Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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
  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.

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


Crossroads Salamander

[edit]

Can I upload a photo I took of the Crossroads Salamander created by John Sendelbach in 1998? It's a public landscape installation on Cushman Common in Amherst Massachusetts. See Crossroads Salamander. My photo is similar to the one seen in Crossroads Salamander - Amherst, Massachusetts - Figurative Public Sculpture on Waymarking.com. Faolin42 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts? Faolin42 (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sort of thing where it is very hard to determine whether that underlying work is copyrighted. Strangely, this is one of the few cases where I can more imagine a court upholding a copyright claim related to a photo of the work than if someone were actually to replicate it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I won't upload it. Faolin42 (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian archival image of Cyril of Bulgaria

[edit]

Does anyone understand what is going on here? The archive tag suggests that it is in the public domain, but then there is also a CC-BY-SA license attached. It is indeed unlikely that the image is PD in Bulgaria, which has 70 years pma as a copyright term, since the subject ascended to the patriarchy only in May 1953 (unless the image was taken for that occasion, but I don't really see any evidence for that). The source link leads to a form which seems to describe a completely different set of images, and I cannot see any evidence for the claimed CC license there either. Is anyone familiar with this archive upload project and could help out? Felix QW (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is deceased, so no chance of help on that front. - Jmabel ! talk 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PETScan reveals 146 images under a CC license from the Bulgarian State Archive. One of them is a photo from a Chicago photography studio and should be PD as {{PD-US-not-renewed}}, but the remainder are a mix of CC-BY-SA-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0 with no indication of that license at the source and no evidence of VRT correspondence. Pinging BASA Randona.bg as the most recently active uploader from this project: Do you perhaps know how these licenses came about? Felix QW (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'll check the case with the State Archives. We also have to check the Bulgarian Law of 2007 (last amended 2022) on the National Archives Fund and the Regulations for its application. --Randona.bg (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your assistance! It is much appreciated! Felix QW (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film restoration, new copyright?

[edit]

Hi, Does a film restoration create a new copyright? And how much restoration does create a new copyright? The Immigrant (1917) and One A.M. (1916), two Chaplin's films were restored by Fondazione Cineteca, Italy, which claims a copyright. The original films are in the public domain in USA, where they were first published. We already have File:The Immigrant (1917).webm and File:One A.M. (1916).webm (this last one seems a restored version). Yann (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the amount of creative work in the restoration and whether or not the restoration may qualify as a cinematic work on its own merit, as is for example the case of the restoration of the colour version of Méliès' Voyage dans la lune where colors were created (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Le Voyage dans la lune (1902).webm). — Racconish💬 17:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In practical terms, the restoration of The Immigrant involved the scanning at L'Immagine Ritrovata laboratory of a nitrate safety negative, with no indication of digital interpolation, and the "reconstruction" of intertitles similar to the original ones. The copyright is held by Blackhawk Films Inc. and covers the "new restoration and special contents". IMO it is ok to upload on Commons a copy stripped of the additional music, the introduction and the end credits. — Racconish💬 05:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the Center for the Study of the Public domain puts it, "If a film has been restored or reconstructed, only original and creative additions are eligible for copyright; if a restoration faithfully mimics the preexisting film, it does not contain newly copyrightable material. (Putting skill, labor, and money into a project is not enough to qualify it for copyright. The Supreme Court has made clear that 'the sine qua non of copyright is originality.')

Generally I would say that restoring the image and sound quality won't involve enough creativity to pass the threshold of originality. Acts such as adding a soundtrack to a silent film, colorizing a film, or reassembling a "lost film" from raw footage probably do involve enough creativity.

On Commons, we also have to consider the country of origin. Those two restorations by an Italian organization presumably were first published in Italy, so would have to be public domain under Italian copyright law. The EU requires that a work must represent "the author's own intellectual creation" to qualify for copyright, which seems to lead to a similar conclusion as US law. Toohool (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this detailed analysis. Yann (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: File:The Immigrant (1917) by Charlie Chaplin.webm. Yann (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So with this thread, does this mean for example the Ben Solovey restoration of Manos: Hands of Fate could be uploaded to Commons? See examples here and here (oh hey this vid is with CC). Hyperba21 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There would not be a separate valid copyright in a new cleaned scan of the film. In order for there to be one, the new version would have to have more the modicum of creativity — enough for the new material to be a work of authorship in itself. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

US government works are not under copyright. And Google and HathiTrust believe that this document is Public Domain: File:The 'Gang of Four' Sabotaged the Campaign to Learn From Tachai in Agriculture in a Vain Attempt to Restore Capitalism.pdf. But I'm wondering if there's a copyright issue either with Taning CCP Committee or with Taiyuan Shansi Provincial Service for this article, since this document was apparently authored and broadcast in Mandarin, and it seems unlikely that the FBIS received authorization to create a translation. Note that the US government translation includes omitted words where there were words not heard properly, etc. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translations are usually considered derivative works and have their own copyright protection separate from the underlying work. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the translation is free, but the original is quite possibly under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time the translation was written, there were no copyright relations between the US and PRC. However, the underlying work probably later received a US copyright under the URAA. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Maltby photos posted by family

[edit]

Hi! I have a question about the licensing for some of the images on the Margaret Maltby page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Eliza_Maltby The 1892, 1908, and 1918 photographs were uploaded by a descendent of Margaret Maltby who inherited the photographs. They weren't published elsewhere before 2003. Is the licensing information that is currently used with the images appropriate? (It's under a free CC license.) And if not, how would I change it? Thank you! Physhist (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two earlier ones would have been considered published by contemporary American law as the commercial photographer handed over copies to their client. So they should really have a {{PD-US-expired}} tag. The latest one is a tad more difficult, as it looks like an informal family photograph, that arguably could have been remained with the photographer and never left their private sphere. In any case, its copyright would then rest with the photographer rather than the subject, so being a descendant of the subject doesn't really help. Felix QW (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that photographer is unknown, then the 1918 photo won't be clearly PD until 2039. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We usually assume that old pictures were published near the time of creation, i.e. when leaving the custody of the photographer, unless proved otherwise. I fixed the license. Yann (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: we assume that for professionally taken photos, but not for personal photos by relatives. - 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, the 1918 photo is also almost certainly a professional photo because of the staging and the time period. Physhist (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: evidence for professional staging: the son is wearing a uniform, likely home on break or about to leave for training. (the son never went to the front.) Also, it was highly unlikely to have been taken by a relative, both because Maltby was not that interested in photography as a hobby, but also there are only two cups of tea on the table, suggesting the person behind the camera was not there to take tea but instead to take pictures. Physhist (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rio-Antirrio Bridge

[edit]

There have been inconsistencies in the deletion requests concerning the said Greek bridge. Some resulted to deletions, citing lack of COM:FOP Greece. Others, resulted to being kept, on the grounds that bridges cannot be considered architecture and that there is no protection for bridges under the Greek law, similar to U.S. law's treatment on U.S. bridges.

sample deletion requests:

To complicate things further, there is a censored image of the bridge, used as a protest image by Greek users during the 2015 discourse on the FoP at the EU Parliament.

There should be a discussion to determine the finality of the community consensus for Greek bridges, before either (a) conducting more deletion requests on the bridge, or (b) requesting undeletion of the deleted images (as well as deleting the censored image because it is misleading, as the bridge is not protected by copyright).

Ping users who participated in the deletion requests mentioned here. @Εὐθυμένης, IronGargoyle, Jameslwoodward, Ellywa, Veggies, Fastily, and Denniss: . Ping also the photographer as well as the censor of the image @KPFC: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rio–Antirrio Bridge has a section saying Photography by both professional and amateur photographers or cinematographers is allowed and encouraged by the bridge management without the need for a permit... Yann (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann seems a good starting point for free shooting. But it doesn't address the issue if it can be a work of architecture falling under restrictive Greek copyright law (not allowing commercial uses) or just an ordinary structure that can be freely used even without bridge designer's permission. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While that is certainly a good idea, at least a bad Google translate job of the source given in the article doesn't seem to support the sentence. It merely describes a specific photo contest and associated festivities. Felix QW (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also ping Greek user @Geraki: (who commented about Greek antiquities issue at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Greece). Perhaps Greek users may be knowledgeable on the matter, if Greek bridges like Rio–Antirrio can be considered works of architecture or just structures that are not protected and can be reproduced even for commercial purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If counted as architecture it needs to show somehing unique eligible as work of art to be protected. The bridge shows nothing apart from commonly known structures so nothing eligible for protection. The deleted files should be reviewed and possibly undeleted. --Denniss (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imho we should stay away from framing this bridge as not being a work of art or architecture. It surely is designed by a team of architects and structural designers. COM:Greece is not clear, that is the issue I think. Ellywa (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann sounds like something Wikimedia France should encourage builders to promote there as well. Agree that it solves the issue for this bridge. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999 easier said than done with regards to French cases. The management of Millau Viaduct, in their website, asserts they guard Architect Norman Foster's exclusive rights over visual appearances of the bridge, and does not allow commercial uses of the bridge without prior authorization from them. This is on top of French-based ADAGP's continued opposition to Wikipedia and the FoP movement, unless Wikipedia finally chooses to accept using CC-BY-NC-ND licensing (ADAGP treats both Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a single community under the helm of WMF). The bridge management tolerates non-commercial/personal uses, as well as images that only show the viaduct in the background, thus not making it the intended focus of the images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, old story. Obviously, they wont all promote this. Also, maybe Commons needs to do some changes for architectural photography. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which will end up in another, heated debate on FoP policy of Commons (perhaps you are aware of the discussions that I got involved early this year). The current policy is already stable enough. Not OK to mandate U.S. FoP-only policy on Commons, as several Wikimedia chapters, user groups, and affiliates outside Europe are trying their best to have FoP introduced in their countries (FoP that includes public sculptures too), like those of South Africa and the Philippines. FoP was discussed in the most recent forum held by East Asia-Southeast Asia-Pacific (ESEAP) Wikimedia region last month, in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, and ESEAP groups agreed to consider initiatives in FoP lobbying. Also, Wiki Commons shouldn't ignore the opposition from ADAGP, Cavada and other French anti-Wikipedia individuals and groups. ADAGP once sent a graffiti artist's cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia France to take down an image of an illegal graffito; for sure, upon learning that Commons shifted to only respect U.S. architectural FoP and not French laws, ADAGP and their fellow peers will certainly protest by persistently demanding take downs of undeleted images of Millau Viaduct, European Parliament building, Grande Arche et cetera. In a nutshell, the current FoP policy mainly anchored on the law of the work's country of physical origin must remain. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these issues all need to be combined. With the changes Commons needs to do, I was thinking of how architects could go about to authorize photography. Currently, this doesn't really seem obvious. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999 or better still, how about making Greek architects (and architects from many countries, except France obviously) Wikimedia community's partners in FoP movement/s? This should be considered by meta:Wikimedia Community User Group Greece. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To host two pics of a building in France (or Greece), maybe there are easier solutions. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, France is the only country where bridges have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there statute or case law where French copyright of bridges is shown? IronGargoyle (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only inconsistency here in the Greek cases is that no one previously pointed out for the deleted images that we have no evidence from statute or case law that bridges are protected objects. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Law 4412/2016 defines 27 categories of engineering design activities. This law is related to expertise of engineers for design of Public Works and not to copyright issues, but may be used as guidance. Of interest in our case are categories 06, 07, 08 and 10:

  • 6. Architectural design of buildings
  • 7. Special architectural design (external spaces, places, parks/gardens, monuments, traditional buildings etc)
  • 8. Structural design (of buldings and large or special bridges/viaducts) The jargon phrase "τεχνικό έργο" (lit. technical project) is used by Greek transportation engineers to refer to bridges and related structures and is used in Law 4412.
  • 10. Transportation design (roads, railways, small bridges and culverts)

Therefore the design of Rio-Antirrio bridge, if it was procured as a traditional public work, would be contracted to a structural engineering office and not to an architect's office. If it has any effect to copyright, it's up to the courts to decide. SV1XV (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Italy 1996

[edit]

BTW of the 20 years-rule (peculiar of Italy) about the non-artistic photographs, I remember that discussing the compatibility of photos matching the rule under the URAA agreement had to be in PD in the US by 1996. Now though I have a second thought. In a old discussion, it was said that "Any such photo created after 1976 is definitely still copyrighted;" (not " Any such photo created from 1976 onward is definitely still copyrighted;"). But yesterday I kept a file created in november 1976 and I was told that 1976 is already under protection in the USA. I have uploaded in bona fide 1976 some non artistic photographs of Italy, thus now I need to know whether I did good or not. -- Blackcat 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 20-year Italy protection would have expired at the end of the year of the 20th anniversary, so would have become public domain in Italy on January 1, 1997. That means it was still under copyright protection on January 1, 1996, so would have had its U.S. copyright restored (unless it was published in the United States within 30 days of publication in Italy). It would need to have been created during the calendar year 19951975 to have a chance. So "created from 1976 onward" is correct, or "on or after January 1, 1996". Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: You mean "calendar year 1975"? -- Blackcat 15:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: thus if a photo is produced since 1 Jan 1976 onward is not free on the US per URAA, I assume. -- Blackcat 17:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackcat: Correct. A photo produced on January 1, 1976 would have expired in Italy on January 1, 1997, so the URAA acted on it, and it got a term of 95 years from publication in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: the funny thing is that all these problems would be easily solved if the Commons farm moved, say, to Netherlands or Germany, where these files would be free. Only the US protects photographs which copyright in their respective country of origin has expired. -- Blackcat 22:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there are many places which do not use the rule of the shorter term. Germany and the Netherlands do, but not for other EU countries -- these would be protected for 70pma in those two countries, which could be even longer than the US, and we can't use the 1976 cutoff. You just shift problems around, usually, and in most cases would be worse. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the German version of Template:PD-Italy explicitly says that the work is protected by copyright in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (and must not be used at de.wp) unless the author died at least 70 years ago. Also compare en:Rule of the shorter term#Situation in the European Union. --Rosenzweig τ 19:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What permission do I need from the heir to upload images of his father's sculptural works?

[edit]

I wrote an article about one Russian sculptor (died in 2023). His son (his name is also in the article) sent me an email with a link to a large number of photographs of his father’s work. The son is the owner of these photographs and the sculptural works that are depicted there. What power of attorney should he give me so that I can upload images to Wikicommons and receive a ticket for CC-BY-SA-4.0. Thank you. Wavepainter (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wavepainter: You don't need a power of attorney. You just need them to go through the COM:VRT process (have them cc you on the email, which can be a continuation of the thread you've already started), and make sure they indicate what license they are offering. If, for example, they offer a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, then you can upload with {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}} {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather with {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} :) --Geohakkeri (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the clarification. I understand that they should write a letter following the example on the VRT website. The problem is that I have now seen that the link they sent me is their own OneDrive Live online files storage where you can only log in with a password. So they are giving me permission to take files from their own site. What's the solution to this? Wavepainter (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wavepainter: Assuming the copyright-owner trusts you, they can write a rather open-ended permission letter to VRT: that you will be uploading on their behalf, with their permission, and that they authorize you to use some particular license (I recommend either CC-BY-SA 4.0 or CC-BY 4.0, and of course you will use the "heirs" version of the template) when doing so. I think that will work, but if you want details on what would be acceptable for VRT, that's really not a copyright issue, that's something for Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:VRT does include

Please send us a clear statement that your Commons account (or some other Commons account) is authorized to license your works, either any work or some set of works, e.g. "My images from event X, 2013-10-15". We will make a note of this for your future uploads.

as a solution to the problem of uploading several files from a single account, so it should work. Felix QW (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish noticeboard

[edit]

File:Kardeş şehirler.JPG seems like it could be a problem per COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs, not only for the images but also for the text. Is there anything in COM:FOP Turkey or otherwise in COM:Turkey in general that might make this OK to keep? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Uwimana's uploads of artworks

[edit]

Can anyone check Steve Uwimana (talk · contribs)'s uploads? See Special:ListFiles/Steve Uwimana. His uploads appear to be works of art and crafts as part of submissions to the Burundian edition of 2024 Wiki Loves Africa, but Burundi does not have a usable Freedom of Panorama exception (only for cinematography and TV broadcasts, not photographs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly relevant statement regarding licensing issues during Wiki Loves events from an archive entry, which can be found in the section "Massive image deletion requests by user A1Cafel":

Organisers speak directly with the government etc and if permission is granted then you can upload images from that country providing it's within a specific month and that the WLM template has to be applied and that FOP is not applicable to WLM images (because special permission has been granted)

The comment that was posted in response to the above statement is also interesting. Basically, they say that there are special exceptions to the usual copyright rules during such events.
(But don't ask me whether these statements are applicable here.) Nakonana (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the response says, that was about cases where permission was obtained from the owners of the copyright of the artworks. It does not mean that their permission was not needed. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana WLM template alone does not signify an artist has gave his/her permission to the uploader or the organizers to have their images of his/her work disseminated here under commercial licensing. Hundreds of images of Ukrainian monuments have been deleted even if those were submitted through Wiki Loves Monuments, because those images lacked tangible evidence of permissions from the sculptors or their heirs / estate. Either a visible tag indicating correspondence of licensing authorization (COM:VRTS) or an organizer's repository of letters of permissions from copyright holders (like what Wikimedia Italy maintains) are the only valid forms of permission/authorization that Wikimedia can accept. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Manute Bol picture PD-US-defective notice-1978-89

[edit]

So I found on Ebay this picture of Manute Bol, upon inspection of the back of the picture it looks like it could be a Defective Notice since it states "© USA TODAY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" but it doesn't closely state the year. (The "Date" template at the top is originally blank and looks like it's not "in close proximity"), the photographer: (Jack Spratt) only has one registry for a cookbook or it could be a psueudonym. Would this mean it would be PD?

Also did USA Today register copyright for each of its photo slides or it only applies to the whole newspaper as a whole? Hyperba21 (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1978, you could omit the year if it was anything other than a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work. You could still omit it in some situations from 1978 to 1989, though less often, and not sure this qualifies. Unsure if judges would give more leeway given the rules which had been in place for decades before that. The other problem though, is that copies without notice (or defective notice) had to be distributed. If this was a photo that USA Today took, but this particular copy remained private and was not actually distributed outside the company until after 1989, there is no loss of copyright. So photos from old archives becoming available today would not change anything, copyright-wise. You would need to prove that more than a relative few copies of this photo were actually distributed without notice before 1989, if it came to a court case. For this one, we would probably need more info on the provenance. If this copy was kept private internally at USA Today until at least 1989, then the question on the notice is moot and copyright would likely still exist. As for the last question, it was always possible to register copyright for individual photos. But, a copyright notice on the entire newspaper (a collective work) also covers all contained works which do not have a separate copyright notice. Registration itself was furthermore never required. Renewal was after 28 years, but that is only for works published before 1964. Anything published after that, renewals are automatic. And copyright exists, even if not registered (that only affects the possible penalties). Publication without notice is the only way for works published between 1964 and 1989 to be public domain today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response! Yeah, I'll hold off on uploading this to Commons until we get clearer confirmation if this picture was released and/or distributed publicly in any capacity. Hyperba21 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr license history

[edit]

Is there information somewhere, or a previous discussion, about the license history on Flickr for licenses changed before mid-2008? (This is in the context of observations in this DR.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Australia and publication dates

[edit]

Hawkeye7 has requested a change to the protected template {{PD-Australia/en}} on the template's talk page:

  • "Please remove the statement "When using this template, please provide information of where the image was first published and who created it." Publication date is not relevant to Australian images." - Hawkeye7

As a template editor but not a license expert, I wanted to run this proposal by VPC before considering completing the request. It appears at odds with other information I see on that template about publication date, and frankly odd that publication date could really be irrelevant to determining PD status. Any ideas? Josh (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In countries using p.m.a. + 70 publication date is irrelevant if there is a known author. Is it really irrelevant in Australia if there is not a known author? - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replied there. Yes, it's still very relevant for anonymous works. It's still relevant in edge conditions sometimes even when the author is known. It also can be relevant for users in other countries even if not important for the Australian term, so it's always good info to provide if known. But it is true that it will be used less often going forward in Australia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Historical Society

[edit]

I was hoping to upload this ship portrait, clearly signed by Everhardus Koster (1817-1892), of the clipper "Grecian". But at the foot of that page is a note "Use of this Item is not restricted by copyright and/or related rights, but the holding organization is contractually obligated to limit use. For more information, please contact the contributing organization. However, watermarked Maine Memory Network images may be used for educational purposes." The MHS Catalogue has a large-size watermark, while the others have a nano-version top centre. Although I don't comprehend what the "contractual obligations" are, I supposed that the image is off-limits, even for the watermarked image due to the educational purposes limitation.

However, I see this with the watermark, and this with it cropped out. So I wondered whether it might be all right after all? - Davidships (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The artist Everhardus Koster died in 1892 so its PD. This is a bit dark, and you would have to crop off the frame. I have a clean full copy, but its only 47.5kb big. The dark one comes in at 27kb. Their just useable. There might be something here here, but I dont have access. Broichmore (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you are confirming that the unexplained "contractual obligations" can be ignored, then I'll upload the 217kb frameless version that I extracted, which should look OK. - Davidships (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They could be something like donor restrictions. Nobody else is limited by those agreements, just the entity which signed the contract. If we do something which gets the institution in trouble, that could make it less likely for people to donate and/or the library to make things available. But, they don't really give any indication of what the restrictions really are. Either way, if they make something available, then it should be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - now here - Davidships (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

w:en:File:Nanking19371220c.jpg ok for transfer to Commons?

[edit]

I raised the issue at the file's talk page on en:wiki 4 months ago, but there was no input, so I'm copying said talk entry of mine here, in hopes that someone could offer some guidance:

This image [mentioned in the header] was published in the "Japanese pictorial magazine about the Sino-Japanese War Asahi-ban Shina-jihen Gaho published on Jan. 27, 1938." according to the information provided in the information box. The page w:en:Talk:Nanjing Massacre denial/Disputed material has further images from that source and those other images have been uploaded to Wiki Commons. So, I'm a bit surprised to see the current license warning for this image. Is the source information for this image incorrect? Is it ok to transfer it to Commons? Or were the other images from this source uploaded to Wiki Commons despite not being in the public domain?

Just to add a list:

Nakonana (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the photo should be fine. If first published in Japan, it could be uploaded here as {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. If for some reason or other its first publication turns out to have been in China, then {{PD-PRC}} will also ensure that it is in the public domain in both the source country and the US. Felix QW (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Escudo del Estado Zulia

[edit]

Buenas el escudo del Estado Zulia creado en 1917 está en el Dominio Público tanto Venezuela como EEUU?? (https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escudo_de_armas_del_estado_Zulia) AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debería estarlo, por su antigüedad en EEUU y por las leyes de Venezuela. Bedivere (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siehe hier: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wappen_Wirttembergia_1856.jpg Meiner Meinung nach (schon wieder) eine fragwürdige Behaltensentscheidung von user:Billinghurst mit seltsamer Begründung. Ob die Zeichnung eigenhändig erstellt wurde oder ob die Zeichnung einer anderen Person abfotografiert (oder gescannt) wurde, ist weiter ungeklärt. Der LD-Entscheider meint wohl, man müsse Copyright-Bedenken beweisen? Ich dachte immer, umgekehrt wird ein Schuh draus? Was ist mit com:PCP? GerritR (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GerritR: Gibt es denn irgendwelche Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass diese Zeichnung kein eigenes Werk des Benutzers User:Mattatja ist? Ist die Zeichnung, bevor sie als Datei hier hochgeladen wurde, schon anderswo gedruckt oder im Internet veröffentlicht worden? --Rosenzweig τ 14:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nein, nicht dass ich wüsste. Trotzdem habe ich Zweifel, ob Zeichner und Hochlader die gleiche Person sind. Das Bild könnte zum Beispiel in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt sein.--GerritR (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Der Hochlader User:Mattatja hat übrigens auch historische Fotos, die eindeutig nicht von ihm sein können, als "eigenes Werk´" hochgeladen. Dies spricht nicht gerade für urheberrechtliche Sorgfalt bei der Zeichnung.--GerritR (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
siehe https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mattatja --GerritR (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GerritR Wer würde denn bei einem vermeintlichen Werk aus dem Jahre 1856 das Copyright haben? Laut Wappenrecht scheint es beim Heraldiker zu liegen, der das Wappen entworfen hat, aber dieser ist bei einem Wappen aus dem Jahre 1856 doch sicherlich schon lange tot, wodurch das Wappen wohl gemeinfrei wäre. Nakonana (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das Wappen an sich schon, nicht aber eine eigenhändige Zeichnung eines Wappens.--GerritR (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Da wäre zum einen COM:Assume good faith zu nennen. Es gibt keinen Grund, anzunehmen, dass dieses Wappen keine eigenhändige Zeichnung ist. Das Wappen hat keine sonderlich schwierigen Elemente, besteht zum Teil aus geometrischen (Teil-)Figuren und man braucht entsprechend kein großes künstlerisches Talent, um es selbst nachzuzeichnen. Es gibt also zahlreiche Leute, die so eine Nachzeichnung, wie man sie hier sieht, problemlos anfertigen könnten. Wenn du annimmst, dass das Bild in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt wird, so bedeutet dies, dass Mattatja scheinbar Zugang zu besagten Archiven hat oder besagtes Mitglied sein müsste; denn anders käme man an keine Kopie des Bildes. Du könntest die Verbindung also bei Bedarf kontaktieren und auf diese potentielle Urheberrechtsverletzung aufmerksam machen. Aber, wenn du mich fragst, ist das Wappen wirklich nicht schwierig nachzuzeichnen, also sehe ich da keinen Grund zur Annahme einer Urheberrechtsverletzung, es sei denn, es gibt konkrete Hinweise dafür. Nakonana (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich sehe mich keineswegs in der Pflicht, hier irgendwelche Nachforschungen zu betreiben. Hab ich etwa die Beweislast? Was die Annahme, die Zeichnung sei eigenhändig, absolut nicht stützt, ist die Hochladehistorie des Benutzers. Dem unterstelle ich übrigens keinen schlechten Willen (COM:Assume good faith), sondern nur Unachtsamkeit bzw. Bedenkenlosigkeit beim Copyright. Und hier gilt nach wie vor com:pcp.--GerritR (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich würde das Copyright bei der Zeichnung aber in diesem Fall trotzdem nicht anzweifeln, weil dieses Wappen wirklich nicht schwer ist nachzuzeichnen. Ich habe es mal mit dem Kugelschreiber (also ohne Möglichkeit Fehler auszuradieren) ausprobiert und habe in knapp 5 Minuten folgendes Ergebnis zustande bekommen: File:Wappen Wirttembergia 1856 by Nakonana on 20240623 191803.jpg. Mein allererstes eigenhändig gezeichnetes Wappen. Wenn du also Zweifel an dem anderen hast, können wir stattdessen meine Kreation verwenden, die, denke ich, eindeutig und zweifelsfrei als mein Werk identifizierbar ist :) Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Du argumentierst nicht zum Thema "einenes Werk", sondern zum Thema Com:too. Eine Handzeichnung eines Werks ohne eigene Schöpfungshöhe ist aber wie das Foto eines Grashalms: Irgendjemand muss es machen.--GerritR (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Und selbst wenn es jemand macht, wenn es unter COM:TOO fällt, wäre die Urheberrechtsfrage unbedeutend, weil es bei dem Werk gemäß COM:TOO nichts urheberrechtlich zu schützen gäbe.

Es gibt bei dem Wappen einfach keinen Grund, die Eigenständigkeit des Werkes anzuzweifeln, weil es selbst einem ungeübten Menschen mit Leichtigkeit gelingt, eine passable Nachzeichnung anzufertigen. Nakonana (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bloss weil es vermutlich recht simpel ist, das Wappen nachzumalen, heißt das noch lange nicht, dass der Hochlader sich auch tatsächlich selbst die Mühe gemacht hat. und was die sonstigen Beiträge des Hochladers anbelangt, siehe oben. GerritR (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The job of the administrator to determine consensus is to review the evidence provided. You provided the shortest of context and no evidence. No indications of anything else. On the basis of the evidence provided there was not a consensus to delete. PCP says "significant doubt" and the case presented did not reach that standard. Quick Google Lens and TinEye searches presented nothing. It was "in use" so personal artwork isn't ours to determine, and there are so many COA on site, and this is one with an old date. Kept.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Manos the Hands of Fate

[edit]

I asked in a previous thread if the version of "Manos: The Hands of Fate" that Ben Solovey restored is also PD, I ended up doing some digging about this topic and I found such an interesting set of details about "Manos" and its Copyright.

First of all I watched three versions of the movie to determine if the changes made in the restoration were "Substantial and creative" to gain new Copyright, the one in Commons, the Restoration and the MST3K version and basically the only differences I could find aside from the improved quality of Audio and Video of the Restoration, is that both MST3K and the Restored version has two additional minutes in the Intro that the Commons version doesn't have, the only other thing that I notice is a bit of small (but not too substantial) editing fixes, such as the removal the frame that had the Clapperboard in the kissing scene (around the 6 minute mark in Commons, 7 in Restored and 29 in MST3K).

Also at the end of Restored it shows that Solovey didn't put a Copyright to the film itself, but only the additional contents. (SPECIAL CONTENTS OF THIS EDITION COPYRIGHT 2013, MOTH INC.) The blu-ray cover also doesn't assign copyright to the film itself (Copyrights of the "Program Content" and the Cover) See here

Solovey himself in 2017 in a Kickstarter post would declare he's championing for the movie to keep it's PD status. ("Joe Warren has attempted, without success,...incorrectly claiming “copyright infringement” on this public domain work"). So I find it weird that inexplicably the Playboy article from 2015 mentions that Solovey "was successful in copyrighting the restoration" it could be just a legal threat to Warren state or misinterpretation by the article's writer mixing the words "Copyright" and "Trademark".

I also found this blog post that details more than the Playboy article did but also does a really great job explaining the Copyright legalities not only of this film but other examples such as "Raging Bull". It's a long read and it concludes that the original screenplay written by Warren under the title "Fingers of Fate" is definitely under Copyright, but it also concludes that the PD status of the film itself is safe and since neither the Warren Trust or Solovey has taken this into court matter or set a precedent "Manos" the film is still PD.

TLDR: Since the thread above has stated that a Restored film wouldn't gain new Copyright if the changes are not substantial, the Warren state hasn't seeked legal action since 2015, the Manos Trademark has been abandoned in 2018 and it's safe to assume Solovey would be happy to see the PD film distributed everywhere clearly showing that he didn't put any Copyright notice on the restoration. While the only thing that couldn't be uploaded is the original screenplay "Fingers of Fate", which again we wouldn't obtain since the Warren state doesn't want to release it publicly. I think it's safe to upload the restored version of "Manos" into Commons.

If anyone has any insight, comments or more info about this I'll hear about it. Hyperba21 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French storefront display

[edit]

Would File:10 rue de la Chaussée d’Antin.jpg fll under the provisions of COM:FOP France? It's a picture of a window display, and the store itself is located in France. Does this file have licesnig problems because (1) it shows a building and (2) its show a flower display (work of art)? In addition, the same uploader also uploaded File:Lachaume Iconic Door Handles.jpg, which might be the door handles of the store shown in the first photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of 1850 painting that may have never been publicly displayed until recently

[edit]

When I searched for advice, it seemed to differ depending on the country and whether the painting had been publicly displayed, which left me confused.

I am in the US, the painter was in the US, and the people who have uploaded a photograph are in the US. There is a photo here: https://fineartsouth.com/pages/art-inventory/artdetail/115/1386

The painting was in an exhibit in New Orleans a few years ago.[1] I don't know if it was ever publicly shown before that.

Every page on the site hosting the photo has "©2024 Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom which for sure applies to all their text and design work, but is the photo in the public domain? Rjjiii (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer but based on Commons:Hirtle chart, if the artist died in 1853 and the work was not published before 2003, then it passed into the public domain on January 1, 2003 on the basis that the author had been dead over 70 years. (This change in status was due to a change in U.S. copyright law effective on that date.) There is no way that copyright could be regained; faithful reproduction of the work does not create a new copyright; it is almost impossible to imagine what intellectual property right Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc. is claiming, or how they think they came by that right. Perhaps they are over two decades out of date in their knowledge of copyright law; perhaps they are just bluffing. Your guess is as good a mine. - Jmabel ! talk 06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, How is it possible that FlickreviewR reviews a file with a bogus license? If FlickreviewR is not reliable, we have a serious problem. Yann (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FlickrreviewR just confirms what the Flickr page says. It has no way to know whether someone might be committing copyfraud on Flickr. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: No, that's not the issue here. The license on Flickr is {{PDMark-owner}}, but the license successfully reviewed by the bot is {{PD-US}}. PD-US doesn't exist on Flickr, and it is not valid here. Yann (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, at least up to a point. We don't have an equivalent of PD-Mark, so there is only so much the bot can do. Yes, the uploader (now blocked) used the wrong PD tag. We require a PR rationale, Flickr doesn't, so I'm guessing that all the bot can do with "PD-Mark" is to see whether some sort of PD tag is on the file. User:Zhuyifei1999 is listed as operating that bot, but their user page says they are no longer active, so I have absolutely no idea who to ask about the bot. Is it just running as a zombie? - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about album covers

[edit]

Would a copyright notice placed on an album's inner sleeve or record apply to the album cover? I would assume not, since a cover is not permanently attached to an inner sleeve or record, just like how a book is not permanently attached to its dust jacket, but the reasoning given in this deletion request and the uploader of this file saying that he checked the LP record for a notice seem to suggest otherwise. Prospectprospekt (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that each separate piece of paper in a packaged LP or in a CD jewel box needs a copyright notice. Certainly every page of an (unstapled) newspaper does not. So the dust jacket analogy may not apply. - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the merits of either argument but it's assumed that the dust jack will be included with the record and visa versa. So I don't see why they would need (or even have) separate copyright notices. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: by "the dust jacket analogy" I meant the analogy to the dust jacket of a hardcover book (which did need a separate notice under the old U.S. copyright law); we (or at least I) wouldn't normally refer to the "dust jacket" of a vinyl record; I'd call it the "record jacket", "jacket", or just "cover". For CDs as packaged in that era (the "jewel box") it is even more complicated, because the back cover is usually attached to the box in a way that would require disassembly to remove it; the front piece is easier to remove but usually not routinely removed; and other pieces may be inserted loose. Plus, back then, there was often a separate larger box the height of an LP jacket but only half the width, which pretty much everybody except some collectors threw away. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During the period from 1978-1989, works published without a notice could be registered within 5 years of publication to not lose copyright. The cover art was registered for copyright protection along with the music: https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/12815893. PascalHD (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queries about specific photos

[edit]

Since this was published in 1971 and there doesn't appear to be a copyright notice, am I right in thinking the photo in it can be uploaded with a PD-US-no notice tag? Shapeyness (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That extract seems to start on page 44. What publication was that extracted from and was there a notice on it? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]