Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

A series of questions about Public domain tagging

Hello all! As you probably know, we are working on improving the current user experience with UploadWizard. As part of the work we are doing on revamping the license step, we have some clarifications to ask the community regarding the Public domain tagging of media.

We split the topic into three sub-topics to help focusing on each case we've encountered. We thank you in advance for any help you can give us in solving these doubts. -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Usage of {{PD-US-expired}}

When the media is tagged as “First published in the United States before 1928”, {{PD-US-expired}} gets assigned. However, there is a separate tag for sound recordings {{PD-US-record-expired}}. Should we be using the more generic tag for all media, or have specific ones for different media? -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

PD-US-record-expired is for sound only. It occurs 100 years after publication, while PD-US-expired is for everything else, and 95 years after publication. Yann (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would make sense to split the US options into

• "Not a sound recording and first published in the United States before 1928": assigns {{PD-US-expired|country=US}}
• "Sound recording first published in the United States before 1923": assigns {{PD-US-record-expired|country=US}}

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be nice if choosing "First published in the United States before 1928" meant that the assignment were {{PD-US-expired|country=US}} to suppress the warning about needing a US license. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Usage of {{PD-old-70}} in connection with other PD tags

When the media is tagged as “Author has been deceased for more than 70 years”, {{PD-old-70}} gets assigned. However, on the page it says “You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States”.

Would it be acceptable anyway if only one template was added, based on someone's upload (for example {{PD-old-70}})? Or is it necessary for everyone to choose both a U.S. template and a home-country template, when it's not a work first published in the U.S.? -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

PD-old-70 (and PD-old-100) is usually for anywhere except USA, since the US doesn't use post mortem auctoris, but the date of publication. And since all content must be in the public domain in USA, we also need a US tag. We can combine both with {{PD-old-70-expired}} or {{PD-old-100-expired}}. Yann (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, US copyright law has different rules for sound recordings than for everything else, so it would be a good idea to have separate options for sound recordings:

• "Not a sound recording, first published before 1928 and author deceased more than 70 years ago": assigns {{PD-old-70-expired}}
• "Sound recording first published before 1923 and author deceased more than 70 years ago:": assigns {{PD-old-70-record-expired}}

It would also be good to note that some countries, like Mexico, have a longer term than 70 years, and if the media is from one of those countries, the uploader will need to use a different tag. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before, but now that the topic has surfaced again, I'll bring it up. Does it really make sense to have the non-US version for public domain recordings based on death of author instead of basing it on publication date? From what I could see, the vast majority of the world uses the publication date criteria for musical recordings. Usually, additional copyright tags (even for United States recordings) are used to indicate the status of the lyrics and musical composition. Lugamo94 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember off the top of my head—does "Faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain because the artist died more than 70 years ago" assign {{PD-Art|PD-old-70}}? If so, I'd suggest changing the text to "Faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain because it was published before 1928 and the artist died more than 70 years ago" and the assigned template to {{PD-Art|PD-old-70-expired}}; and possibly adding a corresponding option that assigns {{PD-Art|PD-US-expired|country=US}}. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way it could take a death year of the author and use {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=19xx}}? I remind people, not for the first time, that the majority of people on Earth live in countries with copyright durations less than life+70, with China (life+50) and India (life+60) alone taking us a significant part of the way there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, this is making me think it would be nice to have a more responsive form:

• Whether the work is a sound recording published before 1923 or not a sound recording and published before 1928.
• Country of origin, if known. Maybe US/non-US, and if non-US, you can but don't have to fill in the country code?
• Author's death year, if known.
• For non-US works, option to say that the work is PD in its home country because the author died over 50/60/70/75/80/95/95/100 years ago (IDK exactly which options to offer); default to 70 and link Commons:Copyright rules by territory.

If the work is not a sound recording:

• If death year is given, use {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=deathyear}}
• For US works with no death year, use {{PD-US-expired|country=US}}
• For non-US works with no death year, use {{PD-old-X-expired}}, replacing X with 50/70/100/etc.

If the work is a sound recording:

• If death year is given, use {{PD-old-auto-record-expired|deathyear=deathyear}}
• For US works with no death year, use {{PD-US-record-expired|country=US}}
• For non-US works with no death year, use {{PD-old-X-record-expired}}, replacing X with 50/70/100/etc.

For works that aren't sound recordings, there could also be an option to say that the work being uploaded is a faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain which meets the preceding criteria, and if this box were checked, the template determined above could be passed in to {{PD-art}}.

Also, since Commons requires that all media be PD/freely licensed both in the home country and in the US, perhaps the title of this section should be changed from "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA" to "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA and the home country", and after "Wikimedia Commons is located in the USA, so the work must be out of copyright in that country." there could be an explanation of the requirement that works be out of copyright in the home country. This might be a good place to link Commons:Copyright rules by territory. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I often use {{PD-art-two-auto|deathyear}} for old art, it is short and easy to memorize. It provides the reader with the similar info such as

{{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=deathyear}}. When and why should we use the templates for the USA? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, is it better to add a country=US to the art licenses or is {{PD-art-two-auto|deathyear}} enough?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Having the standalone {{PD-old-auto}} is useful for media that it is public domain in its home country, but not in the United States, but still available here because of a Creative Commons license. A potential future example being the collection of photographs by Leo Wehrli in two years. Lugamo94 (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's a useful template! I'm not sure how it makes sense to handle that kind of scenario in the Upload Wizard. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Usage of {{PD-USGov}}

When the media is tagged as “Original work by the United States Federal Government”, {{PD-USGov}} gets assigned. However, on the page it says: “In order to avoid further crowding of Category:PD US Government (as of 2019), this template should not be used if the department or part of the federal government which produced the work is known”. But the alternative, i.e. providing a full list of tags, is also completely impossible to be included as is in the UploadWizard.

Should we allow more specific options than just “Original work by NASA”? If so, which ones? Are there top 3 agencies we should like to include in the list below? Do we need to have an open ended field for people to enter other agencies? -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand the idea to separate US government works by agencies and departments, but for non-US contributors, this is overly complicated. Some people have proposed to get rid of the various specific tags, and keep only PD-USGov. I don't have a definitive opinion about this. Yann (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a full list of every single option on the Upload Wizard. Perhaps the top 10 most commonly used US-GOV tags (Presidential, Military, DOD etc) instead of just NASA. Adding a few more options there will make categorizing somewhat easier and less crowded in the main category. Could also state somewhere a small blurb "For a full list of all tags see here". There are plenty of folks out there who would happily categorize files properly if it was presented to them at time of upload and they knew how to. PascalHD (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe the blurb for that section of the UploadWizard could specifically mention that it's better to use a more specific license tag than {{PD-USGov}} if possible, explain that some common choices are listed below, link to Category:PD-USGov license tags, and say that if you want to use a tag that's not one of the options below you can do that in the "Another reason not mentioned above" section. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As someone who lives in the United States I've always found the various PD-USGov templates to be completely unhelpful. At least on the federal level. Really, there should just be one single template for "government works." Like do we really need a specific template just for something built by the Architect of the Capitol? Probably not. I doubt most even know who that is. Let alone are they going to use the template if they upload an image of the United States Capitol Complex. There's no reason it needs to be that granular regardless though. Except maybe with the exception of the Military and NASA, but it's kind of obtuse even in those cases. Anyway, if it's obtuse to begin with it would certainly be way worse as a list or something similar in the UploadWizard. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The specific tags can be helpful in some cases, when there are certain things to look out for when getting images from that department or agency -- {{PD-USGov-NASA}} has lots of detail on specific situations beyond the normal PD-USGov, and {{PD-USGov-VOA}} does as well. I'm sure there are others. In most cases, yes they are just a more specific credit, which can maybe help searching for the original, and (much like subcategorization for large categories) break things up a bit. There's no harm in the more specific ones either. Someone can use PD-USGov, and someone else can subcategorize later using a more specific tag. Legally they are all the same licensing reason, but the US federal government is also a massive source of images, so it's not the worst thing to find some way to subcategorize them. Agreed most variants don't need to be in the Upload Wizard; a handful of the biggest ones (like NASA) could be fine, especially when they show specific warnings to look for. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but as far as I'm aware they aren't accounted for when someone searches for a specific term like NASA. Otherwise you have point. Perhaps someone with more knowledge then me can clarify that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be, since the tag text contains that word? Nothing stopping people from searching "incategory:PD_NASA" or "deepcat:Images_from_NASA" (since PD_NASA is a subcat of that) either. See subcats in Category:PD US Government. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess it just seems weird that if someone searches for "photograph" they would potentially get a bunch of results that aren't photographs just because the word is in some random templates. I guess people could use special filters like your suggestion though, but they shouldn't have to. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Deprecate Template:PD-BNF and Template:PD-GallicaScan

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)

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)

Mostly  Support per Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

•  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Maybe create something under Category:No known restrictions license tags? - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

registration of copyright

In the USA, I know that copyright automatically inheres in newly created copyrightable works, but that you need to register your copyright if you want to be able to do certain things, relating to e.g. infringement lawsuits. I imagine many people who upload their own original photos to wikimedia commons, or who edit articles on wikipedia, etc, are not registering their copyrightable material simply because either they don't know about the registration rules, don't want to put forth the effort of registering, or so forth. I also had the thought today that the Wikimedia Foundation may sometimes find itself in situations where it would be in a better legal position (e.g. it's in a lawsuit and wants to be able to point to a copyright registration to support its legal argument) but since it's not the original copyright-holder, it can't directly register the copyright on some individual item. Does anyone know anything about Wikimedia Foundation policy on this general topic, and if so, can you point me in the right direction to learn more about how it's handled? I have yet to find anything directly on point, although it's possible I overlooked something. (I also know that the legal regime in other countries may differ, so maybe I am not using the best search terms to find relevant info, for this or other reasons.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Passepartout (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@J. Passepartout: you are confusing the laws that obtained at different points in time. For works published after 1 March 1989 there is no requirement for registration. For works published before that date there is no longer any opportunity to remedy the situation. - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any confusion there -- there is no requirement for registration, but it's still required to file a lawsuit in the U.S. (for U.S. residents anyways), and there are benefits -- if someone infringes a registered work, there are automatic penalties, otherwise you are only entitled to actual damages (thus it's possible to sue for infringement, and win but get $0 in damages). There was no real requirement for registration before 1989 either, at least until you wanted to renew -- and you could file the registration with the renewal. The part about lawsuits and damages was also true before 1989. You can always register a work, within the copyright term, to get the better protections.

As for the original question... the WMF probably is somewhat limited in what it can do, since it does not own any of the copyrights. For the GNU software project, the FSF does require people to assign the copyright in submitted code for that reason. But there are also many many open source projects which are basically in the same boat -- the copyright is owned by the contributors, and it's hard to impossible to ever change the license. I would imagine the WMF would be a co-owner of the copyright for any Wikipedia articles its employees have contributed to, so possibly could participate in some lawsuits, but not for images uploaded to Commons usually. It's up to the individual copyright owners to enforce their rights, including registration. I doubt that situation will change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: thank you for the correction. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, something of which my lawyer never advised me the several times I've pursued a case over copyright infringement. All were settled satisfactorily, so I guess the issue never arose. - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

17 USC 411 is the requirement; confirmed in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com. Here is one case (among many) which was dismissed for failure to register first. Well, some circuits had let you file once you actually applied, but that Supreme Court case says you have to wait until you get the registration back -- that decision then applied to that court case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all for the responses! I suspected the answer might be along these lines, but thought it would be interesting to see what was actually the case if the policy differed... J. Passepartout (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Court in Beijing China ruled AI pic copyrightable

https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1729781393369305444

法院认为，尽管该图片是使用AI工具生成，但原告进行了一定的智力投入，例如选择模型、提示词和设置相关参数等。“涉案图片是基于原告的智力投入直接产生，且体现出了原告的个性化表达，故原告是涉案图片的作者。”判决书写道。

by picking ai models, keywords and settings, the picture is created directly from the plaintiff's intelligent input, so s/he gets copyright to the pic. RZuo (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

For the convenience of non-Chinese readers here I'll put an extra SCMP article on the same case here: [1]

I'm guessing this is worth a note within COM:AI and COM:CHINA? S5A-0043^Talk 12:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@S5A-0043 Not only this, probably {{PD-algorithm}} is also affected. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Public Domain videos with restrictions

At the Archive website for the National Film Board (Canada), there are lots of old videos/films, many of which are of historical value. Ex. https://archives.nfb.ca/search/?query=1898 I found one from 1898. Ok, obviously Public Domain...
They place this disclaimer under the content, "Any reproduction and use of the content of this site, other than for private use, requires a written license from the NFB. The NFB reserves all of its rights and recourses, including injunction relief and claims for damages, against any unauthorized reproduction or use of stock shots and stills contained in this site or any part thereof."
I also reached out via email and got this response "Although we do have some footage and films that are technically in the public domain, we own master copies and therefore we have the right to charge fees for reproduction and usage. Any revenue generated goes towards the cost of preserving the collection for future generations and making it available online."
Does owning the master really hold one special conditions? PascalHD (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, This is clear copyfraud. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada doesn't say anything specific about films, but at least everything before 1927 (and 1928 next month) can be uploaded to Commons. If they are government works, everything until 1972 (1973) is OK. If films have the same copyright status as pictures, then everything until 1949 is OK. BTW great find! Please propose the best videos for media of the day. Yann (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: what's your logic on "everything before 1927 (and 1928 next month)" for Canada? Not saying you are wrong, just that I don't see why. It seems to me that with 70 years p.m.a. for Canada, a young artist could very well have made something in 1920, lived till 1990, and that would be in copyright through 2060. What amm I missing? - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Canada is 50 pma. Remember that the 20-year copyright extension in 2022 was not retroactive. So making a film in 1928, the film is in the public domain if the director died before 1973. Quite reasonable. Yann (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada, it seems pretty clear that it's not retroactive in the sense it didn't restore PD works to copyright, but it does apply to all works in copyright when it came in force, and Canada's copyright is going to be (mostly?) frozen for 20 years, like the US's was.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann Okay that's what I was thinking. Just was not sure if there was any sort of special rules. I will take a look through their site and upload the ones I find of most value to Wikipedia & the Commons. PascalHD (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Controlling access to the master copy doesn't give you any special rights, but from a practical standpoint by controlling access, if you make someone sign a contract in order to obtain a copy that contract can have restrictions. Possibly as part of creating an account, you may need to agree to something, so read the fine print. The only other thing would be claiming copyright on the digitization, which seems doubtful. For copies that are put out there though, not sure what they can claim unless you sign something. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Carl: Can they make claims internationally? Do they?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on copyright no, can't see anything. Contract law would be an entirely different area, and could vary a lot. Mostly, it sounds like an attempt to maximize their own revenues, and make it sound good. But I do see they require an account to use their site, and the terms of use you agree to may have some stuff in there, which could restrict what you can do. Not a clue how far they go to enforce those, if there are any. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Thanks. Their "Terms of use of the Websites" AKA "Conditions of use of the NFB Site" are at https://help.nfb.ca/important-notices/#use.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

They certainly do seem to be about using the films to maximize their own revenue and control :-). Maybe they do a great job actually preserving the master films, and their public purpose doesn't go any further than that, but they certainly seem to want to control every commercial use of them as if they did own the copyright, copyrighted or not. I would not upload something I download from them, if I had to agree to that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@PascalHD: As other comments noted, there are two issues: 1) the copyright status of the films and 2) the contractual requirements for using the NFB website to get practical access to them.

1) Regarding the copyright of the films, there is also another distinction:

1A) The NFB/ONF is an agent/mandataire of the federal government, as it itself states on its website. So, the films produced solely by the NFB are, or were, under Crown copyright, which in Canada expires 50 years after the first publication. A NFB film published more than 50 years ago is in the public domain in Canada.

1B) Films made by people other than government or government agents would be under ordinary (non-Crown) copyright. (A literal reading of the Copyright Act might make third-party works pass under Crown copyright just for being published by the government, but the Supreme Court nuanced that a few years ago, interpreting that the government cannot just deprive someone of the copyright on a work by merely publishing it.)

2)Regarding the contract between the NFB and a user for use of its website, stipulated unilaterally by the NFB in the terms of use of its website, I expected that that type of situation was covered in the Commons guideline about non-copyright restrictions, but apparently it is not. There is something about "house rules" contracts, for example when a Commons user wants to upload photos taken in a museum that had contractual requirements for access, but not about contracts for the use of websites. Are we implicitly supposed to apply the same rationale? Is there another official guideline about it somewhere?

-- Asclepias (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The uploader is responsible for what they upload. If they are legally responsible for following a contract, they could be liable for a breach, if uploading it here violates that contract. Not sure that anyone else would be, but an uploader could put themselves at risk (same as "house rules", though those have less legal precedent than contract stuff -- they are usually based on physical trespass). This is an adhesion contract, but they seem pretty clear about the restrictions. If a court finds the terms "unconscionable" they can be invalid (or parts of them), but they have been enforceable in many situations I'm pretty sure. From one perspective, they certainly don't want to enable anyone to download all the PD movies they have digitized, just to create a competing service (such as Wikimedia Commons). Similar with Alamy etc. with public domain photos -- they are providing a service, and can charge for that, but wouldn't surprise me if they try to put restrictions on even those photos. In the end, each uploader has to measure the risk to themselves -- we aren't lawyers here, and can't offer real legal advise, and the law in each country can be different and we wouldn't know. Only the uploaders would know what the agreements are, and what they agreed to (they could have a special agreement which supersedes the normal one). So we'd allow the uploads I guess for PD films (if PD in both Canada and the US), if the uploader wants to take that risk. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg Thanks for your response, and appreciate your insight. I have not uploaded anything just yet. Looking for a conclusion/consensus before proceeding. From the Canadian Government's website: "Public domain refers to works that belong to the public. Works in the public domain can be used free of charge and do not require written permission from the author/creator." [2]. I interpret this as, I don't need the NFB's permission to take their Public Domain videos. I find it odd that I could somehow be held liable for something they cannot legally enforce copyright on anymore, as it belongs to the public. Unless owning the master copies grants them some special rules as they claimed in their email, that I am unaware of. I did not find anything in the Copyright Act about that. I find it a shame that an Archive would go to great lengths to keep people from freely using such (PD) materials. Hiding it away from the public for profit. PascalHD (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

They cannot sue you for copyright infringement. If you signed a contract (or are bound by one by whatever legal mechanism) to not do something, and you violate that contract, that is entirely different -- there are no expirations on that. And if creating an account there means you agree to their terms of service, and Canadian and/or US courts agree that is a binding contract, then uploading here would likely violate it. There is no special right they get by owning the master copies, other than they are the gateway, and if you want access then you have to agree to a contract, meaning they can force you into that. If you don't agree, then no access. I do find it a shame as well, but the Canadian government may have set them up to primarily preserve the films, and try to self-finance (reducing costs for their taxpayers) through licensing. Taxpayers pay less, but they also get less -- the actual preservation is the only public benefit, and any users pay fees. Well I guess you can view them for private purposes (which fair use / fair dealing would have allowed anyways), so there is some access provided. But maybe their government gave them rules like that when creating the archive, in which case their hands would be tied. You'd have to go see what their charter was from the government when it was formed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Free images posted on Facebook

This image was published by a California government agency (free to re-publish), but it was posted on Facebook, which is copyright protected. Ok or not? Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I think it can stay, but the City of Vista should not be granting to Facebook rights it does not have.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. More generally, extra caution should be taken with "free" content from FB. The copyright status must be assessed independently, as the Facebook user is often not the copyright holder, so the license is not valid. Yann (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This is totally tangential, but it would be interesting to see if there would be any support for similar proposal to for webp files but with Facebook. Since files from there seem to rarely be legitimate. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Media from Facebook is already suspect here. I don't know if we have the technical means to prohibit it from users who do not have autopatrol+. Эlcobbola: what do you think?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Facebook's term 3.1 at https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms includes the following: "to provide our services we need you to give us some legal permissions (known as a "license") to use this content. This is solely for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services as described in Section 1 above.

Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as Meta Products or service providers that support those products and services. This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems." Facebook actively scrubs metadata from photos, replacing it with "FBMD" metadata and making license investigation difficult.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Facebook (Meta) also claims the right to continue to use the posters photo for 30 days past its removal. Images are saved on its CDN servers all over the world and that propagation according to them takes 30 days to clear.

Up to a few months ago Meta was scrapping images from Commons and completely refused to attribute them in any way and when asked to remove them (by yours truly) it removed the Commons based image and replaced it a short time later giving the middle finger to the attribution requirement trying to claim fair use.

At one point CC images were specifically prohibited on FB, back when Alexis Jazz was nice enough to help me create a user template and as such since that date I have posted on my image reuse page that my images are not to be posted on FB, yet Meta did not care and did so willingly and willfully despite my requests for years distributing the 17 photos in question I created to over 10,000,000 peoples Facebook pages.

Don (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@WPPilot note there is a discussion at meta:Talk:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media regarding the issue. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm evaporated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

But of course you can't just blame Facebook for having these issues. Many Facebook netizens themselves are "accomplices". Let's take the FBMD and "NoFacebook" templates out of the equation: here in the Philippines, it is very common for many netizens to not exhausting efforts to trace the images' copyright holders before posting; instead, they just invoke some lame crediting techniques like: "CTTO" (credit/s to the owner/s; sample), "Photo not mine" (sample), or even "No copyright infringement intended" (sample). Such lame crediting techniques persist even if our copyright office already explicitly stated that such actions are unacceptable. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Facebook seems to have an entitlement issue as it feels images can be used in any way it wants to, and it refuses to adhere to CC licensing. Speaking from experience you should avoid anything to do with images FROM Facebook and beware of images on Facebook. I am unable to go into more detail here, but your best bet is to find the image located on a site that you know provides clear attribution and licensing data and avoid FB images here completely. --Don (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with WPPilot. One sample case concerns an image posted on the official Facebook page of the Philippine town of w:en:Albuera, but that image happens to be from a professional photographer hired by the town for an occasion that time (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jovit Baldivino in Albuera, Leyte.jpg). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Continuation of the Italian fop thread

Continuation of the Italian fop thread started in October (just archived, see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Italy FOP again and artwork copyrights supposedly held by city councils of Italy) at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Freedom of panorama and government works. --Rosenzweig τ 13:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Relicensing own work from CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 to CC‑BY‑4.0

This is just a procedural question (I guess). How do I relicense my own work originally under Creative Commons CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 to the more lax Creative Commons CC‑BY‑4.0 license. The image shown, for instance. Could not see this matter covered in the copyright FAQ. Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Because you are the person doing the licensing, you may change {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} to {{self|cc-by-4.0}} in the wikitext by removing "-sa". Alternatively, to maintain the chain of licensing for copies and derivative works, you may instead just add {{self|cc-by-4.0}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I chose the former action, edited the existing template, and left a commit message stating what was changed. That should be sufficient record I think. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: You're welcome, and thanks for asking here and using the Edit Summary there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 18:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status of tattoos

Does anyone know what the copyright status of tattoos is or who would own the copyright if they are copyrightable? I was thinking maybe they would be treated the same as graffiti since the original artist is often anonymous and hard to prove in court, but I don't know. I guess there's only been one court case having to do with tattoos. So maybe it doesn't even matter. Although the court did ultimately side with the artist. So it's probably worth clarifying regardless. Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1 Probably NotOK due to COM:FOP US? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Good call. I hadn't thought about FOP. Probably the same would go for other countries if it's applicable. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Pre-1989 US tattoos would not be copyrighted, since that would have required notice and/or registration, which I'm sure never occurred. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

In this case, @Mykola7: 's File:Stardust_January_2015.jpg might also be a question, need inputs from COM:TOO US professors. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Certainly OK. It's a picture of a person, which inevitably captures their tattoos, just like it inevitably captures their clothing. - Jmabel ! talk 03:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz (1933 animated film)

Hi, I don't see any discussion about this animated film (not the 1939 film). English WP article used to be in a "Films in the public domain" category, now removed, but without any reference. It is on IA with a "public domain" mention. Any idea? Yann (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That red link to a non-existing category was added without reference two days ago [3]. It was removed by the bot today because it's a link to a category that does not exist. The mentions at IA are notoriously unreliable to the point of being rather useless. All that does not tell any useful indication. But maybe you could ask to the user who added that red link if they have reliable information on the matter. If not, that would probably require the usual research, possibly complicated by the apparently complex colorization history. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if it was actually published in any way in 1933. Without that information, it's hard to tell whether it's actually in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. There is a copyright notice with the date 1933. Isn't that sufficient to establish the date of publication? I search for copyright renewal by Ted Eshbaugh, but I couldn't find anything. Could it be under another name? Yann (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't watch the movie; yeah, a copyright notice makes a pretty strong presumption, and I didn't see renewals in the appropriate files. I think we're safe calling this PD-US-no renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Images within images

I'd like to upload a picture of a book, it was published in 2023, the problem is, while the most of the cover in white with black text, in the centre, there are about 6 images, which might be copyrighted. Again, I want to upload an image of the entire cover, not each individual image on it.

Is that permissible? Crainsaw (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If the images are still in copyright, it will come down to a judgement of de minimis. Is there a copy of the cover online you can link to so editors can comment on whether de minimis is likely to apply? From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It from a rather obscure regional journal, so no covers are available online, I could just upload the image, and then we could judge about whether de minimis would apply, if not, simply delete it. Crainsaw (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's a link from the German National Library, it also doesn't contain any cover though. Crainsaw (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please, rev del the original photo.

I cropped the media interview and cut out buildings to avoid any FOP issue. Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan: You may have to specify exactly which file you're referring to. GMG^talk 18:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo, sorry about that. Here it is File:CNBC Interviews Rafael Mariano Grossi at COP28 (cop28 9795).jpg. Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Three others here

File:CNBC Interviews Rafael Mariano Grossi at COP28 (cop28 9742).jpg and here File:CNBC Interviews Rafael Mariano Grossi at COP28 (cop28 9761).jpg File:CNBC_Interviews_Rafael_Mariano_Grossi_at_COP28_(cop28_9812).jpg. --Ooligan (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Done - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

death date unknown?

I've been fixing the licenses in Category:Nos peintres dessinés par eux-mêmes (1883) - they were labeled as 'PD-anon-expired', but each image has an identifiable artist.

Problem: this one is by "Arthur / Arturo Canela", about whom all I've been able to find is that he was born in Paris in 1847.

Given that the book in question was published in France in 1883, is it safe to assume that the image is PD by now? He could potentially have lived into the mid-1950s... DS (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as long as we don't have a death date, we can assume anything published in 1883 in France is public domain. For PD-old-assumed-expired, it just has to have been created over 120 years ago (if PMA 70). Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"I personally created this media"

I don't get the copyright situation of this image. The photographer's name, according to metadata, is Helen Ree. The uploader is a Swiss library account which is managed by three persons, none of whom is named Helen(e) Ree (they didn't even bother to spell her name correctly in the summary). Yet, the account claims "I personally created this media" and publishes it under a CC 4.0 license. How does all that go together with Swiss copyright law? --2003:C0:8F25:6900:D5C4:E24D:490C:DC3A 19:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The template in question isn't a copyright template, it's a subject-consent template. The wording is not entirely appropriate to that photo but, really, if its an official photo within an organization I don't think there is a problem that the uploader isn't the copyright-holder. - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Does the organisation have the right to re-license? Why would a photographer sell a photo with a CC 4.0 license? --2003:C0:8F25:6900:D5C4:E24D:490C:DC3A 21:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Why do you assume that the photographer was outside the organization and that the image was sold? Why would there be anything odd about part of a sale being the granting of a license? (I've had occasion to issue CC licenses on numerous commissioned photos, and also sold licenses to use an already CC-licensed photo without the usual conditions of that CC license. I don't think either of those scenarios are unusual.)

All things being equal, we have every reason to trust ETH-Bibliothek to know what they are doing. It's not as if they are an unknown entity, or someone who is known for playing fast and loose with rights. We don't really have a template to say "This person is one of our co-workers and I know they consented to have this photo taken even though I personally wasn't the photographer," so presumably they used {{Consent}}, which is close enough, rather than write custom text. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel maybe a COM:VRTS email from the claimed licensee solves the question? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: It would certainly solve any doubt, but I don't see anything here that makes me doubt this at all. Do you? - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm usually as suspicious as anyone else about these kinds of things, but she was educated at and is employeed by the uploader. So there's no reason to doubt them about it. Although with the caviet that it probably go the other way if the image was clearly being used for promotional reasons. But I'm not really seeing any evidence of that in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

O.k., I'll give it another try to explain my point.
1. We do not know who the photographer is. These companies may use someone from within the company, or they may employ an outside photographer to do their company portraits. This image looks very much like a professional photo to me, so I would suspect the latter.
2. In the case of an outside photographer, they are going to have some sort of a contract, and the company is going to buy the usage rights from the photographer. NOT the copyright.
3. The contract for usage will include some sort of a license. But what license? Is that really a CC 4.0 license? Why would a photographer use the CC 4.0 license for their contracts? Isn't that just like giving away their photos for free?
--2003:C0:8F18:6600:281F:69D8:CFB3:DB08 08:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are assuming that using an external photographer (if that is what happened here) prevents transfer of copyright. In my own company, our contracts with external photographers transfer all rights from the photographer (except their right to be identified as the photographer, if they wish to be identified). Generally, my company wants to control if, when and how our corporate images are published outside of the organisation. Buying the rights in the initial contract with the photographer is the simplest step to achieve that. In the case of one of our company employees taking the photograph in a work context, their contract of employment automatically transfers the copyright to the company. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this transformative enough of an image?

Hello, my partner Erdabravest2001 and I wanted to know if this image would violate copyright.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CjUnDTFKW7tjz0ltBxoHlDdFlyFsrPS0/view?usp=sharing

We took the format of the image from https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015003 at figure 5 and reproduced the image for with our own equations. However, we are concerned that doing this would violate copyright. We were wondering we could get any thoughts on if this is an acceptable reproduction. My partner says that the information and format is common for quantum circuits in general, but would some further confirmation first. Many thanks. Bird flock (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bird flock: Probably the original diagram wasn't even copyrightable, but if it was certainly any copyrightable elements are exactly what you left out of your version. When you upload here, do credit the original for the ideas expressed. I'd also guess your version isn't copyrightable, and it would probably be clearest to note that and use a CC-zero license when uploading, releasing any claim on having something copyrightable here. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Seal of the Islamic State

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://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:

• https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/04/world/middleeast/isis-documents-mosul-iraq.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/04/world/middleeast/isis-documents-photos.html
• https://aymennjawad.org/2017/08/archive-of-islamic-state-administrative-documents-3

صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

Possible incompatible license for museum boat model image

• Courtesy link: File:Model of a boat made of alabaster from Hagia Triada.jpg

The "Please note" comment about non-commercial use seems incompatible with Wikimedia's CC-BY-SA licensing. Should this File be deleted? Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Looks like a non-copyright restriction to me: the museum certainly does not own a copyright on the object in question. Possibly the uploader (Pinging @ArchaiOptix has put themself in a legally difficult place by offering a CC-BY-SA license if they took the picture on a basis that did not allow for commercial use. I'd support a courtesy deletion if the uploader requested it, but there is no copyright issue. - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• I have removed the request that re-users contact the museum for permission. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I removed the same text from around 1000 other pages, but another 4000+ remain. This needs a bot to clean up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    @Pigsonthewing: I can go through and use AutoWikiBrowser to deal with some of it if you want. Although I wonder if the whole paragraph should be deleted, not just the last sentence. Since it doesn't really matter what conditions the museum has in place for people taking photographs of their exhibits. At least it doesn't on our end. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    @Adamant1: Thank you. I shan't object if someone removes the whole paragraph. but the "please call" wording definitely needs to go. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    (after several edit conflicts) @Pigsonthewing and Adamant1: I would advise against automated removal here. The file linked above is from a Greek museum, so it may be that the other cases are also from Greek museums. The combination of the unusual warning text and the location suggests there may be some COM:FOP Greece issues lurking among them. A manual check to see if the images are of ancient relics (public domain) or modern replicas (copyrightable) would be wise before removing the text. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

    Any such issues, if thy exist, are orthogonal to the issue of whether or not Commons should tell people they must contact a museum before using one of our images (in whatever circumstances). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• I had not run into this particular wrinkle of copyright before. Comments above led me to Non-copyright restriction, and COM:CSM#Museum and interior photography which it links to, so I think I understand the comments above in light of those two, and our approach of "that's between you and the museum", which seems sensible in this case.
  It did, however, lead me to a thought experiment (mostly o/t for this discussion) regarding a similar situation as we have here, except that instead of a museum being the repository with house rules, imagine it's a government. I wonder what our reaction would be to someone uploading the Pentagon papers, or an Edward Snowden uploading the NSA global surveillance documents here, instead of where they did. U.S. government publications are generally not copyrightable so I assume documents created by govt. employees and marked "secret" would fall squarely under the NCR guideline, and therefore would be "between the uploader and the [government agency]". It's interesting to note that although COM:CSM#Images released under a free license says of US govt. pubs that "most government-created works are as a matter of policy released into the public domain", and this may be true, it implies that the ones that are not released are not in the public domain. But this is at least misleading as unnecessarily restrictive, since publications created by U.S. govt. employees are not copyrightable (17 U.S.C. § 105). I wondered if the wording at NCR is either an oversight, or an intentional (and understandable) bit of intentional omission, so that we don't encourage the kind of activity that an Ellsberg, Snowden, or Assange got involved in and end up finding ourselves in their position. I'd rather see our charitable funding going into more servers and better software support, than falling into the black hole of endless litigation. At first I had thought, maybe the writer of that sentence was somebody at legal had that in mind and was quite careful and intentional about the wording we see, but given that it's been there since the initial version, it's probably just random. Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Are the Wikimedia PD rules for Afghanistan correct?

I am reading the 2008 copyright law of Afghanistan, and from what I can see, more is under public domain than the PD-Afghanistan template suggests. It would appear that the law only protects photographs (defined under "audiovisual works") that are either created for broadcast via TV or radio, or created "using an innovative mode".

Does this mean that photographs that are neither created for broadcast nor innovatively created are in the Afghan public domain? Zanahary (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but "innovatively created" is probably to ambigious of a term to read antyhing into. Especially if what your reading into it is that most or all photographs are probably PD. At least not without using legal commentary or something to back it up with. Otherwise, "innovatively created" could mean quite a lot of things depending. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: there have been quite a few countries where basic photography -- snapshots -- are not normally eligible for copyright, or have a very short term of copyright, while still extending copyright to higher-quality work. Obviously, in the current era such distinctions have become harder to make. - Jmabel ! talk 21:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware. That could very well be the case here to, but it really depends on what the law means by "innovatively created." --Adamant1 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Railway with a Heart of Gold

Railway with a Heart of Gold is an American short documentary, filmed in the UK in 1953 by American producer Carson Davidson and released in 1965. As far as I can see, it has no copyright notice. The movie can be seen here [4]. Could a copyright expert confirm it is eligible for {{PD-US-no notice}} please? Voice of Clam 16:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Murano/Venetian beads

Are my own photos of a contemporary handmade glass bead from Murano/Venice allowed to be in Commons repository? Here are the links to the photos: and . Thanks in advance for your answers. Hortensja Bukietowa (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

John Steinbeck book covers

Would like some input on the copyright licenses of File:Tortilla Flat (1935 1st ed dust jacket).jpg, File:Of Mice and Men (1937 1st ed dust jacket).jpg, File:The Grapes of Wrath (1939 1st ed cover).jpg, File:Cannery Row (1945 1st ed dust jacket).jpg, File:The Pearl (1947 1st ed dust jacket).jpg and File:East of Eden (1952 1st ed dust jacket).jpg? These files were all uploaded by Blz 2049 with the same detailed justification for the {{PD-US-no notice}} licensing. While this justification does correctly reflect what is written about dust jackets requiring separate copyright notices in 2207.01(C) on page 18 of the The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices: Chapter 2200, I'm not sure that applies to these particular dust jackets because of what's written in "2201 What This Chapter Covers" of that same compendium. Section (Clause?) 2201 states the following:

This Chapter discusses the notice requirements for U.S. works published in copies and phonorecords in the United States between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, when copyright notice was required for published works. This Chapter does not cover works published before January 1, 1978 under the Copyright Act of 1909. For information on the notice requirements for works first published prior to January 1, 1978, see Chapter 2100 (Renewal Registration).

All of the file uploads are of works published prior to January 1, 1978. Moreover, the no-notice license itself only applies to works uploaded between 1928 and 1977 (inclusive) which would seem to mean that the compendium cited cannot be used to justify any such claim. Now, it's possible there was a similar "dust jacket" clause in Copyright Act of 1901, but I'm not sure about that. It's also possible that these covers might actually be {{PD-US-not renewed}} under the terms of the 1901 Act, but that's a different license with a completely different rationale. So, I'm wondering if these files are OK as licensed and what should be done about them if they're not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the six Steinbeck files mentioned above, the same "dusk jacket" rationale is also being to File:Absalom, Absalom! (1936 1st ed cover).jpg, File:The Catcher in the Rye (1951, first edition cover).jpg, File:The Catcher in the Rye (1951, first edition dust jacket).jpg, File:Invisible Man (1952 1st ed jacket cover).jpg, File:To Kill a Mockingbird (first edition cover).jpg and File:Gravity's Rainbow (1973 1st ed cover).jpg also uploaded by Blz 2049. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: does {{US book dust jacket 1909–1977}} cover your concern (so to speak)? - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: My relatively inexperienced take is that {{PD-US-no notice}} is indeed the correct license here. The long explanation by the original uploader doesn't affect the license itself; it simply points out, for those who may be unaware of the fact, that in the case of pre-1989 publications in which copyright notices were required to be present, the courts consider the copyright of the dust jacket or book cover to be a separate issue from that of the book itself. That this principle extends retroactively to pre-1978 publications is shown by the case of the Jaws cover, which is cited in the {{US book dust jacket 1909–1977}} template that Jmabel linked. That case concerned the cover of the 1974 paperback edition, which was physically attached to the book, and the arguments supporting PD-US-no-notice set out in the decision apply even more strongly to unattached dust jackets like the ones you're asking about. But if I'm wrong I'd be happy to be corrected by those who know more. Choliamb (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of logo from civil society organization with or without seeking permission

First up, I searched this site for prior advice without much success. I would like to add a low‑resolution bitmap of a logo to this particular article on Scientist Rebellion. And it would be easier for me not to have to seek permission. I now have a reasonable screenshot, improved by zooming in on my web‑browser. That logo measures 858 × 238px. I had guessed that I should be able to upload that particular PNG file under fair use arguments. But the upload wizard does not provide for fair use as an option. I would doubt if the logo has been trademarked anywhere, but I have not yet followed up that matter. How should I proceed? Do I need to talk to the organization? In which case, I imagine I will need to ask for a suitable open license, possibly the Creative Commons CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 license would be a good option? TIA. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison:

Commons does not accept images under fair use. You may upload fair use images to en.Wiki under certain conditions. Glrx (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi RobbieIanMorrison. If the logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law and the copyright law of its country of origin/first publication, then it might be OK to upload using the license {{PD-textlogo}}. It is, however, impossible to make such an assessment without actually seeing the logo. So, if you can provide a link to it, then that would be helpful. Otherwise, as pointed out above, you will need to get the COM:CONSENT of the logo's copyright holder because Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use/fair dealing content. Now, also as pointed out above, English Wikipedia does allow copyrighted content to be uploaded as non-free content, but English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive than fair use as explained here. For example, English Wikipedia does generally allow non-free logos to be uploaded as long as they're being used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about whatever the logo represents, but it typically doesn't allow allow such logos to be used in other articles or in other ways. So, if the logo you want to upload is the main logo used by "Scientist Rebellion" for branding purposes, it should be OK to upload as non-free content as long as it's used in the main infobox of the article about the organization; otherwise, it's going to be much harder and most likely impossible to justify the non-free use of the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

My thanks to Glrx and Marchjuly. I understand most of that discussion. (In passing, I know quite a lot about intellectual property law as it relates to data, please see: forum.openmod.org/t/4399.) I think I will contact Scientist Rebellion about licensing their logo under CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0. The logo is simple: just their name set in a typewriter font and the famous "climate stripes" incorporated below. For an example, see the top‑left here: scientistrebellion.org. If that effort fails, I will work my way thru the Wikipedia EN protocols for use via branding. Your answers much appreciated. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Since we already have File:20181204 Warming stripes (global, WMO, 1850-2018) - Climate Lab Book (Ed Hawkins).png, this logo seems acceptable under {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}. Yann (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Can you upload it using {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} and/or {{PD-ineligible}} without zooming in? We have scaling capability built in, as described at en:H:PIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have contacted Scientist Rebellion to explore whether they would officially release under CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0. And I'd like to let that run a couple of days before doing something unilaterally. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Century 21 Calling and Mr. B Natural

Is it possible that Century 21 Calling and Mr. B Natural in the public domain as per {{PD-US-no notice}}? Lugamo94 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The National Film Preservation Foundation's Guide to Sponsored Films lists Mr. B Natural and Century 21 Calling as unregistered for copyright and I couldn't find any renewals at the online Copyright Office search, so they're in the public domain, and PD-US-no notice works if you don't see one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Mass-changes of licences for typeface samples?

User Chewzy appears to have changed the licences of a few hundred typeface samples, such as this one, without prior notice. I am not sure if that is allowed, and even if so, I think such a move should have been discussed first. --Minoa (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This should be reverted. For anything but the simplest of plain text, a CC license is stronger than PD-text because the former is a license while the latter is merely a description. So a user in the UK would not be able to use the image under PD-text, for instance, since it is probably above COM:TOO UK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I probably need help because there is like more than 400 files affected by the unauthorised licence change. I don't have the tools or the time to mass-revert them all. --Minoa (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You cannot claim copyright on "abcdefghijk" or "a quick brown fox".--Chewzy (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

True, but you can claim copyright, even in the US, on computer programs that draw characters, which TTF and SVG files are. And as King of Hearts points out, this is more complex than a simple string.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be news to me that we have ever tried to claim software copyright for our SVG files. It is not in line with our project goals to advocate for further copyright restrictions and undermine important copyright exceptions, especially to further the use of such dubious tricks. We want easier access to the world's knowledge and a more robust public domain, not less.--Chewzy (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"We" claim copyright on "our" SVG files? We could just change all the licenses on the files to PD on that argument. They aren't our files to claim copyright on or not, the uploaders have the right to claim copyright on them. TTF copyrights are very clearly legit, so changing the format of those vectors should change nothing. What we want is a legal repository, not one that has illegitimate licenses stuck on people's work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Images with WireImgId in metadata

I've noticed that a number of images have a "Source" string in metadata like @WireImgId=12345678 which appears to indicate that an image was, at one point, distributed as a wire photo. A few examples of these images are:

• File:Workers in Plaza las Victorias (Managua).jpg
• File:General Juan Belaieff.jpg
• File:Span, Emil - Orquideas rosadas.jpg

Does anyone know what the specific meaning of this identifier is, what vendor adds it, and/or how it can be looked up on stock image sites to confirm the copyright status of these images? Omphalographer (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Los Angeles government Flickr accounts

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? reppop^talk 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Reppop: I guess they didn't get the memo.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Emblem of the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army

Is this emblem simple enough to be uploaded to Commons using {{PD-ineligible}}?
Emblem:
https://i.ibb.co/tQM6d34/emblem.png
https://jihadintel.meforum.org/pics/symbols/764.jpg صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Photos of public domain objects (two-dimensional, printed or painted on paper)

I have found and uploaded two photos of two objects, which are now certainly in public domain. But now I have some doubts. From the one hand, these photos are simply photocopies of public domain objects (a poster, published by the unknown author in 1918, and a seal, created by Heorhiy Narbut, which died in 1920). But from the other hand, these photocopies have a clear information about photographers, who created them. So, are such photocopies of public domain objects also in public domain, or such photos should be deleted?

• Photo No. 1. File:Печатка ДС УД Нарбут 2.jpg Author of the seal — Heorhiy Narbut (1886–1920), but EXIF contains information about the photographer.
• Photo No. 2. File:Идель-Уральская Республика (провозглашение).jpg Poster, created by the unknown author in 1918, but on the website (where I have found this photo) there is also information about the photographer.

صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)