This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I would like to add THIS IMAGE to the C&O desk article of the desk being used by the Van Sweringen brothers in 1928. The issue is that while the image should be out of copyright a large watermark appears on the picture by the historic society that uploaded it. Does this watermark make the image unusable? Can I upload it then ask for help removing the watermark? Is it not actually out of copyright because of this watermark? Any help would be appreciated. Found5dollar (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
It is possible that the watermark is itself copyrighted (though elsewhere we've already considered it below the threshold of originality). You'd have to research that. But, assuming it is not:
Whether it is usable is up to the party that wishes to use it. You can upload it to Commons. Just remember to tag it with {{Watermarked}}.
Without more information about the provenance of this image, we can't assess its copyright status. There are multiple ways in which an archival photo like this from 1928 could still be protected by copyright. Is there any evidence other than its age that leads you to think it's free? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA-4.0-Picture retouched
Hello,
I uploaded a pict, that was a little bit retouched by me: File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X-foreground-bottom-right-retouched.jpg. Could you please double-check, if my data are sufficient (base is File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X.jpg). In the past I could put in the original file and the fotographer with the upload. If something has to be corrected, please change it and let me know. Thank you very much in advance. Best regards Wikisympathisant (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Meanwhile I found a better Retouched-brick and categories were automatically reduced, now this topic should be ok. So it remains the question about change of the upload-procedure. KR, Wikisympathisant (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm interested in uploading self-made SVG versions of the Turkish military insignia to feature in Wikipedia (regiment-level bodies). The issue is that (on the contrary to most countries) the Turkish copyright law does not consider government emblems/works created by pubic servants in public domain. They also don't have licenses on government websites. Therefore, as a Commons newbie, I cannot find any way to legitimately upload such content. Some people I have seen just credited such works for themselves, and claimed they are the sole owners of the work, but I think such an action would not be allowed. Thanks! AscendencyXXIV (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello @AscendencyXXIV, unfortunately there is no "trick" that we can apply here, other than hosting any insignia that are below the threshold of originality (TOO). Gnom (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Or old enough to be out of copyright. - Jmabel! talk 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Note that is a continuation of a discussion at . Please, @AscendencyXXIV, when continuing a conversation in a different, even a more appropriate place, link what has already been discussed. - Jmabel! talk 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Graffiti in Rome
Hello,
I took several pictures of the building of the Metropoliz in Rome. I know that there is no freedom of panorama in Italy – but at the same time pictures like this one and this one do not seem to have a problem (?)
Here's my question: Can I upload pictures on Commons with CC BY 4.0 of the Metropoliz-building, resembling this one or this one? Meaning: Pictures of the building from the outside with Graffiti on the walls? Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24): I am afraid but the two example photos that are already on Commons would most probably need to be deleted because the graffitis are so prominent in them that they are not permissible under the de minimis principle (in German: de:Beiwerk). What you could do, however, only upload those of your photos where the graffitis are only visible "in the background". We can also help you with this selection if you want. Gnom (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Gnom, thank you for the helpful answer. Please take a look at these 3 pictures: 1, 2, 3. I uploaded them after asking Raymond for advice. I understood that they should be ok – are they? Regarding the rest of my pictures, I will try to get CC BY 4.0-releases by the artists for them. Wish me luck:-D --Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24), 3 is definitely fine, 1 should be OK as well, but the design in 2 is most probably copyrighted... Gnom (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@Gnom I thought 2 would be old enough but it is based on the motive of File:We Can Do It! NARA 535413 - Restoration 2.jpg. Per above image description it is not copyrighted in the US. But maybe I am on the wrong side? Raymond (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand, but I would say that this derivative work of the public domain original is creative enough to be copyrighted in itself. Gnom (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
No problem, good to know. Will add this picture to the ones that I will try to get a release by the artists for. Thank you, Raymond and Gnom. Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
There's a copyright notice, so it's definitely not public domain.
As to whether it's under a sufficiently free license for the Commons, it's uncertain. The license statement allows images to be "transferred", which I take to mean re-published as-is, but it's not certain (to me, anyway), whether modification of the images is permitted, which we require for the Commons. There's an email address on the page, so it would be worth getting in touch with their media team to verify that edits and alterations to the images are permitted. Please forward any response to the VRT ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ) for the record. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@Rlandmann: Thank you for your suggestion. I've sent an email to the media team of Croatian MoD as suggested.
I asked here because I've seen other contributors upload images from their website, but the vague terms of use leave me unsure if these are compliant or potential copyvio. I'll forward any response I receive to the VRT for documentation. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Is there a way to keep track of files like this, which will enter the public domain in 2031/2 (author died in 2006)? JayCubby (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@JayCubby: Hi, Died in 2006? So you probably mean that it can be restored in 2077. It can be added in this page. Yann (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd also add to it the Undelete in 2077 category, why did you think it would be restored in 2032? Abzeronow (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The USSR has a copyright term of life + 25 years, though the US has life + 70 years (I may have forgotten about the US aspect...).
A second question:
I don't have a lot of experience with the Hirtle chart, but could it be PD due to formality issues in 2031. JayCubby (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, Russia extended copyright a few times since the USSR, COM:Russia, Russia is now Life + 70 (with a 4 year extension to those who worked during the en:Great Patriotic War (term).) Abzeronow (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! That probably settles the affair then. JayCubby (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
If it was never on Commons, I don't think we usually track that. But, yes, Category:Undelete in 2077 is where we would track that if we do. - Jmabel! talk 21:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Maps from New Zealand
Appreciated community: I need your help.
I'm considering upload to Commons this map and this other map. However, I'm confused about the copyright issues.
What can I do in regards to these maps? Thanks in advance. Babelia (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
It looks like a very old map. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
For the first one, the map itself is PD, the images accompanying it are likely also PD, text on the bottom is from 1969. Abzeronow (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be the 1808/1812 original of the first map by Laurie & Whittle, which in this form is certainly free of copyright. On the modern map, the kangaroo in the bottom right appears to be inspired by George Stubbs' painting but is sufficiently different as to probably be separately copyrightable. Cook's portrait is after Nathaniel Dance-Holland's official portrait of him, probably also sufficiently different as to be separately copyrightable. It's probably a similar story for the various other images that I either can't make out or don't recognise. The text at the bottom of the map is modern and copyrightable, credited to "A. D. McKinlay, M.A.". New Zealand copyright on literary works expires 50 years after the death of the author. An Arthur David McKinlay published books on New Zealand history between 1933 and 1969. Separately, an Arthur David McKinlay born in 1899 obtained an M.A. from a New Zealand university in 1930 and died in New Zealand in 1977, so could well be the same person. If so, the text will be protected by copyright until 2028.
As to the modern images in the map, it was published in 1969, and New Zealand copyright on artistic works expires 50 years after publication (2020) for anonymous works. So the question is, can we identify the artist? A bit of detective work might be necessary to see if there's any record of who they might have been.
The second map is by the New Zealand Department of Land and Surveys, a government department, today Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). New Zealand government works are subject to Crown copyright which lasts for 100 years. Unless the copyright on this specific map has been released, its copyright will expire in 2075. I note that the copy hosted by the National Library of New Zealand says "This image may be used, copied and re-distributed free of charge in any format or media", which is not free enough for Commons because we need to allow commercial, for-profit re-use as well. You could check with LINZ to ask about the copyright status. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
In regards to the first map, the page I linked says:
What can I do with this item? Share it - This item is suitable for copying and sharing with others, without further permission. Modify it - This item is suitable for modifying, remixing and building upon, without further permission. Use it commercially - This item is suitable for commercial use, without further permission.
Unless otherwise specified, content produced by Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. In essence you are free to copy, distribute, and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand and abide by the other licence terms.
So, what do you think? Babelia (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
You can contact Auckland Libraries to clarify the copyright of the image in question, some of their images are CC-0 which are listed as 'No known copyright restrictions'. There is a form on the file page to do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle: I think I can guess what you mean to say, but "No known copyright restrictions" is not CC-0. The only way something becomes CC-0 is for someone who owns the copyright to overtly offer the CC-0 license. Something that aged out of copyright decades ago cannot possible be CC-0. - Jmabel! talk 06:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I saw an image listed as no known copyright restrictions that was taken recently enough that it couldn't be PD, after emailing the library I was told it was released without copyright (or something to that effect). I can try and see what exactly was said. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Babelia: The notice on the first map also says that you "You must always check with Auckland Libraries to confirm the specific terms of use" (emphasis added). In this case, I'd be asking them who Hooker and Co. Ltd. are/were and how Auckland Libraries know that copyright has expired or was transferred into the Public Domain (since it appears that at least one author has not been dead long enough).
Auckland Libraries also notes the Islands of the South Pacific map as "No known copyright restrictions", which contradicts what LINZ has to say, so I think we need to be careful about taking the Auckland Libraries website at face value for archival content.
Have you been able to find Islands of the South Pacific on the LINZ website? The map predates Creative Commons licenses by nearly 30 years, so unless it has ever been re-published under this license, or you can find/obtain a statement that LINZ applies this license retroactivally to all material previously published by them and their predecessor organizations, it would still appear to be covered by Crown copyright. Assuming LINZ is prepared to make such a statement, obtaining one and forwarding it to the VRT would be incredibly useful to opening the door to a large amount of New Zealand cartography that could be hosted on the Commons. It would be really great if you could get a definitive answer. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Is File:Flag of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.gif above Threshold of Originality in the United States? The flag features a geometric pattern, but it's a complex one. Its colouring is also complex, with what appears to be shading and small details. I'm leaning to this being above TOO but would like confirmation since I'm uncertain. Intervex (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, the design, coloring and shading as well as lettering position make this meet the Threshhold of Originality and therefore copyright applies. It's funny you've picked the two indigenous peoples I'm most familiar with. Bastique☎ let's talk! 22:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I also think it is above the threshold, for the same reasons of complexity that you give. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Cool. Above TOO it is. I haven't been able to find any source corroborating a free license, so I've tagged it as NSD. If anybody knows anything about when it was made please share in case it is PD due to age. Intervex (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
So this flag is much older than Creative Commons, and the license appears to have picked by user who made the SVG version. I'm not sure it's the right copyright tag for this flag though.
You can read about the flag's history here: . It was first made by Karoniaktajeh Louis Hall in what is considered Canada, but the flag is in protest of Canadian colonialism. It feels inappropriate to try and apply Canadian copyright law to it. (It is recent enough and above Threshold of Originality that by default it would be copyrighted in Canada.)
Hall died in 1993. In his will, Hall left the original paintings to the Warrior Society in Kahnawake (see link above). Kahente Horn-Miller from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake has gone on record saying :
"This image may officially belong to the Men’s Society of Kahnawá:ke but it is meant for everyone to use. If someone sells a t-shirt or a pin with the image on it, so be it. If someone uses aspects of it to communicate their own message, so be it. Copyright and exclusion are the antithesis to this flag’s meaning. Karoniaktajeh would be happy to see that the message of unity is spreading further, as he intended it to."
I'm not sure what copyright tag would be most suitable for this flag. It certainly seems intended to have a free license, but I can't find any writing online from Hall that spells out any terms of use. Creative commons seems anachronistic. Suggestions? Intervex (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The various CC licenses are specific in nature, and so only the person who owns the copyright to a work can place it under these licences. That is, even if a copyright holder specifies terms that overlap completely with CC-BY (for example), it's not actually CC-BY unless the copyright holder says it is.
The questions, as I see them are:
is Dr Horn-Miller empowered under either Canadian or tribal law to make this statement on behalf of the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke?
The statement as supplied says that free re-use without further permission is OK, does not ask for attribution, and specifically allows commercial use, but it's not clear to me whether derivative works are allowed. Are they? (Keeping in mind that permitting such use would also permit disrespectful or disparaging use)
I would start by contacting Dr Horn-Miller for advice, and the question might ultimately be one for the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke directly.
Assuming there really are no restrictions on use, then {{PD-because}} is probably the best fit we have, together with an explanation of the rationale. I'd also forward all correspondence to the VRT to keep on file. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I would think that "uses aspects of it to communicate their own message" could be sufficient for allowing for derivative works, if this is a valid granting of license in the first place, especially with the final phrase that supports a reading that releases the flag into the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
On re-reading, I agree with you on the derivative work question (although clarification would be nice). --Rlandmann (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
"Copyright and exclusion are the antithesis to this flag’s meaning" sounds like about as explicit a public domain dedication as there can be. This is an explicit renunciation of copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
In isolation, I agree. Against that, the first sentence sounds like a statement of ownership and license to use, so I'd like to be more certain about what exactly is intended here. The two parts of the statement seem contradictory to me (acknowledging also that this might be a difficulty of trying to model a system of law with a different and perhaps incompatible one). --Rlandmann (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament, 10th term
This very, very unfortunate line of text suggests the images on www.europarl.europa.eu may be under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives license.
Which view is correct? Are these files under a useable Attribution license, or are they under a Attribution-NoDerivatives license?
I would love for it to be the case that these files are usable but I myself was previously told they are not. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The general legal notice with its ND term explicitly says that it is "a general rule". And even if it didn't, for any given page or piece of content, I would always privilege its own specific notice over a more general notice. Consider the alternative: if the general rule says that generally re-use is OK, but we found a piece of content marked "all rights reserved", we would not think that the general rule covered it.
In this case, I think the image you've linked and any like it are attribution only. As usual though, if in doubt, I recommend contacting the copyright holder or publisher for clarification. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
To be precise, they're not under a Creative Commons license either way. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Is the Navajo Flag copyrighted?
We have many copies of the Navajo flag on Commons. It's from 1968. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States it is possible this flag is copyrighted *if* it was published with notice that it was copyrighted. I searched https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/ for "Navajo flag" and got a few hits but none of them appear to be from the Navajo Nation. Does anybody have any evidence one way or the other whether the flag is copyrighted? Intervex (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that it would have been very difficult to retain a copyright for a flag in the U.S. in that era. Each actual flag would be a copy without copyright notice, no? The flag does not contain a copyright symbol. - Jmabel! talk 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm still new to US copyright law. So does this mean a flag in the US from that era would have to have the actual copyright symbol embedded in the flag? I thought a notice meant a text notice that would accompany the image. Intervex (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
It would presumably have sufficed always to distribute copies of the flag with a notice, but who ever did that? @Clindberg: do you think I'm wrong about this, and if I am wrong, how would it have worked? - Jmabel! talk 19:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
There had to be a visibly perceptible notice on all distributed copies (or the vast majority). For something permanently placed like a statue, it could be on a marker or pedestal nearby. But even a copyright notice on a book's dust cover was not sufficient to cover the book, since it was removable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's intense. Well, that gets me on board with "probably fair to assume it's PD". Intervex (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that it would have been difficult. There are a couple of different ways that this could have worked, though. As Jmabel says, probably the most obvious is if all authorized distribution had been via one or a small number of authorized distributors for the flag, who could have ensured that a copyright notice was printed on each authorized copy distributed (this could have been a small notice in an unobtrusive place; see for example many mass-produced toys that have small copyright notices printed on or molded into them).
Or, if all authorized, officially printed and distributed versions of the flag carried copyright notices, my understanding is that the distribution of unauthorized copies without copyright notices would not have voided the artist's copyright (although the distribution of significant numbers of authorized copies without notices probably would have). My understanding is that copyright holders were not obliged to defend their works against unauthorized use in order to maintain their copyrights, in the way that trademark holders are so obliged. @Clindberg: , I'd love to hear your thoughts on this hypothetical scenario.
And, in saying all that, these are very specific hypothetical scenarios, and I don't think we need to worry about them without any further evidence that something like this had been the case. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
The law did allow for a small fraction of copies to be accidentally distributed without notice -- but I think court cases for those have been between 1 and 2 percent of all copies for cases which kept copyright. The Copyright Compendium First edition (see links on this page), particularly section 4.1.2 but all of part 4 is about notices) did mention that if the first edition had no notice, even if a relative few copies, copyright would still be lost. Unauthorized copies would not lose copyright, correct. Copyright owners can selectively sue -- the lack of suing one infringer does not help a second infringer, to the best of my knowledge. In this case, a seal graphic appears to actually be part of the law -- that much may also be PD-EdictGov. Unsure what the law said about the flag, whether it was a general written design (anyone could make independently copyrightable drawings based on that), or if an actual graphic was part of the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you -- I'm especially grateful for your check of my understanding around the effect (or lack thereof) of unauthorized copies. So, it seems not quite so difficult for a flag to have kept its copyright pre-1978, at least in theory. (Not that we have any reason to think that anything of the sort happened in this case.) It does make me wonder about the channels through which copies of the flag were manufactured and distributed early on though.
Interesting too that the seal in the Code bears only the most passing resemblance to the seals in the various versions of the flag. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Spinoff project for logos
Currently Commons hosts some logos and Wikipedia some others, normally based on copyright status.
Many logos are registered as trademarks and as such published in relevant publications.
Would there be a potential to create a spin-off project for logos to describe and sort them on a fair use basis? When needed, Wikipedia could use them directly. ∞∞Enhancing999(talk) 09:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Enhancing999, please note that you need to distinguish between copyright and trademark protection, which are very different from each other. Because trademark law does not affect Commons, anything that is protected as a trademarkcan still be hosted on Commons without any problems. However, we need to respect copyright law, and many logos are protected not only as trademarks, but also as works protected by copyright. Gnom (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
What problem is this meant to solve? It is rarely difficult to find an online copy of a Wikipedia-notable logo. For those Wikipedias that allow fair use, someone should easily be able to find and upload any given "fair-use" logo when needed. - Jmabel! talk 19:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
There are dozens of projects that need to upload it separately, plus there isn't really an advantage of uploading the few that can go here. ∞∞Enhancing999(talk) 19:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
If there were to be a spinoff project to allow sharing of fair use images across WMF sister projects, I can't think of any reason to make it specific to logos. However, I believe any online repository of unfree material would probably go against WMF policy. As mentioned at meta:Non-free content, Commons is the one sister project that is explicitly forbidden even to set up an "Exemption Doctrine Policy," a policy on conditions under which we would accept non-free content. That is clearly because WMF didn't want to get in the position of hosting non-free media. It's been a couple of decades, and imaginably WMF could be interested in changing their stance on this, but why would logos be a special case in contradistinction to any other non-free media used by multiple sister projects? - Jmabel! talk 01:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The idea is a spin-off project. I agree this wouldn't fit at Commons, thus the suggestion to start with.
It's possible that the approach is useful for other fields (other projects), but any such project would need a clear scope.
The question here is if this could work out copyright-wise. ∞∞Enhancing999(talk) 10:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe there's a big existing problem that I'm not seeing and that this would address, but given that:
the WMF's position on fair use is predicated on whether an image is actually being used on a WMF project; the image can't just live unused in a repository
the conditions (and therefore rationale) under which a non-free image can be used on a WMF project vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
various WMF projects are able to host their own non-free content in jurisdictions where it is possible for them to do so, and each must host a rationale for how and why the image qualifies for fair use in their own jurisdiction for each time it is used in that project
such a project would need a corps of volunteers to oversee the repository, whereas in the current status quo, volunteers from each project look after their own fair-use images based on their own local knowledge, experience, and linguistic ability
"Could work out?" Sure. Very many things are possible if someone is committed to throwing enough time and money at them! But I think that a Commons-like repository to host images that might or might not be fair use in one jurisdiction or another seems like a very expensive solution for very little benefit over the way things work right now. Maybe ask yourself what actual problem this would solve, and go from there. I don't think there are big economies of scale to be found here. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't want to upload a copyvio. Just making sure that CCTV footage is OK in New York, people over at the associated talk page are citing intellectual property as a reason this isn't ok. JayCubby (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Being CCTV has no bearing -- the question is if there is at least a bit of creativity in the resulting expression. It is possible that someone positioning that camera may have done enough for a copyright, unless the positioning was obvious. This video has a U.S. copyright registration, for one example. I don't think there is clear case law either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
There seem to be more and more of this type of image uploaded either to Commons or locally to English Wikipedia under a {{PD-automated}} license in recent years, but I'm not sure whether there's been sufficient US case law to make this clear beyond a shadow of doubt despite Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-automated. For the moment, though, Commons seems to be OK with this. I guess in this case it would depend as to whether there was any human input involved in setting up the camera to create this footage. One thing to remember, though, is that whether Commons can host and image and how that image is ultimately used by English Wikipedia or any other WMF project are essentially two different questions. The first question can be resolved here on Commons, but the other question probably needs to be discussed locally on the project where the image is intended to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
There is input, I suppose, in setting up a camera so as to capture a specific area, but my sense is that such authorship doesn't really constitute originality (never mind the fact that the people who set up a CCTV cam probably aren't the camera owners). We'll see I guess. JayCubby (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
The clip being used here contains original work by the New York Times (their graphic at the beginning of video)
The clip being used here uses the same but from the New York Post.
If either of these publications reproduced the CCTV video obtained by the opposing publication, they would absolutely be the subject of a lawsuit which they'd probably lose. I don't think we should be reproducing the work of either of these publications. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Please link to the clips, not Wikipedia pages they were once used on. I only see the New York Post one, which is on Commons: File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV (NY Post).webm. I don't see much likelihood that either publication would sue; the Post copyright would be pretty thin, and it wouldn't look good on Times to use the work of the Post. Commons:PD-Art has long set the precedence that we use public domain works from other publications. It would be good to remove the added material, but legally, the Post logo is PD-text, so that's not the big copyright concern.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sheridan replaced the old "skill and labour" test (which was applied in Future and Ladbroke, both of which are currently cited on COM:TOO UK) with the new, "more demanding", "author’s own intellectual creation" test. This seems to have a broader reach than just digital reproductions of 2D images, and likely, in my view, means that the threshold of originality in the UK is now much closer to that of the US. But this doesn't seem to have been discussed much, so I don't want to make any drastic changes quite yet. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
@Mdaniels5757: You're right, but the question is whether the UK courts will continue to apply the new threshold after Brexit because the reason for the change was EU legislation... Gnom (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
There is no question about this. THJ is a post-Brexit decision and explicitly says this threshold is incorporated into British law post-Brexit as part of the EU acquis. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you – but you never know. Gnom (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The whole idea of a precedential legal system is that you are supposed to know, though. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Courts can be inconsistent sometimes too. My lingering doubt is more that the Sheridan case was about something that occurred when EU law was binding within the UK. The ruling does say Section 1(1)(a) of the 1988 Act must, so far as possible, be interpreted in accordance with Article 2(a) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society ("the Information Society Directive") as interpreted prior to 31 December 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. That does seem to suggest that aspect of the EU case law remains part of UK law, not including any newer CJEU decisions but including older ones as precedents, unless it gets explicitly repealed. But, it could maybe be read that acts from 2021 and later may be judged differently. The ruling was also before the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, which could affect things, though it's not immediately apparent that it will. I to tend to agree that we should probably follow the EU definition until a UK court finds a reason to diverge, if ever. A ruling in this area could be one way to reinforce the UK is no longer part of the EU, but it may also be an aspect that is easier for commerce with the EU if the definitions agree. But given commentary, I think we should probably shift to Sheridan as being the correct threshold in the UK. Any future clarifications from the CJEU on the matter won't be binding in the UK but they may certainly take them into account. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Is File:Muwekma Ohlone Tribe flag.png above TOO in the USA? The picture of the dancer in the middle is from a 1845 painting, so that element of the flag is PD. The shape that the dancer is in the middle of is what I would like feedback on. I leaning towards it being above TOO given the complexity of its colouration and shape, but would like confirmation. Intervex (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, that simple geometric design is not original enough and probably falls under the Threshold of Originality. Bastique☎ let's talk! 22:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I also would think that this is below the TOO for the US. Only the texture makes me wonder, but I think even this is probably not enough. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, seems like the consensus is below TOO, but kinda borderline. I've marked it as PD-flag and I guess we'll see if anybody disputes it. Intervex (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
It says it's based on an 1845 painting so I think we're ok. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Only the dancer is from the painting. The question is whether the geometric shape behind the dancer is above or below TOO. Intervex (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The texture is questionable. The shape however seems simple enough to me AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Claws in logos
I know that TOO in the US is pretty high, although some exceptions indicated on this page make me doubt about this logo, which depicts a simple monogram with a claw in the middle of both initials.
My question is, is the claw figure original enough to be considered under copyright? A similar college sports logo (Clemson University) is hosted here under a PD-pre1978 license so I can't be sure if this logo would be copyrightable in case of having been created after that date. Fma12 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is that claws are above TOO in the US. Intervex (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I also think the claws are above the TOO in the US. There's creative expression here that goes beyond simple geometric shapes. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
This picture was uploaded to commons in 2019. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sony-playstation_prototype.jpg I found the exact photo in full resolution on Reddit which was posted in May 2018. The shadow of photographer, composition and presence of personal items at the edge of the item are exactly the same, so no reasonable person would believe these are from a different photo. Yann says that it is not a copyright violation and removed my speedy deletion request without offering any explanation in edit summary or otherwise.
Just because an uploader grabbed some random item off the web and labeled it as free for all to use, or "their own work" doesn't make it so. Can someone explain what I'm missing here or is Yann's assertion even correct? Graywalls (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Done OK deleted. Yann (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: , I believe I am owed an explanation in this situation where you removed my CSD claiming it was "not a copyright violation" and demanded that it be sent to nomination. The netcopyvio situation was clearly explained in speedy tag and source clearly indicated. Graywalls (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:High-resolution or SVG official Wikimedia logos
Many of these are under CC BY SA, despite being most likely PD-Simple.
If they were logos of other companies, they'd likely be uploaded as PD.
Of course there are exceptions, like the Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikinews, and possibly Wikimedia Enterprise logos, but other than that most of the logos there are simple geometric designs. JayCubby (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Which ones are you specifically concerned about? --Rlandmann (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
More or less all of the listed logos aside from the exceptions I mentioned. JayCubby (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Where a free license is marked, but an item is in the public domain in certain countries (whether due to lack of qualification for copyright or expiry of term), the free license is still applicable as a fallback provision. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
1943 movie poster
File:Girl Crazy.webp was recently uploaded as PD as copyright was not renewed. Assuming this is right (it seems rare it was renewed?) are other versions such as this one similarly uploadable? CMD (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
They're different works, so their copyright status needs to be assessed separately. This version of the poster is big enough for me to make out a copyright notice, but I can't actually read it to see who the copyright holder was. Copyright for a 1943 work was due for renewal in 1971-72, and I can't find an artwork or "commercial print or label" renewal for "Girl Crazy" around that time. That, and as you say, renewals were relatively rare, makes me think this is almost certainly OK. I'd be happier if I could see the name of the copyright holder though. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Found a 3rd version here. The copyright notice is identical for all 3, it's unclear, but from the third version you can see it's two words and the second one is "incorporated". Could it be "Harms incorporated"? That would make it en:T. B. Harms & Francis, Day & Hunter, Inc.CMD (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah thanks:) CMD (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Rosenzweig. The only thing Loew's Inc. renewed in that time period was some Wizard of Oz-themed writing paper for children.
However, the copyright on Girl Crazy was renewed (L13168, August 6, 1970), so any stills on the various posters that are from the movie itself (rather than a publicity photo taken during production or rehearsal, or an alternate take) are not free and make the overall poster unfree. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The posters were certainly published before the film, so they can't be derivative works of the film. Yann (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Do we know that all three versions of this poster (and which one(s)?) were published after the film? (Keeping in mind that "published" in the US could be all kinds of distribution, or even offers of distrubution, many of which could have happened long before even the first screening took place.)
The second question I guess is (assuming that these are stills from the final, copyrighted version of the film) whether, even if the posters were published earlier, the renewal of the film's copyright preserved the copyright in the stills which would otherwise have lapsed when the posters' copyrights lapsed. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The renewal of a copyright in a film would not cause the renewal of a separate copyright in any other work, even posters or other images associated with the film. They would have had to have been renewed separately. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Distribution (or offers to distribute) the trailers and posters for a film would have occurred before the film itself was actually distributed or definitively offered for distribution (and these promotional materials were used in the lead-up to the film's actual release). This earlier publication is why such items are not derivative works of the later-published item, as @Yann says. When this happened, whatever contents first published in those materials — even if later also published in the final film — would enter the public domain (if published without a notice) or eventually expire with the work within which those materials were first published (where the poster or trailer's copyright was not renewed). Therefore, certain frames from full films (which remain under copyright generally) are often in the public domain.
I would also tentatively draw a distinction between two kinds of offer of distribution of work, which may be relevant for determining the publication date of various materials. Let's call these a conceptual and a real offer. A conceptual offer can be made even before the work "offered" for distribution has been created. For instance, I can promise to send you a book when I am done writing it, or (more commonly) you could sign up for a subscription to my magazine. Maybe when you subscribe to the magazine you have, in some sense, taken me up on an offer to receive my next twelve monthly issues. Despite this, the issue I publish next year is not published when this "conceptual offer" is made, but instead when that issue is tangibly put into distribution or "really" offered.
Along the same lines, I am not sure that an offer to distribute a work which is conditioned on its non-exploitation until a certain date results in the publication of a work before the final date on which its exploitation is actually allowed. For instance, let's imagine a movie that premiered on January 1. The film would probably need to have been factually distributed to the theaters even before the new year struck, but, if distributed under the proviso that it is not to be exploited until January 1, then perhaps the year of publication is the later year. This is a little complicated because the publication of films was tied not only to exhibition but also to the ability to purchase/rent copies from the general distributors. But you can also think of a book that is generally published on January 1; the bookstores must have been able to buy and receive their wholesale stock before then, but, if that stock is sold to them on the condition that it not be disseminated before January 1, then I would think that general publication only occurs on January 1. If we go by that standard, then we should count movies as being published on their actual date of release, which is the first date on which the purchased copies could be normally exploited. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you -- do you know of some case law around "Therefore, certain frames from full films (which remain under copyright generally) are often in the public domain"? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Anything that was first published in a trailer with no notice (the vast majority in that era), or on which the copyright was not renewed, is in the public domain. Trailers tend to contain some frames which are also in the actual movie. Even if the full movie as a whole is under copyright, the frames which entered the public domain via inclusion in the trailer are not copyrighted. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
One consideration is that the movie is based on a 1930 stage musical, which is still under copyright for another year (renewed in 1957). The posters could be considered derivative works of the musical. But the posters in question contain only generic elements like a man and a woman in cowboy costumes, not any copyrightable elements of expression from the musical, so I don't think they would be considered infringing. Toohool (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the musical in question wouldn't be PD-US until 2026, but nothing in this poster is a derivative work of that musical. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Copyright Question
I am sending on behalf of another user, who told me that he uploaded this image: Gianni Matragrano.png. I noticed this and asked him to message the creator of the image (as he did not make it.). The creator of the image, who is Gianni Matragrano, said he could upload the image. What copyright template should I do if he did not ever license it (eg creative commons.) what template should I use?
SUMMARY: An uploader of File:Gianni Matragrano.png has gotten permission from the person who took the image to upload it to commons, but at the moment the license is not specified. What template should I use? Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Cooldudeseven7: sorry, but "you can upload the image to Commons" is not enough, nor can we allow an individual user to just say they have permission (or anyone could say they had permission for anything).
Rather than "you can upload the image to Commons" we need a specific free license that explicitly allows derivative works and is not limited to non-commercial use.
Rather than you asserting you have permission, we need that grant of license either (1) to be in a public-facing statement on a website or social media account clearly under control of the copyright-holder (probably not practical in this case, because it is not immediately obvious who would be the copyright-holder) or (2) through the COM:VRT process, which is what I recommend in this case. Note that for VRT, the email must come from the copyright-holder, not from (or via) a third party. - Jmabel! talk 18:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
It is from the copyright holder. Do I need to provide actual proof of the email? Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The English graphic designer Tom Eckersley was responsible for several wartime UK government posters, such as this one. The English Wikipedia article does not make it sound as if he were an official of the Crown. In that case, they would presumably still be copyrighted since Eckersley died in 1997. I just wanted to check the reasoning held up before I file a DR. Felix QW (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to have produced his work as an employee, so to claim (expired) Crown copyright, we would need to see a notice to that effect (I can't read the text at the bottom of the poster you linked, nor find a higher-resolution version online) or some kind of verification that Eckersley transferred his copyright to the Crown. COM:ONUS places the burden of that proof on the uploader or people arguing to keep the images here, and in the absence of such evidence, they're presumably unfree for the reason that you give. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
As far as I understand Crown copyright, even transferring your copyright to the Crown does not render it "Crown Copyright" in the sense of making the shorter term applicable; See for instance page 5 of this guidance. Felix QW (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that makes the distinction abundantly clear. In which case, it's irrelevant what arrangement Eckersley had with the government; his works are protected by copyright until 2068. Good find! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to have produced his work as an employee — what source of information do you have on that? EnWPm says Having originally joined the Royal Air Force and being charged with cartographic work, Eckersley was transferred to the Publicity Section of the Air Ministry, this allowed him to work from home and take commercial commissions again, for example from the General Post Office. If he was an employee of the Publicity Section of the Air Ministry, then mightn't Crown Copyright provisions apply? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
FYI, the text at the bottom of this poster says: "Issued by the Ministry of Labour and National Service and produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Terminal House, 52 Grosvenor Gardens, London, S.W.1." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, here is a link to a somewhat better scan of the same poster: IWM. This source includes a claim that the posted is copyrighted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, but I can't verify that either way. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I tried to get that copy, but it is not that large, and there is a watermark. Yann (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Crown Copyright was very different then. From the 1956 act:
Her Majesty shall, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, be entitled—
(a)to the copyright in every original literary, dramatic or musical work first published in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which section two of this Act extends, if first published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department;
(b)to the copyright in every original artistic work first published in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which section three of this Act extends, if first published by or under such direction or control.
The 1911 Act stated: Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work.
If it was Crown Copyright under either of those definitions, then it remains Crown Copyright. If it was a "wartime UK government poster", it would have been hard to avoid Crown Copyright. It was not until the 1988 act where the definition was limited to employees, but that did not change the status of anything which already was Crown Copyright. I guess this was mostly done by a private organization, but it was "issued by the Ministry of Labour and National Service". Eckersley was an RAF employee at the time it seems like, though these may have been done on his own time. But it was hard to avoid being Crown Copyright in that era. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Right, they would seem to have been done "for Queen and Country". — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, There are many more posters by Tom Eckersley from various UK organisations on , but I don't know which ones would qualify as Crown Copyright. Some more knowledge of UK administrations is needed. Yann (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I renamed the file to File:Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, restored.jpg. I think you could be credited for the restoration, but claiming a copyright is a bit farfetched. This is not your original artwork, as you claim above, but a work by Leonardo da Vinci, made in the 15th century. Anyway, we won't accept any claim from an IP. You need to send some proof to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Yann (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Da Vinci's Last Supper is public domain --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the restoration though, the entire bottom middle section seems to have been replaced completely by the restorer. In my mind, that could well suffice for copyright protection. Felix QW (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
license for reproductions in article JBENP Jean Bernard Editeur à Nîmes et à Paris
Hello,
My publication contains some reproductions of postal cards which have more than 100 years ago. The french legislation makes that these documents are all free of right (domaine public).
So is it obligatory for me to return another justification to wikipedia community?
Thank you for your answer.
Regards,
P F( 'Ennemonde') Ennemonde (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I try to cover some old historical software and would like to know if screenshots like this (Windows 1.0 DR5) and this (W 1.0 Alpha), this exceed the threshold of originality. In my mind, it's too simple, but I would like hear other opinions. Thanks! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Windows' UIs are not copyrighted themselves. The overall organization of the elements in this screenshot is indeed rather trivial. So, you can mark it as {{Pd-shape}}. By the way we already have Category:Windows_1.0_screenshots for such screenshots. Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Assuming we are talking strictly about the U.S., it is hard to imagine a problem with either of those. - Jmabel! talk 19:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, yes, it's very likely we only have to take the US jurisdictions into account:) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Organisational Usernames self-licensing as 'own-work'
It's come to my attention that these users have uploaded a batch of images, mostly used on McAslan - Wikipedia two of the users' accounts are organisational entities, not individuals. Is this allowed, It's not clear to me that an organisational account can self-license images as the 'sole copyright holder'?
Yes, these are not OK without a permission via COM:VRT. I tagged 2 of these files. In addition, it needs to be clarify about using multiple accounts from the same organization. The 2 oldest accounts do not have recent edits, so a request for check user cannot be done. @JeffUK: You must inform users when you report them somewhere. I did it for you this time. Yann (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
> It's not clear to me that an organisational account can self-license images as the 'sole copyright holder'?
Why not? Corporations can be copyright holders. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
In the United States. But not everywhere. Bastique☎ let's talk! 17:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't question that a corporation can own a copyright, but we usually require a formal permission is that case. IMO it is specially the case here, with 3 accounts claiming to be from the same organization. We had recently the case of an employee who gave a VRT permission where she actually didn't have the right to do so. Yann (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Are you talking about the Harcourt account? Because that's something entirely different. It wasn't that the files in question were not assigned to the corporation and that permission was needed from the individual author; it's that they were produced for an entirely different corporation which happened to share the same name. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I need help regarding removal of images I uploaded to Wiki commons: File:Silence Wang 01.jpg and File:Silence Wang 02.jpg. They were removed for alleged licensing issues provided below, but they followed the exact licensing requirements as provided by Wiki:
Oppose This is license laundering. The images were originally posted at https://m.weibo.cn/profile/7574935809. The Weibo user has around 32K followers while the Instagram has only a handful. Also, in this post https://m.weibo.cn/status/5056100426056506 it is clear that the images can only be used for personal usage «所有图可以自印自留，但不授权自印后作为无料发放（举例：印了自己放家里收藏可以，但是不能公开发放❌，更不能标价开团❌）», (defective) Google translate: «All pictures can be printed and kept by yourself, but you are not authorized to print them and distribute them for free (for example: you can print them and keep them at home, but you cannot distribute them publicly❌, and you cannot mark a price to start a group❌)». Günther Frager (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not grab the photo from weibo or instagram but was given explicit instructions BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER (photographer) and accountholder (who are the same person), who communicated directly with me and employed me to upload and release the photos for Wiki commons use. I don't understand how the number of followers on her social media accounts are relevant. What matters is the photographer and copyright holder gave permission and provided explicit licensing language on the photo, which she added to her instagram post, as required by licensing policies. Is this not sufficient? What else needs to be done?
The photographer is only releasing licensing to those specific photos for Wiki commons, not everything that she ever posts on instagram or weibo - that's why the licensing language is only posted in those specific posts and not her entire account, does that make sense? How do I get these photos back? Do I reupload them? Or do they have to go through a different licensing verification process as I don't want them to be removed again. Etherealmama (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I have restored the images File:Silence Wang 01.jpg and File:Silence Wang 02.jpg, as this is clearly not an obvious case of speedy deletion. I have tried to view the Weibo post but it requires registration, which I have not been able to complete. Based on some quick googling, it seems that people outside China are not officially banned, but in practice will always encounter some bug making it impossible to register, which aligns with my experience. I think anyone citing Weibo or similar Chinese social media as evidence for deletion should be required to provide a screenshot or transcript with some basic info (e.g. the date of the post). So whoever still believes this is license laundering should open a COM:DR as many details from the Weibo post as possible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
This is most certainly not license laundering as that is defined as "taking an image with a non-free copyright status and uploading it, WITHOUT permission from the copyright holder..."
@Etherealmama: While your frustration is understandable, it doesn't seem like King of Hearts is claiming that this is a case of COM:LL. King of Hearts is just stating that anyone wanting to challenge this file's licensing needs to start a COM:DR because this isn't the kind of thing that typically qualifies for speedy deletion and should be discussed instead. You might also want to consider asking the copyright holder to email their COM:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT given the problems King of Hearts describe about their attempts to verify the license just to remove any doubts at all. Perhaps the copyright holder could even use COM:RELGEN. Anything that makes it easier for the copyright holder's content to be verified is going to lessen the chance of the file being nominated for deletion. Finally, for future reference, you don't really need to copy-paste comments from other Commons pages here onto VPC; simply providing a link to the page/discussion usually suffices. In addition, it sometimes also helps to discuss things (even if only as a courtesy) with the administrator who declined an undeletion request since they too can just simply restore the file if presented with new evidence after the fact. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation and suggestions for VRT. I'm really trying to understand how to properly verify the licensing and avoid it being removed again. I had discussed with the administrator who declined the undeletion request, they suggested that I bring it for discussion to the help desk. Appreciate the tips. Etherealmama (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: The first image version of File:Silence Wang 02.jpg (which you also restored) is a completely different photograph though and was deleted (by me) at the request of the uploader, 11 days before the second version was uploaded. Do any of the permissions which were mentioned also cover this different photograph? --Rosenzweigτ 09:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad - I had checked that both versions of File:Silence Wang 01.jpg were the same photo and assumed the same for the other image. Deleted the old version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Images from New Zealand Archives with improper licences
Many images have been transferred to commons Category:Images from Archives New Zealand from the Archives New Zealand Flickr account: and all of these images are licenced as CC BY 2.0. The problem is this licence is innacurate, many items are PD and many items are copyrighted despite the tag uploaded.
There are almost 10,000 files uploaded from this account (assuming they are all in the category, some might be uncategorised), pretty much all are incorrectly licenced and many are copyright violations. For a very obvious example I had: File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg deleted. The photo can be seen here: The New Zealand Archives may have a copy of the book in their collection but they obviously do not own the copyright to it, which belongs to the publisher/author still.
Correctly licencing these images will be a very tedious task but in the meantime I think it would be good to disallow automated uploads from the Flickr account as the licences provided cannot be trusted. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Yuk. I've just been through an analogous process with a few thousand images from the US National Weather Service published under an ambiguous and often wrong general disclaimer. I've observed a similar problem with the organisation's Flickr stream too.
I'm willing to lend a hand with any verification or clean-up efforts. Where do you plan to start? --Rlandmann (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
My plan was just go look through images as I had time (although I'd certainly never get through it all on my own), correct the category and nominate for deletion if it isn't PD/copyright belonging to Archives NZ.
I'm happy to help out! Are there opinions on whether the archives have the authority to license Crown works? Felix QW (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Their copyright information page suggests that they do have the authority to release Crown Copyright material, and that they are conscious of what they are doing when applying the CC license to their works. In that case, this would only affect privately held copyright; even copyright in the picture book you mentioned above will probably be held by the Crown. Felix QW (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The book isn't CC BY 2.0 or else anyone could publish it. I cannot find a single source besides the Flickr page which lists it as CC BY 2.0. They may have permission to release Crown works as CC BY 2.0, the problem is they don't correctly licence uploads to Flickr so it isn't possible to know, based on that alone, if a work is able to be licenced on Commons or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
You said they were licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr? How would that not be valid then, if they had rights to license it there? If the work was Crown Copyright to begin with, it would seem that is valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I think you need to read the discussion more closely. As you yourself write, "if they had rights to license it there… If the work was Crown Copyright to begin with". According to the above, there is no particular reason to think they had the rights and a great deal of reason to think it was not Crown Copyright. - Jmabel! talk 18:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Per the description at the source of the deleted file: Archives New Zealand holds a number of Ready to Read books, as well as their original artwork commissioned by the Ministry of Education. In those days, anything even published or commissioned by the government was Crown Copyright. Even in 1984 -- it did not change in the UK until 1989. By that description, it would seem to almost certainly be Crown Copyright. Why is there no particular reason to think otherwise? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Because every other source about the book has it listed as copyrighted and there are no digital copies of the book itself/reprints, which one might expect if it wasn't protected. A good portion of their uploads are PD yet licenced as CC BY 2.0 which shows they don't correctly licence things.
for example, PD Image but licenced as CC BY 2.0
This one is licenced but they don't know the author: , so how can they have the rights to it?
this one is from a copyright file, so they clearly don't have the rights to the image. Maybe it is PD, but it certainly won't belong to them. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the contradiction here - the book is copyrighted, and presumably not under a free license. However, that doesn't make it unrealistic for the Crown to license individual pictures from the book, as they did when they posted them on the Flickr feed. In any case, the might make more sense to file an undeletion request rather than continuing here, and then depending on how that goes we may have a better idea as to how to continue with the general cleanup effort. Courtesy ping to Yann as the deleting admin of File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg. Felix QW (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle: Yes it's copyrighted. The book is from 1984, commissioned by the government, and is Crown Copyright (regardless of author) that will not expire for a long, long time. The New Zealand Archives has the right to license that, and it appears they did for a couple of particular images (not the entire book). The book and images are certainly not public domain, but it appears the images on Flickr have a free license. Nothing about any of that is contradictory. The second one of Prince Charles, if they know it was from a government photographer but not the identity, it's the same situation. The other possibility is material donated to them (along with copyright). They appear to come from slides in their possession (similar one here). When they get bulk archives from government departments, individual authors are often not known (similar to US National Archives material). The third one correct, they would not own the copyright. However it appears to be a pseudonymous publication from 1932, which would have expired after 50 years. The 1994 New Zealand law was still 50 years from making available to the public for pseudonymous works, so it would appear to still have been PD on the URAA date, so copyright would not have been restored in the US either. That appears to be a photo of the pamphlet and not a scan, and thus per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, it may have a copyright (especially under New Zealand law which is taken from older UK law). The pamphlet would be PD, but I guess the CC-BY license would be for the photo itself, in case there is a question. {{Licensed-PD-Art}} might be a better tag for that, if it's uploaded here. Either way, a CC license on a PD work is not reason for deletion. Anyone can make mistakes (Wikimedia editors included); it would appear that the New Zealand Archives has a pretty good grasp of copyright so would not assume there are gross mistakes; their material would most likely either be Crown Copyright or have an expired copyright in New Zealand, even if they reflexively add the CC-BY license to all of them. The usual concern there would be a work which is public domain in New Zealand but restored by the URAA in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
> Either way, a CC license on a PD work is not reason for deletion.
No, but consistently incorrectly licencing work means a CC BY 2.0 cannot be taken at face value. If this was not a government account we wouldn't be giving leeway to incorrectly tagging PD work as being own.
This is PD NZ for example: but won't become PD in the US until 2031 Regardless it should not have a CC BY 2.0 tag. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle: It seems you didn't read what Carl wrote above and in the DR: The New Zealand Archives has the right to administer Crown Copyright, and they licensed this CC-BY-2.0 on Flickr, so that appears to be a valid license applied by the copyright owner.Yann (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm talking about them licencing works that are PD. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
In a country such as NZ that traditionally has a low threshold of originality, the CC-BY license may well still be useful for covering the reproduction performed by the Archives. Felix QW (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle: New Zealand and Australia have very low Commons:Threshold of originality levels, taken from older UK law (the UK itself has changed due to its membership in the EU which overrode that, and may remain despite Brexit). There had been questions about photographic reproductions of paintings in the UK prior to that, where the reproduction may have a separate copyright from the painting. Probably not applicable to scans, but there is no case law. If we have a CC-BY license on the reproduction, which is also what their CC-BY licenses on Flickr declare, that question is settled as well. Per Wikimedia policy, we ignore that possibility (we use PD-scan or PD-Art), but that can still be helpful to re-users in other countries (thus our {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template). But yes, that does mean we should see if a PD template could apply in preference to the CC-BY. As for that one photo, not sure where your 1931 date comes from. Older New Zealand photos were copyrighted 50 years from creation; that 1933 photo expired in 1984 in New Zealand, before the URAA date, and was not ever restored in New Zealand either, so that photo would be PD in both countries. If it had been restored, a 1933 photo would expire in 2029 in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
These would never qualify:
Copies of other work, which these clearly are, do not qualify in NZ Traumnovelle (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle: You say "never", but that can be hard without a firm court ruling on similar material. You're probably right, but an EU court ruled that digitization of a new work created a new copyright (or at least a "simple photo" copyright), shortly before a new EU directive came down which changed that. If they could rule that, a NZ court could as well. Agreed it's not likely. I'm not sure if the CC-BY licenses are there regardless of what they upload, or if it's just to make sure there are no questions about the digitization. Agreed that license should be changed to a PD tag of some sort if applicable, possibly using CC-BY inside of {{Licensed-PD-Art}} just for completeness' sake. But that is a task not much different than categorizing stuff, not a significant deletion issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Aren't the licences contradictory? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Not necessarily. A work can be public domain in some / many countries but not PD in others. If there is some country which decided to grant a copyright to digitizations then the CC license could apply. While Commons cares about the country of origin and US specifically, re-users can be anywhere, so as much license info as possible is desired. It's why we have {{Licensed-PD-Art}} -- Commons does not require the license in that situation but re-users might. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to use images uploaded by users of vindskyddskartan.se. The Terms and Conditions of the site state the following:
"Intellectual Property
The Service and its original content (excluding Content provided by You or other users), features and functionality are and will remain the exclusive property of the Company and its licensors.
The Service is protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both the Country and foreign countries.
Our trademarks and trade dress may not be used in connection with any product or service without the prior written consent of the Company.
[...]
Guidelines for photos
Your photos should show the shelter clearly, as well as other equpiment, such as fireplace, toilet, etc. If there is a nice view, feel free to include it as well. Only submit images that you have taken yourself, or that you have been granted the rights to use by the copyright holder."
I understand this as saying that the company does NOT claim copyright for the images. I could not find a statement on who are the contributors or owners of the copyrights for the images nor could I find any statements of copyrights or waiving of such associated with any of the images I tested. EXIF and IPCT data of images download have no information about the creator/artist/copyright holder of the images.
Can I upload user-contributed photos downloaded from the site to Commons?
Uli@wiki (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
@Uli@wiki: No. The fact that you don't have a clue who owns the copyright does not somehow put the image in the public domain, and certainly does not constitute a license. - Jmabel! talk 18:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear: in almost every country of the world photos are now copyrighted at creation, and someone would need to take positive action to license them, waive rights, etc. - Jmabel! talk 18:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
ok - too bad but not unexpected. Uli@wiki (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I've contacted the site and there is an interesting aspect to this: As discussed above, they confirm that the copyright is with the original contributor of the photo. BUT: They strip off the EXIF/IPCT data for privacy reasons. They currently have no technology to include license information (even if the owner would want that) - supposedly there is no interest for this. They would provide contact to the creator for individual images, which would be tedious to realize for many images. In effect this means, they are preventing anyone else from even knowning the license conditions/copyright owners. Since this is a company, it might seem that this prevents competitors from using the files, even if that were ok with the creators. So they are implicitly exploiting the copyright without owning it. --Uli@wiki (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
As long as their contributors have voluntarily let their images be used that way, there is nothing nefarious about that, even if it is inconvenient for us. It is no different from someone publishing their own photo without being interested in offering a license. - Jmabel! talk 19:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Not illegal - just an interesting way to get a more or less exclusive usage situation without owning the exclusive rights. Most contributors probably never thought about it - like me before I wanted to use the images. Uli@wiki (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
1954 Nigerian newspaper
Hi, Haylad has uploaded many issues of a 1954 Nigerian newspaper claiming {{PD-Nigeria}}. AFAICT there is no signature in File:9th December 1954 Daily Comet.pdf, but does this license really apply? Could it be anonymous? Could it be a collective work? Yann (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Yann, Newspapers and Magazines are collective works, the copyright is assumed to expire 50 years after the publication year, this is in accordance with the Nigerian copyright act of 2022. It is imperative to note that while the specific wording regarding the duration of copyright for collective works may not be explicitly stated in the same section, it is generally inferred from the broader provisions regarding copyright duration in the Act. The common practice of 50 years from the date of first publication is widely accepted in copyright law and is reflected in the legislative framework. What do you mean by AFAICT, can you expatiate on it? Haylad (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Haylad: Hi, "Newspapers and Magazines are collective works". That's not always the case. I don't know Nigerian law, but in France, they are collective works only when the articles and images are not signed or attributed. So collective work is certainly not the general situation, only a specific case. Yann (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Mitte27: The first photo is PD in Spain, but not in the US until 1993+95+1=2089, and is therefore unacceptable here until that year. Similarly, the second photo is PD in Spain, but not in the US until 1996+95+1=2092, and is therefore unacceptable here until that year. The third photo isn't even PD in Spain yet because it is not simple, it will be PD there in 1996+70+1=2067 and in the US in 1996+95+1=2092, and is therefore unacceptable here until that year. @Alexdevil: Please be more careful. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alexdevil#Files uploaded by Alexdevil (talk · contribs) 2. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mitte, I'm sorry. So the license is not usable outside Spain? I didn't understand that. Alexdevil (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Mitte27: @Alexdevil: I'll explain what Jeff did not, PD-Spain-photo can only be used for photographs created before 1971. The United States has a law that restored U.S. copyrights for all Spanish works that weren't public domain on January 1, 1996. Additionally, in 1989 and afterwards, the U.S. would have had a copyright on any Spanish photos so we cannot host any 1990s Spanish photo until the dates Jeff stated. Abzeronow (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
UN Fact Finding Mission documents
Kind regards. From what I gather, the documents published in this page are in the public domain per {{PD-UN-doc}} and that they were published under a UN document symbol (namely these detailed reports: , and I can see several UN documents uploaded at Category:United Nations resolutions, but I wanted to make sure before proceeding. Is this correct? Many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Uploading PD (?) artwork
Hi all,
I am uploading a lot of artwork from auction houses, for artists who died >70 years ago.
I use {{PD-old-70}} to tag them.
However, I started getting (speedy) deletion requests (example).
These seem to be specifically about US artists.
I have the Wikidata items for the artists whose work I upload, but no dates for the works themselves.
Can/should I apply additional filters here? For example, I could exclude US artists who died after eg 1927.
What would be the best filter to apply here?
Or I can add additional templates under specific conditions?
Thanks, Magnus Manske (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, That is not a speedy deletion request, and I also think that some information is missing to establish the copyright status. We need the date of publication (or at least the date of creation), and if it is after 1929, some evidence that it was published without a copyright notice, or that the copyright was not renewed. Anyway, the current license is not OK. Yann (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
So as I wrote, I don't have the creation/publication date for most of these artworks. I do have the Wikidata item of the artist, which puts the creation date before their death. What is my best way to proceed? Not upload artwork for anyone who died after 1929? Or just for anyone who was a US national, and keep the other countries at death > 70 years ago? Which license template to use, under which condition? I'd rather someone here can tell me what's correct, than keep guessing. I don't really know the minute details here. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
For works published before 1978, the US term was not based on the year of death at all -- it was 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever was shorter. Of course, works also had to be published with notice, and also renewed after 28 years, which rarely happened. Defining "publication" in the US was a thorny issue, especially for paintings, but if there is some information about a painting out there, it shouldn't take much to establish at least a strong probability it is PD by now. If correctly attributed, usually we can find at least something about the painter or painting to help. The one example you give doesn't "feel" old, and indeed the DR mentions it's unlikely to be the person that Invaluable credited it to. I did find one eBay auction of a print from the same artist, and there's virtually no way it was a person born in 1858. At that point, I think we have no information at all about the painting, and it could easily be modern. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Until I receive further advice, I will use {{PD-old-auto}} instead, as I know the artists death year. I will also leave a "created before" note in the {{Artwork}}'s "date" field. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Just note that art published after 1929 will still frequently be copyrighted in the United States. So any artwork not clearly published before 1929 (which should be uploaded with {{PD-old-auto-expired}}) will require careful analysis on a case-by-case basis. Actually, due to the URAA, this is even more true for non-US artists whose work may well still be copyrighted in the US despite disregarding copyright formalities. Felix QW (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Are the CCBY videos from this channel safe to upload here? --Trade (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
While some (not all) of their videos are tagged as CC-BY, I'm not at all confident that they've actually cleared this with the creators of the music on their channel. The "If you believe this video breaches your copyright, please direct your DMCA related emails to ..." statement in the video descriptions isn't a good sign either; it's barely a step above "no copyright intended".Omphalographer (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I would guess a mixtape channel would contain a slew of copyvios. Do you have any reason to believe the individual works they are combining are either in the public domain or free-licensed? - Jmabel! talk 05:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
None of their uploads looks like actual mixtapes tho Trade (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
This file is described as own work based on this image produced by the combined ISW-CTP team and is copyright protected. It shows areas of Syria controlled by various groups/factions. My understanding of copyright is that the intellectual property protected by copyright in the base image is the outline of the areas controlled (an overlay on the basic map). My further understanding is that minor changes such as varying the colours used in the map, and the addition or removal of features from the basic map do not change/dissolve the copyright. Also, reproducing this outline (ie as an overlay) on a third-party open source map, whether or not it uses the original colours, is also an infringement of copyright.
If my understanding is correct the map could only be used under fair use criteria. The map is used in more than one place on En Wiki.
My question goes to whether the map can be used at all, under what conditions and what should be done about the present situation. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The information contained in the map isn't copyrighted though, that's the thing. JayCubby (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: you can't copyright facts. I don't think there is anything problematic here. - Jmabel! talk 23:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
VRT question
Do we accept VRT permissions for Roblox? Or does their terms of service get in the way of that?--Trade (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Crimea
Do Commons follow Ukrainian or Russian copyright when it comes to photographs taken in this peninsula? Trade (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Both, in Russian and Ukrainian copyright laws it is unimportant when and where was photowork taken, it is important - when and where was photowork published.
Pre-1954 published in Crimea photoworks are under Russian copyright term (see also {{PD-RusEmpire}} for pre-1917 published photoworks).
1954-2014 published in Crimea photoworks are under Ukrainian copyright term.
Post-2014 published in Crimea photoworks are copyrighted in both countries anyway (without considering Freedom of Panorama). Alex Spade (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Is an own remake a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 flowchart allowed?
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. David, but not Hilbert (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I want to use Figure 1.4.1 in a book of LibreTexts on Wikipedia. It is clearly licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, and I am aware that NonCommercial is not acceptable for Commons.
However, the figure is a simple flowchart containing only people names, years, portraits, and technical terms. For example, Gravitation, Newton 1677, and Newton's portrait. If I remake the figure, will it be allowed to upload? (To be specific, if I replace portraits with CC BY-SA images, but keep the texts identical, then is that acceptable?)
I would say that we could even argue that this image is not even copyrightable (i.e. below the threshold of originality) to begin with, which would allow you to upload it straight away. Gnom (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, ok… Thanks! I am still going to remake it, because the figure is not clear enough. David, but not Hilbert (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Sure, that is also fine (please note that the portraits are PD, not CC, which makes things even easier for you). Gnom (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Update: Now it is done.
Roadmap of the parallel development of the Newtonian and variational principles approaches to classical mechanicsDavid, but not Hilbert (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
This is about whether or not a corporation or organization can own a copyright. There does seem to be some confusion about it. In many jurisdictions it's allowed with varying rules.
I'd like to start a new project page related to the copyright by jurisdictions; this information should probably also be included in each country. Obviously it's a big project, so it would help if we had some research. Note: The English Wikipedia article only covers the United States, so it's mostly useless for this endeavor. What I have so far:
Germany: No: Only a person can have a copyright
United Kingdom: Yes: A corporation can have copyright if an employee
United States: Yes: A corporation can have copyright if an employee or a contractor in certain instances
If anyone knows the rules in other countries, please feel free to add.
Bastique☎ let's talk! 23:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
First, please allow me to suggest that the distinction should probably read, can/cannot be an author, and not can/cannot own a copyright.
That said, the question is whether this distinction matters for us at all. For example, if a German employee at a software company creates code during work hours, the copyright in the code is virtually entirely and automatically transferred to the employer, making the employer (be it a corporation or an individual) technically not the author of the code, but still holding nearly all the rights in it. Gnom (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I don't understand how employees could retain the copyright of the works done during their employment. It would allow them to use the works after quitting the job without the employer's consent. Yann (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
That is actually a real problem that some businesses in droit d'auteur jurisdictions face when they don't have proper IP transfer clauses in their employment agreements.:Gnom (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The issue is certainly not restricted to some businesses in droit d'auteur, but to any employee which produces something copyrightable (engineers, architects, etc.). Yann (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The emphasis here is (I think) droit d'auteurjurisdictions, countries having a copyright model similar to that of France, as opposed to the Anglo-American copyright model. --Rosenzweigτ 21:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The answer is yes, with any Berne country. I think though the distinction you want is whether a corporation can be the first owner, or the author (as Gnom states above), which rarely matters for us. In many EU countries, the human author is always the first owner, but then the employment contract will dictate if the copyright gets transferred or not (virtually always yes). So in practice, there is little difference between that and an automatic work for hire. The EU (and Berne Convention really) separates things into economic rights (which are transferrable), and moral rights (which usually are not). The US "copyright" generally corresponds to the economic right. If any right is transferrable, i.e. you can sell it, then yes of course a corporation can own it (by later purchase or employment contract). There may be some differences in some edge conditions -- in the U.S. sometimes a copyright owner, or sometimes only heirs, can claw back a sold copyright many years down the road if initially owned by them, but not a work for hire. For "moral rights", those should still exist for the human authors in the EU even if the economic right was transferred. The UK law distinguishes between "initial copyright owner" (which can be a corporation) and "author" (which is always a human). The 2006 EU copyright directive (article 4) also has a slight difference for the term of anonymous/pseudonymous works in the situations where a Member State provides for particular provisions on copyright in respect of collective works or for a legal person to be designated as the rightholder -- in that case, if the human author was not mentioned on the original publication, the copyright term can never be expanded to 70pma by disclosing the author within 70 years (although not all such countries actually implemented that detail in their law, so probably need to look at each country's law -- the UK did not). In the end, whoever owns a transferrable copyright can license it, and that is usually what we care about. In virtually all cases, an employee's economic rights would be transferred to the employer, and it is that owner we need to get licenses from. Is there a particular situation you have in mind where the distinction would matter for Commons? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
It is based, essentially, on what I think is a misunderstanding (or a highly misguided approach to permission-gathering). See the section above about whether or not it is acceptable for a corporate uploader to upload a file to Commons as "own work," rather than requiring an external permission email from the individual creator.
The issue is, of course, that when the corporation is the copyright holder (through whatever provision this is done), generally this means that the permission is the corporation's to grant, not the employee's.
You could argue that the use of the phrase "own work" doesn't make a lot of sense, but a corporate uploader's license grants are fully valid (provided that it actually owns the copyright) — just as they would be valid on any external site, like Flickr. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I suppose you are talking about . I don't question that a corporation can own a copyright, but we usually require a formal permission is that case. Yann (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, yeah that seems a little odd. If the original human author no longer owns the copyright (or economic right), they can no longer license it, so we don't need their permission. I think we do try to verify accounts are actually from a company, but once that is done, whatever license they put up should be OK. In that case "own work" is more "self-owned work", as in any case we need a license from the current owner. I don't think we need VRT for everything provided the account itself has been vetted, or obviously OK for other reasons. But accounts are anonymous so we'd have to be pretty sure it really was an official company account. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Although I will say that, in principle, the same is true of all individual users' accounts, too. I don't think we should be setting a different standard of evidence based on this. Where something has never been published on the internet prior, and where the claim of ownership/authorship doesn't seem implausible, we tend to take it at face value, do we not? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Verifying accounts named for corporations (and well-known personalities) is part of policy -- Commons:Username policy#Well-known_names_and_names_of_organizations. I think for most accounts, there would be no reason for someone to misrepresent that they are someone other than what they appear to be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Work published in modern (post-1993) Russia and other post-Soviet republics: No: Only a person can have a initial copyright
Work published in USSR: Yes: A corporation could have initial copyright in certain instances with very important nuances
Russia: Yes: If corporation had initial copyright in certain instances, it is had initial copyright now.
Other post-Soviet republics: Unknown: their legislations have no respective transitional thesis in explicit form.
But the actual copyright is not the important right. The question is who has the right the determine the attribution and decide over licenses. It is possible that the copyright holder gave all these rights to someone else. GPSLeo (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
In Sweden, it is possible for a legal person to own copyright as the original author could transfer the rights to a legal person by signing a contract with the legal person. Some rights, such as moral rights, are non-transferable, and so would always be held by the original author or his heirs. I don't know if a legal person could inherit moral rights if the legal person is listed as the heir to the copyright in the author's will.
The general rule is that the original author is the original copyright holder. The employer gets an implicit licence to use the work for the original purpose, and sometimes you hear stories of employers being sued by (usually former) employees because the employer used a work for a different purpose without realising that it was necessary to obtain an appropriate licence.
Special provision Article 40 a of the copyright law (SFS 1960:729): Upphovsrätten till ett datorprogram, som skapas av en arbetstagare som ett led i hans arbetsuppgifter eller efter instruktioner av arbetsgivaren, övergår till arbetsgivaren, såvida inte något annat har avtalats. (The copyright to a computer program which is created by an employee as part of his work tasks or after instructions from the employer are transferred to the employer, unless otherwise agreed.)
On Commons, computers programs would be the source code to SVG files and various Javascript and CSS pages, I think. Possibly also some edits to the Template and Module namespaces. This provision covers computer programs created since 1 January 1993, whereas the copyright to earlier computer programs would belong to the original authors unless otherwise agreed.
Special provision According to Article 14 of the old photo law (1960:730): Rätten till fotografisk bild, som utförts på beställning, tillkommer beställaren, där ej annat uttryckligen avtalats. (The rights to a photographic image, which has been produced as a request, belongs to the requesting party, unless not otherwise explicitly agreed.)
As there are lots of photos on Commons, this could be relevant to us. I think that this both covers photos in newspapers (the copyright belonging to the newspaper, not to the newspaper's photographer) and the situation where a tourist asks a random bystander to take the photo (the copyright belongs to the tourist, not to the bystander). The provision only covers photos taken between 1 July 1961 and 30 June 1994. From 1 July 1994, the copyright belongs to the photographer (the newspaper's photographer or the random bystander). No idea about pre-1961 photos.
For example, on this page, the Swedish central bank claims that the copyright to Swedish money belongs to the original author, not to the central bank. The bank claims that there is nothing copyrightable on the coins, but I don't agree. For example, several coins have a portrait by Ernst Nordin which looks complex enough to be copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Photo of General Gregorio del Pilar in 1898
This is a photo of General Gregorio del Pilar in 1898 (photo link). The description says "General Gregorio del Pilar, known as the Boy General, and his troops in Pampanga, c. 1898. Arnaldo Dumindin" I'm not sure if Arnaldo Dumindin is the original photographer. Is this photo public domain? -Artanisen (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Artanisen: Hi, This should be OK. If there is uncertainty about the photographer or his date of death, you can use {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Yann (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Artanisen@Yann Arnaldo Dumindin is a 20th-century author, born in 1934 (see this, this, and this). He is apparently the author of Philippine-American War, 1899-1902 (as the Scribd presentations claim). JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions) 23:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but this photo was taken in 1898 so Dumindin is not the photographer. Artanisen (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
File:Afiche milleniumturngala.jpg
I'm not sure File:Afiche milleniumturngala.jpg is correctly licensed since it's most likely a case of COM:2D copying and Template:PD-scan with the copyright status of the photographed book cover being up in the air. If the book was published in 1962 in the Netherlands, then it could still be under copyright protection until at least January 1, 1933 per COM:Netherlands if the author is known since the Netherlands seems to apply 70 p.m.a. for works published prior to January 1, 1995 and the author died in 1962. Even if the author is unknown or the book was a en:work for hire, it seems like the copyright on this might have been restored/extended under US copyright law because the book was still under copyright protection as of the Netherlands URAA date of January 1, 1996 since the Netherlands allows such works copyright protection for 50 years after first publication. Is there any way the this file's licensing can be tweaked so that it can be kept by Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I think you are right. It's not a book btw, it's either a booklet (the type you receive before the event) or most likely, as it has Afiche in the name, it is a poster. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
File:100 sosiaalista innovaatiota Suomesta.jpg
File:100 sosiaalista innovaatiota Suomesta.jpg looks to be book cover art, but there's nothing (at least nothing I can find) on the source url provided by the uploader which indicates the cover art has been released as licensed or that the uploader is the copyright holder. This could possibly be {{PD-logo}}, but COM:TOO Finland isn't very clear and it would need to be "PD-logo" both in Finland and the US for Commons to keep this. Any opinions as to whether this can be relicensed as "PD-logo"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly PD-logo in the US; it's eight words, a title and author and publisher, plus a big 100 in the background. (Well, half of a 0 and the other half of a 0, with the 1 completely implied.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
New Computer Modern font and LPPL and GFL
Hi!
The original Computer Modern font has the SIL as its license. The New Computer Modern font has the GUST Font License as its license, which is based on Template:LPPL. Can the LPPL be used for the New Computer Modern font anyway? Thank you --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like the GUST Font License is just LPPL with an additional non-legally-binding request to rename derivatives. I think just using Template:LPPL should be OK, but maybe other folks have other opinions. Nosferattus (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Logo district de dordogne
bonjour je souhaiterais importer le logo du district de football de la Dordogne mes je n'ai aucune connaissance pour savoir comment repérer le licences libre de droit et la date a laquelle le logo a étais créer, quelqu'un aurais t'il la gentillesses de me l'importer? Rawksss (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Pour l'importer sur Commons, il faut que le détenteur des droits d'auteur autorise une copie sous licence libre. Si le logo est actuellement utilisé par le club, cela a peu de chance d'arriver. Vous pouvez importer une version sur Wikipédia en français en suivant les règles de fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
trop complexe pour moi:)) je vais faire sans merci. Cordialement, Rawksss (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Bandcamp album covers
If an album on Bandcamp is marked as CC-BY (such as this album), does that apply to the album cover too, or just the music? I haven't been able to find the answer online. Suntooooth (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I would not presume that it applies to the cover. Quite likely the musicians have never even secured ownership of the copyright from the artist/photographer. I've been involved in probably half a dozen record jackets as a photographer myself; I never remember anyone securing more than use rights. - Jmabel! talk 22:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Got it, thanks:] Suntooooth (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Images in this category are reproduction of currency that are or were used in Denmark. However, per COM:MONEY#Denmark and List of countries' copyright length currency from Denmark less than 50 years old, i.e. created after December, 31 1974 are copyrighted. Note: {{PD-DenmarkGov}} does not apply to currency.
What is this information based on? Usually, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author, not 50 years after publication. For example, many coins from the first decades of the 20th century were designed by w:Gunnar Jensen. His coins are {{PD-old-70}}, but some of the last designs may be unfree in the United States (until 2029 at the latest). The template was added to the file information page by User:ARTEST4ECHO in 2015, without providing a source. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Under Danish law, the term of copyright in anonymous works was formerly 50 years from publication (now 70). This is surely the term to which the user was trying to refer. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
That's very weird. First, the term was extended roughly 20 years before the text was added to that category page. Secondly, I have never heard of anonymously created coins, at least not from recent centuries. Often the engraver's initials appear somewhere on the coin. Looking at a 1 DKK coin from 1993, I see LG = Laust Grove. On a 50 øre coin from 2015, it says JS = Jørgen Strandgaard and HW = Henrik Wiberg. I think that the former didn't do any work with the coin and that the latter only updated the year of the coin. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Images from Flickr (copyright and freedom of panorama)
Would there be any copyright, freedom of panorama or any other issues with uploading either of these images from Flickr?
The first one being a poster is definitely not covered by FoP, so uploading would be a copyright violation. Not sure about the second one. Nakonana (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The "legalize it" banner shot, according to the image data, in Phoenix, Arizona, is also not uploadable. See COM:FOP USA. The depiction of a cannabis leaf is surely in the protected realm and not below the COM:TOO threshold. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
@Nakonana the poster is found in Germany (one tag is Frankfurt, which may be Frankfurt am Main). Does that poster still failing COM:FOP Germany? JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions) 12:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Even if I'm not Nakonana, I'm German too and able to provide an answer. Posters and advertisements of the depicted kind fail at the FOP prerequisite of being permanently placed in a public place, as they are only exposed for a limited time of days or weeks, seldom months, in any case less than the natural lifetime of the work would be. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Confirming what @Grand-Duc said: No FOP for non-permanent posters in Germany. Gnom (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, came across File:Blue Snow (197935565).jpeg in media needing categories. I was trying to double check the licence before adding a category, it's imported from 500px. I can't see where the licence would be located on that site. Thanks for help with this question, CMD (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I see. How do you get to that import page from the main file page? CMD (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
You can't see it on 500px because they changed their licensing on June 30, 2018. Commons already has a project page discussing how these work and what you need to do to verify what toolforge is doing, which is going to archive.org and viewing the source text, which Toolforge is doing for you. Which is why you don't need to verify it, because Toolforge is working exactly as it's supposed to. Bastique☎ let's talk! 16:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Surely there should be a non-Toolforge way to access the copyright information at the source? Felix QW (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Take, for example, . While it 100% does have a valid copyright tag, {{PD-old-100-expired}}, that's not what one sees.
Instead, an aggressive message announcing This file might NOT be in the public domain. is what you see, followed by lengthy paragraphs about why it might not be, then a big bar saying "Previous public domain rationale, no longer applicable" - under which is, of course, the 100% valid PD tag.
This affects over 1 milion files, of which I'd presume the vast majority are completely within PD.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't deprecate the tag. But the overblown language is harmful. Instead, why not just... ask for the tag to be replaced with a different tag? Accept that the vast majority of images covered by PD-GallicaScan were simply using it as a more precise, detailed replacement for {{PD-scan|PD-Old}}.
Now, I'm sure some of them are inaccurately copyright tagged? Maybe, but I'm not convinced the percentage is any higher than the baseline. PD-US gets incorrectly used on non-US works all the time.
As I see it, we have two options:
1. Replace it with {{PD-scan|PD-old-70-expired}} and a maintenance category. This is in line with the actual argument made by the template for why the image is out of copyright.
2. Keep a message but make it way less hyperbolic. "This copyright tag is deprecated. Please replace it with a more accurate tag, likely {{PD-old-70-expired}}. (Gallica doesn't actually claim copyright on their scans from what I can tell, so no actual need for PD-scan.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Can't the template itself be edited to be a bit less agressive/add the maintenance cat? All the Best -- ChuckTalk 00:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The problem with that tag is that it originally claimed the work was a scan of a work that is in the PD, and that is NOT always the case (I know because I changed the tag and participated in the discussions about this move, about one year ago - as did you IIRC). If a file already has a valid PD tag like PD-old-100, the Gallica-Scan tag is not needed and can simply be removed. Usually those files already have a {{Gallica}} tag for the source link, which is sufficient. --Rosenzweigτ 09:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
As for your first proposal “Replace it with {{PD-scan|PD-old-70-expired}} and a maintenance category”: If a bot operator to do it can be found, I'd be principally ok with it but only for works created before a certain (tbd) date. The Gallica-Scan tag was rather indiscriminately used for bot-driven mass uploads from Gallica, including files which are definitely still copyrighted. We should not declare those to be PD-old-70. --Rosenzweigτ 09:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, If the deprecated tag could be replaced or removed by a bot, it would be great, as nobody is going to manually edit over one million files. Now I also agree with Adam that the warning is exaggerated. I would suggest something like "This tag should be replaced after the copyright status of this file is verified." There is no need to scare people here. Yann (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
No FoP in Belarus (and Ukraine) — but what about mass produced buildings built across all of the Soviet Union?
The situation is as follows: the Soviet Union had a number of "standard and reusable projects [or project designs]" (типовые и повторно применяемые проекты) and "series projects" for buildings that were built all across the Soviet Union. Think of something like Khrushchevka s. Vitaly Lagutenko (1904–1968) was the designer of the Khrushchevka buildings (and is somewhat of a bad example to ask a question about Belarus given its copyright protection of only 50 years, so let's take Ukraine instead which has a copyright protection of 70 years after death?). My question is, could I upload photos of Khrushchevkas in Ukraine, despite the lack of FoP and despite the not yet expired copyright protection, with the argument that the same building can be found in Russia where it is not protected by copyright due to FoP? (Please ignore the fact that Khrushchevkas probably are below the threshold of originality because there are also "standard and reusable projects" that definitely have creative elements, e.g. reusable project desigs for Houses of Culture and for schools like this one, so that TOO can't be used as an argument for uploads.) Nakonana (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, is an extremely basic building counted as a work of (architectural) art? JayCubby (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that there are cases which are more elaborate in their design. There can be decorative elements on the facade, there can be columns etc. I only used Khrushchevkas as an example because it's rather well-known. Nakonana (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Here's a list of project designs for Houses of Culture for example. Nakonana (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
This could be a work of 'art' as there's more to it. I dunno. JayCubby (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes that's what I'm curious about. This one is probably also artistic enough to be protected. This building can be found in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. However, if I'm not mistaken, Russia is the only country in this list with Commons compatible FoP rules. Does that mean that photos of this building design are not allowed on Commons if it's the version of the building in Homel in Belarus? Nakonana (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I have argued against the deletion of images of such buildings in France, and I would do the same for buildings in Soviet Union (the housing ones like Category:Khrushchev houses). Yann (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I'll ping here @Alex Spade and NickK: for their insights. They may know about Soviet and post-Soviet states' TOO standards regarding architecture (and if {{PD-structure}} applies). JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions) 23:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I would say that for Ukraine they are not copyrighted because they lack any artistic intention. The article 1.56 defines work as an original intellectual creation of the author (co-authors) in the field of science, literature, art, etc. expressed in an objective form. The Law of Ukraine On Culture defines that architecture is a form of art, and that art means creative artistic activity. I don't think that a typical Khrushchevka can qualify as creative, there was no artistic intention while building it, on the contrary, multiplesources state that they were built deliberately functional and without anything artistic whatsoever. Thus, in my opinion, they don't qualify as copyrightable works of architecture as there was no artistic creativity involved — NickK (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
What about the Houses of Culture with this standard design? There are several houses of culture in Ukraine with that design Can they be uploaded? Because the same design can also be found in Russia, so Commons will have photos of this standard type of building anyway (see File:Нижний Новгород. Дом культуры имени Серго Орждоникидзе.jpg). Nakonana (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Please note that just because a certain design has been replicated many times, that does not mean that this design is not copyrightable. Gnom (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand that. The thing is just that we already have photos of this building design on Commons from Russia where it's covered by FoP. But in Ukraine it would be still copyrighted and we can't upload images? (BTW, I've fixed the previously red link above to the photo of the building in Russia) Nakonana (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't say that these buildings lack artistic creativity. The main question is whether we consider each individual project an exact copy or an adaptation. If the former, I think we need to find out where the first copy was published and what its copyright status is (as this will be considered first publication for US copyright law purposes; Ukraine will still be the source country for buildings still standing but will cease being the source country for a demolished copy). If the latter, each of them will have their individual copyright status depending on the location country — NickK (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't know about Soviet/Ukraine law, but I know that in the US, cases about architecture copyright have been quite heated about not the seriously artistic architectural works that will be discussed in classrooms for centuries, but about the houses that average person buys. Like a song or story doesn't have to be good or memorable to be copyrightable, neither do architectural works. Copyright has always protected maps, textbooks, and other things that are purely functional and not ostentatiously artistic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Ukrainian copyright law protects separately works of art and for works of science. Textbooks you mention get protection not because they are artistic, but because they are undeniably scientific. From scientific point of view I can imagine that drawings of Khrushchevkas are copyrightable (they likely involved some advanced engineering planning) but I don't see how their outside photos will be copyrightable (given that they contain neither anything artistic nor anything scientifically non-trivial) — NickK (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
You misunderstand conception works of art or science in Russian and Ukraine law. The key is in following (in respective articles) list of type of works. Both Black Square by Kazimir Malevich is creative work in recognized art style - suprematism, and Khrushchevka is creative work in recognized architectural style - functionalism. Alex Spade (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
How do you then define the threshold? There is a definition in Ukrainian law which is based on creative artistic activity, and the Russian one is similar. Looking at en:Functionalism (architecture), Khrushchevka seems like a real outlier there: unlike e.g. Mosselprom in the USSR or Bakkegaarden in Denmark which have a clear artistic intention while being functionalist, Khrushchevkas deliberately lacked a creative intention (and there are sources for that). There is indeed in-depth analysis on the merits of this project for fighting housing shortage, but I haven't seen any sources for merits of architectural design of this project. I don't see how a 2D picture of a Khrushchevka from the outside would be above TOO: it's hard to see which element of it is copyrightable — NickK (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
In Russia creativity threshold is defined by the judicial system (in individual court decisions (without precedents) and the Supreme Court generalization of court practice) and the legislators (in amendments to copyright legislation) (as it was done with TV / transport and similar schedules and automatic camera works). The last Supreme Court generalization (No. 10 of April 23, 2019) decrees "until proven otherwise, the results of intellectual activity are assumed to be created creatively". Creativity of Khrushchevkas is discussed, criticized and disputed, but as I can see in sources - creativity postulated as limited, not as lacking. Alex Spade (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
In Russia, сreativity is primary criterion for copyrightability. Simplicity is not - "simple" Black Square by Kazimir Malevich was copyrightable. Regularity/uniqueness(originality) is not - it is unimportant, how many times some model of building/structure was erected - for copyright law these erected buildings/structures are copies in the same manner as number of issued copies of some novel. Artistry is not - article 1259. The Objects of Copyrights: The objects of copyright are scientific, literary and artistic works, irrespective of the merit and significance of the work or the method whereby it is expressed. Alex Spade (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
So. The Houses of Culture design in creative indeed (from my PoV). Khrushchevka design and its creativity can be disputed in some manner, but such design was discussed in core architectural journals/magazines, and such discussions will be proof, evidence, or/and argument for its creativity for a possible court decision . Alex Spade (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
A bit hard to summarize the result of the discussion (if there is a result), so I'd like to ask whether I got it right:
uploading photos of Khrushchevkas in Homel (Belarus) is ok, right?
uploading photos of this House of Culture in Homel (Belarus) is not ok even if we have photos that show the same building design in Russia where this building design is covered by FoP-Russia, correct?
Threshold of originality and the Cloud Gate sculpture
has the shape of a jelly-bean, and was inspired by a natural phenomenon (mercury's surface tension). Is a shape such as that copyrightable within the United States? Perhaps the NRA lawsuit settles that possibility, but I'm not sure whether simplicity was argued (and also which 3d shapes are too simple for copyright). Thanks! JayCubby (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The U.S. Copyright Office accepted Sir Anish Kapoor's copyright registration so that would argue it is copyrightable and Kapoor is notoriously litigious. Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
That settles it, I suppose. JayCubby (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The registration doesn't have any precedential value per se; it accords a presumption of validity. No court has ever ruled on the copyrightability of the sculpture. The only thing that there was any actual ruling on was that the case should be heard in the Eastern District of Virginia rather than the Northern District of Illinois (for personal jurisdiction reasons). The court in Illinois never ruled on any copyright question (besides copyrightability, fair use would have been relevant). The case was settled out of court, with the NRA agreeing to cut the frames including the sculpture from the video (while not paying any damages), so no court ever ruled on anything relating to copyright in this sculpture. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller sorry, but I'm on the view that a copyright registration is an evidence that the sculpture is a protected work of art. We don't want Kapoor becoming the second Oldenburg by filing a take-down notice against Wikimedia, just because we are hosting images of his work based on the "threshold of originality" claims. TOO for US sculptures are lower than TOO in logos. If Cloud Gate was a simple sculpture, then the US Copyright Office should had denied Kapoor's registration filing at first. JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions) 01:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say that the work wasn't copyrightable. I only said that no court has ruled on this (or, as far as I know, any similar sculpture based on any similar rationale). The Olbenburg DMCA claims had nothing to do with the threshold of originality, so I have no idea why you bring those up. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller, I assumed that, based on your insight, the registration is only a mere presumption of validity and does not guarantee copyrightability; we may host images of the sculpture because of the absence of a concrete court statement that targets the sculpture's copyrightability. Still, I oppose allowing Commons to host images of Cloud Gate based on the absence of such a court statement to avoid the camp of Anish Kapoor from filing Oldenburg-style claims against the Wikimedia Foundation. JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions) 09:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I think he's just saying that Copyright Office decisions are not legal precedents -- while they do have to judge copyrightability a lot more than courts, and a court could well take a decision from them under advisement, a court could decide very differently if it ever came to that (and the Copyright Office would have to adjust their rulings). Courts have certainly ruled infringement cases on sculpture, but not sure that any were on the edge of the threshold of originality -- those cases were more a question of fair use or not. A registration is however prima facie evidence that the copyright is valid, meaning a possible infringer would have the burden of proof if to show it was below the threshold, if it came to court. It's a very bad idea for us to host works which do have a valid registration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've dug into the copyright status of this music video ("Kawaikute gomen"). I confirmed that the video was still being distributed on the HoneyWorks official YouTube channel under CC-BY on 5 April 2023, 4 months after it had been published (web.archive.org link). Although they have stopped distributing this specific video under CC-BY on their YouTube channel, several of their other videos are still under CC-BY. So it doesn't look like an accident. Would it be possible for a reviewer to do an official review? Qzekrom (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure that the song is covered by the CC license. It appears that the rights to the song are owned by (or exclusively licensed to) Music Ray'n (per the song's metadata), JASRAC and/or NexTone (per the deletion request page above), but the YouTube channel could be managed by either HoneyWorks or their label. Thus they may not have had the authority to license the song under CC-BY. The music video (minus the audio and lyrics) could still be owned by HoneyWorks, and so could be CC-BY even if the foregoing is true. This seems different from the case of File:ICarly 2021 theme song.webm (for which all the rights are presumably owned by the same company), so I would tread more carefully. Qzekrom (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
For evaluating these cases in general, I think it would be useful to understand apparent authority, as the licensor could still be bound by the CC license even if a social media manager without actual authority clicked the button to license it. Qzekrom (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Done All files marked reviewed. (I haven't yet reviewed your intervening comments. Bastique☎ let's talk! 18:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Media without author's death year/date
Are images/videos that could possibly be in the public domain, though the author's death date is unknown or uncertain, permitted on Wikimedia Commons? I have this image from here (full size ) that I want to upload on Wikimedia Commons though I couldn't find any information on the death year of its authors (J. Kaufmann and F. Hösick) RandomGuy3114 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
File:Blue Star Donuts.jpg looks suspicious, because the metadata says the author is Michael Romanos and the uploader's name doesn't resemble this. Also, the link in metadata shows Michael is a professional photographer. It is suspicious per the clues given about professionally taken photos and ambiguous claims in Commons:How_to_detect_copyright_violations. It's also unnatural that a professional photographer would only upload one image. Overall, I suspect it's the act of publicist for a donut company uploading a professionally taken photo as their own. Graywalls (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Graywalls: Yeah, Google Lens turns up uses of it all over the place, so it's probably a stock photo. I've tagged it as a copyright violation. --bjh21 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bjh21@Graywalls still one more instance of copyvio uploaded through "Cross-wiki upload from en.wikipedia.org" method. It appears this is Justjessk (talk·contribs)'s last remaining upload; their talk page shows another image file that was deleted due to being a derivative work of packaging (I suspect it may be a stock photo too, since it's a photo of "blue donut", so the associated DR should have a note if ever this is true). JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions) 01:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The deleted file is definitely a promotional image Bastique☎ let's talk! 03:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bjh21: , Well, allegation based on that website you tagged with is a weak one, because I couldn't verify that it existed prior to the update date. However, I think the stronger evidence is the photographer's website and name being in the meta data. Graywalls (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
@Graywalls: Good point. I've been dealing with newly-uploaded images lately and didn't think to check the dates. I've removed the speedy deletion tag because the copyright violation is no longer obvious, but I think it would be quite reasonable for someone else to tag it with different rationale or to open a full deletion request. --09:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC) bjh21 (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the file can be moved to commons. The description says that it was simultaneously published in the US and UK, so its "country of origin" under the Berne definition is the US. prospectprospekt (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
~@Yann: Of course Noel could be the author and be in the picture. In fact, that's the most likely scenario here, since he was undoubtedly alone. Even in 1922 technology was advanced enough to use camera equipment on a delay or via a wired remote the same way we do it today to take selfies at a distance. As Noel died in 1989, it would still be under copyright in the United States. Bastique☎ let's talk! 02:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The only way for the photo to still be copyrighted is if its publication in The Assault on Mount Everest was unauthorized. I'm not sure if this is a significant or theoretical doubt, but the photo's transition between being unpublished and published probably involved the photographer giving the photo to/allowing it to be copied by someone else, if that can be considered granting permission for its further distribution. prospectprospekt (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Works that were published more than 95 years ago are out of copyright in the United States, no ifs, ands, or buts. All works published before 1929 (1930 in January) are out of copyright in the US. I don't find it worth considering that this was an unauthorized publication without it having been previously published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to make it clear that it was entirely possible that Noel is the author of this photograph, contrary to the assertion in the OP, especially given that he has credit for it, regardless of the provenance of its copyright. Bastique☎ let's talk! 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
PS: I did some research. The earliest "selfie" was also the earliest photographic portrait, taken in 1839 by daguerreotype, by Robert Cornelius, who was himself standing away from the camera. Bastique☎ let's talk! 02:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Also it was published at the same time in UK and USA, so it could be considered a US work for our purpose. Yann (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Does Commons policy take cognaissance of it being reasonably possibly still be in UK copyright under UK law when first publication was UK? Photographer possibly John Noel (who was also the subject) who died 1989. The US publication was slightly later but de jure "simultaneous". Clearly it is out of copyright in US. Thincat (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
If a work was published concurrently in more than one country, the Berne Convention stipulates that the source country is the country with the shortest copyright term. This means that the copyright has expired in the source country if the copyright has expired in at least one of the countries in which it was concurrently published. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
OK. Out of copyright for Commons (and, seemingly, UK). I had been wondering if this was a case of US exceptionalism but no. Thincat (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Not quite: still in copyright in the UK, but we don't care, because we don't treat that as source country for this. So UK doesn't matter any more that the probably dozen-plus other countries where this was simultaneously published. - Jmabel! talk 15:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
So with all this information, we can be confident that this photo can be transferred to Commons. I believe Noel should receive credit as author, especially as he has always had credit for it as author. Bastique☎ let's talk! 16:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, I copied it to Commons. Yann (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. SwiforD (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Are we sure that this famous U.S. monument is PD-not-renewed? The website of the National Park Service claims it is protected by copyright, but does not give the name of the current copyright holder, unlike the other entries listed by NPS, which show the names of the artists or the current holders of sculptural rights. JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions) 00:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a copyright notice on the pedestal to "Felix W. de Weldon", and under it "Sculp. 1945 - 1954" . He made a small statue of it right after seeing the photograph, which eventually led to his being commissioned to make the large one. There is something to the copyright notice rules which may use the 1945 date (with two dates the earlier is used), but realistically it would be 1954 when the larger statue was completed. There would need to be a copyright renewal from Mr. de Weldon -- if we find that, then it's still under copyright. But we'd need to find a listing. Since for a 1954 date the renewal would have had to be in 1981 or 1982, which is after 1978, any such renewal should be online at www.copyright.gov. It's possible the NPS simply doesn't want to rely on a search, or maybe there is something we are missing. There is mention that de Weldon did visit the US Copyright Office in 1977 -- perhaps it was registered then. That would have been too early to file a renewal though (and too late to register and renew for a 1945 date). He did renew a couple of 1965 inaugural medals in 1994, but I can't find anything else online. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg sounds interesting. The Copyright Office article, though, sounds like the late renewal made by Mr. de Weldon was "valid". More details may be needed, though.
For other users, here is the relevent excerpt from the source Carl provided:
There is no way of knowing how many claims to copyright in a sculpture have been registered. But registration applications for many well known sculptures, as well as the sculptors themselves, have passed through the Copyright Office. Among these works are the Marine Corps War Memorial statue by Felix de Weldon, who visited the Office in 1977.
Note a registration is not renewal. In 1977, it would have been in its first copyright term. He needed to file a renewal a few years later. It was not PD before then. A 1954 work would have become PD in 1983 without a renewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Photo de Harold Foster
Une photo de Harold Foster publiée dans l'album Spirou n°166 au 2e trimestre 1983 et photographiée avec mon smartphone est-elle publiable dans Wikimedia commons?@ Cinokat (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Cinokat: Non, pas sans l'autorisation du détenteur des droits, probablement le photographe. Yann (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Pathé News 1923
There is a frame from a Pathé newsreel filmed in 1923 that I would like to upload. Before I spend the time, can I verify the copyright status?
Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom doesn't seem to address rights vested in companies. The identity of the cameraman is stated but I doubt that this makes it "anonymous" for legal purposes. There is no way of knowing whether they were employed or commissioned, but the former is more likely.
Any advice? (and can the rules article be updated to address company ownership, please?) JMF (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, IMO the copyright holder is/was either the director or the company, not the cameraman. Yann (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
According to w:Copyright Duration Directive#Films and photographs, Films are protected for 70 years from the death of the last of the following people to die [Art. 2(2)]: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work. To my knowledge, the UK has not changed this since leaving the EU, so the term should still apply.
I assume that no screenplay or dialogue was written or that music was composed, so the only person who potentially exists is the principal director. If the cameraman acted alone and didn't receive directions from anyone else, maybe the cameraman would legally be the principal director, or no one is the principal director.
It seems that the EU didn't realise that some of those people might be anonymous and so only the 70 years from death term is listed in the directive. Probably they only thought of expensive films which cost millions of euros to produce and involve a lot of people and didn't realise that there are simple films too. The EU also forgot to list a copyright term if an author (i.e. copyright holder) exists but none of the listed people exists. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
There isn't anything to say that the 70 year from publication term does not apply to cinematographic works if the authors are in fact anonymous. Those terms can apply to all works. If there was no director etc. named, I would say they are anonymous. For something from 1923, the human author(s) would have needed to be named before 1994, else it became PD then. The UK copyright chart pretty much says the same. The copyright holder would be the company, but the term is still based on the human authors, or the anonymous term if not known. The UK law specifically says that the term is based on the lifetimes of (a) the principal director, (b)the author of the screenplay, (c) the author of the dialogue, or (d)the composer of music specially created for and used in the film. If none of those are known, the term is explicitly 70 years from making available to the public. It sounds like there is no screenplay, and no authored dialogue, and no music author. If the cameraman is named, if they count as the director, the term is based on their lifetime, otherwise it is {{PD-UK-unknown}}. I couldn't quite tell if the cameraman was named by the description, and also not entirely sure if they would count as the director in a case like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you all. The film in question is a newsreel, essentially a documentary. No screenplay, no music, no dialogue, no overt creative input.
I'll upload it and see what happens. I had hoped that there would already be Wikimedia "case law" for Pathé, but it seems not. JMF (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Wrong "Public Domain" for movie
The movie File:Der letzte Mann (1924) by F. W. Murnau.webm is incorrectly tagged as "Public Domain" in almost any country, because one of the authors is missing: Cinematographer w:Karl Freund had the most important role in creating this movie (see w:The Last Laugh (1924 film). Freund died only in 1969. I don't know for which country the movie is then in Public Domain, but it is definitely not the European Union as stated on the movie's page. --178.9.54.185 00:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
German law on films is a little unusual from what I recall. For the whole film, Freund would not be considered an author, but for stills from the film, Freund's authorship would apply. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The cinematographer is not one of the four persons used to determine the copyright term duration for a film in the EU countries. These persons are director, composer of film music, screenwriter, dialog writer. --Rosenzweigτ 00:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
You need to be very careful when determining the copyright status of a film in the European Union. 2006/116/EC has these rules:
Article 2.2: The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work.
Article 10.1: Where a term of protection which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive was already running in a Member State on 1 July 1995, this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State.
Article 2.2 means that you have to verify that four people have been dead for at least 70 years. In many member states, Article 10.1 means that you will also have to determine that a bunch of other people associated with the film have been dead for a long time, if the film was made before 1 July 1995.
For example, in Sweden you have to verify that the four people in the directive have been dead for at least 70 years and that virtually everyone else whose name appears in the credits has been dead for at least 50 years (possibly excluding actors, camera men and sound recording people as they would only create related rights which are subject to shorter terms).
I don't know how it works in Germany, but it's possible that the list of people whose death year you have to consider is much greater for pre-1995 films. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Rosenzweig. Let's have a look at the four creators that determine the duration of copyright in EU / German law: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music. The copy used here is silent (without music), so I suppose we can disregard the composer, Giuseppe Becce who lived to a very old age and died only in 1973 (besides, any new recording of the music would be protected separately). The principal director was F. W. Murnau who died in 1931; the screenplay is by Carl Mayer who died in 1944, and there seems to be no separate author for the dialogue (the film doesn't even have the usual intertitles). The cinematographer Karl Freund doesn't count for the movie as a whole, but, as Rosenzweig says, due to the peculiarities of German law, film stills (not moving pictures) would be protected until 2039 (70 years after Freund's death). Furthermore, as the file is a modern restoration, there is the question whether it might enjoy separate protection as a "scholarly edition". Related discussions for another Murnau movie: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nosferatu (still open), Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nosferatu (1922).webm and this discussion in German-language Wikipedia. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
NOAA "Weather in Focus" photo contest 2015 submissions
In 2015, the NOAA ran a "Weather in Focus" photo contest. The terms of submission included:
"NOAA will have unrestricted use of all submitted photos and accompanying material." and
"Additional NOAA websites may also consider publishing these images."
However, there was no suggestion that copyright in the submissions would be surrendered, or that anyone other than the NOAA would be licensed to use the images. When the contest was judged, and the winners announced, the contest main page stated
"Photo Usage: The winning photographs are the property of the photographer who took them. For usage agreement, please contact the photographer."
Since then, the NOAA migrated at least some of the submitted images to their other image repositories, including the NOAA Digital Collections and the NOAA Photo Library Flickr stream. From there, some of these images have found their way to the Commons.
Note that the NOAA Digital Collections purports to only host PD images: "Images in the NOAA Digital Library are in the "public domain" and cannot be copyrighted." At the same time, every image I've seen in the NOAA Photo Library Flickr stream is published under CC-BY (even ones clearly created by NOAA employees in performance of their duties).
Here's an example of the problem I'm seeing:
This photo was taken by Ken William, Clio, MI and won second place in the "Weather, Water & Climate" category of the competition. This is a subpage of the main contest page that carries the notice "The winning photographs are the property of the photographer who took them. For usage agreement, please contact the photographer." The results page was published by
On June 27, 2016, it was uploaded to the NOAA Flickr account with the CC-BY licence.
The image was also uploaded at some point to the NOAA Digital Library without a proximate copyright notice, but under a general notice that all site contents are public domain
On July 12, 2016, it was uploaded here, sourced to Flckr.
It looks very much to me like we have good reasons to question whether the photographer ever surrendered the copyright to his image or released it under a free license.
Before I drag this, and at least another 17 images (see below) through DR, can anyone spot anything I'm missing here? Specifically, does anyone think we can take the NOAA at their word here (and if so, which word? PD or CC-BY?)
You can always relicense a PD-file as CC-BY, it just doesn't hold up unless there have been modifications. It is bad practice, but it isn't wrong.
If NOAA published the images as either PD or CC-BY on Flickr we must assume that they did arrange for the copyright to be transferred. I don't think we should question NOAA, as it would open to questioning anything published by an American governmental agency, if there isn't explicit authorship, and proof that the author was employed at the agency at that time. CFCF (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with "we must assume...." The argument above reasonably suggests that the image licenses were laundered. We need not assume the government is infallible. We can take license claims on good faith, but circumstances can arise when we need to question that good faith.
Fundamentally, this issue should be raised at NOAA so it can fix its archives.
FWIW, on "You can always relicense a PD-file as CC-BY": the otherwise meticulous Seattle Municipal Archives do this all the time. They don't really worry about whether they still have copyright on an image when they post it to Flickr, they just mark it CC-BY whether copyright persists or not. They are very careful about whether someone else owns a copyright, and always mark those few items in their Flick stream as "All rights reserved". - Jmabel! talk 19:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that attaching a CC-BY license to a PD file is meaningless and nonsensical at best, and fraudulent at worst. (Even for a person/entity who originally owned the copyright before releasing it into the PD) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
In the case of the Seattle Municipal Archives, I gather it is by way of saying: we own or owned the rights to this, we are granting a license, and who knows what actions would or wouldn't count as possibly having published it at some point. - Jmabel! talk 08:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Besides, CC-BY is a global licence whereas PD is based on national law. By licensing it as CC-BY, anyone can use it anywhere in the world whereas a person relying on PD would be limited to certain countries only. Of course, if it is several centuries old, then it should be PD everywhere and then CC-BY is pointless. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all; the situation seems murky enough that I will start to assemble the evidence and open DRs as needed. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The background is that in 2015, CFCF uploaded a bunch of videos from the Kenhub - Learn Human Anatomy channel on YouTube. They can be found with Special:Search/intitle:Kenhub. The uploader tagged them with CC BY 3.0, with a note saying "Licenced as CC-BY as of download date 3/1/15". But most of them didn't have a link to the source video and weren't licence-reviewed. Two of them were taking down in response to a DMCA request recently.
I've found 29 of the videos are still on YouTube and I've added added {{From YouTube}} as their source, which provides convenient archive links. In other cases (an in particular for all the "preview" videos I've checked) the channel has replaced the videos with newer ones at different URLs.
I've looked through the Wayback Machine archives for those videos, and very few of them were archived close to their upload date. But a few had archived versions from 2014 and 2015 and I've also found a few other old videos on the channel with archives from 2014 and 2015. The "show more" link on the archived pages doesn't work, but the licence can be found in the HTML source. This is what I found, sorted by the date they were captured by the Wayback Machine:
So all the captures from 2014 show a CC BY 3.0 licence, while the ones from 2015 show either a Standard YouTube Licence or no licence at all. This would be consistent with all of Kenhub's videos being licensed under CC BY 3.0 at the date when these files were uploaded to Commons, and with the channel changing is licensing (including on older videos) in 2015.
So what can we do about this? Presumably File:Pectoralis Major Muscle - Anatomy and Function - Human Anatomy Kenhub 1.webm can be kept, since there's an actual capture of its page with the right licence. Can we keep the rest on the assumption that all the licences on the channel were CC BY 3.0 until some time in 2015? bjh21 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me close to certain that their claim is bogus. The question is: is it worth fighting, especially given that for the files they explicitly named in the takedown notice, our evidence is circumstantial? - Jmabel! talk 18:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
As I see it, the only way to avoid this problem in the future is to always archive a copy of the page when it is uploaded or licence reviewed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Just a ping to User:JSutherland (WMF) as this might be interesting to him, in case he hasn't followed the related discussions closely, and User:BChoo (WMF) from the Legal Department as well. As I see it, per bjh21's research, it is most likely that these videos were all originally licensed under CC-BY at YouTube, just as the Commons uploader CFCF claims in the related discussion, and the license was changed later to non-free. As this would make the DMCA request which was grounds for deleting the two files bogus (CC-BY licenses are irrevocable), I would welcome it if the WMF would take a stand against this in some form. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
As Jmabel points out, it may not be worth pursuing. WMF should consider sending a letter to Pellonia Technologies LTD. demanding a declaration from the author that each of the videos was never released under a CC-BY 3.0 license. Glrx (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that last is a very good idea. Very good first step. If they won't do that, then there would presumably be a basis to object to the takedown notice. - Jmabel! talk 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
However, as bjh21 has shown, we do have evidence that at least some of the videos were originally licensed under CC BY 3.0, as per the Internet Archive's captures. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: but not, as I understand it, the ones for which they sent a takedown notice. So all we really have is circumstantial evidence. I think it would be reasonable to press them for an overt statement that they never free-licensed those particular files. - Jmabel! talk 03:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Excellent work digging up the table above. I am quite pressed right now, and would not have had the time to go through all the files. I did not even remember uploading all of them. However, this does mirror my recollection - they were all CC-BY at the time of uploading, and later changed to Standard YouTube licences.
I'm not sure what the ideal way forward is, or what the legal implications would be of raising this as a case. I can restate, that I do not see myself in a position to counter the DMCA-notice, but if anyone else would do that, or if the WMF would see it fit to do so, I do not object. What is dangerous in not acting is that we open for others to do the same, and defending the CC-BY licensing process is certainly within the realm of what is important for the WMF. It would be very helpful to have a response from User:BChoo (WMF) or User:JSutherland (WMF) on this matter. Even if the WMF would choose not to prioritize this issue, I think the community would be quite happy with an acknowledgement that false relicensing followed by DMCA-takedown is an issue that is popping up. CFCF (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure who has standing to contest a DMCA takedown notice, but I think what we (for variable values of "we") should do is to ask them to assert overtly that the files were never licensed CC-BY 3.0, and present our circumstantial evidence. I would hope they would be hesitant to stick their neck out and make a claim that is almost certainly false and could eventually somehow be proven so. (E.g. if this went to court, YouTube quite likely has backups that would prove the matter.) - Jmabel! talk 19:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
It is possible for a third party to file a counter-notice to a DMCA takedown. It is uncommon, though, since the party filing the counternotice must be pretty confident that the permission was right. Platonides (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Passing of Salome - simultaneous publication
We keep the score of Archibald Joyce's Passing of Salome, which was published in 1912. One can see the title page here: https://musescore.com/user/64608175/scores/10757761.
Archibald Joyce died in 1963, so it will still be in copyright in the UK. On that title page, both London and New York are named as places, although it is "printed in England". What are peoples' opinions on whether this is "simultaneous publication" and allows us to keep this image? Given that this is more about Commons policy rather than copyright law, I am not entirely sure if the legal 30 day window or the simultaneous publication doctrine are even relevant. Felix QW (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Commons policy is that we use the copyright term in the U.S. and the Berne "country of origin". The "simultaneous publication" and 30-day window is straight from the Berne Convention on how to determine the country of origin. Why do you think those are not relevant? It should be relevant in any country (which is not the country of origin itself, or the country of the author) which uses the rule of the shorter term, even if the "country of origin" result can seem illogical. As for this... unsure the mention of a New York office directly means it was definitely published in the U.S. within 30 days, but it is suggestive that it's very possible. They have a copyright notice on there, which (particularly for 1912) means they were intent on maintaining U.S. copyright protection specifically. It does appear that other copies were printed in the U.S. as well.. (The 1909 Copyright Act had a "manufacturing clause" that put some limits on copies made outside the U.S. but distributed to the U.S., so there was an incentive to actually manufacture copies in the U.S. as well.) I see U.S. registrations for it -- has:
The "2 c" means the date two copies were received at the U.S. Library of Congress (another condition for full protection). I think the "pf." means pianoforte. There is no mention of an "ad interim" copyright, which was needed for books or periodicals first published abroad but which would be manufactured in the U.S. later and needed protection between those two dates (and should give the publication date in each country), though I'm not sure that was needed for musical compositions. That basically says though that the U.S. publication date was April 3, 1912. I can't find exactly when the UK publication date was, but your source says "April 1912" which would seem to indicate it was first published in the U.S., or very very close together at the very least. We would probably need evidence it was published before March 4, 1912, in the UK I think, to make the UK the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your detailed reply and diligent research! I was mainly aware of the Berne Convention from URAA considerations, so I was unsure whether we use the same standards for our own Commons policy (especially since the UK will presumably still treat it as copyrighted regardless). Felix QW (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I think we use it primarily because becoming PD in that country *should* mean it also becomes PD in a good number of other countries (rule of the shorter term ones). But yes, a country will always give its own nationals the full copyright term so the rule of the shorter term would not apply in the UK in a case like this. It would not have been public domain anywhere in the EU either before Brexit; that could be an interesting question there as well (although many EU countries had old copyright treaties with the US which mandated they protect US works for those countries' own full terms so that may still apply here too). I'm not sure there has really been a test court case anywhere which involved the Berne "country of origin" when it comes to simultaneous publication for situations like this, so the best we can do is go by the letter of the Berne treaty (though, once we pick a country of origin, that country may have special-case longer terms). US law explicitly does not use any text from the Berne Convention as being legally effective; the URAA though uses the Berne definition of "country of origin" to maximize the number of works which are "United States works" and avoiding the need to restore those. When it comes to picking a "source country" between multiple non-U.S. countries a in a simultaneous publication situation though, they do not use Berne's definition but rather a more common-sense definition. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Are these comics in public domain, if so, could you export them?
I was looking up info on what comic books and characters are in public domain for Commons:Character copyrights, and some say Namor is in PD because he was created for Motion Picture Funnies Weekly #1 before the wide release of Marvel Comics #1, and the former book didn't have its copyright renewed. But while many people claim the former book, and by extension Namor, is in PD because he first appeared in Motion Pictures Funnies which didn't have its copyright renewed, this link disputes this, saying that it may have been distributed after Marvel Comics, if at all. Do you think Motion Pictures Funnies is in PD, should the pictures on its Wikipedia page be exported to Commons? After all, the ashcan copies of Flash Comics/Thrill Comics/Whiz Comics #1 are also on Commons.
Moving on to Fawcett, Quality and Charlton. I'm led to believe that some comic covers up on English Wikipedia that are claimed to be non-free are actually free. Since the site Public Domain Super Heroes claim the issues are in PD, they have been up on https://comicbookplus.com/ for decades without problems (while DC has asked them to take down some comics many of them are still up) and these comics have also seen physical reprints from Gwandanaland Comics. Not only were copyrights not renewed, I've read that Charlton failed to put proper copyright notices on most of their comics in the 50s-60s to begin with. So if PDSH, CBP and GC are correct with their selections and assessments, it would be real helpful if someone with experience in exporting files could export the older pics at Captain Atom, Peacemaker (character), Question (character), Hoppy the Marvel Bunny, National Comics (series), Uncle Sam (comics), Doll Man, Firebrand (DC Comics) and Ray (DC Comics) to Commons. Grey ghost (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I could use more help than I purported. As helpful as PDSH is, they're a wiki but they have few to no sources in their pages, so they're not completely reliable. And I'm still not sure if Motion Picture Funnies Weekly would be in PD since it was hardly distributed. Not sure either if Charlton put proper copyright notices on their comics. While they're up on comicbookplus.com at the same time digitalcomicmuseum.com say they cannot host some of the same comics. And some Gwandanaland books were taken out of print like this one with Ludwig von Drake. Grey ghost (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Character copyrights can be tricky. Each work that makes use of a character may add more details to that character; that effectively makes the character in that book a derivative work (expression added to an existing work). That additional expression may not be expired even if an early version was. For example, the first Mickey Mouse movie is now public domain, but any later additions to the character (such as a change in drawing style or backstory) remain copyrighted. A character copyright therefore often expires slowly, bit by bit. If the first publication of Namor did not have the copyright renewed, that particular comic is fine, but using any aspects of the character first added in later, still-copyrighted works is not OK. Works published *later* which were not renewed can still be derivative works of earlier works. When it comes to exporting, you have to go by the laws in the country of intended use. Many countries will protect a work for 70pma or other term regardless if copyright was renewed in the US or not. Per Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, that may have never been actually published, or maybe not published until the 1970s, so those may not be OK at all. One case that gets into a lot of details in this area is Warner Bros v. Avela, about reprints of publicity materials involving The Wizard of Oz, Tom and Jerry, and Gone with the Wind. Publicity material published without notice before the movies/cartoons were published were OK (but were not enough to create a character copyright), while ones from later were not. Even adding a (famous) quote from the movie to an otherwise PD print was enough to evoke the character copyright from the film (though characters from the book were public domain, the aspects added in the film are not). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Swedish cartoon
This cartoon of late Bulgarian violinist Michail Boiadjiev was apparently given to him by a fan after a 1968 concert in Goteborg; he did not get the fan's name. He subsequently gave the cartoon to his friend, user:CorosanD, who uploaded it after Boiadjiev's death.
I reasonably anticipate that the image is still under copyright; when is the earliest that the copyright will expire on a cartoon drawn by an unidentified Swedish citizen in 1968? DS (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I would guess 70 years from then -- 2039. That would be the date if the 1968 act counted as "making available to the public", or it never gets legally published before 2039. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
It's a lot more complicated.
First, there's a signature in the bottom right. If it's a famous illustrator, this could be a well-known signature. In that case, the author isn't anonymous, which means that the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author.
Secondly, Commons requires PD-US in addition to PD-Sweden. PD-US means 120 years from creation (assuming not published within 25 years from creation), or, if not anonymous, 70 years from death (if not published before 1978).
Third, the standard term in Sweden is 70 years from creation, if the author is anonymous and the work isn't published within 70 years from creation.
Fourth, Article 10.1 of Directive 2006/116/EC states that Where a term of protection which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive was already running in a Member State on 1 July 1995, this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State. According to the old law, the copyright to an anonymous work expires 50 years after publication. If the work is unpublished, it is my understanding that the copyright expires 50 years after the death of the anonymous author. This means that you won't know if it has expired or not until you are sued by the heirs of the anonymous author. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Are pictures from this California local government website in the public domain?
If I create a recreation of an image that doesn't have a .svg equivalent, should I upload it as "my own work" or not? Dentsinhere43 (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
There can be tons of work involved (unless some automated process is used) but one can argue that it is just a different format. Like changing a "jpg" into a "png". So I think you should not. Alexpl (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it's not that easy. Converting from PNG to JPG is a solely technical conversion process performed by a program. A manual conversion of the raster file to an SVG could make the underlying SVG code copyrightable --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I have not exanimated the referred Decree-Law No. 7/95/M of January 30 completely, but it was repealed and replaced by the Law no. 10/2023 (Chinese version & Portuguese version) thus has no legal status (regarding copyright) any more. Furthermore, on the website of AMCM there is a reproduction guide(Chinese version & Portuguese version) stating that it is exempted to request for presenting Pataca images on a electronic monitor/screen and shall deemed to be approved. Hence, I wonder would this means it is now ok to upload some Pataca images here? — AnMacanese 08:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
To the extent the installation media is just uninteresting, factual, text, there should not be a problem. Figures raise a problem because they must be below ToO or have a free license. The first image has a tulip, and the last image has Microsoft's flying Window. Both might be above ToO. Glrx (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Closely traced species plate artwork
Hello, I've been looking for images of a species for a while (Dactylomys boliviensis) and have come up with nothing. A book I have, Handbook of the Mammals of the World Vol 6, has plates that show a nice illustration of each species (see example in this book preview). Would it be an acceptable "derivative work" to copy individual species by hand in grayscale, possibly in different positions, similar to this work File:Dactylomys dactylinus.JPG? Reconrabbit (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work carries the copyright of the underlying work plus the copyright of the person making the derivative work, so if the book in question (or, more precisely, its illustrations, which could be older) is in the public domain or (very unlikely) free-licensed, you can do this and then license your work in a way acceptable to Commons. However, if the original illustrations are still copyrighted, then you cannot upload your tracing, because it would be derivative of a copyrighted work. - Jmabel! talk 19:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Understood. Then, would be able to create an original work depicting the species with the plate as a reference work, as few to no photographs exist? This book is copyrighted 2016. Reconrabbit (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but your own drawings would need to be recognizably different from the original, ideally relying on other sources as well. Gnom (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Chronicling America
There was a recent discussion on the main Village Pump about whether a custom license tag should be created for content hosted on the Chronicling America site. As is the case with a lot of discussions there, we saw a lot of idle chatter with no tangible results. Since CA's coverage of newspapers ends with 1963, would the content fall under {{PD-US-not renewed}} or some other circumstance? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure they are a mix of {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}}. {{PD-US}} is a generic tag that encapsulates those, but specific ones are better if possible. Newspapers from before 1929 (increasing each year) can use the expired tag, and any others on the site before 1964 (which does not change) we can assume were not renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Ambiguous licence
Someone might wish to take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard files where there is an ambiguous licence: If anyone wants to release these albums, you’re free to do so. Here you’ll find links to audio files and cover art. Feel free to get creative with it if you like - it’s yours.
Problem 1: What about material which is not part of these albums, such as photos of events? They seem to be unlicensed.
Problem 2: What does the licence actually allow you to do? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Melvin Edwards sculpture
Hi all, hoping to get some help figuring out the rights status of some images uploaded to Commons via the Columbus Metropolitan Library (CML).
Several slide images (1, 2, 3, 4) of a public sculpture by American artist Melvin Edwards were included in a batch upload from CML via DPLA last year. There don't seem to be any issues with the licensing for the photographs themselves, but they contain a possibly copyrighted sculpture by a living artist. The sculpture pictured, Out of the Struggles of the Past to a Brilliant Future, was created in 1982 and permanently installed in a publicly accessible plaza in an apartment complex in Columbus, Ohio; Edwards regularly publishes images of his work with copyright notices, so my baseline assumption was that the work was in copyright. But I've seen the sculpture in person and the plaque next to it, and I didn't see any copyright notices (although I didn't inspect the entire surface of the work). I also can't find any record of a copyright registration. I think it would be correct to assume the various circumstances combine to mean the work is in the public domain, and thus images of the work like the ones uploaded from CML can also be freely licensed without permission from the artist, but I just wanted to check here to be sure before I actually use any of these images in the Melvin Edwards article on English Wikipedia.
Any insights appreciated. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. A 1982 sculpture was not published by display in a public location and could still be in copyright. Selling tangible copies of the work (including photographs) to the public would have constituted publication, and then registration would have been necessary to maintain copyright protection. Unless first publication happened on or after March 1, 1989. So it depends on a lot of things we do not (yet) know it seems. --Rosenzweigτ 18:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Ahhh, I had the '78 and '89 rulings dates mixed up in my head, thanks for the clarification! 19h00s (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Quick follow-up, would publication of a photo in an exhibition catalogue count? It was pictured in a 1984 catalogue for an exhibition at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris (OCLC68026649). I know this is a pretty murky part of the law so there may not be a satisfying answer here. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Possibly, but I'm not sure. Maybe Clindberg knows something? --Rosenzweigτ 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
It might but I'm not sure a lack of copyright notice on the catalog (if it is in fact missing one) would mean the sculpture is PD. Sculptures put up 1978 and later are harder due to the newer definition of "publication" in the law which went into effect then. The photos are unfortunately problematic without permission from the artist, it would seem. The SIRIS page is here but that pretty much just confirms the above -- no inscription (meaning no copyright notice) but only installed in 1982 where that act did not lose copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Sad because the pictures would have been useful, but that's copyright for ya. Thank you very much for your help here, I guess someone should go ahead and start a deletion request for the images with a reference to this discussion. Pending any additional change to the law/new information about the circumstances of the work's publication, I imagine these should be undeleted around the year 2100 (lol), dependent on the creator's final few years. 19h00s (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Tom Marino's signature
is Tom Marino's signature on page 6 here protectable by copyright due to the slash through the underscore on the M? Or is it OK to upload to the Commons? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Therapyisgood: There is pretty much no such thing as a copyrightable signature in the U.S. There might be a few exceptions (e.g. Pete Seeger sometimes used a signature that incorporated a drawing of a banjo, and that might be copyrightable) but this doesn't get close to that territory. - Jmabel! talk 19:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Nach einem abgelehnten Löschantrag bleibt die Kernfrage unbeantwortet: Könnten diese Wappendarstellungen möglicherweise neueren Datums sein und somit urheberrechtlich geschützt? In Frage kommt zum Beispiel ein Rekonstruktionsversuch oder sogar eine eigenmächtige Ausschmückung des Kamins. GerritR (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Are these coats of arms really as old as they look?--GerritR (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Hat hier niemand eine Meinung dazu?--GerritR (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Das Neipperg-Wappen im Hintergrund ist zu einfach, um geschützt zu sein. Das blau-goldene Schwanenwappen auf dem Kamin sieht aus wie das Wappen einer Adelsfamilie, könnte alt sein, ist vielleicht aber auch pure Fantasie. Ich habe kein passendes Adelswappen gefunden. Womöglich hat sich da ein Hobbykünstler ausgetobt, man weiß es nicht. Zumal das Privaträume sind, das Schloss ist nicht öffentlich zugänglich. --Rosenzweigτ 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Das geht eigentlich ganz in meine Richtung, und nach dem vorbeugenden Prinzip müsste man den Löschantrag eigentlich reaktivieren.--GerritR (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Wahrscheinlich richtig. Gnom (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Ich habe den Löschantrag reaktiviert und bitte darum, die LD zu beobachten.--GerritR (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. GerritR (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Old maps of Dili
In this book (Dili's Architectural Heritage of Portuguese Origins) there are a number of map images from very old (centuries) maps. Is screenshotting these and uploading them acceptable under Public Domain, or is this affected by the republishing? (I don't think the full maps are on Commons, if anyone knows how to get them that'd be great.) Also double checking if the US army maps at this page can be uploaded. Best, CMD (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I can't access the first link you give. What is the publication date of this book? All works by the US government are in the public domain, so maps from the 2nd link (CIA maps) should be OK. Please check first that they are not already on Commons. Yann (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: I seem to have the same situation. I am told "Publication access is currently limited" and "Limitation will be handled by the publisher, and the publication may be accessible again later.", and strangely, I am not allowed to copy that text. However, according to https://issuu.com/incidentaldoc if I search for the text "Dili's Architectural Heritage ..." (which hides "Dili's Architectural Heritage of Portuguese Origins"), I see that it was published October 14, 2015. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah well, it was working before. I checked the Commons maps before asking this question, although no guarantees I didn't miss it I suppose. CMD (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The image can be seen here, but there is no information about it. Yann (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: IMO, everything before 1930 should be OK (unless there is an author mentioned, and this author died after 1953, quite unlikely for a map). Yann (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Another potential factor, Template:PD-East TimorGov suggests government publications before 2023 should be PD, but I don't know how this interacts with pre-Indonesian publications. Anyway, I have uploaded three pre-1930 ones:
Yes, it probably should be. That is saying that if the point of the photo is a larger subject, and the copyrightable element is incidental, i.e. unavoidably there but not the main focus, then the photo is OK. This is mentioned in Commons:De minimis although not really actually de minimis. The ruling is pretty much directly on point for copyrightable labels on otherwise utilitarian products. It can be difficult if the entire packaging is copyrightable, though. It's also still a problem if the photo is focusing on the label. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Quoting my rationale for re-nominating another file for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg: While the photographer of the Fanta can has released their photograph under a free license, the image still constitutes a derivative work of the copyrighted design on the packaging, and Wikimedia Commons’ policies do not allow such works without permission from the copyright holder of the underlying design. The reasoning to keep the image based on Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. is flawed because that case addressed whether a photographer could claim copyright over their own product photographs, not whether the underlying copyrighted design could be freely reproduced by others. Commons requires stricter compliance with copyright law, and derivative works—such as images prominently displaying copyrighted packaging—cannot be freely hosted without authorization from both the photographer and the copyright holder of the derivative work (think photo of a 3D artwork). Unlike in Ets-Hokin, where the focus was on the photographer’s copyright claim, the issue here is whether the photograph infringes on the copyright of the label itself, which it does under Commons’ rules. Freedom of panorama does not apply to product labels or packaging, and keeping the image risks violating copyright law. Commons operates under the precautionary principle, meaning that any uncertainty about copyright compatibility should result in deletion, and the copyrighted design on the Fanta can creates legal uncertainty regardless of the photographer's intent. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I think there is also the case of the Pokemon Jet with a similar situation. Yann (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I think what has not been addressed is if the photos are derivaritive works at the first place. The essay centers around the limits of derivative works on Commons, which I believe misinterprets Ets-Hokin v. Sky.
It is true Commons requires photographs to be its own original work. If it is a derivative work, the underlying work must either be in the public domain or is freely licensed. Thus, the notion of whether the label on the bottle is a question of whether it is a derivative work or not; if so, it cannot be hosted on Commons. This is because companies have certain degree of control on derivative works.
However, in my view, there must be another reason why these images cannot be hosted. This is because the pictures are not derivative works.
For a work to NOT be a derivative work, it must pass a test, whether the original work is copyrightable. The 9th circuit effectively counters the claim that the pictures are derivative work. It rules that the picture is on the bottle, which is a utilitarian product that cannot be copyrighted, thus warranting copyrightability of the image. The bottle's labels do not matter, as "Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label." I.e. we are taking pictures of the bottle, not the label. Of course, this comes with trademark concerns, but that is beyond the scope of copyright. Commons is only interested in copyright and thus, whether a work is a derivative work.
Thus, it could be said that since any reproductions would not be a derivative work, it affords the author liberty to license and distribute the picture as they please, GIVEN that there is no modifications to close in on the lable to a 2d representation. This is quite in line with Commons policy, and should be added as an exception to packaging. Takipoint123 (💬) 12:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
First, the 9th Circuit's ruling in Ets-Hokin does not state that photographs of objects like bottles cannot be derivative works. Instead, the court specifically ruled on the copyrightability of Ets-Hokin's photographs of the Skyy Vodka bottle, not on whether the bottle's label or design was copyrightable. The court avoided deciding the copyright status of the label itself, noting that the "whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety," and thus granted copyright protection for the creative choices made by the photographer, such as lighting, composition, and angle. The case did not establish that product photographs can never be derivative works, nor did it address the implications of distributing such photographs under a free license.
Second, the assertion that bottles as "utilitarian products" cannot be copyrighted is only partially correct. While the functional aspects of a bottle, such as its shape for holding liquid, are not copyrightable, creative or artistic elements—such as logos, labels, and unique ornamental designs—remain protected by copyright law if they meet the threshold of originality. Commons policy explicitly recognizes this distinction and treats such creative elements as potentially copyrightable, meaning they may restrict the free use of photographs containing them.
Third, the idea that photographs capturing the "bottle as a whole" are immune to claims of derivative work because the label "does not matter" is not consistent with how copyright law views derivative works. A photograph of a bottle with a prominent label is effectively reproducing the label as part of the image. If the label or other decorative elements are copyright-protected, the photograph is inherently reproducing that copyrighted work. The question of derivative work, then, depends on whether the copyrighted element is sufficiently prominent and central to the photograph. This is where Commons applies its policies on freedom of panorama, threshold of originality, or de minimis use—not as an automatic exemption for product photographs.
Fourth, the conclusion that reproductions of these photographs "would not be a derivative work" misrepresents Commons policy. Commons does not evaluate whether a work is derivative solely on the utilitarian nature of the object depicted; instead, it assesses whether any copyrightable elements (such as logos, labels, or designs) are reproduced in a way that infringes copyright. Ets-Hokin does not grant carte blanche for photographers to freely license and distribute photos of copyrighted designs simply because the overall product is utilitarian.
Finally, regarding the suggestion to add an exception to packaging on Commons, this would conflict with Commons' precautionary principle, which requires that any content uploaded be demonstrably free of copyright restrictions. If the label or design on a bottle is copyrighted and prominently featured in a photograph, the image cannot be freely licensed without explicit permission from the copyright holder. This is distinct from the copyright protection granted to the photographer's creative elements (e.g., lighting and composition) under Ets-Hokin. Both the photograph and the underlying design must meet Commons' requirements for hosting.
I am reluctant to accept this as a correct way to assume legal interpretations. Intellectual property law is inherently case based. Just because the case did not specifically say it applies to all cases does not mean it's inappropriate to take the case's interpretation that the bottle is not a derivative work. Court cases are vague for this exact reason. They "never say never" because every case is different; this doesn't prevent us from making reasonably close connections.
In fact, we don't go around deleting every file out there just because it might be an exception (Commons:copyright paranoia). It is quite clear the 9th circuit used legal methodology to dismiss claims that the work is a derivative work, and so is any other pictures of bottles out there. The 9th circuit did not comment on the label because it simply didn't matter, which they specifically point out.
I don't necessarily argue that bottles cannot be copyrighted. But, a regular clear PET bottle we see everyday is likely not, while a bottle that resembles Michaelangelo's statutes probably will. Nonetheless, this is out of the scope of the discussion for most cases.
Ets-Hokin (2003) specifically rules that the threshold of originality is very low for photographic reproductions of objects such as bottles.
I do believe the need for more community input on this matter, however. These are just my personal opinions. Takipoint123 (💬) 12:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
@Josve05a: FWIW, your conclusions are the exact opposite of what the ruling says. Now, the issue is whether these pictures meet the criteria: "the whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety", or not. I could agree that the objective of these pictures were to photograph the labels, and are therefore not OK, but that's a different reasoning. Yann (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
@Josve05a: You say that the pictures are derivative works of the products. The whole point of the ruling is that it doesn't matter if the objective is to take the whole bottle. Yann (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The quote from the ruling:
We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works.
In other words, yes of course labels can be copyrightable. However the photo was not focusing on the label, but a larger work of which the label is on. The ruling in that case is that the photo is a derivative work of the bottle -- the element being focused on -- but since the bottle is not copyrightable, there is no issue there. But, the photo is not a derivative work of the label, regardless if it's copyrightable or not. The label is incidental, i.e. is unavoidably there when the focus is a larger subject. That was also in question with Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc, a photo of a motorcycle with a very copyrightable bit of artwork on it. That overturned a lower-court ruling where photos could almost never be derivative works, but did state: Further weakening defendant-appellees argument is the fact that the ZX-14 motorcycles were the subject matter and primary focus of Latimer's photographs. Latimer's photographs can best be described as being "based upon" the ZX-14 motorcycles, useful articles not subject to copyright protection. The fact that Hathaway's artwork appears in the photographs is merely incidental. The ruling ended up being on a more narrow contractual issue, so did not make a binding ruling on the matter, but it seems clear they ended up about where Ets-Hokin did -- a photo of a larger subject is not derivative of something unavoidably there. This is also about the same as the French ruling on the "theory of the accessory", where a photo of a street with a prominent skyscraper at the end was not derivative of the building. In all cases, a photo focusing on the copyrightable label/artwork/building itself would be derivative, but not if focusing on a larger subject. That seems to be the balance of photographer's rights versus other artists rights, where that artwork appears in public or everyday items -- not everything is a derivative work. Should the designer of a copyrightable sports logo be owed royalties for every photograph of an athlete wearing that logo? That seems to be roughly the best "line" that I have seen, given that there are not many cases like this -- most photographic derivative work photos are about a photo focusing on a particular copyrighted work. I'm not aware of counterexamples to that. If the photographer deliberately includes a copyrighted element for effect though, that can be different. There was a US case of a fashion photograph where the photographer had the model wear a pair of very fancy glasses even though the point of the photo was the rest of the outfit -- but in that case, the addition was completely under control of the photographer, and they were adding the expression in the glasses to enhance the photograph. When photographing a product, labels are there regardless -- they are incidental. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
@Clindberg: The interpretation provided overlooks a critical nuance: the extent to which a copyrighted element is central to the identity of the subject in a photograph. While cases like Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. and Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc. suggest that certain copyrighted elements may be considered incidental, this depends heavily on the nature of the product being photographed and whether the copyrighted element is intrinsic to identifying that product.
Take, for instance, a CD album where the entire surface is covered by an album cover design. A photograph of this product inherently captures the copyrighted design because it is inextricably linked to the product itself. Removing or obscuring the album cover would render the photograph unrecognizable as being of that specific CD—it would no longer represent the product in question but a generic plastic case. In this context, the copyrighted element (the album cover) is not incidental but central to the subject of the photograph.
Similarly, in the case of a Fanta bottle, the label is a defining feature of the product—it identifies the brand, the flavor, and the drink itself. If the label were to be Photoshopped out, the photograph would cease to depict a Fanta bottle and would instead show a generic PET bottle. This demonstrates that the inclusion of the label is not incidental to the photograph; rather, it is integral to the subject of the image as a product photo.
Contrast this with the examples provided, such as a motorcycle with a copyrighted artwork or a jersey with a sports logo. In those cases, removing the artwork or logo does not fundamentally alter the identity of the subject—the photograph would still depict the same motorcycle or jersey, albeit with less detail. The copyrighted elements in such cases are indeed incidental because they do not define the object being photographed.
The distinction, then, lies in whether the copyrighted element is intrinsic to the identity of the subject. If the copyrighted element is integral to identifying the product (as in the case of a labeled beverage bottle or an album cover), the photograph cannot reasonably be considered free of derivative work concerns. On the other hand, if the copyrighted element is merely an accessory or incidental to the broader subject (as in the case of a motorcycle or jersey), it may fall outside the scope of derivative work concerns. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The ruling makes no distinction like that. The ruling specifically says a copyrightable label would have been irrelevant to the ruling -- it was simply not a derivative work to begin with of the label, no matter the aspects that you list. US copyright rulings actually make sure to mention that the visual impact or symbolic importance is completely irrelevant to copyright. Things like "defining feature" are more trademark, not copyright. This is US law specifically -- a work must be "based on" another to be derivative, and the ruling was that it was based on the bottle and not the label, so nothing about the label could make the photo derivative. It does say a work focusing on the label itself would be an issue, or a photographer intentionally including an avoidable copyrightable work for effect can be an issue. I am aware of no court case that makes the distinctions you do -- do you have examples? If not, that seems like a distinction invented here; I prefer to be able to point to actual court decisions to show that things like that can be an actual problem. It's entirely possible that something where the copyrightable design covers the entire surface of say a packaging box may be different -- not sure we have a test case like that. But it may not, either. There are further US rulings that are harder to apply here, where if the point is to illustrate a product no matter what it looks like, the photo is not trading off the actual expression present in the design -- the photographer would have taken the photo no matter what expression the product designers chose. It's really where the photo is trading off the specific expression of the underlying work that it's a problem. A similar aspect to that can be damages -- the Baltimore Ravens football team once had a logo contest, and the final logo was based off of one of the submissions but they failed to obtain copyright, so they were sued. They lost -- it was clearly derivative -- but the damages were $1 or something because the judge ruled that all merchandise was sold due to it being the Ravens (whatever logo they chose) and not because of the specific expression in that logo (and the submission was not registered for copyright, so no automatic damages). Some of those questions get into fair use territory too, so are hard to apply here. But the two cases cited above, plus the French one, seem to come down around the same lines of what makes a derivative work -- and I'm not aware of any counterexamples. If you can show a court case where stuff like that was ruled derivative, then we can look at the court case reasoning. If not, then I'm not sure we should be inventing definitions that may or may not exist for real. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Most of the arguments I find are very general concepts that could be broadly construed in nearly every case. In general, given all other circumstances equal, the most similar case shall prevail when making decisions on copyright. Concepts like TOO and focus of the image is a guideline courts use to make decision and when specific decisions are made, should not be used for "what if" situations when a specific judgement was already made. This case makes it clear that the 9th circuit considered relevant guidelines, and made a decision that the label didn't matter. Unless this decision is overruled by a higher case, I don't find it plausible to argue on whether this case is in line with other copyright principles: I'd put my trust in the judges. Takipoint123 (💬) 01:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
My last reply to this (promise), since I admit I now start writing in circle, and Carl above is far more knowledgeable than me with case law. But I still have another case to bring up.
The ruling in Ets-Hokin does not categorically rule out the possibility of a photograph being a derivative work when it incorporates a copyrighted element that is integral to the subject being depicted. While the court in Ets-Hokin determined that the photograph in question was not "based on" the label, this conclusion was tied to the specific facts of that case, where the focus was deemed to be the uncopyrightable bottle as a whole. However, this reasoning cannot be universally applied to all product photographs. For instance, in Rogers v. Koons, the court found that a sculpture was derivative of a photograph because the creative elements of the photograph—such as its composition and subject matter—were central to the resulting work. This demonstrates that when a copyrighted element is integral to the identity of the subject and meaningfully contributes to the resulting work, it cannot simply be dismissed as "incidental."
In the case of a Fanta bottle, the label is not an incidental detail—it is the defining feature that distinguishes the product as a Fanta beverage. Removing the label would transform the image from one of a Fanta bottle to that of a generic PET bottle, illustrating that the photograph is inherently "based on" the copyrighted label. This aligns with the standard for derivative works under U.S. copyright law, which considers whether the resulting work is substantially derived from the original copyrighted material. The argument that the focus is on the bottle as a whole does not negate the derivative nature of the photograph when the copyrighted label is integral to the subject.
Furthermore, while the counterargument claims there are no examples where such distinctions have been upheld, it overlooks the nuance in case law. In Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., for example, the court acknowledged that photographs focusing on useful articles like motorcycles are not derivative of incidental copyrighted elements, such as artwork on the motorcycle, unless the artwork itself becomes the focus of the photograph. This principle supports the idea that the role and significance of the copyrighted element within the work must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A Fanta label is far more integral to the product's identity than incidental artwork on a motorcycle, placing it outside the incidental-use doctrine.
Finally, Commons policy adds another layer of scrutiny. Even if U.S. copyright law were to deem the photograph non-derivative, Commons operates under a precautionary principle. Any ambiguity in whether a copyrighted element is integral to the subject or incidental should err on the side of caution to avoid hosting content that may infringe on copyright. As such, product photographs where the copyrighted design is integral to the subject, like a labeled beverage bottle, shoulld be deemed incompatible with Commons policy unless both the photograph and the underlying design are freely licensed or meet other exemptions.
Rogers v. Koons was an example where the photographer had control over the composition of the photograph, not simply the angle and framing like snapshots. They specifically arranged the people and dogs; that is a "selection and arrangement" copyright, and it was that aspect which was copied into the eventual sculpture, and why the sculpture was derivative. That is copying of specific expression, to enhance the expression of the sculpture. This can happen in studio portraits too -- why those are usually considered "works" and not "simple photos"; they are creating particular poses and facial expressions. If the specific curves in a logo (i.e. the actual artistic expression) are the reason it was included in a photograph, and not a logo's symbolic value, then it could be arguable. But a photo simply depicting a product as it exists may well not be. Arranging a bunch of copyrightable toys on the other hand, is a photograph selecting copyrightable expression because it makes a better photograph -- that can be a problem. As for the precautionary principle, that is for significant doubts, not theoretical ones. Situations in the middle of gray areas of existing court cases, sure. Situations where we invent an argument that courts have not, then claim that is enough doubt to delete because a court in the future might theoretically rule that way, I think we should avoid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I think Ets-Hokin is over generalized. The opinion describes the label as only text and argues the minimal text is not copyrightable. Only after that argument does the opinion pronounce that it does not need to find that the text is not copyrightable because the label is incidental. It does not describe how much of the bottle was covered by the label. Skyy bottles do not have a large label. I accept that a small Nike swoosh on functional sports uniform should not produce a copyright claim, but I do not accept the notion that I can say I'm just photographing a utilitarian bottle and not the elegant floral design plastered on it. Glrx (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Actually no, it does not rule or argue that the label is uncopyrightable (though strongly hints that it is). Rather, it explicitly rules that even if the label was copyrightable, the photo is still not a derivative work. This is the paragraph of the ruling starting with We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable, quoted earlier in this discussion. This may be a somewhat technical ruling based on US law, but since the photo is "based on" the bottle and not the logo, it cannot be a derivative work of the logo. It cannot be construed to be "based on" the label, thus is not derivative no matter what the label is. Somebody other than the photographer put the label there, and they have a right to photograph the bottle, basically. This is about balancing the rights of a photographer versus other copyright owners -- the owner of a logo does not get to control photos of their products just because of a copyright in the label, it would seem. The Berne Convention is 150 years old and in all that time, you'd think there would be *some* cases out there which ruled something like this as a derivative work and thus infringement, if there was a likely problem here. Instead, we have three cases which have ruled along more or less the same lines -- the Roaring Toyz case was a definitely copyrightable design, and prominently on a motorcycle, but a photo of the motorcycle was likely not derivative (as again, they did not explicitly rule that but just strongly hinted). A photo focusing on the label itself is an issue, per Ets-Hokin, though -- at that point it is "based on" the label, so the copyrightability of the label then comes into play. I agree it may get harder when the entire item is covered by copyrightable work since it may be harder to distinguish what the photo is "based on", though again we don't have a ruling which definitively says that is a problem either, in say the case of livery on a plane where the photo is of the whole plane. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Argues but does not find. From the decision:
Turning next to the bottle's label, which the district court also cited in part in categorizing Ets-Hokin's photos as derivative works, we note that "[a] claim to copyright cannot be registered in a print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter." 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(b). Although a label's "graphical illustrations" are normally copyrightable, "textual matter" is not—at least not unless the text "aid[s] or augment[s]" an accompanying graphical illustration. 1 NIMMER § 2.08[G][2], at 2-136. The label on Skyy's vodka bottle consists only of text and does not include any pictorial illustrations.
That one is more arguable to be a problem. It's focusing on the artwork in particular, not the entire plane. That is probably fair use in most cases but would be a derivative work, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd say so too. Most importantly, we're missing significant portions of the plane (i.e. the wings are mostly cut off). Takipoint123 (💬) 01:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, there are other pictures that show more of the plane.
Here's a better example: File:Shrinkflation.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shrinkflation.jpg. The shrinkflation photo is about the size of the Pringle's cans, and the cans are utilitarian objects. As I understand the claimed Ets-Hokin interpretation above, the can's label does not matter. I do not buy that argument. Glrx (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Glrx: Sorry, I missed your reply above for a while. This is the ruling:
We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works.
What is your interpretation, then, of why the judge did not need to decide on whether the label is copyrightable to rule if the photo qualified as a derivative work? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The opinion starts down a clear path. The recitation states that an ordinary wine bottle has a label. The label is just text with no pictures. The label is centered on the bottle. There are several colors and a background. The photographs were to advertise Skyy Vodka. The opinion finds that the ordinary shape of the bottle is utilitarian and not copyrightable. Then the opinion then examines whether the label has a copyright. The opinion cites authority that mere text is not copyrightable.
The opinion seems poised to end by finding the label is not copyrightable, but it veers off that path. The opinion says Skyy did not provide any authority "that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable". What nature is that? A bottle with a label that consists only of text and a colored background? Apparently, Skyy never argued that its plain bottle with its text label could have a copyright. The lower court merely found that the Skyy bottle was an existing object. The recitation does not say Skyy obtained a copyright registration or argued that its bottle or label was copyrighted. Skyy apparently argued only that a non-copyrightable object can create derivative works. The court need not decide whether the bottle has a copyright because the defendant never made that claim.
The world would be different if Skyy had claimed its ordinary bottle with its ordinary text label were copyrightable.
Ets-Hokin requires a derivative work be based on a copyrighted work.
The opinion describes the picture being of "the bottle as a whole" and not mainly of the label, therefore the product is not a preexisting work. I have trouble with that phrasing. The recitation is about the Skyy Vodka product shots, and the label has central placement. The opinion cites no other authority for the supposed view that a whole can ignore copyrighted parts. That viewpoint would confound the notion of a derivative work. The opinion gives no guidance about how prominent a copyrighted label need be. If the photograph were mainly about a copyrighted label, would the opinion go the other way? There is no clarity.
I think the paragraph just avoided making a finding that it did not need to make.
The ruling however, was that As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works regardless of the copyrightability of the label. Their ruling is trying to balance the rights of a photographer with that of other authors (also mentioned) -- your interpretation means that the artist of a logo deserves royalty rights over any photograph which contains that logo, even if just photographing a product it appears on, and the right to prevent publication of such photos, etc. That ruling says that no, if the purpose was to photograph the bottle regardless of whatever logo happened to be on there, it's not a derivative work. The photo needs to intentionally trade off of some underlying copyrightable expression. Simply photographing an everyday object where someone else made the decision of what logo to put on it, does not qualify. This is the same dividing line the Roaring Toyz ruling ended up with, and very similar to what the French case ended up with. I am not aware of any rulings which back up your interpretation that such photos are derivative works. The court doesn't necessarily cite an authority because they are the authority -- this is a ruling under common law, interpreting the language of the law. The ruling here states that photos of the label, or mainly of the label, could be derivative works (but obviously only if the label was copyrightable). The final ruling of not being a derivative work is there regardless of the copyrightability of the label, as the first sentence plainly states. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, thats not really what the 9th circuit says. The court only commented on the label because the defence counsel probably argued in that way. Courts work in a way that presents full counter arguments to every single aspect that has been argued to prevent misinterpretation and/or it going unnecessary to appellate courts. The court adds for further clarity that labels would not have mattered anyways. Us, as regular users (and not lawyers) should find the decision "as is" instead of making up potential nuances in the decision.--Takipoint123 (💬) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Also pinging @King of Hearts: I apologize for taking your time, but I thought you might have a say as you used Ets-Hokins in your vote Takipoint123 (💬) 23:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I've got nothing against someone requesting them to be undeleted following COM:UNDEL as per usual policy, but I will not reverse my own administrative action, since I don't think they should be undelted. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
This may be of some help too. @Josve05a, Clindberg, Takipoint123, and Glrx: . It is noteworthy that Judge D. W. Nelson dissented in the court's decision to dismiss the analysis on the derivative works. JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions) 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The focus of that photo is not the packaging, though, but the text because it shows a common typo printed in large letters on the packaging of a reputable company's product. Nakonana (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Done OK deleted. Yann (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC) 
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
No: Only a person can have a copyright
Not OK (German FoP does not cover non-permanent works like posters). The 2nd image, .jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_EI-XLN,_Boeing_747-412_(21110098603).jpg){kind=link}
