about the license. Would some others mind taking a look at these files see if their licenses are OK as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

PD-art and PD-scan are generally used to assert that the uploader was not the creator of the digital file, but that the creation of the digital file is nonetheless not copyrightable, whether it was through photography or scanning, respectively. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification King of Hearts. Maybe in this case {{PD-scan}} would be better to use? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, {{PD-scan}} is better, but as these are pictures from the US, the license is wrong. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CharlemagneJane‎. Yann (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Logo - threshold of originality?

I can never remember if logos are copyrighted and have a threshold of originality of their own. Can someone please have a look if this one is o.k.? --87.150.10.153 13:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Clearly not OK without a permission from the copyright holder. Tagged. Yann (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This logo is far from the TOO. Fma12 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)