Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Rosenzweig: Without very specific parameters, I would not want to touch this as a bot task. I don't read French.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: I'm not grasping why you think VFC wouldn't be the main tool for this. Admittedly, I've never taken on something this large that way, but the key to using VFC effectively for this sort of thing is usually to start by a well-chosen search to find a set of images whose tags you want to change in a particular way, and I suspect that a lot of progress could be made reasonably quickly in that manner. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: We'll see. I've now discovered that a huge lump of the 1.4 million files (about half) are in Category:Manuscripts from Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) uploaded by Gzen92Bot, so uploaded by a bot. There are subcategories there for the works, containing the files for the single pages, and while some only have 2 files, others have over 500. Most are probably somewhere between those two. Per Category:Manuscripts from Gallica, many have less than 10 though. I've changed the tags in a 500+ category already with VFC, that went well I think, and by concentrating on the larger categories one could get down the number of template usages fairly quickly. Until only the smaller categories are left to change, and those would be more tiresome. Maybe the bot operator who uploaded these files could help out. --Rosenzweig τ 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and PS, not every search can be used as a basis for VFC unfortunately, as I found out. You can search for "has template XYZ" and everything, but VFC then won't accept that search, or more precisely, you're not even offered to use VFC then. --Rosenzweig τ 22:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't get around to try replacing more tags with VFC, but will try to do so tomorrow. --Rosenzweig τ 20:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: You can instead search for "insource:{{XYZ}}", with quotes if necessary.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seal of the Islamic State[edit]

I have found a HQ-version of the seal, which was used on many administrative documents, issued by the Islamic State (when it was a proto-state, and controlled large parts of Iraq and Syria). And I want to upload this seal to Commons. Can this seal be uploaded using {{PD-ineligible}}?

Seal: https://web.archive.org/web/20231210232546/https://i.ibb.co/cbBLpTS/IS-seal.png
Document, from which the seal was extracted: https://archive.org/details/gld-dnr-is-descrpt
A lot of different administrative documents, which use this seal:

صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@صلاح الأوكراني: Who is the author? When did they author it, in what state that is a member of the Berne Convention or any other copyright treaty?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The exact author is unknown. The seal was created by some administrative bodies of the Islamic State. And this seal was created on territories, which belong to Syria and Iraq, but at that time (2013—2019) were controlled and governed by the Islamic State. صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, That would be OK if it was in English. However some countries claim a copyright on calligraphy (e.g. China). And I don't speak Arabic, so I can't say if this is complex enough to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann Given COM:TOO Morocco this looks like at least copyright-able in Morocco, but for Iraq and Syria, there seems like lack of clarification from local users. Need inputs from Arabic-speaking Commons administrators: @Aude, Dyolf77, Mhhossein, Tarawneh, and علاء: Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I don't speak Arabic but this calligraphic seal seems to have a level of decorativeness. --Mhhossein talk 19:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mhhossein: Thanks. Please adjust your babel boxes and COM:A accordingly.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: You're welcome Jeff. If you are asking me to remove 'Ar' from the babel box, then I should say that I know the basics of Arabic, as I mentioned, but I don't speak Arabic as Liuxinyu970226's comment implies. --Mhhossein talk 19:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mhhossein: Ok.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UPD: I have found a book (published in 1954), which uses on its cover page exactly the same font, as on the seal. So, it seems to me, that it could be a regular font for headings. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@صلاح الأوكراني: that's the best evidence so far. I'd mention that in the "permissions" field if you are uploading as {{PD-textlogo}}. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I have uploaded it here: File:IS seal.png. Also I added in the “permissions” field some other examples of the font, used in the seal. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Los Angeles government Flickr accounts[edit]

The template PD-CAGov states that "any government entity which derives its power from the State cannot enforce a copyright", which applies to the websites of city governments (such as Los Angeles), but I was wondering if that would apply to official city government accounts on Flickr. For example, the accounts of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a Los Angeles city department, and accounts for various city councilmembers like Paul Krekorian, Bob Blumenfield, and Curren Price are linked from he official websites, but all have "All rights reserved" as their license. Could they be uploaded under PD-CAGov like if they were images from the city websites? reppoptalk 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Reppop: I guess they didn't get the memo.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or they are using the default license on Flickr (All Rights Reserved.). Abzeronow (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reppop: I think the works of a city department could be uploaded under PD-CAGov like if they were images from the city websites if they are not on the list of "Agencies permitted to claim copyright" embedded in Template:PD-CAGov/en. I don't think the works of the LA Mayor and city councilmembers could be uploaded under PD-CAGov like if they were images from the city websites, because those people are not agencies.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So would the Mayor and councilmembers not count as part of a government unit (since they're part of the Los Angeles government)? reppoptalk 00:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reppop: I can't read the linked law right now, and archive.org just shows me headings. Perhaps someone else (maybe in California or with access to the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.)) can chime in here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From https://www.oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/summary_public_records_act.pdf, "(a) “State agency” means every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and
commission or other state body or agency, except those agencies provided for in Article IV
(except Section 20 thereof) or Article VI of the California Constitution.
(b) “Local agency” includes a county; city, whether general law or chartered; city and county;
school district; municipal corporation; district; political subdivision; or any board, commission
or agency thereof; other local public agency; or entities that are legislative bodies of a local
agency pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 54952.". So the Mayor and city council members are considered part of an agency by the CPRA. Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Thanks! Would you please update the template? So @Reppop can upload from any of the sources mentioned.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So how would the Flickr link work with the Flickreview and upload process, since the images have the "All rights reserved" license? reppoptalk 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reppop: It would be a manual process, unless you can convince those officials and that agency to change Flickr licenses.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks! reppoptalk 23:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reppop: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would this also apply to images posted on Facebook or Twitter/X accounts of Los Angeles City government accounts, such as councillors? PascalHD (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I believe it does apply to social media accounts that are official City government accounts. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emblems of the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army and Boko Haram[edit]

Are these emblems simple enough to be uploaded to Commons using {{PD-ineligible}}?
Someone had already uploaded emblem of the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army to Commons, but the file (File:Khalid Ibn Walid Army.png) has a wrong license (the uploader is not an author). — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Emblems:

  • Khalid ibn al-Walid Army

https://web.archive.org/web/20231210233254/https://i.ibb.co/cbHYXgD/Jaysh-Khalid-ibn-al-Waleed-emblem.png
https://jihadintel.meforum.org/pics/symbols/764.jpg

  • Boko Haram

https://web.archive.org/web/20231210234113/https://i.ibb.co/kDqtNrP/Jam-at-Ahl-as-Sunnah-lid-Da-wah-wa-l-Jih-d-emblem.png
— Preceding unsigned comment added by صلاح الأوكراني (talk • contribs)

I think that, as in the similar case above, showing precedent for very similar calligraphy would be the key. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I have decided to upload the emblem of the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army (File:Jaysh Khalid ibn al-Waleed emblem.png, File:Jaysh Khalid ibn al-Waleed emblem V.jpg), because it contains only simple sans-serif Arabic font (like Arial, for example). But the emblem of the Boko Haram is more complicated: it contains many decorative elements, which are used to fill in the blank space in the circle around the word „جماعة“. Such tradition is also common for some Arabic texts (headings), but in this case it could be above the threshold of originality. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree that the Boko Haram logo is way too complicated to claim that it is ineligible. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concern on Australian murals[edit]

There has been some inconsistent closures of deletion requests concerning Australian murals. Some resulted to deletions (example), while others resulted to being kept (example), on the basis that as per one sole court ruling as summarized at COM:FOP Australia, the "works of artistic craftsmanship" category extends to paintings like murals.

But I do not feel comfortable at relying on this jurisprudence, especially that Australian freedom of panorama – with regards to public monuments –is being criticized by the artists' societies and communities there, for being too open to the commercial reusers. This article, with an interview to an IP specialist lawyer, does imply that street art (murals for instance) are protected by copyright and cannot be reproduced in ad campaigns or other media that do not align with artists' values. Moreover, based on what I have read at FOP-Australia page, it only concerns the definition or categorization, and I do not see anything that directly refers to the commercial exploitations of street art.

It is better if there is a court case that is not geared at the definition of "works of artistic craftsmanship", but is geared to give the definitive answer if commercial exploitations of murals of Australia without artists' permits or licensing clearances is legal, which is the real essence of freedom of panorama; that is, free uses, sharing, and distributions of images of copyrighted public artworks without artists' permissions.

A reassessment on our very loose (and risky) acceptance of Australian street art (murals) should be made.

Ping everyone who participated in all threads of Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Australia: @Kerry Raymond, Ghouston, Jeff G., Clindberg, Chris.sherlock, Aymatth2, Nick-D, Deus et lex, Gnangarra, and SCHolar44: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"[I]n ad campaigns or other media that do not align with artists' values" seems more like some sort of moral rights issue than copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 01:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel moral rights, while distinct from economic rights, is connected to the rights of artists. This is evidenced in several U.S. FOP cases in real life, like those concerning Three Soldiersand Cloud Gate sculptures (elaborated in w:en:Freedom of panorama#United States). But anyway, the issue here is on the unusually-lenient consensus of Commons community on Australian murals even if that is inviting Trojan horses to Commons – the future DMCA take down notices from muralists of murals found in Australia. Note that these can be covered by U.S. copyright courtesy of COM:URAA too, and I wouldn't be surprised if both Australian and U.S. courts side with muralists instead of Wikimedia or Australian Wikimedians, even if the Australian law is taken into consideration by either U.S. or Australian courts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: We could have a template incorporate that moral rights issue.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A mural is a two-dimensional painting, a typical work of art. It is painted on plaster rather than on canvas, board, etc. but that does not affect its copyright status. A work of artistic craftsmanship is a functional object with artistic properties, typically something like a dress, plate or chair. The decision in Burge concerns a yacht, not a mural. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. If it can be described as a painting, it can't be a work of artistic craftsmanship. The Burge v Swarbrick was on the dividing line between what was a work of artistic craftsmanship, and just a work of craftsmanship -- i.e. the threshold of originality under which there is no copyright at all. The distinction between painting and a work of artistic craftsmanship is more on which type of copyright applies, and was not addressed by that court decision. The concerns about "ad campaigns or other media that do not align with artists' values" sounds like a law not yet written, or non-copyright aspects of other laws (perhaps including moral rights). I'm more concerned about what the law and courts say about the economic right itself. But as in the previous discussions, I can't see any basis in their law, or any referenced court cases, for a mural being a work of artistic craftsmanship -- it's a painting to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since it is a matter of Australian law and there is an Australian court ruling, surely that court ruling represents the current state of Australian law. There will always be people who disagree with just about any court rulings, but unless those who disagree choose to engage in another court case, nothing changes. If they do engage in another court case, maybe there will be a different outcome and maybe there won't be. Although it may be different with graffitti (which is not commissioned and often removed), with most murals in Australia on buildings etc, these are usually commissioned works by businesses, town councils or governments, usually intended for promotional purposes (e.g. advertising, tourism) and will usually depict topics (e.g. history, local scenery) negotiated as part of that commission to serve the promotional purpose. People are encouraged to photograph such works and post them on social media etc (given the aim is to promotion). I think it unlikely that organisations would commission these murals if they believed that the Australian public could not photograph and share them. Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is commercial use, and our policy -- sharing on social media etc. would likely come under fair dealing. Which is fine for most real life situations, but is not "free" in the meaning we need to host them per policy. Paintings are not part of the Australian "freedom of panorama" law, so we can't use that as an exception. Agreed that the court ruling represents the current state of the law, and we should follow it, but I can't see anything in that ruling which would make murals "works of artistic craftsmanship" -- they are paintings, and thus not part of the FoP exception, since that is limited to works of artistic craftsmanship. Which part of the ruling do people think supports paintings being treated as works of artistic craftsmanship? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kerry Raymond second in motion to Clindberg. The free sharing should always include commercial and profit-making purposes. If the allowed use is only for promotion of the municipalities of Australia, and not for exploitations in postcards, calendar designs, or even for-profit websites not connected to the promotion of municipalities (by website developers), then the murals are not 100% free for eexploitation without muralists' licensing permissions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment it appears several images of Australian murals were successfully restored at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-12#File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg, despite the entire discussion heavily focused on the technical aspect of the term "work of artistic craftsmanship". The files should not have been restored and the entire discussion should have been redirected here, as I am not convinced of the applicability of the court ruling to the commercial exploitations of images of murals without permissions from muralists. SCHolar44 admitted here that Ms. Pila's article "does not really clarify the High Court judgement but only advances an argument that – convincing though it may be – asserts that the court's 'orthodox view' did not address a further factor, on which she expounds. As such, Ms Pila's article doesn't add to the factors applicable to contemporary considerations of FOP copyright, which is the subject of the section." Unfortunately, no one took notice of SCHolar44's concern. Some other user or admin should revisit her article to know the actual context of the term. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quick browse on Ms. Pila's article seems to solve the threshold of originality of works of artistic craftsmanship. It does not address the allowance of commercial uses of murals without muralists' permissions and that if such uses can be protected under the Australian FoP, which by itself is being criticized by several Australian and aborigine artists as being too open for commercial users to exploit Australian culture and heritage. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-free artwork[edit]

I just hit upon a whole category filled with artwork from an artist who died in 1998, thus certainly has not been dead long enough for this to be free of copyright. There is another category that seems to include the identical images, not sure what the reasoning is behind that. Not sure how to handle such a mass of images efficiently, can someone help please? Thanks, --2003:C0:8F3B:CB00:1CE6:9527:6077:CCB3 13:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Courtesy ping for @Bybbisch94: . GMGtalk 13:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    {| class="wikitable"
    |These works or the works of this artist may not be in the public domain because the artist is still alive or died less than 70 years ago. Please do not upload photos or scans of this artist's work unless they fall under one of the following exceptions: * The work was first published in the United States and one of the USA public domain tags applies. * The photo of the work falls under a legal exception such as the Panoramafreiheit or de minimis (non-essential accessory). * The work was expressly released for further commercial use by the author or his heirs in an email to Wikimedia Commons. * The work has been published by the author on his website or with an official account on a website such as Flickr in each case under a free license. *The work is in the public domain for another clear reason. Works by this artist published before 1928 can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia (see en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad). Further information can be found at Commons:Licenses and Commons:Editions. |}
    |Diese Werke oder die Werke dieses Künstlers sind möglicherweise nicht gemeinfrei, weil der Künstler noch lebt oder vor weniger als 70 Jahren verstorben ist. Bitte lade keine Fotos oder Scans von Werken dieses Künstlers hoch, es sei denn, sie fallen unter eine der folgenden Ausnahmen:
    • Das Werk wurde zuerst in den Vereinigten Staaten veröffentlicht und eines der Public-Domain-Tags für die USA gilt.
    • Das Foto des Werkes fällt unter eine gesetzliche Ausnahme wie die Panoramafreiheit oder de minimis (unwesentliches Beiwerk).
    • Das Werk wurde vom Urheber oder seinen Erben in einer E-Mail an Wikimedia Commons ausdrücklich für eine kommerzielle Weiternutzung freigegeben.
    • Das Werk wurde vom Urheber auf dessen Website oder mit einem offiziellen Konto auf einer Website wie Flickr jeweils unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht.
    • Das Werk ist aus einem anderen klaren Grund gemeinfrei.Arbeiten dieses Künstlers, die vor 1928 veröffentlicht wurden, können auf der englischen Wikipedia hochgeladen werden (siehe en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad). Weitere Informationen findest Du unter Commons:Lizenzen und Commons:Bearbeitungen.
    |} Bybbisch94 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of those exceptions seems to apply here.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The work was expressly released for further commercial use by the author or his heirs in an email to Wikimedia Commons.The work was expressly released for further commercial use by the author or his heirs in an email to Wikimedia Commons. The usage rights were submitted to German Wikipedia on March 8, 2017, but it took some time until they were finally approved. By the way, for information, on August 3, 2023 I asked permissions-de@wikimedia.org whether the exemption also applies to drawings by the artist. The answer was: is valid. Bybbisch94 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Das Werk wurde vom Urheber oder seinen Erben in einer E-Mail an Wikimedia Commons ausdrücklich für eine kommerzielle Weiternutzung freigegeben. Die Nutzungsrechte wurden am 8.3.2017 bei German Wikipedia eingereicht bis zur endgültigen Freigabe hat es allerdings etwas gedauert. Übrigens zur Information, am 3.8.23 habe ich bei permissions-de@wikimedia.org dazu nachgefragt, ob die Freistellung auch für Zeichnungen des Künstlers gilt. Die Antwort lautete: ist gültig. Bybbisch94 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Which work by the artist has the VRT ticket number? If that is applicable to many works of the author (not just specific named ones), seems like it should be linked from the category. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EXIF data states "All rights reserved"[edit]

Is VRT permission usually required when the EXIF data for a file clearly gives the name of the copyright holder and lists the file as being "All rights reserved", but the account uploading the file is using a different name, the file is uploaded as "own work" and the licensing chosen is not the same? Are such conflicts between EXIF data and file description of a concern? I'm asking about File:Laura Collett.jpg, File:Rupert, Earl of Onslow.jpg and File:Belvoir-Hunt-Belvoir-Castle-14Mar15-179.jpg (and its crops). All three list the same person as the copyright holder in their respective EXIF data, which also states "All rights reserved". All three were uploaded by the same user, who also uploaded File:British Equestrian Media Association Logo.png as "own work". I've tagged the logo as a copvio because of COM:TOO UK and because it comes from bema.org.uk. If, however, you scroll down to the bottom of that website, you'll find the name of webhost is the same as the copyright holder given for aforementioned three photos. Should it just be assumed in this case that the copyright holder and uploader are the same based on en:User:Indomitable or should VRT permission still be required? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly: It seems very likely the photos are their own, but probably they should go through COM:VRT to get the account verified, to confirm that they are the same person who took the photos. Or they could simply link or acknowledge the account from any public-facing website or page that is clearly under their control, and then link back to that acknowledgement from their user page here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notified them of this discussion; so, perhaps they will see your post and do one of those things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not that EXIF automatically means we need VRT, but more there being access to the files on the internet first (with the EXIF as well), such that anyone could have uploaded it. That may still be an issue here though the one I looked for is not easy to find these days without a watermark, though tineye indicated it may have been available in 2010 (no longer at that site), though don't know about EXIF. It's more the conditions at COM:VRT#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_VRT? which drive the need. If they could validate their account, that would probably be easiest. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is correct @Marchjuly but thank you for raising it. I will follow the link and complete whatever is needed at COM:VRT. There are two other project invites that would benefit from my large archive of images so it would seem sensible. Indomitable (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has now been done. Given the possible need for future use of my images by the Equine wikiproject, should I complete a more general email to the releases email addresses which connects my username with the copyright holder and allows all future use? Indomitable (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Indomitable: yes, please. Verifying your account as being yours saves a lot of grief. (Pretty much always the case for someone who uploads a good deal of photography outside of this site, unless they always indicate a free license when they post anywhere.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are these photos from this press kit public domain?[edit]

I found this 1976 press kit of Thin Lizzy here, and while it originated from the US and is pre-1978, I was wondering if it'd be okay to upload them since the backs of the photos are not shown (in case there were any markings on the backs). From what I could tell publicity photos were generally not copyrighted but I'd like to be on the safe side. Note that I am a newer user here and may be missing something. Thanks! Dantus21 (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dantus21: I suppose you could ask the buyer or seller about what's on the backs of the photos and if the whole kit was copyrighted.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The site is paywalled for buying the products themselves, so sadly I can't contact the seller. However, I did notice some other photos on Commons that came from press kits and didn't show the back sides either, so are those okay? Here's an example of one here. Dantus21 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dantus21 From my experience, older music press kit photos very rarely put any sort of copyright notices on the front or the back. Up until the mid 1980s these images were generally left without notices to be distributed and published as far and wide as possible to promote the subject(s). In the mid/late 80s, notices began to appear - but always on the front - Example. I am yet to see a music press kit photo with a notice on the back. My understanding is that it was much easier to print on one side only, then to double print something, and they wanted you to see the notice with the photo. The only photographs I tend to see with notices on the back are News/TV Broadcast press photographs, which would have been stickered on by the photographer or publisher - Example. I try to avoid such photos if I cannot see the back, but the odds of having a notice only on the back is very unlikely. Definitely do reverse searches before uploading any images. You tend to find other copies on sites such as ebay and Worthpoint which may show the back/no watermarks. Also look in older newspapers or magazines which may have also published the photo with no notice. If you wanted to upload a photo from 1978-89 you will also have to search the US copyright registration site to check if it was registered 5 years after publication. Almost nobody did this - but still check. If seen a couple that actually did. This only applies to US press kits/publications. Do at your own risk. Hope this helps. PascalHD (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is extremely helpful! Thank you so much!! Dantus21 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons images used elsewhere without attribution.[edit]

Hi,
Is there a procedure to report use outside Wikimedia and without attribution, of an image from Commons? Does Wikimedia police improper use of Commons images? Under heading "Images" in https://academic-accelerator.com/encyclopedia/oberon-operating-system are four images pinched from Category:Oberon_(operating_system).

The Help information I found is about bringing images into Commons.

Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterEasthope: The entire https://academic-accelerator.com/ website appears to be ripping off the copyrighted content of English Wikipedia, along with the images, with no licensing in sight. It lists contact@academic-accelerator.com as the contact. Anyone can file a DMCA claim if any of their content is infringed. Anyone can also use {{Published}}. Nameservers and protection by cloudflare via their datacenter in San Francisco, CA, USA. Privacy by withheldforprivacy.com. For instance, my paragraph about IP address conflicts, which I wrote in en:special:diff/680930058 04:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC), is on https://academic-accelerator.com/encyclopedia/ip-address without credit. My contributions to English Wikipedia were "Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0", and copyrighted since I started contributing there. I just extended them to 4.0.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to submit a complaint at https://abuse.cloudflare.com/dmca. Nosferattus (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus: ✓ Done and thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, it looks like the site is hosted by Digital Ocean (abuse@digitalocean.com). Nosferattus (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus: Thanks! How did you determine that? I reported it to both CloudFlare and Digital Ocean.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Digital Ocean just provides virtual servers (I know because I have one, it's where I host my own websites). They have roughly zero clue about the content of any of those servers. - Jmabel ! talk 08:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, PeterEasthope, and Nosferattus: Yesterday, I actually got a reply from "Security Operations Center" at DigitalOcean that "A staff member has reviewed the details and located the associated account. The issue will be reviewed and resolved as soon as possible." My content disappeared. So did the images at https://academic-accelerator.com/encyclopedia/oberon-operating-system (but not the text).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: impressive. Better response than I've had with them on tech issues as a paying customer. - Jmabel ! talk 00:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also: you can put {{Published}} on the relevant file talk page with "legal=no". - Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot wrongly flagging images as copyrighted[edit]

Hello! :) I am semi new to commons so forgive me if this is a silly question, but I'm not sure how to rectify this myself. Images by other people that I have uploaded keep getting flagged as copyrighted by User:INaturalistReviewBot. This has now happened with multiple images (examples [1] [2] [3] [4]) that are under a CC0 license and I have even reached out to the original photographers directly and obtained permission to reupload them here. How can I prevent this from continuing to happen in the future?

Thanks! Mercedes-Fletcher (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the file page, the page you give as source, [5], states that the licence is CC BY-NC (a non-commercial licence which is not acceptable to Commons). It may be worth getting in touch with the photographer and asking why the two pages differ. Voice of Clam 22:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm... I'll have to look into that then, thanks! Mercedes-Fletcher (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mercedes-Fletcher: Although the observation data is CC0, the photographs are CC BY-NC, and thus cannot be hosted on Commons. Nosferattus (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems the case for observations 107130432 and 85380530. In other cases, there is also something more. The observation 175850542 includes two photos (or two versions of a photo). At the present time, the first photo 305646855 is CC0 and the second photo 305646873 is CC BY-NC. The observation 159962340 includes four photos. At the present time, the first photo is CC0 and the three other photos are CC BY-NC. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Handling contents of a Mojang repository as example[edit]

Hi!

I thought about this longer, but would like have some opinions about this. As many companies host free and Open Source software on GitHub, I stumbled over a repository by Mojang: https://github.com/Mojang/minecraft-legends-docs. The repository is copyrighted and licensed under the MIT License. The folder https://github.com/Mojang/minecraft-legends-docs/tree/main/images contains images, that are probably from the game Minecraft Legends itself (I am not a Minecraft player, so I cannot determine). Would the MIT license apply here or do we have to take something more into account?

Thanks, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot queries copyright status, but I can't see a problem[edit]

I've uploaded File:Admiralty Chart No 216a Mergui Archiplelago Northern Part, Published 1830, New Edition 1938.jpg which is out of copyright as it is subject to Crown Copyright which expires 50 years after publication. This was scanned from the original paper chart, and the copyright status indicated with the template PD-UKGov. AntiCompositeBot has flagged this as "copyright status is unclear". I cannot see any problem, and I have uploaded many hundreds of charts with this template. The bot does not give specific details of the problem, and I have checked that the copyright template is correct. No warning template has been added to the entry. How do I deal with this- can I simply ignore it? Thanks Kognos (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kognos: Abzeronow fixed it for you in this edit. Please apply that earlier in your upload method.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so it had already been fixed when I checked, which is why I couldnt see a problem... Thanks Kognos (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kognos: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images that would go free years down the line[edit]

From what I remember, the way to preserve such images was to upload them to Commons and then instantly nominate them for deletion on copyright grounds; that way they can be undeleted when the time comes (and I'm long dead). Can you please be so kind and remind me how to do that properly? -- Wesha (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wesha: You may add Category:Undelete in 2024 for works expiring this year, or any other similarly named category, to the subpage after you nominate for deletion.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, that's it! -- Wesha (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wesha: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just remember that the category has to go on the deletion request. Otherwise, it will just be deleted along with the file. - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Website states "Images License Free"[edit]

The following website states "Images are license free with no restrictions".

Does this mean I can use the images for Commons? Wikipedia? Does it mean all personnel images and logos?

Thanks in advance. Chavmen (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, This seems OK, however I wonder how they come to this conclusion. There is no information about the photographer(s), and the source of the images. It would be better if they mention a free license, and the photographer(s)' name. Yann (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure, I would assume it is them personally in the images seeing as it's an organisation website. But I can contact to ask I guess. Chavmen (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chavmen: Photos are copyrighted by their photographers (not their subjects) automatically at the time of creation in most countries per the en:Berne Convention.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay thanks. Chavmen (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say their intent is clear, but their execution was poor. I'm sure they'd be open to granting the permissions that are needed, but they'll probably need some guidance through how to do that. Among other things, "license free" means "there is no license," which is presumably the opposite of what they meant to say. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Country of origin" question[edit]

It would be useful to have someone weigh in at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The return of the soldier (IA returnofsoldier00west2).pdf who has been more involved than I in Commons' policy for what we consider "country of origin" for works. The issue here: UK author, first publication in the US in March 1918, published in the UK in June 1918, author died in 1983. Clearly URAA doesn't arise because of original US publication. The question is, if a British author published first in the U.S., do we defer to the UK's 70 years p.m.a.? EncycloPetey, please do indicate if there is anything you feel is biased in how I've stated this, or if I've left out anything you think should be said.

Please respond on the DR rather than here, unless it's something about how I've worded this. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The DR is closed, but in the Berne Convention, it's always the country of first publication, regardless of nationality of the author. If published in another country within 30 days of the first publication, it's "simultaneous publication", where there are other tiebreakers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that was what I'd said there, but I was trying to be neutral here since there was disagreement. - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US Tag for File:Greenspan testimony at Eichman trial1961.jpg[edit]

The description of the license tag of File:Greenspan testimony at Eichman trial1961.jpg says that it need an additional tag for the US. Does someone know which tag would be appropriate? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} warning, the file was originally uploaded January 1, 2012 (which was before Golan vs. Holder was decided on January 18, 2012), so it should be fine to keep. Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the issue! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-MAGov[edit]

Is this image in the public domain? There's this template, which states that it is, but on Flickr, it's released under a non-commercial license. Is this an instance of copyfraud (the governor's office falsely claiming copyright)? Bremps... 22:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bremps. According to Harvard's State Copyright Resource Center, Massachusetts is light green, which means the copyright status of works created by state employees as part of their official duties is unclear but leaning in the direction of presumptively being within the public domain. Likely pretty much everything on WMF websites, {{PD-MAGov}} is user created and not something officially created by the WMF. There's no discussion about the validity of the license on the template's corresponding talk page and there doesn't appear to be any detailed discussion about it in the VPC (Village pump/Copyright) archives. The template includes a link to sec.state.ma.us/ARC/arcres/residx.htm, but the page connected to that link has been "moved". One thing about these PD licenses is that if a work was created by someone other than an official state employee or by a state employee but not as part of their official duties, then the PD license might not be applicable. Another possibility is that Massachusetts copyright changed since the template was created and the template was never updated to reflect this. Finally, another possibility could be "copyfraud" but of an unintentional nature by someone managing the Flickr account who just isn't familiar with Massachusetts copyright law. Did you try contacting the Flickr account holder to seek clarification on the photo's licensing? FWIW, I did find this article stating that the Massachusetts' Governor's Office is claiming it's exempt from the state's public records law, and maybe they've taken that to apply to copyrights as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's our current policy on images taken by security cameras in the United States?[edit]

It is my understanding that the copyright status of images taken by pre-positioned recording devices in the U.S. is currently unclear. Wikipedia tends to treat them as non-free, and images such as en:File:2023 Lewiston shooting.jpg and en:File:07-17-2016BatonRougeshooting.jpg are marked as fair use. However, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-automated was closed as keep earlier this year, and the overall consensus was that such images are not copyrightable. Does this change anything with regards to our licensing policies? Can we move such images to Commons? Ixfd64 (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Di (they-them), The Black Revolutionary 2006 for their opinions as Fair Use uploaders of the two mentioned files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I invited them to join this discussion on their user talk pages.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never knew about this. The Black Revolutionary 2006 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong architectural permission?[edit]

Category:Volyn Music and Drama Theatre claims there is permission from architect Borys Zhezherin. However, per w:uk:Волинський обласний академічний музично-драматичний театр імені Тараса Шевченка, the architect of the current theater building is actually "Олександра Крилова" (the article does not state Borys Zhezherin as being co-architect). Is the permission wrong in the first place? I need more inputs before proceeding to deletion request. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping @Микола Василечко: to confirm who is or are the real architects of this building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Volyn Music and Drama Theatre is Волинський обласний академічний музично-драматичний театр імені Тараса Шевченка From ukwiki (biography of Borys Zhezherin): "Автор будівель театру опери та балету у Дніпропетровську, музично-драматичних театрів у Житомирі, Ужгороді, Сімферополі, Івано-Франковську, Полтаві, Рівному, Луцьку, Херсоні, Маріуполі, Хмельницькому та ін." But from page of Theatre: "Теперішня споруда драмтеатру була спроектована у Києві в 1965 році архітектором Олександрою Криловою." I don't know where the truth. VTRS permission (ticket #2015022810011636) add NickK. We need to ask him: from whom the permission, if Zhezerin died in 2006? --Микола Василечко (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Микола Василечко: I am not a part of the VRT, AFAIK it was processed by @Ahonc: . I was however aware of the process: the permission was signed by his son uk:Жежерін Вадим Борисович who is the heir of Borys Zhezherin, and Borys Zhezherin was indeed a co-author of all the mentioned theaters, as confirmed by the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine. To my best knowledge Zhezherin was the lead architect of theaters in multiple cities and Krylova was the local co-author in Lutsk. From the copyright perspective both Zhezherin and Krylova are co-copyright holders for Volyn Music and Drama Theatre, and per Ukrainian copyright law a permission from one co-author is sufficient unless there is an evidence of a different agreement between co-authors — NickK (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. It was permission from Vadym Zhezherin. And Lutsk theater is in the list of buildings in letter. And according the Urkainain copyright law: Якщо твір, створений у співавторстві, становить нерозривне ціле та інше не передбачено договором або цим Законом: … жоден із співавторів не має права без достатніх підстав відмовити іншим співавторам у наданні дозволу на опублікування, на переробку такого твору. — Any co-author cannot forbid other co-authors to give permission.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NickK@Ahonc at the very least the Ukrainian Wikipedia article of the theater should mention the other architects involved in the construction. I assume the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine is a reliable source in ukwiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What license are these under?[edit]

Hello!

I am asking about Category:SVG proposed flags of Minnesota, because all of them have a {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} license tag and list the authors as SVG-image-maker.

This is obviously incorrect, but I'm wondering if there is any information about whether the flag proposals are freely licensed or in the public domain? QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 07:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: I changed the authors to properly credit them. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 08:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There can be authorship in the vector points chosen in the SVG, if they were done manually -- so the license is not necessarily wrong. Crediting yourself as the vectorizer is probably less correct than the initial attribution, unless you redid it from scratch (as opposed to processing the original vectorization through a program). However, unless the original flags are PD-ineligible or there is some sort of license or explicit abandonment of copyright when filing the proposals, they would be derivative works of the original flags I think. The state submission rules are here; it seems as though the submissions become the property of the state government, and not freely licensed or public domain. So these could be issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:

Upon submission [...] all entries and submissions shall become the sole property of the State of Minnesota [...]

OK, so let me just check whether Minnesota government works are in the public domain or not...
I am going to jump off of a bridge. [sarcasm]
At least most of them seem like they could at least be {{PD-Shape}}. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 15:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I have noticed that the de facto consensus (based on some quick file sampling), at least for proposed flags, is that the person (typically the uploader) that created the vector file is listed as the copyright holder. As the uploader of these files, I can confirm that I did indeed create the vector files. I know from experience, that a distinctive feature of traced bitmaps is that they have incredibly blurry outlines. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SVG-image-maker: Hello! Just a comment, I noticed the files you vectorized were made with Inkscape.
By default, Inkscape saves SVGs in a very bloated format, so it's good practice to click on "File" → "Save as" (Ctrl + Shift + S), and choose "Optimized SVG" or even "Plain SVG".
This can help reduce file size significantly. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 06:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, for very simple designs like some of the ones in the proposals, I find it better to just manually write out the SVG file, because Inkscape also has some weird quirks where it has some inaccuracy (e.g. viewBox="0 0 1000 600.00001" etc.) QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 06:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Koyaanisqatsi trailer[edit]

Is this Koyaanisqatsi trailer in the public domain as per {{PD-US-1978-89}}? It has no copyright notice, and the only registration for Motion Pictures [where I think trailers should be registered as, PA0000661609/RE0000644700 is the registration for the trailer of Blood Feast (1963)] under the name of Koyaanisqatsi is the main film itself, under the registration number PA0000184721. Lugamo94 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary works under Singapore's FOP[edit]

Would File:Yayoi Kusama - Ascension of Polkadots on the Trees.JPG and File:Orchard Road 3, Singapore Biennale 2006, Oct 06.JPG be considered "temporary works" under COM:FOP Singapore? I'm assuming, but am not sure, that the trees decorated in this photo are actual trees and not some permanent display, and they only appeared as such for a set period of time, perhaps only during Singapore's 2006 biennale celebrations. If the artwork/trees weren't intended to be a permenant display, then it would seem that these photos can't be kept by Commons per Singapore's FOP without the artist's COM:CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WokelyCorrect Comics[edit]

An account on X called WokelyCorrect Comics replied to one of their posts by saying, "[Y]ou are free to repost/use any of my comics anywhere for anything. No need to @, I really don’t care." Does this qualify as {{Copyrighted free use}}? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) Probably good enough, as far as license is concerned. (2) Are they in scope? If one of our own contributors posted these, they would almost certainly not be. Is this person notable enough to make their work in scope? I'll admit it's hard for me to weigh this even-handedly: I find their politics appalling, so I am in no position to be the one who makes the decision. - Jmabel ! talk 06:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JohnCWiesenthal and Jmabel: A bit off-topic, but this guy is concerningly racist.
I know Wikipedia has w:MOS:LABEL and some policies about libel, but I can pretty confidently say he's a racist. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 06:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FOP Madagascar[edit]

I was wondering if this file is okay to upload here? Syrus257 (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Syrus257 it is fine, as I don't see anything that can be considered as copyrightable, like a contemporary work of sculpture or architecture. The building to the right is out of central focus, but if it were in focus, I think its architect or designer has died a very long, long time ago. So go and import it here! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345 Thanks. What if I wanted to upload images of some random village house just made out of mud or stones? Would they be considered as copyrighted material? Syrus257 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Syrus257 if the design of a Madagascan random house exhibits architectural qualities (meeting with threshold of originality), then the image may not be fine for uploading here (unless it is already old enough that the designer has died more than 70 years ago, to pass {{PD-old-architecture}}). But I think most rural or native houses of Madagascar are of traditional designs passed down through generations so maybe not copyrightable (I am not an expert in Madagascan architecture so I may be wrong though). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345 Understood. Thanks so much. Syrus257 (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxons[edit]

Would someone who knows more than I do about taxon categories please have a look at and see if I got it right in trying to fix that? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=832072540"