Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

A user licensing template + two template sandboxes and possible copyright issues[edit]

For the user licensing template User:Gazebo/CC-license, are there any copyright issues with the creation of the template, particularly given the usage of existing material?

Similarly, for the template User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox, are there any copyright issues with the creation of the template or this edit or this other edit?

Thirdly, for the template User:Gazebo/CC-relicensed/sandbox, are there any copyright issues with this edit or this other edit?

If there are copyright issues, I would like to resolve them or have them resolved if at all possible. Thanks. Gazebo (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: Do you have any thoughts on this issue? --Gazebo (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the purpose? As long as you are licensing works with a CC license, I can't see any problem. Are you just trying to have a custom explanatory note around the tag? Not sure what issues you think there could be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: Thanks for responding. My concern is that I may have copied existing CC BY-SA 3.0-licensed content in noncompliance with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license requirements particularly when creating the User:Gazebo/CC-license template and editing the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template.

For example, with the creation of the User:Gazebo/CC-license template, the edit summary has information about the Self template on the English-language Wikipedia but there is no hyperlink to the existing template in the summary. The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, specifically section 7, mention that a hyperlink should be used when attributing content if it is possible to use a hyperlink.

For the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template, specifically this edit, the edit summary has a hyperlink to the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template but also a non-hyperlinked location for a specific revision of the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template.

Perhaps edits like this edit and this other edit and this additional edit, where the edit summaries have hyperlinks to the existing page(s) and information about finding attribution, are OK even though the CC BY-SA 3.0 license is not mentioned. In particular, on the English-language Wikipedia, there is the page Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --Gazebo (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: I realize that you may busy. As it is, I am concerned that there may be a copyright issue with the previously-mentioned copying of content from the {{Self}} template and the Template:Self page on the English-language Wikipedia. Perhaps there are other Wikimedia Commons users who can provide feedback. Your attention to this issue is appreciated. Thanks. :) --Gazebo (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Carl Lindberg, I too find no issue. You are giving attribution through the edit summary and you are licensing your work in accordance with the CC-BY-SA license at the source. Felix QW (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Felix QW: Thanks for responding. Is there a problem with this creation of a template? The edit summary mentions the source of the material, among other details, in addition to mentioning the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, but the edit summary does not contain any hyperlinks. The Wikimedia Terms of Use in section 7 mention the issue of providing attribution when reusing text content and it appears to be mentioned that a hyperlink is to be used if it is possible to use a hyperlink. In particular, there is section 7(g) in the Terms of Use. (Hopefully, my mentioning this does not implicate any copyrights for the Terms of Use page.) --Gazebo (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: (and others) Input on the issue mentioned in my previous comment (on December 20) would be appreciated. Perhaps there are other users who can provide input on this issue. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg and Gazebo, Why not just add

<noinclude> '''Attribution:''' <br>
[[:en:Template:Self]]
[[Template:Self]]
</noinclude>

to the bottom of the templates to solve the attribution issue? See meta:Attribution for further reference. --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 23:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signatures[edit]

I just happened to hit upon a number of photos of signatures of celebrities that were uploaded as "own work". Now I doubt that this can be considered "own work", since taking a photo of someone's signature certainly does not have any threshold of originality of its own.

Is this an issue? Would we need the celeb's consent into publishing their signature? Or do we say, well, why do they run around giving autographs all the time? --87.150.7.253 13:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ordinary signatures are not considered copyrightable. See {{Pd-signature}}. Ruslik (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to be careful, read Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 23:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Importing a public domain advertisement from Flickr via the importer[edit]

I'm interested in uploading this 1968 advertisement that didn't had a copyright notice, as it can be seen in Decemeber 1968 issue of Esquire, October 1968 issue of Sports Illustrated, and the October 1968 issue of Newsweek, which would make it PD as per {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}. The thing is that the uploader attached a non-free CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license to the scan, which as far as I know it is not valid because there's not enough originality in doing a simple scan. Would it be possible to upload it via the Flickr importer without recieving an speedy deletion nomination? Lugamo94 (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can upload it and put {{PD-US-no-notice}} template on it. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Lugamo94 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hosting the text of free licenses on-wiki, where that text is non-free[edit]

See Commons talk:Licensing#Hosting the text of free licenses on-wiki, where that text is non-free. We now host the GFDL, whose text is non-free, in both text and audio forms, in apparent violation of the licensing policy. Brianjd (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public domain[edit]

Hi, I have a doubt. I am an illustrator and sometimes I need reference images for my drawings. For example, if I have to draw an elephant or some flower that I have no idea what it looks like, I have to find a photo to base it on or, (in very few cases) copy it as is. For this I usually look for photos in the public domain in Wikimedia Commons. My question is if, in the event that the photo I use is in the public domain, should I cite the author in some way, or specify where I got the photo from (Wikimedia in this case)? In the event that it is mandatory to cite the image, what is the correct way to cite it? And where should it be done? At the bottom of the drawing that I made based on the image, or how? I hope you understand my question. Thanks a lot. 181.94.147.36 15:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! For public domain images, you don't need to cite anything, although it would be helpful if you did. For images with attribution requirement it is not necessary to add it on the image itself. Attribution in the description of image is sufficient. Borysk5 (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! 181.94.147.36 15:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, The question "should I" can refer to various types of criteria (legal, ethical). If, after having verified the context, you are certain that the photo is actually in the public domains of all the jurisdictions (e.g. countries) where your illustration will be published (publicly available to viewers), then:

A legal obligation or an absence of legal obligation to cite the author may depend on the laws of each of those jurisdictions and/or the way by which the photo reached their public domains. The informal expression "public domain" usually means an absence of patrimonial author's rights in a given jurisdiction. However, many jurisdictions (other than the United States) have also moral author's rights, which may require to cite the author (or at least to not attribute the work to another person). In some jurisdictions, moral rights may be waived by the author and/or they expire at the same time as the patrimonial rights. In some other jurisdictions, they cannot be waived and/or they never expire (and can be exercised by the heirs). For example, in cases where a photo reached the public domain by way of a "Creative Commons zero" declaration issued by the author, not citing the author may be probably relatively safer than in cases where the photo reached the public domain by the effect of time and you want to publish your derivative illustration in a jurisdiction where moral rights never expire. It can be complex from the legal perspective. It is more simple from the ethical perspective. Reusing part of the work of an author without mentioning it may be assimilable to a form of plagiarism, whether the work is in the public domain or not, even if there is no legal obligation. The question then is the extent to which the illustration is really derived from the photo. Is the photo of an elephant used merely for information about the proportions of an elephant, etc., to draw an illustration otherwise entirely unrelated to the photo? Or does the illustration reuse aspects of that particular photo (choices of angle, context, pose of the elephant captured by the photo, etc.)? Would you have drawn exactly that same illustration of an elephant if you had never looked at this photo but instead looked at an elephant? For what it's worth, my suggestion would be: if personally you feel that an illustration is somehow really indebted to a photo, reuses at least some of its specificity, then citing the author is a good practice which helps remain on the good side.
You do not need to mention Wikimedia as the source. (If you want, you can, of course, mention the source, as an information which the viewers of your illustration may find useful.)

-- Asclepias (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drawing Linear B Tablets[edit]

Hi all! I'm drawing tablet designs from "Bennett E. Pylos Tablets Texts Of The Inscriptions Found 1939-1954" (book published in 1955). Here is an example of my work - File:Linear B tablet Er 312.svg; File:Linear B tablet Eo 247.svg; File:Linear B tablet Jn829.svg; File:Linear B tablet Vn20.svg.

They apply in this article - ru:Микенская цивилизация — Preceding unsigned comment added by Пётр Тарасьев (talk • contribs) 18:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I once again got confused about copyright, tell me is it right? Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure either.

The book is at archive.org: [deleted to avoid copylink violation] and claims a copyright of 1955 Princeton University Press. That's often a sign that archive.org believes the book is in the public domain. However, there is no clear claim that the copyright has expired. Also, the digitized version claims a date of 1960 when it should be 1955.

I did not find an original registration in 1955 books under Bennett or Princeton University, so I did not look for a renewal (1955 + 28). Maybe it is registered under a different category or different name.

Tablets are not exactly 2D images, so I am not clear about whether a faithful reproduction of a 2D object applies. The tablets are not photographs of the tablets but rather drawings of the tablets.

The tablets are copied text, so (ignoring the jagged edges and chips), a text-to text transcription could be faithful.

Your SVG claims to have embedded text that can be translated, but that is not true. All the characters are drawn with paths.

Google has a Noto Sans Linear B font. 𐀁𐀂.

Glrx (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply! I will remove the template about inline text from the description of the plates. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found the copyright and renewal registrations (the original was in the 1956 volume at page 67):

The Pylos tablets; text of the inscriptions found, 1939-1954. By Emmett L....

Type of Work: Text

Registration Number / Date: RE0000174105 / 1983-08-01

Renewal registration for: A00000222168 / 1955-12-30

Title: The Pylos tablets; text of the inscriptions found, 1939-1954. By Emmett L. Bennett.

Copyright Claimant: Princeton University Press (PWH)

Variant title: The Pylos tablets

Names: Bennett, Emmett L.

Princeton University Press

That means the book (which has original commentary) is still in copyright (1955 + 95 = 2050).

Glrx (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((((((((((((( Thank you very much! Does this mean I can't redraw from this book or can't download scanned pages of this book? Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible to rewrite the signs using Noto Sans Linear B font? Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will try to write to Princeton University, ask them to remove the rights to the book. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Пётр Тарасьев:

Sadly, I suspect the 1955 tablet drawings have a copyright, but I do not think there is a definitive answer.

The actual tablets are ancient and therefore in the public domain. Anyone may make derivative works of the original tablets. If you made your own drawings from the tablets, then you could publish those drawings.

If the ancient tablets were written on paper and then faithfully photographed, then the photographs probably would not have a copyright (there would be a copyright in some jurisdictions). I'd like to view the tablets as 2D works of art that can be faithfully reproduced, but that is not the case. Tablets have depth, and lighting choices will change the appearance of the result. The rules seem inconsistent. A Van Gogh painting has significant paint depth, but I do not think that paint buildup will create a new copyright. I do not want faithful photographs or rubbings of ancient, essentially 2D, gravestones to have a copyright, but I do not think that issue has been resolved, and it could certainly go the other way.

When it comes to the Linear B drawings, I think there was significant creativity in drawing the outlines and imperfections of the tablets (the crosshatch fill is a simple shape). I do not think the particular renditions of the Linear B characters have a copyright, but I might be wrong.

It is not the answer I want.

Yes, the signs could be rewritten in a Linear B font. One would need to consider the goals and problems.

Glrx (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Glrx Thank you for the detailed answer))) I will continue to draw these signs, but if they tell me that it is impossible to do this, then I will redo them using Google Noto Sans Linear B. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photograph of Panagiotis Kavvadias[edit]

File:Panagiotis Kavvadias.png

Could somebody check that my rationale for uploading this file is correct?

Kavvadias died in 1928; the photograph was therefore taken no more recently than that (94 years ago).
As far as I can see, the first publication of the photograph is in 1937 (85 years ago), by a corporate author (the Archaeological Society of Athens). No individual person was named in the publication as either the overall editor or the author of any of the photographs.
Copyright on a publication usually expires 70 years after the death of the author.
In the case of an anonymous or corporate author, that copyright expires 70 years after publication.
Therefore, the work is in the public domain, and can be published on Commons. I've put it under the {{PD-anon-70-EU}} tag, but I'm not sure if that's the right one.

Thanks!

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1937+70=2007, so copyrighted in U.S. on URAA date, so it is still copyrighted in the U.S. Borysk5 (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greece had a 50 year anonymous term on the URAA date, dating from their 1920 law, so 1937+50 means it became PD in Greece in 1988. Greece extended to 70 non-retroactively in 1993, so it was still PD in 1996, meaning no URAA restoration. Greece later made the retroactive EU additions so that the 70 term applied to this file, so it was likely re-copyrighted for a time, but as you say it has since expired. I would add the {{PD-1996}} tag to the file. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:PD-Turkmen[edit]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:PD-Turkmen was created at OSM Wiki and it appears that some Turkmenistan-related material are PD.

It seems to be not listed at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Templates_related_to_Turkmenistan so I presume that it does not exist for now

Would it be OK to migrate for example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Arkadag-city-layout.jpg and create such template at Commons? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mateusz Konieczny: according to COM:Turkmenistan#Copyright tags, copyright-exempt Turkmen works fall under {{PD-TM-exempt}}. Check if the work passes among "uncopyrighted" works under "Not copyrighted" section of COM:Turkmenistan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for finding it! I put that template in Category:Templates related to Turkmenistan (I would probably spot it if it would be there) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Art works by User:Savonarolaola[edit]

I've started a discussion about the name of the category Category:Art works by User:Savonarolaola at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Art works by User:Savonarolaola but can I make a Template:File permission if those images that may be those of the artist? Is there a change in policy that says we can go with "art works were uploaded by a person as their own work and the user contributed about the artist" as a middle ground to actually getting permission the normal way? This seems new to me. It literally could just be a fan who got a photo with the artist and is taking pictures at a gallery and claiming it's been freely licensed. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with what you wrote on the page at Categories for discussion. The connection between the Commons images and Šimon Brejcha is not immediately obvious in Commons, but the connection can be seen by consulting the website of the artist. For example, we can compare this and this. The claim of "own work" by the uploader could refer to the photos. As you said, the uploader could be an agent of the artist or a fan. Or an agent of a gallery. Or the artist, but there does not seem to be an indication that he uses such a pseudonym. Naming a category to attribute the artworks to the uploader looks like a guess that can be wrong. The files need evidence of permission in any case. Permission from the artist for the artworks, and maybe also permission from the photographer(s) if the photos were previously published. The first file uploaded by the uploader was tagged with "no permission" by Gumruch and apparently the uploader never provided the required evidence of permssion and the file was deleted. The other files should probably be tagged also. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Documenting files below the threshold of originality[edit]

KABGBig985Logo.png is unlikely to be the uploader’s own work, and I have removed the corresponding source/author/date information from the information template and structured data. But I have nothing to replace it with, and the information template is displaying warnings about this information being missing. A deletion request established that it is below the threshold of originality, and the file is tagged as such ({{PD-textlogo}}), so what else do we need to do? Brianjd (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Brianjd. Since the file is being used in an English Wikipedia article about radio station en:KABG, that might be a good place to start. The logo appears to be a former logo of the station, which means it was probably created by someone working for the station or its parent company around the time it was being used by the station. Try checking for old archived versions of the station's official website around the time the file was uploaded to see whether you can find it being used; if you can, then you can probably use that as the source of the file. Since the file was uploaded in July 2019, you can probably find it being used on the station's official website around that time by checking for archived versions using the en:Wayback Machine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly All good advice for somebody who wants to take this up. I don’t really want to. I just wanted to point out that we need better general guidance for this kind of file.

I did add a Wayback Machine link as the source, per your suggestion. The information template is still complaining that it lacks an author. Brianjd (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except that you did sort of take it up when you started removing information from the file's description, and the warnings that appeared were a direct result of your edits. Even though the information was incorrect, you probably should figured out what to replace it with before removing it, or asked for assistance before doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly Users shouldn’t remove incorrect information until they have correct information to replace it? What sort of a rule is that? Is that a general rule here, or just a quirk of the {{Information}} template?

This is the sort of comment that drives away new contributors, a point I have previously raised in different contexts. Instead, let’s improve the system. Figure out whether the information is actually required. If so, create some better warnings, with some links to useful advice. If not, don’t list it as ‘essential information’ (which I only found by typing Template:Information into the search bar and reading the equally useless documentation there). Brianjd (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia article seems to be useless, by the way. Brianjd (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia article included a link to the station's official website, which you were able to use to find an archived version that showed the logo actually being used by the station as the source for the file. Adding a company as the author is generally considered OK in a case like this since in many cases the logo was likely created as a en:work for hire type of arrangement, and the individual who actually created the logo probably will never be known. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly If we want to be technical, yes, the Wikipedia article did provide that link, but it is trivial to find that link via a web search.

As for your comments about the author, that needs to be documented somewhere that users can actually find it. Brianjd (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that Yann has added the radio station itself as the author. I thought about doing this, but again, we seem to lack guidance here. Brianjd (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it has been determined to be below TOO by the US Copyright Office or some court, then I link to the decision in the "Permission" section. I usually don't document DR keeps anywhere on the file description (that should go on the talk page), but if people repeatedly tag such an image for deletion without checking, I might link to the DR in the "Permission" section for that particular image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seemingly conflicting licenses for icons used in Blender[edit]

I'm planning on uploading icons for buttons and other UI elements used in Blender, after slightly modifying them. Blender itself is licensed under the GNU General Public License 2.0 (shown here). However, when viewing the file containing all the icons, it has a watermark that states it's licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0 (as seen here). In this case, do both the terms from the GPL 2.0 and the CC BY-SA 4.0? Which one should I tag my images as when uploading?

Money-lover-12345 (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for participation: TV Azteca logos[edit]

The community has gone back and forth on whether Category:TV Azteca logos are above or below COM:TOO. I'd like to invite everyone here to help set a precedent at this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:TV Azteca logos. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A scanned photograph from 1936.[edit]

I found this photograph which was published in October 1936 on a newspaper called 'Zamana'.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rashid_ashraf/16654788030

Ohsin (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether uploader marked it as copyrighted doesn't matter for its status. What matter for Commons is where it was published, whether it is out of copyright in country of origin and whether it was in public domain on URAA restoration date (1996 in most countries). Borysk5 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like a magazine published in India, so it would need to be PD by current Indian laws (which have mostly been non-retroactive) and U.S. laws, which generally means it needs to be more than 95 years old, or public domain in India as of 1996. A 1936 photo should do that, being that it was taken before 1941, the important date for URAA restoration of India's copyrights. See {{PD-India-photo-1958}} and {{PD-India-URAA}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it was published in India, then it's fine. Per the Copyright Act of 1911, its copyright expired on 1986, which is before the URAA date. --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 00:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you all. I have uploaded the image.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Munshi_Premchand_with_wife_Shivrani_Devi.jpg

Ohsin (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright eligibility of "restorations"[edit]

As the public domain progresses in the United States to include nearly all of the silent film era, it's often the case that the best digital reproductions of these public-domain works exist in "restored" versions available commercially. In the US at least, copyright applies only to "original works of authorship" and the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine (see w:Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.). Therefore it seems obvious to me that automated noise reduction, color correction, and similar alterations with the sole purpose of reversing the effects of age and wear, and restoring a visual or audiovisual work to its original condition, would not be eligible for copyright.

It's also the case that some things labelled as "restoration" would obviously be eligible for copyright. Silent film scores are re-recorded, or sometimes an entirely new soundtrack is added. Newly discovered footage is sometimes combined with the original film in an original manner to produce an entirely new product. And there are "grey areas" where it's not entirely sure whether a court would see a sufficient level of originality.

I propose that Commons or Meta should have specific guidance on what exactly is allowed on Wikimedia in this respect. We've already encountered this issue with Edison cylinder audio files from the UCSB archive - UCSB claims copyright on the "restored" MP3 files of the public domain phonographs in their collection. This is a thorny issue that's only going to become more and more prominent as years go by. It's possible that Wikimedia counsel may have to assist in this. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you prepare a draft of a such guidience? Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We would need to make sure to phrase it as "this is what Wikimedia/Commons will allow as a matter of policy" and not "this is what is and isn't eligible for copyright" since there is almost no case law on this issue - the Foundation would be relying on the DMCA safe harbor for legal protection. Perhaps something like this:

In some cases, a person who digitizes a particular audio/visual work may claim copyright in their "restored" version. United States copyright law protects "original works of authorship." Therefore, a file that contains additions or modifications to a public domain work with sufficient originality is not considered to be in the public domain and will be removed if not otherwise freely licensed. Such new content may include but is not limited to:

A new soundtrack or a re-recording of the original soundtrack
Colorization of black-and-white footage
Combining newly discovered footage with the original film in a creative manner

Alterations for the sole purpose of reversing the effects of age and restoring a work to its original condition will not automatically serve to render a work non-free and eligible for deletion per policy. Please note, however, that such materials may still be removed subsequent to a DMCA takedown request. Any final determination of what is and is not eligible for copyright protection will be made by a court, not by Wikimedia.

Phillipedison1891 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inconsistent Flickr copyrights[edit]

I was looking over an old discussion for File:Five Wounds National Portuguese Church.jpg. This was uploaded with a copyright notice in the image itself with a CC 2.0 license on Flickr. It is clear that the uploader on Flickr is the same as the person who took the shot. Would the CC 2.0 override the copyright claim or the copyright claim override the CC 2.0 notice? I don't know who would reuse an image with a blatant copyright notice anyways but if the CC 2.0 overrides, then I will just crop the copyright portion out as a new cropped image. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing overrides nothing. The two mentions are correct and complementary. If a work is validly licensed CC BY 2.0, it is necessarily copyrighted. Section 4b of the CC BY 2.0 license states "You must keep intact all copyright notices". But the common practice on Commons allows removal of the watermark from the image itself, on the condition that it is transcribed faithfully on the description page. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Commons:Watermarks -- there can be some legal issues with removing the watermark. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't the "C" copyright notice difference from the CC 2.0 notice? I know the purpose of copyleft is to keep the copyright remaining and requires the CC notice in all derivative works or else the first person to create a derivative work could claim a copyright over it. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the © symbol is just a declaration that the copyright exists (under U.S. law and the old Universal Copyright Convention). Same with "All rights reserved", which was the same thing under the old Buenos Aires Convention, so the two were often combined. Neither is necessary under the Berne Convention anymore but they can still help. The copyright has to exist in the first place in order to license it, so it makes perfect sense to have a copyright notice (which also identifies the copyright owner) along with a CC-BY (or other) license. In fact, part of CC-BY license is that the copyright notice is preserved (along with the note of the CC license). The full copyright still exists, it's just that everyone has a non-exclusive license to use it under liberal conditions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-Art for File:Kapodistrias2.jpg?[edit]

File:Kapodistrias2.jpg is apparently a portrait of en:Ioannis Kapodistrias according to the entry for Kapodistras in en:Great Greek#Ten greatest Greeks. Since Kapodistras died in 1831, it would seem a {{PD-Art}} license (if painted while the subject was still living and painted by en:Dionysios Tsokos) would be better for Commons per COM:PD-ART than a {{PD-old-1923}} license. Since the file uploaded to Commons seems to meet COM:2D copying, the photo of the painting doesn't seem eligible for its own separate copyright protection. Are there any reasons why this can't be relicensed as "PD-Art". The current license is probably OK, but I wondering if "PD-Art" would be more accurate. For reference, I was able to find this on the en:National Historical Museum, Athens's official website and it seems to show the same painting (only a much less cleaner version). Perhaps that means the version hosted by Commons is a restored version? Something more attune to the Commons version can be found here and here, but neither use is attributed though the second website does list Wikipedia as a reference for the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The museum has also item 5021. Their question mark suggests that the people at the museum hesitate to attribute it to Tsokos. But it could be after the Tsokos painting. File:Kapodistrias2.jpg is closer to it but not identical. One possible guess is that File:Kapodistrias2.jpg might be a copy inspired after item 5021, which itself might be a copy inspired after item 5511. The source and author mentioned on File:Kapodistrias2.jpg do not seem fully convincing. There is no link for the stated source and the uploader's logs and history of talk page (including the years before the cleanups) seem to indicate poor sourcing. The uploader stated the author as unknown. The mention of Tsokos was added later by another account, maybe not convincing either considering the copyvio tags and deletions. File:Ioannis Kapodistrias (1776-1831).jpg looks more like item 5021. It was initially uploaded to en.wikipedia (log) by another account.

The article of the website greeknewsagenda mentions that it took its images from Commons, including this image, as mentioned at the end of the article. The article of the website terrapapers is dated 2014, after the upload to Commons. Those websites do not seem to provide additional information about the image.

A PD-Art warning tag may be wrapped around the PD status tag(s) of a PD work when the faithful reproduction is from an external source and not explicitly free. The PD-Art series of tags are containers that add a warning to the PD status tag(s) of the original work in the parameter(s). If File:Kapodistrias2.jpg was really a reproduction of a work by Tsokos, a PD-Art tag could be wrapped around a PD-old-100-expired tag. Given the uncertainty about the author and source, I don't know if it can be tagged with anything.

-- Asclepias (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Asclepias for looking into to this and finding that additional information. I'm not sure, though, what you mean by Given the uncertainty about the author and source, I don't know if it can be tagged with anything. Does that mean the file's current licensing is questionable and the file should be further discussed at a DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this public domain? Edinburgh infirmary[edit]

Hi Folks!! Is this image [1] public domain. It states its "in copyright". The image is dated around 1920. The hospital expanded in 1920 when one unit to had to move, so its closer to 1920 than any other date. The author died in 1940. Scope creep (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that it can be uploaded. You should use the template {{PD-scan|PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1940}}. Lugamo94 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Determining whether a copyright symbol is a copyright symbol[edit]

At Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 24736216@N07 postcard, there's been a sub-discussion about whether File:Lisbon - Castelo do São Jorge & Largo Martim Moniz (1968).jpg falls under {{PD-Portugal-URAA}}. There seems to be a copyright notice at the back of the postcard, as seen here. If this copyright notice is valid, this would restore the copyright to 95 years. However, I think that the copyright notice is defective. This is because the 1909 copyright law (which detailed how copyright notices must be shown until 1978 - see :w:Copyright notice § Technical requirements) stated that "of section five of this Act, the notice may consist of the letter [c] inclosed within a circle, thus: ©". I'm quoting Section 18 of wikisource:Copyright Act of 1909.

If you look closely at the copyright symbol on the backside of the postcard at the ebay link, its not a "c" enclosed in a circle. It's two "c"s enclosed in two touching arcs - not a circle. Therefore, there is no copyright symbol, and the notice is defective.

I know this sounds a bit adventurous, so I'm asking whether this reasoning is right, and the copyright notice is indeed defective, and that this therefore falls under {{PD-Portugal-URAA}} --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 00:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Copyright Compendium I allowed some variations on the notice (Chapter 4). Not sure that is one... if it was just a partial circle around the C, it would be fine, but unsure about two of them. It is a weird case, and the Compendium says they will use a liberal standard on foreign publications. I'd probably say that would suffice as the symbol, but I'm not sure about its disassociated position in regard to the copyright owner. On the other hand, I would disagree with the assertion that the photo is PD in Portugal -- works were restored to 70pma, or 70 years from making available to the public for anonymous works, so it would seem to be under copyright there until 2039 (this is mentioned on the talk page of the template). The older laws were still in place in 1996, so it's true they can be used to avoid URAA restoration, but they can't avoid the EU restorations. The rule was a work protected in any EEA nation got restored -- so if the photo were protected in the UK (50 years) or Spain (80 I think) then they got restored in Portugal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]