Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Is this photo acceptable to be used in a Wikipedia article? https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28205/ StArryCat (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Disregard— Preceding unsigned comment added by StArryCat (talk • contribs) 02:17, January 3, 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This file is adapted from a video game that is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3. The file's license tag is CC-BY 3.0 via the YouTube CC license feature, which is technically a violation but (imo) in the spirit of the similar CC-BY-SA license, especially given that CC-BY is the only CC license supported by YouTube. That said, the video creator also confirmed via a tweet that the video is licensed under CC-BY-SA, but it's unclear whether he meant BY-SA 3 or BY-SA 4 (the only licenses that would be allowed for derivative works of a BY-SA 3 work). BY-SA 4 existed by the time the video was created, so it could easily be either.

What should we do? I think deleting the file as a copyvio over a technicality is overkill, because the creator was clearly trying to follow the spirit of the license. Since we don't know which version of CC-BY-SA the creator intended to use for the adapted work, we can't just apply a license tag. At a minimum, I've added a line specifying that the creator intended to license it as BY-SA as well as the license of the underlying material. Qzekrom (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Also not sure if the license for the game code is relevant (binaries under GPL-3.0-only, source code under GPL-2.0-or-later according to en:0 A.D. (video game)). Qzekrom (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The author William Huber of the 2022 book "George Westinghouse Powering the World" has given me a signed copyright release to post an image from his book to Wikimedia. The image is an excerpt from an old map held in the Darlington Collection of the University of Pittsburgh, from which he in turn received permission to publish - with his annotations. We want to post this modified image to Wikimedia in order to make it appear in two Wikipedia articles: (1) George Westinghouse and (2) History of Pittsburgh.

The tree of permissions choices presented in the Upload Wizard does not seem to cover this case. What do I have to do to successfully upload this image? Qwerty123uiop (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Qwerty123uiop: My take would be that Mr Huber holds no copyright whatsoever in the (modified) map, and neither does the University of Pittsburgh, only the original cartographer, whose copyright has since lapsed. Accordingly, the map can be uploaded as a public domain work. Gnom (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the modifications are large enough to merit copyright, then this would have to go through the COM:VRT process. Normally they want email directly from the copyright-holder, but assuming the release specifies a license (you don't say this, so I'm not sure) it would probably suffice to scan the release and email it to the VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's 2025 and w:en:Auguste Perret's public buildings in France are now in public domain. However, per the deletion request concerning one of his works, another architect was involved in the building. Yet, according to w:en:Hôtel de Ville, Le Havre#History, Jacques Tournant "supervised the development of the design until the building was officially opened on 14 July 1958." Does this mean the city hall remains copyrighted until 5 more decades later? Or is the architectural authorship still Perret's (since, as per my comprehension, Tournant was only involved in the design development, and may only had adapted the original design by Perret)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• This is one way to argue, but I don't know if it is correct:

1. Assumption: Perret made the initial drawings of the building. This is the original architectural work and is in the public domain in France as Perret died more than 70 years ago.
2. Assumption: Tournant made modifications to the drawings, and so there are modified drawings of the building. This is a modified architectural work which is a derivative work of the original architectural work. The modified architectural work enters the public domain in a few decades.

If the assumptions and my interpretation of the law are correct, it would be fine to take photos of the original architectural work but not of the modified architectural work. Assuming that there are some parts which were not changed by Tournant, it would be fine to take photos of the unchanged parts of the constructed building, whereas photos of the changed parts are copyvios.

However, I don't know if my interpretation is correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stefan2 thanks for the reply. I may also ping French-speaking users if they are familiar with the architectural history of the building: @Yann, Racconish, and VIGNERON: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems complicated. This building have at least 7 architects, Perret and Tournant being the main ones but Pierre Colboc apparently did a major addition in 1989 (the north wing). We need to find documents to find who designed what exactly. At first, it seems that Tournant changes are quite significant (especially - or only - for the tower ?) so I would lean toward 2076 at least for public domain date. @Pymouss: also. PS: we should split Category:Town hall of Le Havre to separate the modern building (1959) from the former/destroyed one (1859-1944). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:John Peter Smith.jpg is almost certain to be incorrectly licensed even if the uploader StArryCat is the same person attributed as the author in the file's description, but the image seems more than old enough to be {{PD-old-assumed}} given that en:John Peter Smith (Texas politician) died in 1901 and this photo probably was taken several years prior to that. There's no source provided for the file so its en:provenance is unlcear, but it can be found used online in several different places and it looks like the image might've been published in an 1890 book titled Indian wars and pioneers of Texas according to this and this. Is that info enough to relicense this as {{PD-US}} and update the file's description to list the book as the source? -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marhjuly: yes, except use {{PD-US-expired}}. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Jmabel. Can the current image be kept, licensed and sourced as such even though it technically didn't come from the above-mentioned book itself but is rather how the photo appeared prior to its publication in that book? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it is pretty safe to reproduce a 135-year-old photo a version of which was published in 1890. Almost certainly any copyright (or even potential copyright) was lost when that book went out of copyright. The only imaginable way a U.S. photo from this era could still be in copyright is if it was unpublished until at least January 1, 1930, and was then published before January 1, 2003. I can't imagine there is enough difference between this version and the published version to have a distinct copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure who to talk to about this, but upload wizard tab is currently still requiring a PD "published before 1929" in its template (although the actual PD Template itself now says 1930). That should be updated now to say "published before 1930" as all publications from 1929 became PD on January 1, 2025. It would be good to have some sort of system in place to make the change on every New Years Day as this happens every year. For example on January 1, 2026 1930 US publications will become PD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Will have a look. yesterday I was going to do it after doing a few uploads my self but forgot afterwards. Bedivere (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

(削除) It's ✓ Done (削除ここまで) Bedivere (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

PS. While I have updated the MediaWiki page accordingly, it seems it will take some time to get updated in the Upload Wizard. --Bedivere (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Having a closer look at the issue, it appears that the code itself of the extension needs modifying. --Bedivere (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a Template_talk:PD-AR-Photo/en#Remove_25_years_ppd_requirement_form_template request to modify {{PD-AR-Photo}} template to remove one of the template requirements. It is based on discussion on Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Argentina#Berne_Convention_duration_for_photographs page. Can someone double check the rationale behind it before we modify a template used on 35k files? Jarekt (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No work first published after 1989, in any country that the US had copyright relations with in 1989, is in the public domain in the US, except for works first published after 2002 by authors who died more than 70 years ago. If we're serious about PD in the US, then it doesn't matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the proposal is to change the threshold from 1971 to 1976, as under a 20-year term copyright of pre-1976 works will have expired by January 1st 1996 when URAA restorations took place. Felix QW (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Does it change a lot? At that time, a simple copyright notice in the publication containing the photo was enough to make the photo unfree in the United States per COM:SC. It was probably a lot more common to include a copyright notice in the 1970s than it was to submit a renewal to the United States Copyright Office before 1964. Anything not published before 1964, and in the public domain in the source country in 1996, seems highly risky per COM:SC. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, Felix QW, and Stefan2: , We are not discussing US copyrights here, since {{PD-AR-Photo}} deals with Argentinian copyrights. Presumably, files using {{PD-AR-Photo}} template should have separate template for the US. So the question is: do we agree with User:Günther Frager analysis of Argentinian copyrights and drop 25 years ppd requirement from this template? --Jarekt (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Does it matter? If there are few files affected by the difference in terms, it doesn't really change anything for us. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It does appear that the 25 years from creation has never been part of the text of Argentine law -- it just has 20 years from publication. However, we can't really upload anything from 1976 or later due to the URAA, so this change is really about items published from 1971 through 1975. There should be a pretty good warning on the tag about the U.S. status, similar to {{PD-Italy}}. I do worry without that -- or making this an explicit PD-AR-Photo-URAA tag with a cutoff line of 1976 -- that it may induce people to upload works from say 2003, which we should be clear about. As for the current state of things, the notification to WIPO regarding the law change in 1998 explicitly called out that Argentina did not implement the Berne minimum for photographs. They later notified WIPO that the articles of the Paris Act of the Berne Convention (which contains the 25-year minimum) would be adhered to effective 2000[1]. They have not modified the text of their law since, though. The question is if they consider that declaration binding in their law, or if the text of the law overrules that. There was definitely no 25-year minimum on the URAA date, though, so 1976 should be the cutoff year for that. I'm a little less sure on their current law, but technically, the Berne Convention does not mandate a minimum protection period for a country's own works -- only the protection they give to foreign works from Berne countries. So their law should just be 20 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Carl Lindberg, thank you for the thorough analysis. I will alter the template. --Jarekt (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Clindberg, which photos published after 1964 do not fail COM:SC? In other words, what does this actually change? At some point, people became more aware of copyright notices and began to include those when works were published. This may have been in connection with countries joining the w:Universal Copyright Convention in the 1950s and 1960s, which mentioned copyright notices. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Works first published in Argentina before 1976 without a copyright notice. Yes, the copyright notice was part of the UCC. Just because authors (or some authors) were aware of it, does not mean they always added it (same with US authors). This pretty much just changes the URAA line from before 1971 to before 1976. Books probably used notices; Argentine magazines maybe. The US has had a bilateral copyright agreement with Argentina since 1934; the copyright notices became relevant for Argentina then. If we want a specific note that works 1964 and later are not valid if they had a copyright notice, that may make sense. It probably does not need to be quite as complicated as PD-Italy's, but yes we would need evidence for PD-US-no_notice for anything from Argentina published between 1964 and 1976. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Nu bleu II, par Henri Matisse.jpg

Happy Public Domain Day everyone – and happy uploading and un-deleting! This year, we are celebrating Henri Matisse and some more great artists from around the world:
Public Domain Day 2025: Rediscovering Masterpieces in a New Light

When uploading or restoring a file today, please mention "Public Domain Day" in the upload/undeletion summary. Please add newly uploaded files to the Category:Media uploaded for Public Domain Day 2025.

Thank you, Gnom (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And do not forget that for most countries, the work has to be before 1930 otherwise it is still copyrighted in the US. This does not apply to buildings since they are free in the US anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct – for example, we unfortunately will have to delete a number of later works by Henri Matisse that have been uploaded today because they remain protected in the United States. Maybe we can ask the deleting admins to remember putting them in the correct undeletion category. Gnom (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It is quiet difficult to understand which Matisse work is free, and which is still protected. Today I uploaded File:Matisse. Two Odalisques.jpg from 1928 and in the collection of Modern Museum in Sweden. It is obviously free in Sweden and the Artist's home country France, but maybe not in US? How is it possible that Blue nude II from 1952 (picture to the right) is free? In List of works by Henri Matisse is stated (in no-wiki-text) that "images created during and after 1923 are not in the public domain according to United States Copyright law". I am confused.--Gotogo (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gotogo: We generally presume art to have been published around creation, and per COM:Hirtle works except for sound recordings published before 1930 are public domain in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gotogo: three of us have now edited that Matisse article to try to be clearer about "fair use" (as against the "free use" required by Commons).

I strongly suspect that 1952 papercut should be deleted. I don't see any basis to say it is PD in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gotogo: For 20 years, ending in 2018, works had to be published before 1923 to be PD in the US. It's now publication + 95. It's all about publication, which also tends to be hard to confirm in cases of paintings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 to @Jmabel – Blue Nude II will unfortunately need to be deleted, like all the other post-1929 works. Gnom (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clarifying comments.--Gotogo (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Thierry Caro and Sailko: I see quite a few images of paintings uploaded that are not in the public domain yet . Painter died in 1954, but it was made after 1929. 75 paintings by Matisse and also some others. Last year similar mistakes were made, for example all images in Category:La Fée Électricité should be deleted (from 1937). Should probably be checked, nominated for deletion and tagged with the right year to undelete. Multichill (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

For me it makes no difference, as even if they are deleted they can be restored at a certain date. I do the PD check once a year and tend to upload everything that can be available since that, I cannot split same artist into multiple years, it is already complicated enough. Also in many deletion procedures the community decided to ignore US statements for 100 years under some circumstances, so maybe the files will be deleted, maybe not. --Sailko (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Henri Matisse not public domain in 2025. Multichill (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe that en:File:ColbathWalterOlympian.png is actually now in the public domain. According to the the source information, the image is from the 1930 Northwestern University yearbook. Northwestern does not have a digital archive of the yearbook. I found this blog post which shows the first few pages of the 1930 yearbook which shows that the book has a copyright notice of 1929. This is consistent with one other Northeastern yearbook for which I found this archive. It is the 1928 yearbook and the copyright is for 1927. The image does seem to be from that year. I do not have an e-yearbook.com membership so I cannot see the page in full, but this thumbnail has what looks to be this image on page 254. I'd like to update the license and transfer this image to Commons. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

So from what year is this photo? Gnom (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It is from the 1930 yearbook that has a copyright notice indicating it is copyright 1929. -- Whpq (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If it is from the U.S. and has a 1929 copyright notice, then as of today it is guaranteed to be in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 21:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is a US publication. -- Whpq (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just going to add that yearbooks published in the US from that time period seem to have very rarely had their copyrights renewed once the initial period of protection expired; so, even if this isn't eligible for {{PD-US}}, there's a really good chance it would be OK for Commons as {{PD-US-not renewed}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead an relicensed the image as PD and moved it to Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I found this Getty photo on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/100yearsago/comments/ui3vmb/may_4th_1922_society_circus_committee_for_park/?rdt=51556

I think it might be in the public domain and would like to edit it to remove the watermark before uploading it to Commons. A cropped version was published without a copyright notice in The New York Herald in 1922:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045774/1922-05-14/ed-1/seq-98/

Does the cropped image count as publication even though it was only a portion of the Getty photo? BaHrwi (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, There is also a copy here (on https://www.gettyimages.com/ search for 516538400). Yann (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Right, the English URL for that is https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/society-circus-committee-for-park-avenue-street-fair-news-photo/516538400.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@BaHrwi: Yes, I think the cropped image counts as publication, and so does transmittal to Bettman and on to Getty.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Good day, I am a Wikipedian (read: not so bright when it comes to Commons practices) who found this video on YouTube via the Creative Commons search. It appears to be licensed under an Attribution license, which is allowed per COM:YT, however the music played live within the video is most certainly still under copyright. Would I be okay to upload a screenshot from this video to Commons regardless provided that no audio from it is uploaded, or is there precedent suggesting that these sorts of things should be left off Commons altogether due to the video being improperly tagged/uploaded to begin with? Thanks, Leafy46 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Leafy46: Looks pretty safe. The visuals are entirely the videographer's work, even if the audio isn't. - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

And it looks amateur, so it's presumably the uploader's work. - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Great, thanks for the quick response! Leafy46 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

To close off this thread (and for the sake of posterity), I have taken a screenshot from the video and uploaded it here: File:My Chemical Romance performing Teenagers in 2011.png. Thanks again! Leafy46 (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

After copying File:Hinterkaifeck-Hof (cropped).jpg from English Wikipedia, I discovered this deletion request. Is this the same photo?

Why does it say Category:Undelete in 2043? If it was taken in 1922 by a photographer who died in 1954 and first published in 1997, the German copyright expired in 2025 while the US copyright expires in 2048. In neither case, the copyright expiration date is 2043. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same photograph. (EDIT: DR didn't have a death date for Andreas Biegleder so I based it on the 120 year rule. Now that we know the death date, I'll undelete it)Abzeronow (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

In the infobox, it says:

• Architect Auguste Perret Louis-Bertrand Rayssiguier Louis Milon de Peillon
• Creator Henri Matisse

A number of files seem to have been undeleted because Perret and Matisse died in 1954. However, it seems that Rayssiguier died in 1956 and that Peillon died in 1971. Should the files actually remain deleted until 70 years after the death of Peillon? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Peillon is listed as Architecte d'exécution here, and Perret as Architecte consultant. Do we consider both to be authors here? --Rosenzweig τ 00:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Are File:Deny Defend Depose.jpg and File:Deny Defend Depose, Miami Beach.jpg OK for Commons as licensed per COM:GRAFFITI? It basically just the three word "Deny", "Defend" and "Depose", and the Flickr licenses for the photos seem fine. Should {{PD-text}} also be added to the files' pages? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think these are pretty simple graffitis. I don't think anybody could claim copyright on these in the US. Bedivere (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The Flickr licensing of the photo seems fine, but File:Karl Marx Luigi Mangione sticker.jpg also seems to be a COM:DW given that there's no FOP in Canada for posters and other 2D works of art (even publicly displayed ones) per COM:FOP Canada and COM:CB#Posters. The uploader most certainly uploaded this in good faith, but there could be at least three possibly for copyrights at play here: the photo, the Karl Marx poster, the Luigi Mangione sticker and maybe even the combination of the poster and sticker. Not sure whether Commons can keep this if the the individual elements are eligible for copyright protection separate from the photo itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Photo of Mangione looks like the only possibly copyrighted element there. I think the picture would still be of interest if we put a Gaussian blur over that. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

A blur might not be desirable because the whole point to the image seems to be to show Liugi Mangione. FWIW, the Marx photo seems to be PD; so, I guess the file would have potentially some educational value as a poster of Marx. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It would seem to me obvious the nature of what was there without being able to see it, but you could also do something like what I did with the Ron Cobb cartoon at File:Helix, v.3, no.4, Mar. 28, 1968 - DPLA - e3f3e0d9115c4d4fe0e4e89ba80a397d (page 2).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Could non-federal jurisdictions in the US (whether they be municipalities, counties, states, etc.) allow commercial freedom of panorama for public artworks (such as statues, sculptures and murals) within them via changing local/state law? If so,...

1. Where would such FoP be applicable? (Only for users within said locations? Nationwide? Internationally in countries which accept lex loci protectionis and/or have FoP for such works?)
2. How would these new FoP templates be titled?
3. How would this affect Commons policies such as FoP and templates such as {{FoP-US}} and {{Not-free-US-FOP}}?

JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Not really likely. If somehow they could, it could only be for in-state use of works located in that state, otherwise they'd certainly run into the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution. But I doubt they could even do that: they'd be depriving the copyright-holder of a right that has been upheld by federal courts. - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, they can't. Federal copyright law preempts state laws. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Everything in Category:Undelete in 2025 has been undeleted. If anything has been forgotten, please ask on COM:UDR. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I found this and this representing the Windows 11 wallpaper. As the git repository is licensed under the MIT license, would this apply to these images, too? Kind regards --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@PantheraLeo1359531: The repository contains the MIT licence, but I can't immediately see any statement that all the files in it are licensed under that licence. Picking a random C++ source file, actionRunner.cpp has a statement at the top saying "The Microsoft Corporation licenses this file to you under the MIT license." So I think you'd need to find a similar statement covering the images. --bjh21 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so

I am certain this covers all the contents of the repository. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is complicated. Sometimes, the license file covers more license, if they apply, or subdirectories contain other license files, that usually cover different free software licenses. Hmmm... --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about it here: Commons talk:Timed Text#Stealing subtitles Anthony2106 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Would supplemental data in a journal article have the same licence? For example Document S1 in this article. The article has a "CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)". Would someone mind extracting Figure S6 in the pdf file, with the legend in the bottom (population names)? I can take a screenshot but it's going to be low quality. It can be used in contentious articles in English-language Wikipedia such as Palestinians etc, so you might want to avoid leaving metadata. Bogazicili (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that the license should be the same unless stated otherwise. Ruslik (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I add this image to Wikimedia Commons as Creative Commons CC0 Waiver and use it in my Wikipedia article? The table player died more than 200 years ago and might be in the public domain. The website does not provide information on copyright. Junbeesh (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It's clearly not a photo, so the date that Pandit Sahai died is not relevant. It's a painting. Who painted it? When?

It might be in the public domain, but without further information, we can't say. DS (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, to be very clear, you must never state that you are releasing an image under Creative Commons unless it is an image that you yourself created. Otherwise, your Creative Commons release is what is technically called a "lie". DS (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was unable to find any details about the painter of this artwork as no attribution was provided. I also found another painting of his on Facebook, but again, there was no information regarding the painter or copyright. Junbeesh (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Without provenance, there's no way to know when the copyright expires. Have you tried reverse image search engines (e.g., Tineye) ? DS (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to establish why the image file File:Sir Frank Mears.jpg has been deleted from the Infobox of the Frank Mears Wikipedia page.

Sir Frank Mears died on 25 January 1953 while on a visit to his son in New Zealand. The photograph is therefore clearly over 70 years old and, by my reckoning, no longer subject to UK copyright. I do not have a precise date or the photograph, but as it shows Sir Frank in his later years and posed in his professional capacity, it was probably taken in Scotland sometime between 1945 and 1952. He travelled to New Zealand to visit his son in 1952.

If the community considers that this image is still subject to copyright, I would be grateful if somebody could advise me on what grounds, and on what date it will cease to be subject to copyright and therefore available for use as a commons image.

Regards,

Sandy Fortingal Sandy Fortingal (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sandy Fortingal: As I say on my talk page, there are several wrong things here: 1. You can't use {{PD-old-70}} if the author is anonymous, like you did. 2. For {{PD-New Zealand}} to apply, you have to prove that this was first published in New Zealand (for example in a newspaper). 3. Then you have to take US copyright into consideration. It would be in the public domain in USA if published in New Zealand before 1946, but again, that has to be proved. If first published in UK, then it will be in the public domain in USA 95 years after the publication date, so most probably not yet in the public domain. Yann (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sandy Fortingal. There are several notifications related to this file posted on you Commons user talk page, and these explain why the file was deleted. You also asked about this file at COM:REFUND and requested that it be undeleted, but your request was denied by Jameslwoodward as explained Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:Sir Frank Mears.jpg. Perhaps Jameslwoodward can further clarify why the file wasn't undeleted, i.e. why it's still considered to be under copyright protection under UK and US copyright laws. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sandy Fortingal: For UK copyright, the National Archives flowchart says "Copyright expires 70 years after creation, or 70 years after the work was made available to the public if within 70 years after creation". This photo was appears to have been made available to the public within that time (on the blog linked in the undeletion request, if nowhere else), so the 70 years start to run when it was made available. If that blog post was the first time, then UK copyright expires in 2085. I am, admittedly, unclear how this branch of the flowchart is derived, but I think it's much more likely that I've misunderstood the legislation than that the National Archives have. --bjh21 (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said in the UnDR cited above, "Second, while you initially claimed to be the actual photographer, you subsequently changed that to "anonymous". The rule in the UK is that copyright for an anonymous work lasts for 70 years after publication. In order to avoid a URAA copyright, the work must have been published before 1930. He was born in 1880 and died, as you say, in 1953. He would have been 50 in 1930. It is possible that he was under 50 in this image, but it seems unlikely. In order for the image to be restored, you must prove that this image was published before 1930.

To further explain, when the URAA applies, a work is under copyright in the USA if it was under copyright in the country of origin -- the country where it was first published -- on the URAA date (usually 1996, as is the case here) and was first published fewer than 95 years ago. It will be under URAA copyright until January 1 of the year after 95 years from first publication. Since the only publication that we know was in 2014, without proof of an earlier publication we must use 1/1/2110 as the date it will become PD in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if you were using 2014 as the date of first publication, if anonymous (which you are assuming), it would be at most 120 years from creation in the US, not 95 years from publication. If not anonymous, then it would be 70pma. But no real indication it was unpublished when the author found the photo -- they certainly didn't take it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

IMHO 2110 is really overkill. Assuming this was taken just before his death in 1953, and published at the time, and that the author can't be traced, it will be in the public domain in USA in 2049. Yann (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• At the bottom of the blog post, it says that This article was first published in the Autumn 1999 issue of the Saltire Society Newsletter. I presume that the image was also printed there. If this was the first print, and the photographer was anonymous, the copyright expires in the UK in 2070.

Assuming that the photo was taken during the year he died, the photo becomes {{PD-old-assumed}} in 2074.

2070 and 2074 are only four years apart, so probably undelete at some point around that time, unless more information can be found. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The author of that web article apparently had previous publications on the subject, and maybe a doctoral thesis in 1987. I'm sure they found the photo earlier than 1999, and no real reason to assume it was unpublished at the time. I can't see keeping it deleted past 2049, though it would help to find the true origin. The problem is that we have no idea if a photographer was mentioned at the original source. If it qualifies for an "unknown" author in the UK, it would be PD there now, but could not be 95 years from publication for the U.S. situation, so would still be under copyright there. If not enough evidence to qualify as "unknown", then the UK status is also uncertain. It's hard with photos from that era without any real source information at all, but it's near-certain to still have U.S. protection for some time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This paper from 1980 has what appear to be photos of text on a 15th century tomb between pages 18 and 19. While I take it a more general photo would be copyrighted by the photographer, is what is effectively scanning text a transformative action that would prevent upload here? Thanks, CMD (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

If these photos are just scans of a text (or reproductions of an ancient 2D work) then {{Pd-art}} will apply. Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it's basically 2D, they're effectively close-up photos of a plaque, I would say something similar to File:Inscription by Ehmedê Xanî.jpg/File:Inscription, accouting texts, temple of Asklepios, AM of Epidauros, 202595.jpg/File:Elegest I.png. CMD (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Can Commons keep File:CIFSSLogo.jpg as licensed or is this photo considered a COM:DW because of it a photograph of a sign/logo per COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs. FWIW, the badge/logo seems to be an anniversary version of File:CIFSS AIA.jpg, which by the way also seems incorrectly licensed as "own work", and it might be simple enough per COM:TOO US to be ineligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks to me like the underlying logo is too simple for copyright in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This is listed as {{PD-textlogo}}, but I suspect that it is too complex. Any opinions? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Relatively simple polygons, but I see a tree, and the branding manual says a tree was intended. Therefore above TOO-US. The branding manual says CC-BY-NC-SA, so the license is not acceptable on Commons. There needs to be a free license. Is this a Brazilian government work and are such works free? COM:GVT Brazil. I do not know. It is not legislation. Glrx (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, While undeleting some files, I have got across some works by American painters from the first part of the 20th century. Some were uploaded with {{PD-US}}, but without any more information. Are there any catalogs for Creator:William Wendt, Creator:Edgar Alwin Payne, Creator:Maynard Dixon, Creator:Granville Redmond, and the like? Files concerned:

• File:Edgar Alwyn Payne Big Pine Lake Sierra Nevada Temple Crag.jpg
• File:Huddled Houses, by William Wendt.jpg
• File:Thunder Over Shiprock, by Maynard Dixon.jpg
• File:California Poppies and Eucalyptus, by Granville Redmond.jpg

Thanks for your help, and Happy New Year to all! Yann (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• We have always had trouble with original artwork in the USA. Unlike photographs, where the negative is the original, and a print is a "perceptible copy" that must comply with all copyright formalities to be eligible for a copyright. Sadly auction house and gallery catalogues were not a priority for the Google Books scanning project, so finding a copy published has been hard. --RAN (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• OK thanks. At what point should we consider these paintings published? Yann (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think (unfortunately, given the labor required) someone would need to find the first instance of them actually being published. Given the dates here, I think that could include public exhibition of the paintings in a space where the copying of the works was not formally restricted (between 1929 and 1977, in the U.S.). But it's more than technically possible that these paintings were never actually "published" in the legal sense until after the authors' deaths, with the requisite formalities, at a time (1964-1977) when such publication didn't require renewal and didn't base the copyright length off the known author's death, meaning the work was newly copyrighted for 95 years. Is that probable here? I don't think so. But it's more than possible, just based on the dates; I have not done any searching to get a sense of these paintings though, so it might be as simple as they were actually all published during the authors' lives and lost copyright because they didn't follow the formalities. AFAIK though, there needs to be proof of publication, we can't just go off the presumption that the works were probably published by the artists themselves prior to their deaths, meaning they'd be PD in the U.S. by now.

  Other thoughts? 19h00s (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I also realize I didn't directly answer the Q you asked -- I think they should be considered "published" based on the earliest example of publication that can be found, whether that be an old catalogue or literally the first time a picture of it appeared on the internet. I know that's strict, but it feels in line with the general attitude Commons takes toward "assumptions" about freeness. I do think this raises an interesting question for American art in general, though, not just these paintings. At what point do we assume a work was published for non-famous* artists who died before 1977 if the publication date itself would radically alter the copyrightability of that work? To use these paintings as an example - if we were to assume the paintings were published during the author's life, even with a notice/renewal, the works would be PD by now; if we were to assume the paintings were published after the author's death with a notice, before 1964, then the works would be PD now as there doesn't seem to be a record of renewal; if we were to assume the paintings were published after the author's death, with formalities, between '64 and '77, then the works would be copyrighted now; and finally, if we were to assume the works were published after the author's death but also after 1977, then the works would be PD because post-'77 rules generally don't allow for a copyright length of more than 70 years pma if there's a known author and death date. This is needlessly complicated and I could be misinterpreting one or several periods of the rules (thank you American copyright law) but it's an interesting conundrum to consider. I'm sure this has been talked here before by folks smarter than me though, so I imagine there might already be some past discussions to draw from. *non-famous = artists without commercial representatives who would have had incentives to publish/copyright works posthumously 19h00s (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for this detailed analysis. And yes, I had forgotten than PD-US-unpublished may apply if the paintings were only published recently. It makes a lot of ifs to be still under a copyright... Yann (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Generally, it's very difficult to prove that a painting is in the public domain in the United States. See for example Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/12#Old Paintings and the US Copyright, where no one is able to prove if Mona Lisa is in the public domain in the United States or not. In the worst case, all of these paintings were first published in 1977 with a valid copyright notice, in which case the copyright expires 95 years after 1977.

I don't think that it is useful to always assume the worst case scenario. If the paintings were meant to be sold, then they were probably shown (i.e. published) at an art gallery shortly after they were made. Whether this was with or without the correct copyright formalities I have no clue. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• I found that Edgar Alwin Payne published Composition of Outdoor Painting in 1941 and in 1957. Yann (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I guess we'll have to delete if it's in the book:

PAYNE, EDGAR ALWIN.
 Composition of outdoor painting.
 © 2Jun41; A154374. Elsie Palmer
 Payne (Mrs. Edgar Payne) (W);
 21May69; R461785.[2]

Stefan2 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I found that too. Yann (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I tried 'borrowing' the book from the Internet Archive. There is a lot of text, and Payne's widow's renewal clearly covers the text. The Internet Archive has the 7th edition from 2005, not the 1st edition from 1941. In the Note to the 7th edition (page v, numbered 9 by the Internet Archive), it says That this is a new edition, and not just another printing is due to the desire for more and better color reproductions, [...]. It doesn't say if more paintings have been added or if they have just replaced black and white versions of some paintings with colour versions of the same paintings. There are both black and white and colour paintings in the book.

There are several paintings, some in colour and some in black and white, and there are also sketches/simple drawings. Not everything was made by Payne; there is also some art by others.

Some paintings are considerably older than the book. For example, page 155 has two paintings, one from circa 1915 and one from 1930. Usually it doesn't say how old the paintings are (at least not in the image captions, I didn't read all of the text in the book). I don't know if any of the paintings in the book have been uploaded to Commons; there are too many to check.

I'm unsure what to do here. It could be that the paintings in the original 1941 edition weren't published before and that they are covered by the renewal, but it could also be that some of them had been published elsewhere before, in particular if they were decades older. If more paintings were added to the 2005 edition, those would not be covered by the renewal. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm hoping for a bit of clarification as to the copyright nature of NATO images. Specifically, I'm looking to see if the profile image here is OK to upload to the Commons. Looking at the TERMS OF USE page it states: Material is provided free of charge for use primarily by the media but may also be used by individuals and non profit making organisations (public and private). As the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit, does that mean that NATO images can be uploaded here? Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: How does that square with COM:L? See Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and https://freedomdefined.org/Definition/1.0 for more info.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

In short: Commons does not accept materials that are limited to non-commercial use. - Jmabel ! talk 20:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I got a bit ahead of myself. Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

what am I missing? is User:Myworkforwiki Martin or Priscila? or was this file never supposed to be here? Reseletti (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

w:The Taming of the Shrew (1929 film) says that the original film has been in the public domain for a long time due to lack of renewal (and now it's in the public domain no matter what). But, the only copy available online now is a restoration from 1966, which had a copyright notice, that is copyrightable separately in the following ways:

• New sound effects and music were added throughout
• Voice dubbing was enhanced with newly available technology
• The intro and ending are probably totally new to 1966 as well

So I think we can do is take from one of the 1966 copies online, clip out the intro and the ending (which are copyrighted), and upload a version of the film with all the audio missing, until 2062, since this is the only available copy online. This could be useful for usage at Category:The Taming of the Shrew (1929 film) (for tasks such as screenshotting, etc.) but not for much else. We might as well use it for something. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• File:President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo toasts with Prime Minister of Malaysia Dato Sri Abdullah Badawi.jpg
• File:President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sign the Declaration of the Road Map for an ASEAN Community 2009-2015.jpg
• File:President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sign the Declaration of the Road Map for an ASEAN Community 2009-2015 (02).jpg
• File:OPENING CEREMONY -- 14TH ASEAN SUMMIT.jpg
• File:5th BIMP-EAGA - GROUP PHOTO OPPORTUNITY.jpg
• File:Abdullah Badawi official 2009.jpg

I found several images on CommonsWiki that are tagged as being in compliance with Philippine copyright law. However, when I checked these images on Flickr, they are marked as "All rights reserved and may not be reproduced." Could you please clarify this discrepancy, as the Flickr posts do not indicate that these images are officially from the Philippine government? I will attach the images in question for your reference. Thank you for your assistance. 218.208.8.78 02:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If they were done by government employees, their law has a U.S.-inherited clause that prevents copyright on those works (though with an odd modification that seems to give a non-copyright right). Those photos are marked OPS-NIB, which I think is the Office of the Press Secretary and News and Information Bureau, part of the Philippine presidential office. If that is misleading and the photographer is not a government employee, they would seem to be problems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there any problems in this file? Packaging and other graphic work de minimis/incidental or not? IMO it's not incidental but other users may disagree. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The photo on the placard on the left is definitely not de minimis, neither is the paper crown in the front. We will have to delete this file. Gnom (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Could be incidental, if just photographing a scene. If all that stuff was put there and arranged by the photographer, less likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, These two films may not be OK on Commons. If that's the case, I will move them to the English Wikipedia. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• File:Asphalt (1929) by Joe May.webm: German film, director died more than 70 years ago. OK?
• File:Manasse (1925) by Jean Mihail.webm: Romanian film, director died less than 70 years ago.
  • Asphalt is not OK, one of the writers János Székely died in 1958. The third writer en:Rolf E. Vanloo doesn't have a listed death date (was born in 1899, survival to the 21st Century was certainly possible). EDIT: German Wikipedia de:Rolf E. Vanloo says he died in 1946. Abzeronow (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Mananse is obviously also not yet for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  German Wikipedia claims w:de:Rolf E. Vanloo died in 1946, but the claim needs to be proven since enwiki "did not include" this information in their article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  It looks like the 1946 death has this as a source: https://stadtarchiv.muenchen.de/scopeQuery/Filepublisher/12/D61911.PDF I don't speak German so I can't really verify that myself. Abzeronow (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Page 177 has Schmidt Martin 2.4.46. Martin Schmidt apparently was his actual name. The PDF is one of the name indexes for the death registry of Munich, hosted by the city archive of Munich. --Rosenzweig τ 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the Enwiki page to include his death date, death place and that source. Abzeronow (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• The copyright term for films is determined by w:Directive 2006/116/EC.

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.

In the case of German films, Article 10.1 seems to have the effect that some more people, in addition to those in Article 2.2, need to have died at least 70 years ago, although it's not entirely clear how many people's death years you need to check. See #Composers for silent films above.

Article 10.1 also causes problems in other EU countries. Whether this is the case in Romania I have no idea. Probably the laws of all EU countries have to be checked so that we can determine where there is a problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Per the Composers of silent films thread above, for the term duration of a German film from before July 1995, the composer (even of a silent film!) and (usually) the director of photography are also relevant. The composer was de:Willy Schmidt-Gentner (died in 1964), the camera person was de:Günther Rittau (died in 1971). So it looks like Asphalt is still protected in Germany until (at least) the end of 2041. --Rosenzweig τ 01:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information. Films moved and added to Category:Undelete in 2034 and Category:Undelete in 2042. Yann (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26789063

The copyright description states "This image may be used, copied and re-distributed free of charge in any format or media. Where the image is redistributed to others the following acknowledgement note should be shown : 'Sourced from LINZ. Crown Copyright reserved.'" the former part implies it is compatible with a CC licence but the latter suggests it is Crown Copyright [3] which forbids commercial use without permission. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Agree Yes, as crown copyright for the map expired in 1998. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 01:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

So it is public domain in both the US and NZ? Traumnovelle (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 05:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This photo of the philosopher Rudolf Carnap taken in 1922 while he was living in Germany does not have a known photographer (other photos in those archives have photographers explicitly noted). Would it qualify for Commons with a PD-anon-expired tag? Shapeyness (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

German copyright law essentially says that for pre-1995 works that if the photographer was ever known at some point (I'm paraphrasing User:Rosenzweig's words), the photograph cannot be considered anonymous. You could always locally host in on English Wikipedia (since it's PD in the US) until 2043 when PD-old-assumed kicks in. Abzeronow (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Abzeronow, do you know if the same kind of thing applies to Austria as I believe there are also some anonymous photos from after he went to the University of Vienna (after 1926). Shapeyness (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm less familiar with Austria's rules but I do know that pre-1932 Austrian photographs are PD in the US. Austria might be simply publication plus 70 years but research should be done to make sure photos are truly anonymous. Abzeronow (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I have a portrait of a US Senator, it has a copyright notice of 1936 to a portrait studio. It is a photo he sent out to people because there is a standard "thank you for your support" message on it. Would this still be under copyright? I don't think it would fall under work of the US government, would it? Bubba73 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Copies of the portrait were probably published in 1936. The copyright notice would put the portrait under copyright until 1964. The portrait studio would need to renew the copyright with the Copyright Office in 1963, 1964, or 1965 to prevent the photograph from aging into the public domain {{PD-US-not renewed}}. See COM:HIRTLE. Glrx (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

How long would the copyright renewal be in effect (i.e. would it be out of effect now)? (削除) Would it be 28 years from 1964? (削除ここまで) It would be for 95 years if they renewed it. I have no way of knowing if they renewed the copyright - there is no more information. Bubba73 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Does the copyright notice have the name of the copyright owner? You can search in the "Artworks and photographs" sections for copyright renewals for th years 1963, 1964, and 1965 following links here. Ideally there would be an entry under the name. If we don't find any, it should be OK to upload -- just say who you searched for. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The copyright is by Jennings Studio. I did the search and didn't find it - thanks. Bubba73 (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried to upload it, but when it got to the field where it asks for "PD-US-not renewed", it showed some diagonal lines going through the field, it wouldn't accept it and I couldn't proceed. Bubba73 (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bubba73: "when it got to the field": can I assume "it" is the Upload Wizard? It's broken. See phab:T383415. Jmabel ! talk 02:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. If an anonymous photographer give his/her photo collection for another person and don't reveal identity until now, who can decide copyright of photo ? Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the country in which the photos were published, and if they were published. Would need more specifics if you want a more specific answer. Abzeronow (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

An anonymous photographer gave a collection for another photographer in the USA Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

When you say "for another person" do you mean that "other person" took the photos? This is a situation where you are going to have to be very specific to get meaningful answers. Dates would also help. E.g. "Person A, who is anonymous, took these photos between [date1] and [date2] and [published them anonymously in such-and-such year| never published them | whatever] etc." "Person A gave these photos to person B [with/without] assigning the copyright etc. ..." - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Acutually, things are more complicated than that. I am mentioning to the N988VJ photo taken on 24 December 1968. Watermark show that it was taken by an anonymous photographer via Art Smit Roeters and Phil Brooks. This anonymous photographer gave it to Art Smit Roeters (who died in 2023) in a photographic slide transperancy collection by. Art Smit Roeters gave it to Phil Brooks. Since Art Smit Roeters passed away, I think that Phil Brooks holds copyright of the photo. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Possession of the physical collection means nothing about possession of the copyright. Unless the copyrights were explicitly passed, they would follow the bulk of the estate, not the specific bequest of the physical collection. - Jmabel ! talk 07:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Jmabel is right about that, physical ownership of photographs isn't the same as also possessing the copyright. Since that photograph was created in 1968, it can be hosted here in the public domain in 2089 (120 years after creation of the photograph by an unknown author since that's still earlier than its post-2003 publication online). Abzeronow (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

COM:Hirtle will help as date of publication is what is important. If these photos were published before 1930, they're PD. If they were published before 1978, they could be public domain by formalities but this would need to be checked. If they were created before 1978 but first published between 1978 and 2002, they are under copyright until 2048 or 95 years from publication/120 years from creation, whichever is greater. If unpublished or first published in 2003 or after, it would be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is lesser. Also I agree with Jmabel. Abzeronow (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

According to @Ahonc: here, the monument Прощання (image) is a 17-18th century object so it is claimed to be out of copyright. However, the Ukrainian Wikipedia list article on the monuments in Baturyn does not mention about this and simply states that it was installed in 2008 and (translation courtesy of Google Translate) "was created during the international stone sculpture symposium "Baturyn - 2008" with the support of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, which was held in the village of Sedniv. Sculptor A. Valiev." There is discrepancy here: who/which is telling the fact here? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Kiyanka as uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

What is on the photo is the 20th or the 21st century, not the 18th. Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

What about the "OTRS ticket No. 2013082910009471, app. 1" that Ahonc mentioned? Nakonana (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Here it's also claimed to be 17th-18th century (in Ukrainian "XII – XIII ст." for the entry "Заміська садиба І. Мазепи на Гончарівці"). Nakonana (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana I'll ping @NickK: here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The page you link says 2008. Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Where? The four first columns from left say (in that order):

• 74-203-0029
• Заміська садиба І. Мазепи на Гончарівці
• XII – XIII ст.
• Батурин

The "XII – XIII ст."-part stands for "XII – XIII століття" (XII – XIII century). (And I misread it as 17th and 18th century when it's actually 12th and 13th.) Nakonana (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

74-203-0157 Скульптура «Прощання» . In addition, anybody remotely familiar with Ukrainian and Russian art would immediately know this is not even close to the 13th century. This is really a modern sculpture. Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that there's two entries on that page for the same sculpture. File:Батурин_Прощання_2.jpg is the first listed (2008) and File:Батурин, Заміська садиба І.Мазепи на Гончарівці 01.JPG is the second listed (XII – XIII). They appear to be the same sculpture, down to the damage at the bottom, just placed on different bases. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The 12th century entry is for the estate, not for the sculpture, just someone decided to illustrate it by the photo of a modern sculpture. The entry I mentioned is specifically for the sculpture. Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears the district government of Bakhmach Raion is confusing the matter. Apparently, they sent VRTS correspondence that claims the sculpture is a 17th-18th-century object, yet as Ymblanter points out, the PD object being referred to is the estate itself. Or unless there is some weird statute in Ukraine that allows the estate to claim rights over modern sculptures and nullify sculptors' copyrights (which I doubt it exists, as it would lead to Ukraine violating Berne Convention rules). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Re-nominated the image file again. I'm not convinced it is an 18th-century sculpture. Perhaps the old part refers to the estate where it is situated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The sculpture is from 2008, not from the 18th century. Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Buenas ,se puede publicar el logo de Wish Money como este (si el logo es simple se puede publicar con {{PD-textlogo}}) (Líbano usa el mismo TOO de Francia porque Líbano se considera un estado de Francia antes de su independencia)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Glrx: any opinion (el logo whish es simple o complejo)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd put it below TOO US (I do not know what Lebanon would say). The logo is primarily a W with a few triangles attached. The triangles do not suggest something interesting. I take them for some common decorations on comics to show speed. (There is a name for such decorations, but I've forgotten it.) Glrx (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Glrx:Lebanon was a state of France so it’s the same TOO in France (google translate). AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Fanciful comics jargon from Mort Walker's The Lexicon of Comicana : horizontal speed lines are called "hites". Glrx (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Taivo:any opinion? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Difficult question. Our guidelines in COM:FOP Lebanon are vague. I would say, that this is simple logo. Taivo (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I wanted to ask if this logo met the threshold of originality or if it was too simple to apply for copyright.[4] Many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

From which country is the logo? Different countries have different thresholds. Nakonana (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: From Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Might be a bit tricky to judge: COM:TOO Venezuela. Nakonana (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Many thanks <3 It's the first time that I see that section. I know that the logo of another group, Voto Joven, was considered too complex here. I'll wait for the comment of other users, but if there aren't problems I'll try proceeding with the upload. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm whether Asana, Inc. is the copyright holder of this image? The description implies that it was a headshot taken for the company, so it is probably owned by them. Qzekrom (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: The file's licensing was verified by COM:VRT. Is there are reason to think the VRT member who reveiwed the email that was sent in made a mistake? You could ask about it at COM:VRTN if you want, but VRT members can't really discuss the specifics of the emails VRT receives with anyone other than themselves or the sender of the email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm just curious as I'd like to make sure that I credit the correct copyright holder if needed when I use this work. Qzekrom (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The VRT verification happened back in 2012 (VRT was known as "OTRS" back then). It looks like someone tagged the file as a copyvio, but then the copyright holder email VRT in response. The VRT member who reviewed the file is no longer around, but they didn't make any changes to the file's description. If you're concerned about who to attribute, you can ask at VRTN and maybe a VRT member will tell you. You might also be able to get by by attributing Wikimedia Commons or by attributing both Asana, the uploader and the photographer. It possible the uploader and the subject of the photo are the same person, but VRT probably won't confirm that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If I'm uploading a image from a website whose copyright has expired (e.g. © 2011-2023), which template would I use for its licensing? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That just says that there are multiple copyrighted elements (or derivative works), some of which were copyrighted from 2011, and some from 2023, or somewhere in between. The US copyright term for a corporate work is 95 years from publication, so the older ones can be uploaded in the year 2107. For US works from more than 95 years ago, use {{PD-US-expired}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. I'll upload it next century then, assuming this site is still up. ;) Thanks for the help. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image from 1994 and it is from a book. The photographer is mentioned, and I have put the name of the photographer and referenced the book in the image page. I don't know if the photographer is alive, nor if the photographer has an email. Can someone help me understand why it is not accepted and what I can do to make it right? CosXZ (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You can do nothing, because there is nothing to do to get this image acceptable on Commons. Save for getting the permission from the actual photographer. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

After having taken a look at your talk page, CosXZ, I have to press the issue that you imperatively have to familiarize yourself with the concepts of copyrights, intellectual property and licenses. Read and understand Commons:Licensing, COM:NOT, COM:NETCOPYVIO and the remainder of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. If you do not understand or do not / can not comply with these elementary policies, you are, to put it bluntly, simply not fit for this project where respecting intellectual property rights is eminently important. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been eyeing Category:PD-Art (PD-old default) for a while wondering if there's a way to get some of those files cleaned up. I wanted to discuss an idea for a bot that would, for each file in the category:

1. Try to read the publication date from the Artwork template.
2. Try to look up the author's death year (e.g. from a Creator template if present in the Artist field).
3. If both pieces of information can be unambiguously determined, replaced {{PD-Art}} with {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=XXXX}} or {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=XXXX}}, based on whether the publication date is pre-1929.

Does anyone see any cases whether this could cause a problem? One possible edge case is that the work might not actually be PD. I don't know if doing this would be sort of license-washing those files since it takes them out of this cleanup category. It could be restricted to a PMA of 120 years to be safe in any country if necessary. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If you can do that with a bot, very good, as doing manually over 134 K images is not fun. Yann (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's pre-1930, now, not 1929 (works published in 1929 itself just expired in the US). Seems like a good idea overall. You could do a bot run for dates > 120 years old and see how many that gets, and maybe ratchet down if a lower threshold would still substantially help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Filed Commons:Bots/Requests/BMacZeroBot 8 and ran a short test. I'm extrapolating that this method will be able to fix 2000 or 3000 files without assistance, and maybe a lot more with some manual help parsing dates and finding deathyears. – BMacZero (🗩) 06:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@BMacZero: I would start with the ones linked to Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I uploaded the image File:Charles B. Fisk working on an organ.png since the newspaper issue containing the image was published before 1977. I marked it as having Template:PD-US-no notice but now I am having doubts. As far as I can tell, the scanned newspaper(linked in description) does not display any form of copyright notice anywhere. But I was wondering if there might be a hidden copyright notice somewhere. I would appreciate if someone experienced with public domain newspapers can clarify. Thanks, Ca (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The law said that the notice should appear either upon the title page or upon the first page of text of each separate number, or under the title heading. In practice, many pages could be considered the "title page" or "first page of text", or the "title heading". In that link, the publisher information is at the bottom right of page six, which I think is one reasonable place for it. Or on the first page or masthead. In looking, I don't see one. The old Copyright Compendium[5], section 4.3.2, states the rules for periodicals at the time.

Be careful to only upload material originating in that newspaper. Material where this is likely just one of many newspapers to run (like API or UPI or syndicated stuff) may not lose copyright due to lack of notice in just this one newspaper. There is a copyright notice on a cartoon in there, so a contribution can have its own notice. But that one you uploaded seems fine, at first blush. U.S. newspapers (or any work) from before 1964 additionally had to be renewed even if they did have notice; you can look at UPenn's periodical renewal page to find out if they were. But that one seems fine to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight–I am glad because this image seems to be the only freely-licensed image I could find of Charles Fisk. Ca (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Question, good folk of the Commons. Does the use of an editing software to highlight a part of text on this image of a 13th-century parchment give copyright over the image to the person who edited it, or would it still be appropriate to upload a cropped version of the photo with the only the parchment (with the highlighted part) visible? Surtsicna (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: There is no way that drawing an orange rectangle gives you a copyright. However, the beads (or whatever they are) around the edges make the photo as is stands copyrightable; to avoid copyright, you'd have to crop those out. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I have uploaded it: File:Henry Symeonis as a witness.jpg. Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I've retouched that to try to minimize the highlighting. If you prefer the way you had it, please feel free to revert me. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

As part of a recent FA over on en.wiki, I learned that in order to claim PD status on most works, one has to have a PD marker for the original country and one for the US as well. In this particular case I was using a wartime Canadian photo and it did not have a US PD disclaimer so it could not be used.

In contrast, UK Crown Copyright materials that have fallen into the public domain are considered to be in the public domain worldwide, so no separate US release is needed. To solve my FA problem I changed the image to a very similar one from the UK.

Looking into this, I see that the difference in the UK case is ultimately because of a single email that was sent to the Commons where the Crown stated that the release was worldwide.

I wrote to the Canadian equivalent at Libraries and Archives Canada, and have received confirmation that the rule is the same in Canada as in the UK - Crown Copyright applies worldwide and those CC materials that have fallen in PD are also considered PD worldwide:

Please note that, like the UK, we consider our terms of use for Government of Canada materials to be worldwide

I would like to get the Canadian CC tag updated to reflect this. I am not sure where to start. Can someone tell me who I should forward the email to and how to get the tag updated?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz The {{PD-Canada-Crown}} template mentions that a given work is Public Domain worldwide. This tag should be used for Canadian Crown works instead of {{PD-Canada}}. PascalHD (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I've been doing a lot of research into sound recordings, and this year in particular I started to run into diverging recording and release dates relating to sound recordings. I think we need to be more diligent when uploading recordings, myself included, since the two things can often not line up with one another.

On this matter, I was wondering if there was some type of a Template we can create to utilize when uploading sound recordings similar to books/art. In it we can emphasize both the recorded date and the release date. I'm not as familiar with utilizing these templates in the first place since they don't pair well with the Upload Wizard. However, I'd be glad to learn since I am serious about having well documented sound recordings.

Also of note, are we able to do any cleaning up of the categories related to sound recordings? I know we have the Category:Audio files that we can use. And I have done some work with pre-1925 categories for the by-year sorting. I'm just curious if there is more we should do since these copyrighted sound recordings are distinctive from audio files.

Best, SDudley (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

These are incredibly complex things, and both times also tend to be VERY badly documented at the same time. Additionally, the flowcharts, especially when extrapolated to international situations get very complex and in many cases not even definable. The potential for legal trouble, while present, is still pretty low as long as we are responsive to people warning us about issues.

We generally assume that creation and publication are pretty close to eachother (for all media). Where this is not the case, both dates can be recorded in the date field. In the case of a publication date, you can use {{Published on}}. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I am aware they are not well documented. I am advocating for people to locate publication dates and not rely solely on recording dates since the publication date governs the copyright status. I still think it is important to have the recording date information available since it can showcase the discrepancies between publication and recording for people. By utilizing said template it might encourage people to thus look things up.

And yes the release is often close, but if something is recorded in December of a year it is likely seeing a release a few months later in a new year. Thus giving us a whole year wait for its public domain status.

In general, I think we are in agreement on matters, just going about it differently. SDudley (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going through the featured article process on English Wikipedia and a template in the article uses this image. I am told that it needs a tag for the original design. The original design is a work of the Wisconsin state government, created in the late 1970s. Wisconsin maintains copyright to its works unlike the U.S. federal government, and I don't believe there is any subsequent documentation declaring the seal public domain. Can anyone here help me with what tag should be applied to this image, or if it should remain on Commons at all? I've searched the US Copyright database for an entry matching this design but didn't find anything. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@M4V3R1CK32: Assuming they never gave notice, it's going to be either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but from just "the late 1970s" I can't tell you which. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

1977 was the year it was first used, so presumably no notice? M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Not so sure it needs that. If it's just using an element from the state seal, then the copyright is on that particular drawing of that element (and maybe the scrolls). Recreating the general design should not be an issue -- see Commons:Coats of arms. If you were copying the very specific lines of a drawing created by state government, that is where a graphic copyright would come into play, but seems more like this just lifted an element from another state seal SVG here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg I would agree that of the original elements in this design, two (the top scroll and the badger) appear to be lifted directly from the regular state seal. The bottom scroll is a fairly generic representation of a scroll. Supposedly there is a written description in the WI Secretary of State office, but I haven't been able to find it online. Any other representations of the seal not included in the source links that I have seen are clearly just this file reposted around the internet by crawler sites, so I am inclined to think this is a recreation of the drawing made by the state government. I'm not entirely sure this file is a 100% accurate representation, there could be additional elements on that bottom scroll that can't be made out in the source images. This one offers the best view. That said, whatever that is could be an artifact of the scanner and not a separate element. I'm not sure the answer here. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg @Jmabel just wanted to follow up and see if you had any additional thoughts on this question. I think, probably, the image is correctly tagged now. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's probably fine. I also think the stakes are low: I can't imagine anyone getting in trouble for getting this wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I generally think so to. Thanks! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hola,

Si sois tan amables, ¿puedo subir libremente un recorte antiguo de prensa (de los años 30)?

Gracias. Vengron (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vengron: Necesita más información para formar una respuesta. ¿Qué país? ¿Quién es el autor, y cuando murió? ¿Puede proporcionarnos un enlace a una copia en línea? - Jmabel ! talk 21:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Muchas gracias por la respuesta. Es un recorte de prensa (de España, de los años 30) pero no figura ni el nombre del periódico ni el autor. El enlace es el siguiente: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_jkiVPVRUMgWfSRiJ3zNC7u5xVaMV6FG/view?usp=sharing Vengron (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vengron: No puedo acceder a esa página. No es pública. Pero lo probable es que no podemos acceptarlo. En España, para una obra colectiva, los derechos del autor duran 70 años (para una obra individual, 70 años después de su muerte). En 1996, ere un tratado (URAA) en el que los Estados Unidos concedió a las obras españolas entonces protegidas por derechos de autor (y a las de muchos otros países) protección como si hubieran sido publicadas en Estados Unidos y hubieran cumplido con todas las leyes estadounidenses para preservar sus derechos. (Espero que la frase previa es clara; acercanmos a los límites de mi castellano.) En el EEUU, los derechos duran 95 años, calculando de la fecha de publicación. Ahora podemos acceptar obras de 1929, la próxima año será 1930, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this photo on sw.wikipedia and it was sourced to English Wikipedia and deleted in 2009. User:Magog the Ogre was so kind to check the original file page for information the original source but the result was a direct URL (link), and almost certainly the wrong author, then this Getty Images which appears to provide the wrong attribution. Magog also found a more reputable sources such as the Canadian Holocaust Museum. Since the photo is from 1930 per uk:Файл:Klaus Barbie September 1930.png it is now 94 years old so I wonder if it now be PD. For example {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. But I wonder if there are some good detectives out there who can find an author or more info. MGA73 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Getty credits the image to Gabriel Hackett. How do you know that this is incorrect? I have never heard of Gabriel Hackett before, have you heard of him?

Ukrainian Wikipedia claims that the photo is from 1930, but provides no source. Getty claims 1944 instead. The Canadian Holocaust Museum does not reveal when the photo was taken.

If the photo wasn't published before 1930, it is non-free in the United States as the copyright expires 95 years after publication. Whether it is free or unfree in the source country is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason I said attribution was wrong is because they list him as "staff" not photographer. --MGA73 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• German news website Deutsche Welle (DW) credits the photo to the "picture alliance / dpa" (dpa is the German Press Agency — Deutsche Presse-Agentur)[6]
• German newspaper Hessische/Niedersächsische Allgemeine (HNA) credits the Associated Press and claims that it is a 1943 photo, not 1930[7]
• Alam is crediting Pictorial Press Ltd [8] (I think we can ignore that)
• TopFoto credits itself (which we can probably also ignore) and claims that it's a 1938 photo[9]
• German news channel NTV credits "imago" (which we can probably ignore) and "United Archives International"[10] (from a German legal perspective, an archive or any other sort of organization cannot be a copyright holder; only a person can be). Imago itself credits United Archives International, claims it was taken around 1938, and that "this image can only be published in Germany, Switzerland and Austria" (for whatever reason)[11]
• Getty Images claims that it's a 1944 photo and that he's is wearing "army NCO uniform" (while the German sources say that it's a Wehrmacht uniform, and I'd side with them on this one due to the very Nazi-German looking badges on the uniform, but I'm no expert)

Whom do we believe?

Given that there are so many different entities that claim copyright for the photo, I'm tempted to think that it is likely PD (or generally assumed to be PD). Some of the sources like DW and the other German news outlets are usually reliable contentwise, but I don't see how an American Associated Press photographer could have taken this this photo of a Nazi in 1930-1944. I also don't see how a photographer of the Deutsche Presse-Agentur could have taken this photo because dpa was established after the war in 1949. And I don't know who or what "United Archives International" is supposed to be. Is it this company based in Cologne, Germany? The website doesn't seem to say when the company was established. There's no wiki article on it, and generally speaking, there are hardly any Google hits on this archive. But it looks like they are scanning / digitalizing physical photos, but not necessarily taking taking them. So, that archive's copyright claim is also not quite convincing from a German legal perspective where it is legally impossible for the photographer to reject or transfer their copyright to anyone else (they can only grant very generous using rights, but not copyright). Nakonana (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

1930? He was 17/18 at that point, so that is a "no". The Photo itself is somewhat famous and was evaluated by "Das Parlament" [12] some 20 years ago - the experts came to the conclusion, that it shows an army sergeant and has been taken between 1939-1945 and so - by circumstance - that it shows most likely not Barbie, also the resemblance is said to be staggering. Alexpl (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Well then this probably seals the discussion: if the photo was taken after 1930 then it's probably still copyrighted in the United States, if I'm not mistaken, and Commons can't host images that are still copyrighted in the US?

Also, interesting to see that so many German news outlets seemingly got it wrong. Nakonana (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Did some digging on Gabriel Hackett. Getty also has images from that time period on that topic area from someone named "G.D. Hackett" and since I couldn't find anything on "Gabriel Hackett" I tried "Gabriel D. Hackett" instead and found this Hungarian museum source. Going by this source Hackett also goes by the name "Hackett Dezső Gábor" where Gábor is the Hungarian form of Gabriel. The museum website also offers some biographical information on Hackett [13] which sounds quite promising as this guy has worked as a correspondent for several European news outlets / magazines (or similar stuff). Google translation of the short bio: "1923-26: József-Műegyetem, economics department - 1928: Genova, M. A. in humanities - Univ. de Paris (Sorbonne)1925-27: Italian correspondent of Világ, 1938-42: Paris correspondent of Pesti Hírlap, Mai Nap and Swiss L'Illustré. Founder and owner of the G. D. Hackett Studio and General Press Features press offices in New York". He was also working in France around WW2 as you can see, which may be relevant because Klaus Barbie is known for the crimes he committed in Lyon, France. However, if that's the correct Hackett, then the image would be still under copyright because he lived 1905-1990. Nakonana (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So to sum it up: Per the en:Military History Research Office (Germany) (which is cited at [14]), the photo does show some German army sergeant in the 1939 to 1945 period, but since Barbie never served in the regular army, it's not him. So probably out of scope as well as still copyrighted in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 17:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And btw, Wehrmacht is just the name for the German military forces at the time. Including army, navy and air force, but not including the SS. --Rosenzweig τ 17:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! So GDH were in France in 1938-42 so he could have taken a photo during the war. But not likely in 1944. But it seems strange that there are bigger versions of the photo out there sourced to someone else. And even if it is from that time we can't be sure that it really is Barbie. --MGA73 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That may well qualify for the Alien Property Exception to the URAA so it's not clear it's copyrighted in the US. But if it's not Barbie, not sure about scope. Unless we use it to help debug such usage. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

For debugging it's definitely useful given how widespread the misunderstanding is. Nakonana (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Heh, I meant debunk but must have gotten autocorrected :) Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would a random WW II era photo qualify for the Alien Property Exception? --Rosenzweig τ 16:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: I am assuming this was a German government photo. Nominally, the U.S. copyright to pretty much any German photograph would have nominally been "owned" by the Alien Property Custodian, since all copyrights were confiscated. The rule does say "owned or administered" so it may not have required copies actually being processed through that office (those would be "administered"). If the copyright of any such photograph would still owned by a government, it would arguably qualify for that exception. (The main goal of that exception was to prevent Nazi stuff from being re-copyrighted, and suppressed under copyright grounds.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence for this being a "government photo". Not every photo showing German soldiers in uniform was taken by official/state photographers. --Rosenzweig τ 13:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. It looks like a group military portrait, and the years were narrowed down to 1939 to 1945, so it would have been during the war. On the other hand, per policy a deletion under the URAA alone generally needs to show at least a high likelihood of being restored. If there is a good chance this is a military photo, it muddies those waters. It certainly appears to be treated as public domain by the rest of the world. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

But that would not make it necessarily public domain in Germany, would it? And Commons follows copyright rules in the US and the country of origin.

Does Alien Property Custodian only apply to photos or also other types of media? Nakonana (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Just read the wiki page on Alien Property Custodian and it confirms my assumption. For example, the wiki article states that APC owned the copyright for Hitler's book Mein Kampf. However, that copyright ownership was only valid for book sales in the US. In Germany, on the other hand, the copyright for the book was held by Bavaria and it was copyright protected until 31 December 2015. Nakonana (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The copyright for Mein Kampf is weird. In the United States, it somehow entered the public domain. In Germany, the copyright was confiscated and then somehow it later ended up being owned by the state of Bavaria. In Sweden, the supreme court ruled, when Bavaria sued a Swedish publisher decades ago, that confiscation wasn't a valid method to transfer copyright, and so Bavaria wasn't the copyright holder in Sweden; someone unknown was the copyright holder instead. The copyright has since expired in both Germany and Sweden. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It entered the U.S. public domain either by lack of notice, or when German copyrights were seized during World War II, or lack of renewal. Correct thought that it was only the copyright inside the U.S. that could be affected by that. However, it is precisely that copyright which could prevent URAA restoration via the APC exception. The UK similarly extinguished German copyrights in that country during the war, and similarly later returned any private copyrights to their original owners (though not government works). If the German copyright for this is in significant doubt, then that is a reason to delete. If the URAA is the only reason, I'm not sure that alone rises to a significant doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If government work when will copyright expire then? After 70 years? And from when? Death of the supreme leader Hitler? Or the date of the photograph? Or the date of the photographer (if known)? --MGA73 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In Germany? If the name of the photographer is known, 70 years after they died. Otherwise, 70 years after making available to the public (or creation if that was not done within 70 years). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Buenas se puede publicar el logo de Inverter Linear como este, LG Corporation fue creado en Corea del Sur (si es simple se puede publicar?) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

La enlace no me da nada. Es el logo n la parte superior izquierda de https://www.lg.com/levant_en, o otro? - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:este (al lado que dice "10 years warranty"). AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No veo nada de "10 years warranty". Claramente, no aparece lo mismo aquí en los EEUU. ¿Quizás https://www.lg.com/lg5-common-gp/images/common/header/logo-b2c.jpg?- Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: este?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Es una página con varios logos de LG, inter alia. Otra vez: ¿https://www.lg.com/lg5-common-gp/images/common/header/logo-b2c.jpg o no? Si no, dame una enlace a una imágen del logo, no una página compleja. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Aqui está https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/I3oAAOSw3ZtcvigE/s-l1200.jpg AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Claramente, bajo del umbral de originalidad en cualquier páis. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:LG fue creado en Corea del Sur. AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Como he dicho, claramente bajo del umbral de originalidad. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Ok,gracias AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

In 2020, I showed photos by Stig Eldö in a German forum. At the time, the images were available for download under CC BY SA 3.0 at digitaltmuseum.se. Now they are "public domain" there, but according to Swedish regulations. Example: https://digitaltmuseum.org/021018054865/italienska-statsjarnvagen-fs-691-010 I would like to upload these and also pictures from Germany to the commons. There are some photos by Stig Eldö there, but under different licenses, namely cc-by-sa-4.0, cc-zero and PDMark-owner. Which would be a suitable license? OhneEisen (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• The CC-PD mark is probably used for anything where the copyright is expected to have expired in Sweden, such as {{PD-Sweden-photo}} and {{PD-old-70}}. It should probably not be assumed to be a licence.

If a file is in the public domain in Sweden, they might not bother with adding a licence for the photo as it won't make a difference in Sweden and they don't realise that other countries use different copyright terms. It could also be that they don't have the rights to license the image in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the life dates of Stig Eldö, but given the date of some of his photographs, I assume he died less than 70 years ago. The example is a photograph that is older than 50 years, so I assume that digitalmuseum.se thinks this is a case of {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. Hard to say why they changed from CC-BY-SA though; the example image is a 1953 photo, so it's not a case of a photo that just became old enough. In the latter case, it would be the most logical explanation - and in that case, I would keep the CC-BY-SA license additionally for countries where PD-Sweden-photo doesn't work. Why don't you just ask them directly? Maybe they have the rights, first decided on a CC-BY-SA and then opted for a wider CC-PD mark because they think the photos aren't copyrightable at all. Gestumblindi (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ever since this hit Twitter earlier today and has been floating around, people have been requesting it to be added to the page on enwiki. I have concerns that this may not qualify for PD-us-gov because the photographer does not appear to be an employee of the US Government. Finding his Twitter he references himself as "Chief Photographer, President-Elect Donald J. Trump". What I am not sure about is whether it being included in the official invitation makes it public domain or not, and if it is public domain, whether the current tagging and source are sufficient or they need more detail. Thanks in advance. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that this has also been uploaded in various parts as the following files:

• File:Donald Trump 2025 inaugural potrait.png
• File:TrumpPortrait (cropped).jpg
• File:Donald J. Trump, President-elect of the United States.jpg added Berchanhimez (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg added Berchanhimez (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

And possibly more (I will update this list if/as I notice more). Berchanhimez (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have the same confusion. And Donald Trump is to be officially inaugurated on 20 January, so I assume he and his team should not be official employees of the US government until then? (and like Berchanhimez, the photographer does not appear to be an employee of the US government. This made the use of the PD-us-gov tag unclear). I'm not sure, I'm requesting further discussion from the community, thank you. Iming 彼女の愛は、甘くて痛い。 07:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It may help anyone to know that the consensus items about the Trump article on the talk page refer to "temporarily suspended by #19 following copyright issues on the inauguration portrait" - this is referring to in 2017. I tried to pop a few search terms into the deletion request archive search to see if I could find any DRs regarding those photos... but I came up short. If anyone remembers any specifics those discussions that may help. There is a link to the REFUND request, but all that gives me is that there was a long back and forth about those pictures in OTRS. Berchanhimez (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Deletion request was started by User:Iming at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presidential Portrait of Donald Trump, 2025.jpg - thanks. I've started compiling the other images there rather than here to keep them centralized. Berchanhimez (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking for opinions on the licensing of File:Metawin Opas-iamkajorn at HOWE AWARDS 2024.jpg. It's possible that it's the uploader's "own work", but it looks professionally taken and this actor seems quite popular (lots of photos available online); so, it's just as possible it's not. There's no real EXIF data to speak of and no source provided that aids in license verification. Is it OK to give the uploader the benefit of doubt here or should VRT verification be required? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say, this image is most likely a COM:NETCOPYVIO. If you look into the lights reflections on the eyes of the actor, you see at least 3 different lighting sources, one of these being akin to a softbox. That points towards a studio shot. But a photostudio is IMHO unlikely to use the Android version of Adobe Lightroom, it would either be Windows of Mac, and more likely straight Photoshop. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to upload five videos published by the Fargo Police Department (Fargo, North Dakota), sourced from here: The City of Fargo - News Detail. I inquired by email to ask if these videos are "public domain", to which I got the response: "I'm sorry this was missed, but yes. These videos are public."

Would the appropriate licence be CC0 1.0 Universal? Macxcxz (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The following is intended only as a partial answer.

To be CC-0 means that license has explicitly been granted by the copyright-holder. That is not the case here.

"These videos are public" does not mean they are in the public domain. The contents of a newspaper are "public", but they are still copyrighted, typically with all rights reserved.

Unless we have an argument to make that those videos are inherently in the public domain, we would need an explicit public domain dedication of some sort, either on their website or via VRT. I personally don't know what Commons current understanding on that might be for bodycam footage; it is not a clearcut matter. Someone else here may know more. You might find https://www.vondranlegal.com/copyright-law-and-bodycam-video of interest. I don't know anything specific about North Dakota policies. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The new version of the website of the Parliament of Moldova (https://parlament.md/ ) has two copyright notices in the footer:

• Parlamentul Republicii Moldova © 2025 – transl. "Parliament of the Republic of Moldova © 2025"
• ©Toate materialele de pe acest site sunt disponibile sub licența Atribuire - Partajare în Condiții Identice 4.0 Internațional (CC BY-SA 4.0). – transl. "All materials on this site are available under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license."

Without any other context, would it be ok to upload materials from this website to Commons?

Now for the context: this version has recently been launched to replace the old site – now hosted (for a while) at https://old.parlament.md . There is one copyright notice on that version and it's unambiguous:

• ©Toate materialele de pe acest site sunt disponibile sub licența Atribuire - Partajare în Condiții Identice 4.0 Internațional (CC BY-SA 4.0).

It served the basis to create {{Parlament.md}} here on Commons. To me it's clear that the Parliament intends to continue publishing their materials under CC-BY-SA-4.0. I want to import some useful photos from parlament.md (the new version) and I'd rather confirm here, now, that they won't be deleted because of this technicality. Gikü (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand that as a claim of copyright, and then releasing their copyrighted contents (which remain copyrighted even if licensed) under the CCBYSA terms. Bedivere (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You should probably find the small print somewhere on the website, and read it carefully. Russia has ministry websites that also have a notice that claims the website's contents are published under a Creative Commons license, however, in the small print or terms of service of the website it says that only the texts of the website are licensed as CC — images are explicitly not licensed as Creative Commons and thus can't be uploaded here. The parliament of Moldova might have a similar notice somewhere on the website. Nakonana (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Thanks for pointing this out. I am unable to find a page detailing copyright matters, on both the new and the old versions. Gikü (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good! Nakonana (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

More generally: you can only offer a CC license on materials where you own the copyright. So this is simply normal. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

In general, sign © (in combination © Name YYYY) and CC-license do not contradict each other. Former one designates copyrightholder and year of publication. Later one designates rules/terms of use.
At the same time, if combination © Name YYYY is accompanied with phrase "en:All rights reserved", then that complex combination and CC-license contradict each other - because CC-license uses conception Some rights reserved. Alex Spade (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" does not contradict either. That is basically the same thing as a copyright notice (but under the Buenos Aires Convention). Similarly, you had to reserve the rights in order to license them later. The CC licenses used that as a pun with the phrase "Some rights reserved" but it doesn't actually mean something isn't licensed as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It is better to qualify the terms in these cases (All rights reserved, or in Russian Все права защищены) for post-Soviet states, especially for Russia. The practice of Ru-Wiki shows, that cc-license had been withdrawn after qualifying request to copyrightholder in several cases. Alex Spade (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You needed a phrase like "all rights reserved" to preserve copyright under the Buenos Aires Convention. You needed a copyright notice to preserve copyright in the U.S. (and later the Universal Copyright Convention). Eventually, the habit was to use both of them together. It long predated Creative Commons and has no bearing on whether a license exists or not. But yes as always, authors should be aware of what a free license actually entails. If they were confused on the rights they were licensing, they should be given a chance to pull the CC license back. A government work and license though like the one in question, would be using that phrase in the long-understood meaning, and does not invalidate a CC license where they would be well aware of the full meaning. Amateur photographers, it's good to double-check, sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

USSR and post-Soviet states were not members of the Buenos Aires Convention (Panamerican treaty). For USSR and post-Soviet states the phrase All rights reserved / Все права защищены is short form (generalization) for phrases like Все права защищены. Использование допускается только с разрешения (All rights reserved. Use is allowed with permission only). Alex Spade (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of panorama, Proposal for abolish acceptance has been raised on the discussion page. I am looking forward to receiving various opinions on this matter.--Y.haruo (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Buenas se puede publicar el logo de 4fiber (proveedor de servicios de Internet en Líbano) como este (https://www.instagram.com/4fiber.lb?igsh=YW9lcnZqYjFlcG43) el logo es simple o complejo? (Si es simple se puede publicar?) (Notas:El TOO de Líbano usa el mismo TOO de Francia porque Líbano se considera un estado de Francia antes de su independencia)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

En Francia, se trata casi enteramente con la originalidad. El tratamiento del número '4' me parece original. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Osea es simple?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Como dije, la le en Francia (y, presumo, en Liban) no trata de "simplicidad" o "complejidad", sino con "originalidad." Y me parece original. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Taivo:any opinion?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/abulic_monkey/1801769029

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sarcmenswear/41400634044

Can these two photos be uploaded legally? One is a broken poster of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, and the other is a person wearing clothes with a photo of Mahathir on it. Baginda 480 (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No to the first and I'm inclined to say no for the second. The T-shirt is the point of the second photo. Abzeronow (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Can the song BBL Drizzy be uploaded onto Commons? It is an AI-generated song released by Willonius Hatcher, and a Billboard article reports that "Working off recent guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office, Woodard [Willonius's lawyer] says that the master recording of 'BBL Drizzy' is considered 'public domain,' meaning anyone can use it royalty-free and it is not protected by copyright". However, the article also states that as "Willonius did write the lyrics to 'BBL Drizzy,' copyright law says he should be credited and paid for the 'U My Everything' sample on the publishing side", which made me wonder if such a law or anything else about the song would restrict Commons from hosting the audio. Endof (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on the details of the song, but human-written lyrics or human singing would be copyrightable and presumably not freely licensed. We could only host the parts done by AI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I was looking into emptying b:Category:Presumed GFDL images when I found three files. I'm coming here because I'd like to ask of they're {{PD-ineligible}}.

• b:File:Programming-game maker-main GUI-Add.PNG - Screenshot of non-free program
• b:File:Xml voicexml architecture.png - Relatively simple diagram, part of ND-licensed W3C document
• b:File:Indonesian-alphabet-a-m.ogg - Audio of someone reciting the Indonesian alphabet

This investigation also led me to another question: Are images of sheet music for public domain compositions themselves in the public domain? See b:File:Polyphonic Bach Invention.JPG. JJP _{Mas ter} (she/they) 17:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, b:File:Cht7.JPG appears to be {{PD-chart}}, but it's also a screenshot of Microsoft Excel. Does that render it nonfree? JJP _{Mas ter} (she/they) 23:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the first file, that's not too simple and therefore can't qualify for PD-ineligible. The second one it simple enough and qualifies for PD-ineligible. The audio one does not qualify for PD-ineligible. The sheet music qualifies for {{PD-music-ineligible}} or a similar template, in combination of PD-old (the musical arrangement is old enough to be public domain I presume). The chart is fine, but could be wrapped with {{Free screenshot}}. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no additional creative input into that sheet music, it's definitely PD-music-ineligible. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 22:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

From what I see, the rationale in {{PD-CAGov}} and {{PD-FLGov}} is that some subset of public records in California or Florida is denied copyright protection by state law or courts. I wonder if, despite this, such public records that are not government edicts could still be protected by copyright through section 301 (a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, which says that:

On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.

This is because what California and Florida are doing--determing what works aren't protected by copyright--might intrude on an area "governed exclusively by" federal law and thus be preempted. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what's happening here. The California and Florida statues do not create any sort of right under state copyright law of the sort that would be preempted by federal law. They only regulate the conduct of the state government itself in relation to claiming (or disclaiming, or enforcing) federal copyrights. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. A private company could have the policy that it, and its subsidiaries, will dedicate every copyrightable work it produces to the public domain; the fact it is a state government doesn't change that. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess it makes sense for a state law to act as a public domain dedication for copyright owned by a state government. I've also realized that this issue is really not in dispute: the first circuit said in Bldg. Officials Code Adm. v. Code Tech., Inc. that "Works of state governments are therefore left available for copyright protection by the state or the individual author, depending on state law and policy" (emphasis added). prospectprospekt (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Aren't {{PD-CAGov}} and {{PD-FLGov}} just variants of {{PD-self}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Kindly check the license tags and relicense to proper tags if appropriate, or if the file itself contains non-incidental copyrighted elements, it needs to be taken down. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Since the app originated from China, it has lower COM:TOO, which would be copyrightable in China. If it's the case, it should be deleted on Commons, and if ineligible for copyright in the US, it should be reuploaded locally on English Wikipedia. --Stylez995 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I cropped it and deleted the previous version. And I adjusted the author, source and license. Feel free to be BOLD. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The chart can be found here. Maybe this could work as a guide when uploading Philippine works to Commons. I have started on photographic, audiovisual, and anonymous works for now. --Aristorkle (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Created without registration or renewal on November 14, 1972. — really only on that particular date? Or rather: "between August 1, 1951–November 13, 1972"?

Generally speaking, I like the idea of having a guide. Nakonana (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I see problems.

1. Unpublished works: It doesn't matter if the work was in the public domain in the Philippines on the URAA date or not. If it doesn't meet {{PD-US-unpublished}}, then it's not in the public domain in the United States.
2. Unpublished works: If I have an unpublished work created in 1950, then it is in the public domain. However, if I publish the work today, the work will switch to the published works section, where it says that the copyright expires 50 years after publication. This is probably not the way it is supposed to be.
3. Published works before 14 November 1972 says 50 years after the death of the author. However, published works since 14 November 1972 says 50 years from publication. Isn't it 50 years after the death in both cases, or 50 years from publication if the author is anonymous?
4. If the work was first published on 21 October 1948 or later, the work may have a subsisting copyright because of a bilateral treaty between the United States and the Philippines. This means that a work from the Philippines would be copyrighted in the Philippines if it was published with a valid United States copyright notice and, where applicable, with a renewal to the United States Copyright Office. The chart misses this part.
5. Government work: It says that if a government work is created today, then it was in the public domain in the United States on the URAA date. This doesn't look correct.
6. The section Works Published in the United States is not correct. The United States column is not correct either as you miss COM:SC. A work first published in the Philippines on 21 October 1948 which was published in compliance with all United States copyright formalities is copyrighted in the United States irrespective of what the copyright status was on the URAA date. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be no problem with the licensing of File:Angelyne signature.png per se, but I'm wondering about the file's description. Can this be claimed as "own work" if the uploader isn't en:Angelyne? Does there also need to be a source provided to establish this is really en:Angelyne and not a "forgery" or "tracing"? FWIW, this signature seems to be the same as the one shown here, and that signature can be downloaded as file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. I created regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

For silent films without synchronized sound, are composers ever considered co-authors in the EU? The Copyright Duration Directive (Article 2) includes "the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work", which I've usually seen interpreted on Commons as applicable only when that music is part of the upload.

This question impacts several videos and images related to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (e.g. 1, 2, 3), but I imagine there are other silent films that are in a similar situation. hinnk (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the Copyright Duration Directive sets the same copyright term to the entire film, even if you don't use the soundtrack. However, I didn't realise that this was a silent film. I don't know if music for a silent film is counted as a part of the cinematographic work under the EU directive. I assume that the orchestra at the cinema theatre was meant to play the music when the film was shown. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, although people did not reliably play the official score. First-run cinemas would, but after that all bets were off. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• I think that the problem here is the term 'work', which is what is protected under copyright law. The copyright applies to the work as a whole, and so the copyright of the entire work expires at the same time. Therefore, it is necessary to know what the 'work' is. This can be compared to free licences which normally apply to a 'work' - a few years ago, there was a long discussion when someone asked what a 'work' was in terms of resized photographs.

Article 1.1 of Directive 2006/116/EC states that the copyright to a work expires 70 years after the death of the author. However, if it is a joint work, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last author, and this applies to the work as a whole, so the heirs of the author who died first benefit from this by holding copyright until 70 years after the one who died last.

Films were notoriously complex in EU countries with differing interpretations of who the author is and what the work is, so Article 2.2 seeks to address the copyright term problem by setting a common copyright term.

Under old (pre-1996) Swedish law, the cinematographic work seems to have been the plot as a manuscript in text form, whereas other aspects of the film such as music, decors, dresses and animation frames were separate works, each of them with separate authors and separate 50 years p.m.a. copyright terms. I don't know how other EU countries handled this, but it is my understanding that it varied from country to country. If you leave Europe and go to the United States, you will find that a film which was registered for copyright was registered as a whole, i.e. the script, music, decors, animation frames (if it's an animated film) etc. were not separately registered for copyright, and there may have been EU countries who under the old law regarded the film in its entirety as a single work instead of treating the film as many separate works. It is my understanding that other EU countries may have either more or fewer film authors in their old copyright laws. For example, is the cameraman an author?

Article 2.2 fixes this by deciding that the film as a whole is a single work and so the copyright to the entire film expires at the same time, 70 years after the longest living of the listed people, even if you only use a part of the film which might not contain any contributions by some of those listed in the directive.

Article 10.1 then unfixes this by stating that for pre-1995 films, the directive doesn't shorten the copyright term. This means that you first need to wait for the expiration of the work (i.e. the film as a whole) under the EU copyright term, and after that you need to check what the definition of a work and an author was in the source country before July 1995 and determine if the copyright term also has expired under the old copyright law (i.e. you might need to verify that additional people have been dead for 50 or 70 years before you can use either the entire film or a part of the film).

The people in Article 2.2 are not necessarily authors of the film, and Article 2.1 only touches on the topic of authors. The director is one of the authors of post-1995 films, but there may be co-authors which are defined in national law, and for pre-1995 films the directive says nothing about who the author is. The copyright holder of a work would normally be the original author, but to avoid problems, I assume that companies producing films normally arrange to have the copyright transferred to the companies so that they won't risk having hundreds of rightsholders who own the rights to specific parts of the film and who therefore have the right to prohibit distribution of he film.

The question of what constitutes the work in the case of a silent film is an interesting question, as I don't know if the music can be argued to be part of the film or if it is treated as a separate work which is separately copyrighted for 70 years from the death of the composer. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Gnom or Pajz: Do you want to comment something about this question? --Rosenzweig τ 17:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably. The award of coauthorship to film contributors varies considerably within the EU. See P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2016) 145 ("Another difficulty of film protection lies in the determination of the list of co-authors of the film. The problem with audiovisual works is that there are very different requirements among jurisdictions concerning the nature of the contributions to a joint work, which results in disparities in the list of potential coauthors."). The legislative intent is, however, fairly clear in countries like France, where the law lists various contributors as presumed film coauthors, including "the author of musical compositions with or without words specially created for the work" (L. 113-7 CPI). That seems squarely applicable to somebody who, say, composes and arranges music accompanying a silent film. The same is not true in countries like Germany, where there is no statuatory presumption and coauthorship always requires that "several persons have jointly created a work without it being possible to separately exploit their individual shares in the work" (Section 8(1) UrhG). Of course, just because a composition may have been made specifically for a film shouldn't prevent it from being separately exploitable; therefore, the general view in Germany is that composers of film scores are not coauthors of the film (see eg D Thum, "§ 8" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 32). On the other hand, the Federal Supreme Court has held that the Tonmeister of a film may qualify as its coauthor (BGH GRUR 2002, 961 – Mischtonmeister), so even in Germany the "sound portion" of a film is not entirely irrelevant when it comes to film coauthorship. // As Stefan2 notes, the coauthorship question in conceptually independent of the individuals named in Article 2(2) of the Term Directive. Across the EU, in a post-1 July 1995 film the term of protection ends pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Term Directive, no matter if the people named there are coauthors or not. Who the coauthor is would only matter when we have, say, a release under a free license because that would have to come from the coauthors (or their licensees). Germany takes the same approach for pre-1 July 1995 works with the caveat that if there is a coauthor not named in Article 2(2) who lived longer than the people named there, then protection would expire 70 years following their death (Section 137f(1) UrhG). I'm pretty sure other EU countries follow a similar approach. // I would also point out that when you talk about "images" (as in: single frames) of the film, then at least in Germany, the general view is that using those does not infringe the copyright in the film, so it doesn't matter who the coauthors of the film or the Article 2(2) individuals are. The relevant rights in these cases are solely the photographer's copyright in the image (or their related right in the simple photograph if the originality threshold is not reached), typically acquired by the cameraperson (BGH GRUR 2014, 363 [20] – Peter Fechter), and the related right of the film producer (Section 94 UrhG; Article 2(d) Infosoc Directive) (BGH GRUR 2018, 400 [19] – Konferenz der Tiere). — Pajz (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pajz: Thanks. Follow-up question: You write "Germany takes the same approach for pre-1 July 1995 works with the caveat that if there is a coauthor not named in Article 2(2) who lived longer than the people named there, then protection would expire 70 years following their death (Section 137f(1) UrhG)." So would a film like de:Der letzte Mann (1924) still be protected in Germany because the film's cameraman de:Karl Freund (Kameramann) (1890–1969) died less than 70 years ago? Also, the film's composer (music for a silent film) de:Giuseppe Becce (1877–1973) is apparently not considered a co-author in Germany (if I correctly understood what you wrote above) and therefore not relevant for the term duration (in Germany) because it's a film from before July 1995? --Rosenzweig τ 10:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig, first point: Yes. Second point: No, I guess the idea is that if the film was still protected on 1 July 1995, then the new Article 2(2) scheme becomes applicable (but can never lead to a shortening of the protection term). So, in your example, because the cameraman died in 1969 and is a coauthor, the film was still protected on 1 July 1995. Therefore, the term of protection is now the "old term" (longest-living coauthor + 70 years) or the "new term" (longest-living individual named in Article 2(2) + 70 years), whichever expires later. As a result, ignoring all other contributors, the Term Directive would have led to an extension of the copyright term of that film. I just verified and indeed Dreier (T Dreier, "§ 65" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 7) essentially gives this exact example (new rules led to an extension of the term "wenn einer der vier Genannten im konkreten Fall entweder keinen schöpferischen Beitrag geleistet hat und er von keinem anderen Miturheber des Filmwerkes überlebt wird, oder sofern er nicht als Miturheber des Filmwerkes angesehen wird (wie nach der hM der Drehbuchautor, der Verfasser von Dialogen und der Komponist der Filmmusik)"; internal references omitted, underlining added). — Pajz (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

For Swedish films, I have always assumed, possibly wrongly, that a cameraman is a photographer and so you apply the copyright term for photographs, which in the German situation probably also means the pre-1995 threshold for differing between photographic works of art and simple photos. In the same way, I have assumed, again possibly wrongly, that you should not use the death year of a child actor but instead the much shorter copyright term for performances. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stefan2, hm, in Germany, the cameraperson would be a photographer of thousands of photos (photographic works or simple photographs) as well as, at least potentially, a coauthor of the film. I say "potentially" because as always, a coauthor still has to actually make an original contribution to the film. If the director leaves no room for the cameraperson's creativity, they cannot be a coauthor. (They also won't win an Oscar.) It's definitely possible for this to happen: Think of routine sequences in a documentary, or of some assistant camera operator in a movie who has no creative influence of their own. But I would say it's fairly obvious that a cinematographer responsible for a fiction film as in Rosenzweig's example would pass the bar under German law. Back to the initial point: If, say, you play the film in a cinema, you communicate to the public both the film and the thousands of photos it is made from, even though they are not perceived individually by viewers of the film (BGH GRUR 2014, 363 [21] – Peter Fechter). If you take one frame from the film and put in on Wikimedia Commons, it would not be a communication to the public of the film (because the elements justifying the film copyright are not present in a single screenshot) but the cameraperson's rights in the individual photograph would still be infringed. So the cameraperson is definitely a photographer in Germany as well, just not only a photographer. Again, the situation seems heterogeneous within the EU. For instance the cinematographer is not among the presumed coauthors in French law and, according to Kamina, French courts seem reluctant to treat camerapersons as coauthors (even though they've done so); on the other hand, again according to Kamina, the (principal) cameraman is specifically listed as a presumed coauthor in at least Croatia, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland (P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2016) 174f). // As for the actors, they should typically not play a role for the copyright in the film (in their capacity as actors); I would be surprised if there is a EU country where this is different. — Pajz (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Pajz (talk  · contribs) Thanks again. So basically, to determine the year in which German films from before July 1995 (and probably similarly in other EU countries) are free we have to a) calculate the term accd. to the EU Directive (last person with one of the four named functions to die + 70 years pma) b) calculate the old term (last co-author to die + 70 years pma) and then c) take the longer of those terms.

To do that we would need to know who can be co-author of a film (in Germany). The composer is not a co-author per the above. Director, screen writer and dialogue writer (all also mentioned in the EU Directive) would most likely be co-authors, as would the cameramen/-people and probably also sound engineers (Tonmeister) as mentioned above. Who else can be a co-author? Producers? Film editors? Makeup people? Production designers? There is quite a list of people who could be co-authors. --Rosenzweig τ 13:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This diverges enough from Article 2(2) that, whatever the answer is, we'll probably want to add a summary to COM:GERMANY and review all the PD-US-expired works in Category:Films of Germany by year. Cinematographers alone mean films by Fritz Arno Wagner, Karl Freund, Helmar Lerski, or anyone with an unknown death year would need to be deleted/transferred from Commons. hinnk (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, yes. Composers of music to accompany silent films like de:Willy Schmidt-Gentner (1894–1964) or de:Giuseppe Becce (1877–1973) are another group of people to be considered. --Rosenzweig τ 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

So probably everyone who made a contribution to the film which exceeds COM:TOO Germany needs to have been dead for at least 70 years before the full German film can be uploaded to Commons, whereas other rules apply for single screenshots? For Swedish films, I think that the corresponding rule is that all of the four EU people must have been dead for at least 70 years and that anyone else who made a contribution exceeding COM:TOO Sweden must have been dead for at least 50 years.

I didn't think that there would be any creativity in the cameraman's works. Maybe you are right about that. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig, I agree with your summary of the procedure. As for potential coauthors, the Federal Supreme Court remarked a few years ago, non-exhaustively, that "often, in addition to the director, the cameraman and the film editor may qualify as authors of the film work" (BGH GRUR 2011, 714 [58] – Der Frosch mit der Maske). I haven't done any in-depth research into this, but maybe this is a starting point just based on two or three legal commentaries:

(+) director (This is the only one that is de facto a given, as confirmed by the CJEU in C-277/10 – Luksan v. van der Let.)
(+) director of photography/cinematographer/(head) camera operator (If they had room for an original contribution. Some commentators say this is "usually the case" in a film work [JB Nordemann, "§ 89" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 21], others emphasise that this is usually the case in cinematic productions, but less likely in daytime dramas or documentaries [U Dobberstein, M Schwarz, and G Hansen, "Die Inhaber des Urheberrechts am Filmwerk" in M Schwarz (ed), Handbuch Filmrecht (6th edn. Beck 2021) paras 10ff].)
(+) film editor (If they had room for an original contribution. Nordemann [op. cit., para 22] writes that this is "usually" the case, according to Dobberstein et al. [op. cit., para 15] "many times".)
(+) sound designer/sound engineer/Tonmeister (If they had room for an original contribution. This seems to be treated by commentators as less frequently the case. The Supreme Court held that the Tonmeister can in principle be a coauthor [BGH GRUR 2002, 961, 962 – Mischtonmeister]. Nordemann [op. cit., para 23] writes that the individual has to "create a distinctive sound world" for the film, which is more likely the case in cinematic films, less so in daytime dramas. Dobberstein et al. [op. cit., para 23] write that coauthorship can arise "on a case-by-case basis".
(+) special effects supervisor/visual effects supervisor (If they had room for an original contribution.)
(+/-) costume designer/make-up designer (usually not but possible in certain cases when the costumes/make-up have a particular impact on the atmosphere of the film)
(-) assistant directors, assistant DOPs, assistant film editors, assistant sound designers/engineers/Tonmeister (not enough room for original expression)
(-) actors
(-) producer
(-) set designer (separately exploitable work, hence no coauthorship. Note of course that if, say, an architectural work is created for a film and the clip/screenshot/... on Wikimedia Commons shows that work, that would infringe the set designer's copyright in that particular work. Same goes, mutatis mutandis, for composers and screenwriters.)
(-) composer (separately exploitable work; see note above)
(-) screenwriter (separately exploitable work; see note above)

So my personal take-away from this would be that, in practical terms, the most relevant coauthors are (1) the director (whose year of death needs to be considered anyway for the Article 2(2) test), (2) the DOP/cinematographer/(head) camera operator and (3) the film editor. Others seem to be more of a case-by-case consideration and I have no idea how that could realistically be done on Wikimedia Commons as part of routine checks. I guess if, say, a sound person received an important award for their contribution, they perhaps should be considered. — Pajz (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Several of those roles only apply to photographic films with actors, but there are also animated films where some of the roles are different. For example, there are no actors, the 'cameraman' only does the simple task of taking photos of animation frames created by others and there are animators producing art. There is also computer animation, but not a lot before 1995 and all of those will remain protected for many more decades anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to editing COM:GERMANY to mention this, we should probably edit COM:EU and mention both Article 2.2 and Article 10.1 because Article 10.1 probably messes up the copyright term for films in several other EU countries too and the laws of all EU countries would need to be investigated so that we can find out where there is a problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I managed to access the 2002 edition of Kamina's book and took a quick look at it. On pp. 17-18, it is suggested that the 1901 copyright law for literary works didn't provide any protection for films at all and that films therefore only were protected as photographs under the 1876 law. The copyright to photographs expired five years after publication and there were copyright formalities. Does this mean, for German films, that we can ignore the old law if the film is very old (created before some change to the law)? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't really say, but will remark that the 1907 law de:Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie did protect photographs for 10 years, and in 1940, the Gesetz zur Verlängerung der Schutzfristen für das Urheberrecht an Lichtbildern extended the protection to 25 years (per de:Bildrechte). The 1965 law, de:Urheberrechtsgesetz (Deutschland), finally had specific rules for films. In the official Begründung (rationale, justification ...) for the law (see here, II.8 Besondere Bestimmungen für Filme it says that accd. to the previous laws, co-authors of the film are all persons which made a creative contribution to the film. So at some point in time the co-authorship rules must have come into play. --Rosenzweig τ 18:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking further into Kamina's book, it seems that protection of films was added to the 1908 revision of the Berne Convention. Probably something changed at that point.

The link you provided states that Wer zu diesem Personenkreis gehört, ist streitig. Sounds like problems in deletion requests as we won't know if we are looking for the correct people's death years. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm trying to apply the rules to a specific film, w:File:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920).webm. Do you think that I am doing it correctly? For credit see the first few minutes of the film.

Old rules

Ein Filmspiel in 6 Akten von Carl Mayer und Hans Janowitz: Not authors of the film, authors of a separate work. Full film: need to be dead for at least 70 years as the separate work is used in the film. Single screenshot: maybe need to be dead for 70 years (if the screenshot shows something creative from the script that they wrote). Died 1954 and 1944, so OK.

Hergestellt von der Decla-Film-Gesellschaft Berlin: A company is not an author, so OK.

Regie: Robert Wiene: Author of the film. Full film: needs to be dead for at least 70 years. Single screenshot: no creative contribution, death year does not matter. Died in 1938, so OK.

Dekorative Ausstattung: Hermann Warm // Walter Reimann // Walter Röhrig: Not authors of the film, authors of separate works. Full film: need to be dead for at least 70 years as the separate works are used in the film. Single screenshot: depends on what the screenshot shows. What if you don't know who did what decorations in the film? Warm died in 1976, Reimann 1936, Röhrig 1945. Reimann and Röhrig are OK, Warm is  Not OK.

Die Hauptrollen: many names: Not authors. They may have held rights as performers, but those rights expired many decades ago. OK

Photographie: Willy Hameister: Author of the film. Also created thousands of separately copyrighted photographs. Full film, film authorship: needs to be dead for at least 70 years due to being an author of the film. Single screenshot, film authorship: not relevant as the film is not used. Full film, single photographs: the copyright term expired 10 years after the film was made or published and you probably only use the old law here? Single screenshots, single photographs: Here you probably use the new law which says that the cameraman needs to be dead for at least 70 years? He died in 1938, so OK.

Giuseppe Becce, who made the music, isn't credited in the film. Not an author of the film, author of a separate work. Full film: only relevant if the music is included. Single screenshot: not relevant. He died in 1973, so  Not OK if the music is included.

EU rules

The cinematographic work enters the public domain 70 years after the death of the last to die of Mayer, Janowitz, Wiene and Becce.

Full film, with sound:  Not OK as Becce hasn't been dead for at least 70 years.

Full film, without sound: still  Not OK due to Becce even though his contributions haven't been included?

Question

The EU copyright term applies to the EU cinematographic work. What is the EU cinematographic work? Is it the same as the cinematographic work under the old law? In other words, are the separate works under the old law part of the EU cinematographic work or not? I don't see a definition in the directive of what a cinematographic work is. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• When is it that we need to consider the copyright of additional authors for a screenshot? Is it when it contains artworks (File:The Cabinet of Dr Caligari Holstenwall.jpg, plus the background of text frames such as File:Ende V. Akt Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari.jpg, File:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari intertitle.png and File:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari intertitle.png? Do we need to wait until all three of Hermann Warm, Walter Reimann and Walter Röhrig have been dead before we can host these four pictures? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion. It does look likely that Nosferatu, after all, will become public domain in Germany only in 2029. FYI, I posted a pointer / attempt at summary in German-language Wikipedia's copyright forum at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Nosferatu_reloaded,_oder:_Altes_Urheberrecht_für_Stummfilme. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have started Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Der letzte Mann (1924) based on this discussion. @Yann and Reneradelsilver: FYI as uploaders. --Rosenzweig τ 15:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I propose that we add something to COM:EU about the problems with films. Does the below proposal sound fine?

Cinematographic and audiovisual works

Article 2.1 of Directive 2006/116/EC states that the copyright to a cinematographic or audiovisual work expires 70 years after the last person to survive out of 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 of the directive states that the directive does not have the effect of shortening the term of a work which was created before 1 July 1995. The old laws of some EU countries required that other people, in addition to those listed in Article 2.1, had been dead for a certain number of years, usually 50 or 70 years. In order to determine the copyright status of a cinematographic or audiovisual work, it is therefore necessary to also consult the old law of the source country.

Note that Article 2.1 does not define what a cinematographic or audiovisual work is, or what constitutes a separate work with a separately running copyright term. Furthermore, this doesn't seem to have been standardised in the former copyright laws of EU countries, which could lead to interpretation problems.

Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but we should add something like "some EU countries (like Germany and ...)" as an example. Germany because we have discussed the situation there extensively (above). Maybe other countries if we know more about the situation there. --Rosenzweig τ 15:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there other types of works where the second paragraph would be relevant, or are audiovisual works the only form of media where we expect to have this kind of issue around changes to joint authorship? If we're not worried about other types of media, I'd support adding the first two paragraphs. The third paragraph doesn't provide any solid guidance, so at this point, I'd suggest omitting it. hinnk (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If you mean Article 10.1, there are a few other cases where the old law had a longer copyright term:

• The main copyright term is 70 years p.m.a., but it's 80 years p.m.a. in the old Spanish law.
• The UK (which has left the EU but has kept this part of law), certain works get a minimum copyright term of 50 years from publication, which is longer than 70 years p.m.a. if the work was first published more than 20 years after the death of the author. This rule is as far as I know only relevant until 2040 or similar as the UK fixed this at some point.
• As I understand it, while you use the rule of the shorter term for foreign works with regard to the standard 70 years p.m.a. term, you can't use it for the previous UK term of 50 years p.m.a.
• The copyright to an anonymous work expires 70 years after publication if published within 70 years from creation, or otherwise 70 years from creation. However, the old Swedish law says that the copyright expires 50 years publication if it was published during the lifetime of the anonymous author, otherwise 50 years after the death of the anonymous author. I think that there was also a modification of the definition of anonymous, so maybe someone could be anonymous under the new term but not under the old term. I think that Germany also has complex rules for anonymous works which sometimes results in a longer copyright term than the standard EU term.

There are probably also other examples of this, some of them possibly very uncommon. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This file was first uploaded to en.wikibooks back in 2004 as {{PD-chart}}, but was uploaded to Commons in 2016 as CC BY-SA 4.0, and the new uploader claimed to be the copyright holder, even though they are a different user than the one who uploaded it to en.wikibooks 12 years prior. Is the new uploader's CC BY-SA claim valid? JJP _{Mas ter} (she/they) 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This new uploader (NatasaVuksanovic123 ) did this with many files from b:Algorithms. See the first eleven files here. JJP _{Mas ter} (she/they) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The license on the files should be corrected to PD-chart and the Wikibooks image as the source. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 04:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: I warned them for that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello people of Wikipedia, I am quite new to editing Wikipedia articles and I have a question. I would like to upload a photograph of someone onto a Wikipedia page, it is taken directly from the individuals twitter and I am not familiar enough with the rules that apply to freely licensed or public domain content to know if I should upload this image or not. Advice would be appreciated, thank you. Djsnaggletoof (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A photo uploaded to social media like Twitter or Facebook cannot be assumed to be freely licensed. Do not upload this photo to Commons unless you have specifically confirmed that the author (who may not be the user posting it!) has released it under a free license. Omphalographer (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: over 95% of images on the Internet are neither in the public domain nor free-licensed. If you don't have a specific reason to believe a particular image falls into one of those two categories, it is very unlikely that it does. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Some searchable copyrighted books in the Internet Archive only have access to a limited number of pages, due to their copyright. Some books contain "public domain" photographs. For example, there are World War II photographs, reproduced within some books, that have attribution or credit to various U.S. Government agencies. So, can I take a screenshot of these Public Domain photos and upload them to the Commons with links to the Internet Archive photo source page as well as a link to the photo credit page? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: Absolutely. Just make sure to give the correct PD tag. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to check. Thanks, Jmabel -- Ooligan (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder about the CC-0 license for images from the National Portrait Gallery, i.e. File:Louis Armstrong in Color (restored).jpg, currently nominate at FPC. While it is quite possible that this image and other with the same license claim are in the public domain due to lack of copyright notice or renewal, there is no publication information at the source. The source says gift of Elsie M. Warnecke, who is probably the heirs of Harry Warnecke, but nothing else. I also wonder who is Gus Schoenbaechler, and what was his role. It is quite unusual to have two photographers for one image. Opinions? Yann (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Does CC-zero mean that the National Portrait Gallery owns the copyright and that they decided to license the image? Or is CC-zero for the restoration work?

I'm unsure how a photo could have multiple authors. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly what I am wondering. Yann (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It could be a collaboration or one may have taken the photograph and the other made the Cabro print. Glrx (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, if a photo was published attributed to a studio, rather than to an individual at that studio, it is a collective work for copyright purposes. This has been part of the ongoing mess we are trying to sort out about Studio Harcourt. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of them have even 3 authors: File:Mildred Didrikson Zaharias, NPG 97 211.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Studio Harcourt is a French studio, but this is presumably not a French work. It is probably either a British work, as it is sourced to a British institution, or an American work, as the subject lived in the United States. If French law states that works attributed to a studio are collective works, this does not mean that British or American law does the same. It sounds like an odd rule; I've never heard of something like this before.

For example, Article 1 of the Swedish copyright law says that the copyright belongs to the one who creates the work. Article 7 states that the one who is credited as author is to be treated as being the author unless otherwise proven. If several people are listed as photographers of a photograph, it should be quite easy to prove that the credit is incorrect as a photo can't have multiple photographers. Probably it would then count as anonymous authorship.

Another thing about studios: I've seen lots of files on Wikipedia which are credited to Bassano Ltd, and w:Bassano Ltd redirects to an article about a person who died in 1913, but many of the photos were created after 1913. Do we have any information on who the photographers might be or if we can treat this as anonymous authorship? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Who is the photographer if there are several people making adjustments to framing and camera settings? It also seems possible that there were multiple photographs merged or manual editing to the photos; some of Ansel Adams' pictures are composites of multiple photographs, and some degree of manual "photoshopping" went on since the first days of photographs. It could be a boss demanding to be credited alongside an underling, but there seems to be many options with reasons to credit multiple people for a photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stefan2: These are purely US works, taken in USA by US photographers, and offered in a US institution. I don't see what Harcourt has to do with these, and it is a completely different situation. Yann (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I read National Portrait Gallery as the National Portrait Gallery, whereas in this case it seems to be the National Portrait Gallery. How confusing! --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I found one with 4 credited people: File:Jackie Robinson, NPG 97 135.jpg. I could understand credit for 2 people: one assistant for lighting, etc., but 4? Yann (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If you list unreasonably many people, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes treated as an anonymous work at some point. Let's say that someone would list everyone in the entire world as a co-author.

@Stefan2: Well, that is what the source says. Yann (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'm asking if this following logo can be fall to PD-textlogo? [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] Thank you. Royiswariii Talk! 10:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Royiswariii: You don't say what country. Threshold of originality differs by country. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's the Phillipines. Bedivere (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Jmabel It's from Philippines. Royiswariii Talk! 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This is somewhat of a philosophical question, so I apologize in advance. Was wondering how to assess some modern/contemporary works of art by a recently deceased American artist, Ellsworth Kelly. Kelly's estate and foundation (the owners of his intellectual property) and commercial gallery generally claim copyright on all works the artist produced in his lifetime. But there seem to be some strong questions about his work in regards to the threshold of originality requirement in U.S. copyright law. Specifically, many of Kelly's works comprise monochromatic or multi-color paintings, sculptures, drawings, and prints comprising simple geometric forms with uniform, flatly applied color and no visible creative/hand-made flourishes. Obviously we can't make any sort of blanket statement about the totality of his work, but I wanted to ask about a few examples (from the collections of the US National Gallery, Museum of Modern Art, and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art) to get a sense of what might be allowable on Commons. Listed from most likely below the threshold to most questionable. The works toward the beginning of the list seem straightforwardly below the threshold of originality, as they are nothing more than simple geometric lines or shapes with uniformly applied color and no visible elements of creative authorship. Further down, I have to think there's a possibility of copyright based on the arrangement of PD elements, as many of his multi-form works comprise several monochromatic geometric forms as opposed to just one. Thank you in advance to anyone who can offer some analysis, I'm just hoping to figure out which of Kelly's bodies of work would be allowable in images here.

• Ex. 1: Diagonal Lines (1951), ink on paper (MoMA).
• Ex. 2: Dark Green Panel II (1981-1982), painted aluminum (NGA).
• Ex. 3: Stele II (1973), weathering steel (NGA).
• Ex. 4: Color Panels for a Large Wall (1978), oil on canvas (NGA).
• Ex. 5: Colors for a Large Wall (1951), oil on canvas (MoMA).
• Ex. 6: Spectrum I (1953), oil on canvas (SFMoMA).
• Ex. 7: Three Panels: Yellow, Orange, Blue (1997), oil on canvas (NGA).

19h00s (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Kelly's work is frankly a pain in the butt in that respect. I think how I'd handle it would not be driven by law. I would not upload these to Commons as Kelly's work until such time as we could if they exceeded the threshold of originality. On the other hand, if someone were to upload a similar image—possibly even for most of these an identical image—in a context unrelated to Kelly, I would never say "that's a copyright violation, copying Ellsworth Kelly's work." - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm unable to find any mention of a CC license on the YouTube source provided for File:Jakefuture27.png. The uploader says they used filtered searching to find the video on YouTube, and I can replicate that; however, I still can't find any mention of a CC license. So, perhaps some others can take a look at this just in case I'm missing something. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

YouTube shorts doesnt show the license. You need to go on the regular video view in this caseː https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1NLQKEpbZ8, open the description and scroll down to the end of the description and it is there

JavaScript to go to go from shorts to regular video, you can save it as bookmarkː

javascript:(function(){window.location.href=window.location.href.replace('shorts/','watch?v=')})();

 ${\displaystyle 999}${\displaystyle 999}REAL 💬 ⬆   12:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I have incorporated 52 pictures from Wikipedia Commons into my history book of people and events from the 1600's to 1865. My publisher would like either a written permission, or something similar, from Wikipedia for them to use the pictures. How can I get such permission. Raymond A. Kreps (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Raymond A. Kreps: Please see COM:REUSE, and notice the "m" in Wikimedia.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that almost any image created before 1865 is likely to be in the public domain, so permission is not necessary (you can just tell your publisher that the photos are in the public domain and therefore free of copyright restrictions). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I recently found an image that I would love to add to the Johnson desk article in a US Senate publication (Page 3 of S. Pub. 105-60, The Lyndon Banes Johnson Room). While I understand this publication is free to use as it was made by the US government the individual image is credited to Frank Muto, who was the US Senate Democratic photographer at the time. Can we assume that this image was taken as part of his official government duties so therefore is free to use? and advice would be great. Found5dollar (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I want to be able to comment on this proposed mass DR, but there appears to be no page for me or anyone else to post a comment. I have never seen a missing comment page on a DR. Where should I post a comment?

This Deletion Request (DR) only has a link to multiple closed discussions. There is no specific reason given, except a generic reference to "the same issue as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream"

Please, the DR see here:

• File:Evenimentul de recepționare a unui lot de echipament tehnic, oferit de Ambasada Statelor Unite ale Americii în Republica Moldova 27.12.2023 - 1.jpg
• and here: User talk:Ooligan#Notification about possible deletion 11

Thanks, Ooligan (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: The current DR is at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Moldova photographs taken on 2023年12月27日, linked from the words "the nomination page" in the template on the file page. The other DR is just mentioned in the current one. --bjh21 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I see @Bjh21. The link at the top to previous DRs was confusing. Thank you for your reply. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Buenas, se puede publicar el logo de DP venezuela como este (https://http2.mlstatic.com/D_NQ_NP_689093-MLV75599031079_042024-O.webp) si el logo es simple se puede publicar con PD-textlogo? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Sí, es simple. Después de subir tantos logos, debe ser bastante claro. ¿Intentas preguntar explicatamente cada vez? - Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Would any of these violate any copyright rules on Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia? I ask this mainly due to branding and logos etc and anything else in the images I may have missed.

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/weedporndaily/38811949701/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/weedporndaily/38781594772/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/dankdepot/5500915851/

Helper201 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Why do you want to upload the first 2? These come from an account advertising the use of drugs, so I don't see how this could be in scope here. The third one is OK for me. Yann (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Yann we have quite a limited number of images of cannabis edibles on Wikimedia Commons, especially when it comes to food products or food additives that aren't sugar, fat or desert based, like cookies, gummies and cakes. So, I want to help add more cannabis edible images, especially ones of greater variety to what we have already. Unfortunately, I can't find much to this end, so I'd like to know if commit any violations before uploading. Helper201 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The second one could be problematic for the photos in the background. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I recently came across these photos on the Smithsonian website ([20] and [21]) and was thinking about uploading them on commons but they are marked as "Usage Conditions Apply". I also found that "When the work is original to a Smithsonian employee, that work irrevocably exists in the public domain" according to Template talk:PD-USGov-SI. After checking the metadata of the photos, they seem to have been taken by Robin Schaefer, the same author who, for example, took these photos which are marked as public domain.

So can those photographs also be considered public domain despite the "Usage Conditions Apply" mark since they are taken by a Smithsonian employee? Alin2808 (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alin2808: Hi, and welcome. Where did you find that the two photos "seem to have been taken by Robin Schaefer"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It says under "Authors" in the metadata of each photo. Alin2808 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Also that Smithsonian rule applies to SI staffers who work directly for the federal government. SI Trust employees (not direct federal employees) would not qualify, as they don’t lose copyright for works created in the course of their jobs. And honestly half the people who work at SI actually work for the Trust, so you need to know specifically if the author of the image (whether that’s Schaefer or someone else) actually works/worked directly for the federal government. Which tbh is not always the easiest thing to ascertain, nor does it necessarily feel right to snoop on a random SI staffer because you found their name in a photo’s metadata. 19h00s (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I get that (read some previous discussions here), but if that's the case and the author is a Trust employee and he retains the copyright then why are those other photos (the example I gave) released in the public domain? There is virtually no difference between the rifles and their photographs that could affect their copyright: same author, belong to the same museum (National Museum of American History), and neither is on display. Alin2808 (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

There are theoretically any number of reasons that these specific images are further restricted by SI than the other examples you point to with possibly the same author. Some of those reasons could be negligible for Commons (e.g., an agreement made with the donors of these objects that images would not be freely published, which Commons can ignore), some of those reasons could be central to the issues we're discussing (e.g., a Trust employee made the photograph and therefore copyright was retained).

I would argue that Schaefer's name being on the metadata really doesn't prove anything. There are quite a few photographers working in an institution like this; was Schaefer actually the one who set up the shot and took the image, or was a colleague using their camera? This image was not published with a specific photographer credit line, and we cannot assume that the metadata is actually accurate, especially with an institution like SI that has a very large archival and photography staff.

Museums - including SI and other federal institutions - often embellish the degree to which images are restricted or otherwise incorrectly describe the copyright status of works in their collections. Where that can be clearly established - e.g., an American museum claiming a work of land art in the US is copyrighted, which is not legally possible - then there is well-established precedent on Commons to ignore the museum or authority making the claim of copyright. In this case, from my perspective, there is just not enough info to firmly establish a) who made this image and b) if they were an SI direct employee or SI Trust employee (and I would not be comfortable recommending you attempt to figure that out; federal workers already have it hard enough this week.) 19h00s (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Or I could ask them. They appear to have an email just for discussing copyright conditions. Surely they'd agree to at least clarify why those photos are not listed as public domain. Alin2808 (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s your prerogative! But they may well be unable/unwilling to give a full explanation - speaking from experience, I can definitely imagine a reply that basically just restates the license terms as displayed on the website and doesn’t add any additional context for why it was licensed that way.

Enjoy your weekend! 19h00s (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Expert help requested at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kuromi.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 05:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I am new here, and having trouble with images I've uploaded. I want to respect copyrights and have asked the authors of the images to complete the release form through the release generator. But this, too, is complicated and still in the works. The owner of the rights and I have a lot to learn still :)

But here's my question: these AntiCompositeBot messages I'm getting – are they aware that we are in the process of getting this all sorted? Louisetarp (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Louisetarp: These files should have had evidence of proper licensure when they were uploaded. Please fix their file description pages before uploading more like that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

thank you, Jeff, I appreciate your quick reply. Makes sense. I have to learn that it's a slow process.. :) Louisetarp (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Louisetarp: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Louisetarp: It can help to insert the template {{subst:PP}} into the licensing section of the file page. Gnom (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

ooooh great! Thank you Gnom Louisetarp (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Buenas necesito saber porque el Usuario Bedivere cambio de licencia a PD-USgov (File:Logo White House - President Donald Trump (2025).png) si en el sitio web del WH aparece CC-BY-3.0? AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Podrías haberme preguntado directamente a mí. La respuesta es simple: como obra de un funcionario federal de los EE.UU., está en el dominio público. Solo los materiales de terceros en el sitio web de la Casa Blanca están bajo aquella licencia. Bedivere (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere:Gracias por la respuesta solamente pregunté por este tema.👍 AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Buenas se puede publicar el logo de ITA Airways inspired by Alitalia como este (https://cdn.businesstraveller.com/wp-content/uploads/fly-images/1552675/Logo-e1727677642949-916x516.png) ,si es logo simple se puede publicar?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: No se puede acceder al enlace. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Aquí está (https://www.ita-airways.com/en_en) en la parte arriba aparece ITA Airways inspired by Alitalia. AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Los logos de ITA y de Alitalia me parecen demasiado simples para haber derechos de autor, pero el mini-logo "Skyteam" puede ser un problema. - Jmabel ! talk 07:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Te refieres a este (File:Skyteam Logo 001.svg) dice claramente {{PD-textlogo}}. AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Me sorpresa. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Switching to English here, because this is for a more general audience. Do people think it is correct that this logo is considered below TOO? - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

 Question Pinging @Abzeronow @Yann @Bastique@Bedivere@Taivo@Glrx:any opinion?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Italy has a relatively high ToO. It's possible that it might be OK for Italy. But SkyTeam is headquartered in the Netherlands and I have doubts about that being below the ToO in the Netherlands. @Ellywa: Abzeronow (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Per COM:TOO Netherlands the work has to "bear the personal mark of the maker" to be eligible for copyright. IANAL but I am an amateur in drawing and painting, therefore I usually appreciate the design effort and creativity of logo's and other seemingly simple designs. Try for yourself. This logo is not simple at all imho.. it is very subtle... so it cannot be kept without permission. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @Abzeronow that Skyteam logo would meet TOO in the Netherlands. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 22:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion this is complex logo, it does not consist of simple geometrical figures. Taivo (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

So nominate SkyTeam logos for deletion? Or ask SkyTeam to seek for a free license? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226:My opinion yes ,commencing a DR please. AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Filed at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Skyteam_Logo_001.svg. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

 Info @Bastique@Abzeronow:look in enwiki (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

So if we are deleting it, we should move it to en-wiki as a non-free logo, or possibly as below U.S. TOO if they don't care about the Netherlands' status. - Jmabel ! talk 02:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has a template {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} that they use (We have one as well but ours is automatic deletion) - Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 04:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like there are similar issues in quite a few other languages. - Jmabel ! talk 02:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow@Bastique:I've created this logo (File:Logo "ITA Airways inspired by Alitalia" (2024).png) whitout a logo of SkyTeam (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I use this image of the front page of the New York Times from July 1945? Is it eligible for Commons, or must it be fair use?

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/469049691_10162326933965917_7902521902660090642_n.png?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=0b6b33&_nc_ohc=xAdnim88SsQQ7kNvgG6C5JP&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&_nc_gid=AlNZyKOcT7S9n1GIeFD29uO&oh=00_AYD-aitK1ndXW7N2pJtjjq5cpwxYVowSk5oHU8ht8OiXzQ&oe=6799DFF7

The image is contained on this Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154365674975917&id=109589085916&set=a.10150379205590917

Other reproductions exist:

https://hallieephron.com/facts-behind-the-fiction-inspirations-for-there-was-an-old-woman/

DonFB (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@DonFB: Those other sites using the file might be OK in doing so under a claim of en:fair use (even if they aware of that being the case), but Commons doesn't allow fair use content of any type as explained in COM:FAIR. That particular issue of The NYT wouldn't be old enough to be within the public domain per COM:HIRTLE just because of its age; so, what's going to need to be figured out is whether that particular issue was clearly marked with a copyright notice (and the other en:copyright formalities were taken care of), and whether its copyright was renewed if it was under copyright protection. If that issue didn't have its copyright formalities taken care of, there's a good chance it could be treated as {{PD-US-no notice}}. If it was protected by copyright, but that copyright wasn't renewed, it could be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Another concern is whether the photo is the original work of the paper. Photos and articles appearing in newspapers at that time weren't required to have separate copyright notices and formalities (only advertisements were required to have such things), so the copyright status of the photo could depend on the copyright status of the issue as long as its an original photo taken by a staff photographer. Of course, many newspapers did (and still do) get their photos from third-parties, and this can complicate things because the paper isn't really the copyright holder of the photo in suich a case. Given that particular photo, it seems like it would've been kind of hard for some run-of-the-mill staff photographer to take; so, there's a good chance it came from somewhere else. If you can find out more about the photo's en:provenance, then perhaps it might already be within the public domain per {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-Army}} given that it's related to an accident involving a US Army aircraft if it was taken by a member of the US military or an employee of the US federal government. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Yes, I did understand that fair use is ineligible for Commons. Sources say the photographer was a NYT employee. I think I will simply upload the image to en:wp and label it as fair use. DonFB (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@DonFB: Just for reference, English Wikipedia does allow certain content to be uploaded as non-free use, but English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive than fair use by design, and there are ten criteria that each use of non-free content needs to meet of it to be considered a "valid" use. Unless there's a stand-alone English Wikipedia article either about this particular photo, this particular crash or this particular issue of The NYT, it's probably going to be hard to justify the non-free use of this photo in an article which briefly mentions the photo, crash or the paper. You might want to ask at en:WP:MCQ or en:WT:NFCC about using the file as non-free content before actually uploading the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

My primary interest is the image of the NYT banner and the big three-deck headline below it, not the photo on paper's front page. A similar news photo, licensed as public domain, is already in the Wikipedia article about the July 1945 crash. Accordingly, I would crop the newspaper image to exclude its photo. My purpose is to illustrate the impact (pun not intended) of the event, as shown in a hometown newspaper, which also is known as the "newspaper of record" nationally. "First copyright renewals for periodicals" (https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html) shows the NY Times having renewed its copyright for daily issues from January 1, 1930 to April 30, 1933. That would seem to indicate copyright for the 1945 issue wasn't renewed, but I don't know if that's a valid interpretation of the data, and I certainly don't have expert understanding of these matters. DonFB (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The Upenn periodicals page notes at the top -- This includes all active issue renewals through 1932. It might not show all renewals past that date. UPenn does say that no newspapers outside of New York renewed issues from before 1945, but the New York Times certainly did. The U.S. does not have a typographical arrangement copyright, and short phrases (which most titles would fall under) are below the threshold of originality. There can be a "selection and arrangement" copyright as well, so a particular grouping of titles (such as showing all the article titles, minus the photo and article text) may also be a problem. Any one particular title may be OK, though a longer one gets more arguable. The NYT banner by itself is almost certainly OK. If you crop out the other titles, and just have that one, it would come down to the question is if that much text is copyrightable or not in the US. I might lean to it being OK but I could see a little bit of an argument otherwise. Each phrase in the title is not copyrightable, but the combination / ordering... slight chance. But that seems thin to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; my thought process has been similar. I'll probably upload as non-free at English Wikipedia and see if that is accepted. DonFB (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear Madam, dear Sir, I hope this email finds you well and that all is going smoothly for you and your loved ones.

We are currently preparing an article for a Special Issue of the Geoheritage journal, which is part of a series stemming from the RIV3P8 conference we organized at our university last year. For more information, please visit https://sites.google.com/view/riv3p8.

To illustrate our paper, we would like to include photos/images of the reptile-like bird Archaeopteryx and the fossilized skeleton of a female ichthyosaur giving birth to youngs, providing evidence of ovoviviparity (eggs hatching internally as an adaptation to a fully marine lifestyle). Both fossils were discovered in Jurassic sediments in Germany. We find their inclusion is highly relevant to the topic of our article.

Would you kindly consider providing us with these images and granting permission to use them in our publication? Additionally, if possible, could you provide the correct citation reference so we can properly credit them in our bibliography?

Thank you very much in advance for your time and consideration. Should you grant us permission, we will ensure that the images are properly attributed in the article.

We remain at your attention for further information or if you wish to discuss specific conditions regarding the use of these images. We look forward to your positive response.

Best regards, Abdelmajid Noubhani

---

Prof. Abdelmajid Noubhani Chouaib doukkali university Faculty of sciences, Geology Department Laboratory of Geosciences and Environmental Techniques P.O. Box 20, El Jadida – Morocco [redacted] 197.253.208.187 23:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons does not own any of the images posted on our site, so we cannot grant anyone any permissions to use these.

Every image posted on Wikimedia Commons should either be in the public domain or free-licensed, so all should be usable, though many require specific attribution and/or overt mention of a specific license. In every case, information about available license and required file name should be explicit on the individual file page.

For images that are not in the public domain, if you wish to make different arrangements than the overtly offered free license, you would have to contact the copyright-owner. - Jmabel ! talk 03:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

That was not an email message. I redacted some of your spammier personal identifying information. In addition to what Jmabel wrote, please see COM:REUSE.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I've read all the policies, guidelines, conversations, Etc. Etc. and I'm still not sure if people are allowed to upload works to Commons that are copyrighted per the URAA. Of course there's the "URAA artist" template that says "please do not upload photographs or scans of works" by artists that are still copyrighted due to the URAA. Yet Commons:URAA-restored copyrights says "a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion" and it seems like that's all we have, mere allegations that the files are copyrighted. I've certainly been involved in and seen plenty of DRs myself where people voted for the files to be kept because due that one little sentence and admins seem to follow along, at least sometimes. But hosting said images still seem to go against the precautionary principle. So can anyone provide an definitive answer? Can users upload images that are copyrighted because of the URAA and in cases where it's already happened can they be deleted as COPYVIO or not? Adamant1 (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

There were many times that people claimed something was restored by the URAA, but based on today's laws and terms, and not looking up the legal history as to what the law was in 1996 (particularly some EU countries which did not enact the EU directive until after January 1, 1996, or did it non-retroactively and only made it retroactive later). There can also be questions of simultaneous publication in the US, etc. In other words, you should be able to back up the allegation by pointing out what the law was at the time, and that the work was still under copyright in its source country then (and that it's not also a US work). So, by the wording of the guideline, the onus is a little bit on the person nominating for deletion under those reasons to back it up (not the uploader, necessarily). If the result of that investigation shows significant doubt that the file is public domain in the US, then it should be deleted -- works still must be public domain in the US, and that is part of US law. There are some who dislike deleting such works which are public domain in the country of origin, so you may find some DRs closed that way. But, the "allegation" part means that if it there is some solid reason to think the work was not restored, it may be best to keep even if not completely sure, if that is the only reason to delete a file. It can be a judgement call on "significant doubt" -- theoretical doubts do not rise to the COM:PRP level. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Thanks for the thorough answer. Going by that then, am I correct to assume it would be OK for me to upload images that might or might not violate the URAA and then leave the rest up to whomever decides to nominate the images for deletion if anyone does? Or would that go against Commons:Copyright rules? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

That might be a judgment call too -- experienced users such as yourself should know a bit better; if you are completely ignoring the URAA and that is apparent, it might be easier to mass-delete rather than take admin time to go one by one. If you are pointing out the uncertainty in each upload, then I could see that. Though if one gets deleted, others uploaded under the same rationale could follow. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. I ask because I have a bunch of European postcards I scanned from the 30s and 40s that I assume aren't copyrighted but am hesitant to upload because the URAA thing is pretty convoluted. I'll have to do more research on the whole thing. Of course I wouldn't intentionally upload copyrighted images. It just seems like having to research the laws of multiple European countries and who published the postcards when, while not speaking the languages, is a high bar if its probably not something people on here care about to begin with. Its certainly more of a hassle to figure out then normal copyright. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

In Western Europe, the limit date is 1930 except for France, where it is 1936. Eastern Europe laws were usually shorter. Yann (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Portugal was 50 years on the URAA date. Austria's URAA line for photographs is 1932 (their retroactive law was not until later in 1996, though they were 70pma for most other works by then). Greece went to 70 years in 1993, but non-retroactively, so 1943 is their line for anonymous works. But yes, most of Western Europe was 70pma on or before the URAA date. As Stefan2 says, this assumes the photos are anonymous -- if there is an author listed, you'd have to find their death dates, and that is far less likely to be OK for the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

In cases where the retroactive restoration hadn't yet taken place in 1996, you should also check earlier copyright laws. Some countries had a copyright term of 10 pd or 10 pr for photographs during the first half of the 20th century (changed in Sweden in 1962). If photos which met that term hadn't yet been restored to a longer copyright term, photos created or published 10 years before the law changed in the mid-20th century might qualify for {{PD-1996}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This assumes that the photographer was anonymous, which I think was usually the case at that time. Also note that some countries have a high threshold of originality and instead protect photographs below the threshold of originality using w:related rights with a shorter copyright terms (see for example {{PD-Sweden-photo}} and {{PD-Italy}}). --Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. By "limit date" I mean either the date of publication or the author's death date, depending of the case. Yann (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Monopoly-board.jpg

File is a derivative of the Monopoly board, which is out of copyright, however the only copyrightable portion of the image is the logo as it has the mascot. Does this fall under de minimis or some other licensing gray area or is it substantial enough that it has to be deleted? AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

If the mascot is the only issue, then it would probably be ok to just blur it to be on the safe side. Nakonana (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

DeepSeek has published their logo in a GitHub repository under the MIT License. However, the repo also contains a custom license that does not allow users "to make use of [DeepSeek's] trademarks, trade names, logos." So my question is: are those restrictions related to copyrights or trademarks? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the latter refers to trademarks Bedivere (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've transferred en:File:DeepSeek logo.svg to Commons. However, I wouldn't blame anyone if they decide to nominate it for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no FOP for 3D artworks in Japan. Fake food samples are modeled replicas of real food (typically of restaurant menu items) for display. Would they technically be considered 3D artworks that may be copyrighted by the artist who made the samples? Atomicdragon136 (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Atomicdragon136: I think so.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, but I can't imagine a derivative work unless one particular one was the main focus of the photo. There may also be questions on how it was made -- if someone made a cast of an actual food item, that may not be copyrightable at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Such food replicas are usually used by restaurants. The replicas are placed in the windows to give potential customers an idea of what food they can get in the restaurant. Meaning that the replicas are modeled after the actual food of the restaurant. See [22]. Can they still be considered creative work by the food artist if the restaurant gives them extremely detailed descriptions for how the result has to look like? As for the restaurant chef's arrangement of the food, I think that food arrangements are not copyrightable even if they are quite artistic? Nakonana (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty tricky. Since restaurants provide food sample artists a detailed visual description of dishes to then make a virtually identical replica of, there isn't really much creativity here. But now that you mention this, I'm going to lean towards derivative photos of fake food samples being okay in terms of copyright, but would like others to weigh in their thoughts on this before concluding an answer. Atomicdragon136 (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Racetrack Playa from space.jpg: Here's a mild chinstroker for ya. Satellite image copied from long-dead US National Park Service website way back when to en.wp, then ported over to Commons. Pulling on the thread in the Wayback Machine gets us to [23] which states, "Photo by Paula Messina".

Now I'm pretty sure they're not an astronaut. Let's assume arguendo that Messina was an NPS employee, official duties all that jazz. Inspecting the archived file name gives us "PMrtscanc1sm.jpg"—one infers, a scanned physical image. So now what to do. Web searching for satellite images of Racetrack Playa turns up some similar-looking images such as this one, stated to be a "Landsat image". Do we call it a day there, say the preponderance of evidence is it's a scan of Landsat imagery, and tag accordingy?

(Also anyone else think COM:SAT (excellent shortcut name) ought to give some info re: attempting to ID the source of a satellite image of uncertain provenance? And maybe some detail about Landsat, where to find Landsat data, how to get an idea whether stuff attributed to "Landsat" is Commons-compatible? Since it's a big source of PD stuff.) --Slowking Man (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have approached an journalist in order to get his permission to use his rendering of the bathyscaphe Trieste under the Creative Commons licence Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International CC BY-SA 4.0. He is considering doing so, but before he takes his decision he would like to get the following three questions answered. "I have some questions.

[1] IF I grant permission for its use, does that free use apply to other versions (i.e. higher resolutions, different formats) than what I provide you to use? [People could rescan the work from Naval History at a higher resolution than wiki has and claim to use it under the wiki release. Or may have gotten an electronic file from somewhere and make the same claim?]

[2] IF I provide you with a file to use, can I determine its format, size, and resolution?

[3] Can I watermark the image I provide you?"

I think the answers to his second and third question is clear to me. The picture shall be free of watermarks and he can freely decide format, size and resolution of the picture he provides.

But I ́m not that sure if it comes to answer his first question. That ́s why I ́m asking for your advice. As far as I have understood the only the usage of the file is permitted under the aforementioned licence. If someone claims that he/she has got a version in a higher resolution from the file at commons, then this is not covered by the licence, because other versions can be derived from the properly licenced version but obviously not with a higher resolution. In this case the claimer would have had violated the copyright of the copyrightholder. So, what do you suggest? Cheers Yeti-Hunter (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The license applies to all versions of a picture independently of the resolution or the file format. But if it is a 3D-rendering having a view from one perspective the license does not apply to views from other perspectives or the 3D-model itself. GPSLeo (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

One advice I've heard being given to photographers in situations like this is to license their "second best" shot under a creative commons license while reserving their "best shot" for commercial licensing. Maybe that's an option to consider. Nakonana (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

My take:

[1] With all due respect to GPSLeo, I believe that slthough the usual practice is to free-license the image as such, yes, you can specifically free-license the lower-resolution version. Basically, you'd be licensing the lower-res version as a derivative work, without licensing the original. You'd need to be very clear at every step of the process exactly what version has been licensed. This would call for a very clear statement on the file page where we host it as to what is not licensed. — Jmabel 21:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Actually, GPSLeo may be right on this. It would probably work for a crop, but not for simply lower resolution. The lower resolution would presumably not leave out any creative elements, and that is what copyright covers. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

[2] You can provide a file of a particular resolution (and even crop) of your choosing. You cannot determine the size: for example, someone can print it as large or small as they want, and they could AI-upscale it, as long as that upscaling didn't consult an unlicensed form of the image.

[3] Visible watermarks are allowed, but discouraged. Even if you include one, someone may make a derivative work retouched to remove the watermark, as long as it is not done by consulting an unlicensed form of the image. If you are concerned with the work possibly being used without acknowledgment, I would much more strongly recommend including the credit to yourself in EXIF data or using an invisible steganographic watermark.

Continuing that last: the work is no more at risk of being stolen from a posting on Commons than anywhere else it is posted on line. Granting a free license that requires acknowledgment is just that. If someone were to use the image without a credit, they are exactly as liable for a copyright infringement as if there were no free license available.

Jmabel ! talk 21:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

To my understanding it's uncertain whether (assuming this is the US) legally it is "meaningful" to "license" the exact same image, at different resolutions/sizes, under different copyright licenses. In US law what matters and what copyright attaches to is the creative work as a thing-in-itself, and not any particular physical copy of it. Obvious in the case of printed word: there is only one single copyright in The Grapes of Wrath , and not, 20 million copyrights, one for each individual printed English-language copy of the book plus every large-print format copy, plus every individual "e-book" copy, and every time a new copy gets created that increments by 1 the number of copyrights the work has... In other words, if they've published the image already, I think yes, anyone could then "rescan the image from Naval History" and reuse it under CC-BY-SA. If they're putting out a smaller version, and saying "this is under CC-BY-SA" I think that may be construed by a court, if it were tested in court, as dual-licensing the work, meaning anyone can take the "original" larger version and use it under BY-SA. I'm not aware of how much existing case law there is on this. Basically this is the kind of question they should ask a copyright lawyer about if they want an answer to rely on. --Slowking Man (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This can be found on the official website for en:Creative Commons and it seems to support what's been posted above: if a work itself is being released under a CC license, then said license would apply to all "copies" of the work as long as it's the same work from a copyright standpoint. Of course, Creative Commons can't control what people try to do and doesn't going around policing those using CC licenses. A copyright holder might attempt to impose additional restrictions on re-users of their work, but such restrictions probably would be considered COM:NCR by Commons. If a re-user agrees to such an agreement but then violates it, it could be considered more of contract law matter than a copyright matter and would have nothing to do with Commons. That type of thing, however, is probably something better asking an (intellectual property rights) lawyer about if it's a real concern. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi at all, I ́d like to thank for all your answers. Best regards Yeti-Hunter (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The journalist declined to get the rendering in commons and despite the fact that I really like his work I ́m fine with his decission. It all sounds to troublesome to me. It either works easily or not at all. If it is necessary to consult an intellectual property rights lawyer I ́m out. Thanks again for your advices and opinions. Cheers

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yeti-Hunter (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to add a bit -- the high/low resolution question revolves around if there is copyrightable expression present in a higher-resolution version which is not present in a low-resolution one. A copyright owner can scope their copyright however they want, but if the law determines that all expression exists in the lower-resolution version, if that is licensed there may not be anything left to restrict. I think this is a distinct possibility for photographs, at least in the U.S., while paintings would almost certainly have more expression visible in a high-resolution version. It could also differ by country. I think at Commons we try to respect the resolution distinction even for photos, though it makes it more likely others won't, even if for something like a painting. The author is free to note that only this resolution version is licensed. But, to remain "free" (and use the CC license) authors can not restrict someone taking the low-resolution version and upscaling or using it in other ways. It's entirely understandable that commercial authors don't want to risk this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd appreciate viewpoints at Commons:Deletion requests/File:47 transition seal.png. Glrx (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hoping for folks' take on the copyright/licensing/threshold of originality here. Someone uploaded a png version of OpenAI's logo with a CC license, which was then imitated in drawing form and uploaded by a different editor as an svg file with a CC license. Another editor recently changed the licensing on the svg version to match what OpenAI says about the logo, which is that it is copyrighted but freely usable for any purpose under certain conditions. a) Are the nonstandard "licensing" terms listed for the svg version valid for Commons and b) Do we think the logo actually passes the threshold of originality for copyright in the US? Thanks!

(finally a non-art question from me) 19h00s (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

During the course of a review of the article on the en:battle of Meligalas in the English Wikipedia, a reviewer stated that two of the article's images need "a US licensing tag as well, since Wikimedia servers are in the US". The images (File:Borci na ELAS.jpg and File:BRAVOS-1940.jpg) are already uploaded with a license on the Commons. I am wondering if there is a user eager enough so that s/he could please help me navigate through the matter and find the appropriate tag for the US. Many thanks in advance, Ασμοδαίος (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how File:BRAVOS-1940.jpg could be out of copyright in the U.S. If it was still in copyright in Greece in 1996 (the URAA date) then the U.S. would give it 95 years of protection, dating from first publication. That cannot yet have expired, since the photo is less than 95 years old.

If the current licensing for File:Borci na ELAS.jpg is correct, then it is presumably {{PD-US-expired}}. May I ask which of the three bases listed in {{PD-North Macedonia}} is believed to apply here? Anyway, if it was out of copyright before January 1, 1996 in its home country, and its original publication did not involve simultaneous publication in the U.S., (削除) File:Borci na ELAS.jpg (削除ここまで) {{PD-1996}} should apply. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

An anonymous Greek photo from 1940 would have expired in 1991, before the URAA date (Greece had 50pma terms at the time... well, non-retroactively increased to 70 years in 1993). That would be {{PD-1996}} if the date is correct and the photographer was not named. Unsure of the date of the other one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, Jmabel and Carl Lindberg. I've now used {{PD-1996}} for File:BRAVOS-1940.jpg.

Re File:Borci na ELAS.jpg, the picture was taken between 1942 and 1945, the years when ELAS was active. I am not sure which of the three criteria mentioned in the licensing tag already existing applies to the file, so I made an inquiry to the file's uploader. I am also not sure I understand what Jmabel means when stating that [[:File:Borci na ELAS.jpg]] should apply in this case. Would you mind to elaborate? Thanks, Ασμοδαίος (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ασμοδαίος: I think @Jmabel meant {{PD-1996}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, that was a copy-paste error. I was about 10 minutes shy of headed for bed after spending most of the day driving, & didn't notice. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

For the other one... it will matter where it was first published (thus becoming the country of origin, and which country's laws we use). It seems it comes from an archive in North Macedonia. It could well have been PD there in 1996, so if that is the country of origin, it would also be PD-1996. If Greece is the country of origin, it would have been needed to be published in 1942 (or taken in 1942 but not published before 1993). If 1943 or later, its copyright would have been extended in Greece, and restored in the US. Do we know of any provenance from the North Macedonia archive? If that is the only known source, it may be enough to assume that it was published there -- so if PD-North Macedonia applies, it would also be PD-1996. If only published after 1971, it gets more complicated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses once more, Jmabel, Jeff G. and Carl Lindberg, and for elucidating the meaning of what Jmabel had written.

Re File:Borci na ELAS.jpg: I asked the file's uploader which of the three criteria of PD-North Macedonia applies to it, but she was unable to answer due to the long time that has passed since the file's uploading. As far as the time of publication is concerned, I find it unlikely that this is a a photo of 1942 -- I would guess it was rather taken in 1943, when ELAS had been turned into more of a disciplined formation than an assemblage of partisan groups, or 1944, when they had secured their rule in areas of Greece and could stage such photos. The fact that it seems fairly sure that other photos of the same archive related to ELAS also seem to have been shot in 1944 (e.g. File:Zarobeni Germanci na ELAS.jpg -- German soldiers surrendering to ELAS [most probably around the liberation (autumn 1944)], File:Artilerija na ELAS kaj Kalitea.jpg -- waging war in Athens [December 1944], File:Elas vo Ksanti.jpg -- a victory march in Xanthi (September 1944)) makes this even more likely -- in my mind. Regarding the file's country of origin, I cannot be sure about the exact provenance of the archive, but I assume that its files were brought to the Socialist Republic of Macedonia by refugees of the Greek Civil War (perhaps Slavic speakers/Slav Macedonians of Greek Macedonia) who relocated to Yugoslavia at a certain point of time from 1945 until 1949. I never happened to see any of these pictures published in Greek secondary sources concerning World War II, so I would speculate that none of them (neither the file in question) was published in Greece. Where would this leave us? Ασμοδαίος (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

In copyright, it usually matters more where and when a work is published, rather than created. Sounds like these may have been private photos taken to North Macedonia, and at the very least donated to the archives and published that way. That would make North Macedonia the country of origin. If that was before 1971, then we are fine -- qualifying for that tag means {{PD-1996}} is also satisfied, as they changed their law in 1996 and this tag represents works that became PD before that, which matches up exactly with the URAA date. If that was after 1971, then not sure there is any tag we can use. The current presumption appears to be publication before 1971, so PD-1996 would be the tag to add there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and your help, Carl Lindberg. I've now added the {{PD-1996}} tag to both files. Thanks once more, Ασμοδαίος (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Following up on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince-amedeo-of-belgium-archduke-of-austria-este-df6105f8-d5fa-4e60-a705-249aab85a9a-resize-750.webp, I've discovered that there are about 300 images on Commons which link to Alchetron (https://alchetron.com) as a source. However, Alchetron is not a source. They're a Wikipedia mirror which supplements articles with images found online, frequently including copyrighted images - they're no more a source than Pinterest or Google Images.

Please help me work through these images and attempt to find their actual sources, or nominate images for deletion if they're not freely licensed:

Special:Search/alchetron.com

Omphalographer (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I want to upload an image which is in two different newspapers for an article I'm working on. The oldest one was published in 1921 has a cc-by-nc-nd license, which unless I'm mistaken can't be used on the Commons and the other was published in 1935 and states it is still protected by copyright per Lisenser i nettbiblioteket. But as both were published over 70 years ago and with no named creator shouldn't they both be in the public domain per COM:NORWAY? Spiderpig662 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The cc-by-nc-nd license probably applies to the scan, which we ignore on Commons per Commons:ART. So, the only relevant question is whether these publications are really anonymous. Ruslik (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

With all the recent fuss with the Donald Trump official portrait, it has come to my mind this portrait of Benito Mussolini. Is it in the public domain? Photographer is G. Caminada (apparently Gianni Caminada, I could not find death date). It was published pre-1930 (see for example this one in the Spanish periodical press). Does {{PD-Italy}} applies as "simple photograph"? I do not know how high is the threshold in Italy with regard to photographs and so. Strakhov (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Almost certainly not a "simple photograph"; it's a pretty deliberate portrait. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Strakhov PD-Italy do apply to simple photographs, and as Jmabel said, this is not the case. There are 3 options.

1. it's a work for the Italian Government, thus its Template:PD-ItalyGov (20 years after publication)
2. it's a work for hire for Mussolini, then the rights belong to his heirs 70 years after (削除) his death (1943) (削除ここまで) Caminada's death.
3. it's a work for Gianni Caminada, then it's like above: PD 70 years after his death

All of them are possible, because Mussolini was prime minister in 1922, and Gianni Caminada was active in the 1920s. I am leaning more toward the second option: Mussolini was also a well known journalist and it's possible that the portrait was commissioned by him. Ruthven (msg) 09:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 2 (commissioned photographs) exists or did exist similarly in other countries, and it usually means the rights are with the person who commissioned the photo. But is the term duration really 70 years after the death of the person who commissioned the photo? Or rather the usual 70 years after the death of the author, even if the copyright is owned by someone else? In which part of Italian copyright/authorship law can this be found? --Rosenzweig τ 17:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Directive 2006/116/EC seems rather clear that the copyright term depends on the author, i.e. the photographer, not on the one who commissioned the photo. If the former Italian law states that you should use the death year of the one who commissioned the photo, then I think that it becomes 70 years after the photographer or 50 years after the death of the one who commissioned the photo+war extensions, whichever is longer, per Article 10.1 of the directive. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

According to Antola, Alessandra (2013) "Photographing Mussolini" in Stephen Gundle, Christopher Duggan, Giuliana Pieri , ed. The Cult of the Duce: Mussolini and the Italians, Manchester University Press, pp. 182−183 the photograph was taken in 1921 and "later reproduced as a postcard". At the very least, if no info on Caminada's death is found, it could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in 2042 as per {{PD-old-assumed}}. Strakhov (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig@Stefan2 It's 70 years after the dead of the author (art. 25). In Italy, in case the owner of the copyright is the State, the term is reduced to 20 years (art. 29), same for "simple photographs" (art. 92). Ruthven (msg) 16:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ruthven: So in case 2, the rights belonged to Mussolini and then his heirs for up to 70 years after the death of Gianni Caminada? Because presumably Caminada is still the author, even if others own(ed) the copyright for photographs he made for hire. --Rosenzweig τ 17:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig It seems so, because I haven't found any specification of the term of copyright in case of work for hire (or simply in case of transferring the copyright to someone else). And that sounds logic: you cannot indefinitely extend the copyright term through successive acquisitions of a work. Ruthven (msg) 10:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Thanks. So this is not not a simple photograph (per the discussion), and if it is from 1921 (also per the discussion), state copyright cannot apply because Mussolini was not yet prime minister then. Which means the photograph is copyrighted for 70 years pma of Gianni Caminada. To (perhaps) use it before 2042, we would therefore need to find out the year in which he died. --Rosenzweig τ 12:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find information about Caminada's death. He was active in March 1920 in Milan, participating to the Futurist movement; besides that, some news of his activity as photograph in the 1920s. --Ruthven (msg) 12:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

What would that be? As {{PD-collective-work}} assumes a search has been conducted, and uses the 120 years instead of 150 years. According to info at Commons:Collective work, I gather that these can be moved to commons, but with which license? — Alien 3
3 3 18:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally 1870s works can be licensed with {{PD-old-70-expired}}. That's usually what I do when I find a 1870s work with a bad or no license. Abzeronow (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

And we already have {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} covering this case. Yann (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! will use that. — Alien 3
3 3 19:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, what do I do if there is a photo I want to add but there is no copyright? The August Crisis (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Then that photo is copyrighted (unless it is already very old), and you cannot upload it. Gnom (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, a lack of a copyright statement does not mean that a photo has no copyright. You should not upload such photos unless they fulfil the requirements outlined at Commons:Licensing  ${\displaystyle 999}${\displaystyle 999}REAL 💬 ⬆   18:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@The August Crisis: Where did you get it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If the photograph is t be useful in Commons, you should know something about it. Where did you find the photograph? Who took it? When was it taken? Where was it taken? What was the nationality of the photographer concerned? All of these affect copyright. Martinvl (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The photograph is on Ricky Jamaraz's website, it was taken by Thomas Ison (who is also Ricky Jamaraz), I don't know when it was taken - considering evidence from his TikTok and Discord server I'll estimate at some point between early 2023 and mid 2024 - it was taken in his bedroom, and he's English. The August Crisis (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@The August Crisis: If these are selfies, then he owns the copyright. He would need to offer an appropriate free license either stated on his website (or public-facing social media account) or via the process described at COM:VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a specific area of his website I should be able to find this? If not, should I simple e-mail him? The August Crisis (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if he has already offered such a license. What I'm saying is that he can skip the VRT process by indicating the license through something that is public-facing and clearly under his control. He should be clear what license he is offering, and what image(s) that covers. - Jmabel ! talk 03:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking for opinions on whether any of the following photos of former ABA/NBA player en:Marvin Barnes found for sale on en:eBay might OK to upload to Commons as {{PD-US-no notice}}. If even one of them is OK, then it could possibly be used to replace the non-free en:File:Marvin Barnes.jpg currently being used for primary identification in the main infobox.

1. 1976 Press Photo Marvin Barnes: attributed to a "Bob Scott" on the back of the photo. Photo is watermarked, but I can't find a visible copyright notice on either the front or back.
2. 1977 Press Photo Marvin Barnes turns himself in at Superior Court in Providence: Attributed as "AP wirephoto" in the right border of the photo. Photo is watermarked, but I can't find a visible copyright notice on either the front or back.
3. 1971-72 Providence College Basketball Yearbook: Various pictures of Barnes (and others for that matter) found throughout the yearbook (Barnes' profile is on page 13). I can't find a visible copyright notice anywhere in the yearbook. The photos seem unattributed but most likely were taken by a student or school employee.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

U.S. yearbooks in that era were typically not copyrighted, so that one is probably a good bet. - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't make any assumptions about the press photos. It's not clear that they were actually published in the form that's on sale, or if we're looking at prints which were only circulated internally in a newsroom (and which may have been published with notice in a newspaper). In particular, the 1977 photo is clearly an internal copy, and the original photo is still available for licensing through AP. I would treat both of the press photos as validly copyrighted. Omphalographer (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Buenas ,en que año estara al Dominio público el logo del Movimiento al Socialismo como este (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Movimiento_al_socialismo_logo.png#mw-jump-to-license) el partido fundó en 1971 (en Venezuela son 60 años después de publicar)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

2032 Bedivere (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

this image, File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg, is declared as being in the public domain. But it does contain a derivative of a CC-by-SA 3.0 licensed work, File:中華民國第12、13任總統馬英九先生官方肖像照.jpg. I do not think that this mix-up is legally possible. Am I mistaken, or what kind of action is to be taken? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Grand-Duc, you are of course correct that we must honozr the CC license of the portrait when dealing with a derivative work such as this one (unless the portrait falls under de minimis, which I would say it doesn't). Accordingly, the photo should be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Gnom (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the photograph on the wall can be seen as de minimis, but dual licensing is fine as well. Saimmx (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed that some users uploaded insignia of India without information, or with {{PD-India}} without the date of the original. I don't see anything in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India which would indicate that these are in the public domain. I find that there is lack of evidence to be under these licenses:

• Uploads by Adiiitya (see also my talk page).
• File:Indian Armoured Corps Insignia (India).svg and some others by Jpgibert.

Opinions? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yann: I think DRs are in order.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to SVGs, the question is are they derivative of another graphic work -- the age of general design is not necessarily relevant (see Commons:Coats of arms). If they were copied/traced/extracted from existing drawings, then yes they are a problem, but a new drawing of a general design is often a separate expression of the idea, not a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you please check this image and tell if it is licensed properly? The original design is linked in the description. Adiiitya (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I notify Soap Boy 1 at the origin of my set of SVG indian insignias. Jpgibert (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that these modern insignia are a different case than traditional coat of arms. A coat of arms is usually described by text, without a specific graphic representation, but this is not the case for these insignia, which are very similar if not identical copies on the official ones. Am I right? Yann (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no particular dates of insignias of regiments of the Indian Army but most of the insignias are directly derived from the regiments of the British Indian Army. When India became a republic in 1950, all the royal titles were removed from the name of the regiments and insignias with crown were also altered. Examples -

• 4th Prince of Wales' Own (PWO) Gurkha Rifles to 4th Gorkha Rifles
• 11 Jat Regiment to Jat Regiment
• 3rd Madras Regiment to Madras Regiment
• Governor-General's Bodyguard to | President's Bodyguard
• 6th Rajputana Rifles to Rajputana Rifles
• Royal Garhwal Rifles to Gharwal Rifles

So most of the army insignias are from 1950 and over 60 years old, hence they are in public domain. Soap Boy 1 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Manuel "Wowo" L. Fortes, Jr..jpg was originally uploaded without a source under a questionable claim of "own work"; so, I tagged the file for deletion per COM:F5 and notified the uploader of this. An IP address (could be the uploader) just add a URL to an official website of the Philippine government where the image can be seen. Is it OK to relicense this file as {{PD-PhilippineGov}} and replace the "own work" claim with information about the government website per COM:GVT Philippines or is copyright holder consent verification still needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I don't know much about the details of Philippine copyright law, but if inclusion in that gov.ph page is sufficient for us to know that license applies, then absolutely it is OK to make the correction. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Udacity Logo 2024.png is most likely not the uploader's own work as is being claimed, but it's possibly OK as {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO US given that en:Udacity is a US company based out of California, but would like some other opinions. Is the "U" of any concern here? If it is, then en:File:Udacity logo.png uploaded locally to English Wikipedia would also have the same issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The file seems fine to me. The U is just a few lines. It is definitely trademarked, but trademarks are allowed here. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Many, if not all, of the LAPD's Critical Incident Video Releases use Google Maps satalite imagery (like in this one at 1:39). Of course, the video itself is in PD but the map isn't. How should we proceed? I think deleting all files is a bit overkill. I don't know how many of these we have uploaded, but I think there are a few. // Kakan spelar (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to use AI tools to enhance image quality, particularly when the image is blurry, or does this change the integrity of the original content? Lililolol (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

AI enhancements should be clearly marked as such and uploaded as a separate file to the non-AI enhanced version. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

But please note: "Enhancements" on raster graphics (JPEG, PNG, TIFF...) are mostly never possible, be it by AI, classic software or humans, on technological grounds. Blurriness, lack of sharpness and noise must be fixed or avoided BEFORE saving the image to a media. If your image is already noisy or unsharp, then no tool can fix that. You can only fake the appearance, by sharpness filters (unsharp masking, highpass filtering, or the "Clarity" filter in Adobe Camera raw) or by downscaling so that the lack of sharpness becomes less apparent. Sharpness is represented by rapid and small sized contrast changes where the photographed objects do have actual limits or borders. Unsharpness happens when these contrast changes are expanded over more pixels or image areas than necessary or possible. AI tools tend to invent image data that was not there beforehand, that's why these tools do not improve anything. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been editing 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision, and I've uploaded a short sample of the air traffic control audio. I found the original version, and my question is whether the recordings are considered creative works. ATC jargon has very little creativity, but perhaps it's enough. Thoughts? JayCubby (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

the recording itself may be copyrighted. Sound recordings in the US are presumed copyrighted. The transcription may be PD. Bedivere (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The ATC and military are federal employees, so what they say is probably PD. What the private citizen / pilot says is not clear to me. Glrx (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not an aviation staff, but if ATC pilots must follow standardised procedures to describe their situation in recordings, I don't see there will be any creativity or originality in it because every person with following procedures will report almost the same thing. For other people, I mean, if we believe people chatting in terminal is not copyrighted, I don't think people chatting in aeroplanes is copyrighted, either. Saimmx (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking for some assistance confirming the copyright status of several sculptures by American artist David Smith. These three sculptures, all owned by the Hirshhorn in DC, were completed in 1940 and do not have copyright notices. They are from Smith's series Medals for Dishonor, which includes 15 small relief medallion sculptures. But I'm a bit confused as to how to assess them as original works vs derivatives of an earlier work. Smith drew detailed sketches for each sculpture, then created dental plaster reverse molds which were used to create a set of master casts in plaster. He completed a bronze edition of the each work in the series in 1940, exhibited them at New York's Willard Gallery, and published a catalogue of the works. They were all subsequently shown in multiple museum settings without photography/copying restrictions in place over the next 10 years. (most of this background detail comes via an article in Art Journal [JSTOR  776184 ]). The artist's estate claims copyright, with licenses handled via ARS. I would think the works would be public domain, but I could easily be wrong. Any insights? Thanks all! 19h00s (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If the sculptures were first displayed in the United States in 1940 without a copyright notice, then they are public domain. If there were previous works done in anticipation of a grand work the grand work would not be considered derivative of those works.

I don't know what to do about the artist's estate, if they make a big stink, even if it is technically Public Domain it might be a fight. 🤷🏼 Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 04:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this! And yeah, I always assume with situations like this that if the estate ever makes a big issue of it, I'd just let it go and allow deletion. Real bummer that even government museums just defer to what estates say and don't check their copyright math (but also that's a lot of labor so I can't be too mad) 19h00s (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Display may not be publication (allowing photography may make it publication). Does the 1940 catalog have a copyright notice? {{PD-US-no notice}}. Was there a renewal around 1968? {{PD-US-not renewed}}. COM:HIRTLE. Glrx (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll check the catalogue this week, a museum library close to me has a copy of the original from Willard Gallery. And I did find a single renewal for Smith, the catalogue of an exhibition held posthumously by Harvard's art museum (I'm very bad at using the card cat interface and am not sure how to link: time period: 1955-1970; drawer: Smith_Cotton-EC; card number: .0412). I'll check that catalogue as well to see if these sculptures were included (I think they were), but I assume that might impact their current status? 19h00s (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm weak on paintings and sculptures. I do not see a copyright notice on the front of the sculptures, but there might be one on the back. In addition, a nearby separate notice might be enough to claim the copyright (a local library used to show paintings with a nearby card stating the title, author, copyright, and price). If the catalog does not have a copyright notice, then that would be good evidence of publication without notice. Personally, I do not like that technical error losing a copyright, but I have no problem with a failure to renew after 28 years terminating a copyright. Glrx (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Glrx So! I made it to the library with a copy of the original (1940) catalogue published by Willard Gallery. There is no copyright notice located anywhere in the book (more like a pamphlet). But I think if anything the catalogue has just added more confusion for me haha.

Only two of the above sculptures are illustrated in the catalogue (Death by Gas and War Exempt). The third sculpture is listed and described, but with no accompanying image.

But the illustrations don't actually seem to be images of the sculptures themselves, but images of the detailed preparatory drawings. They look basically identical to the small relief sculptures, but they're the pencil/charcoal drawings that served as the model for each sculpture. Which brings me back to my earlier question about derivative works -- it would seem to me that the sculptures are in fact 3-d manifestations of the original drawings, which are visually identical to the final sculptures. The drawings were also sold and now belong to several museum and private collections. So, would the publication of the drawings without copyright notices in this book count as publication of the eventual sculptures, as the sculptures are 3-d copies of the drawings? Any insight welcome. 19h00s (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it seems messy. Even if the sculpture is a derivative work of the preparatory drawings, the sculpture would have its own copyright. Glrx (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

"the sculpture would have its own copyright" or, quite possibly under U.S. law from that period, no copyright at all. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Could you expand on this? Not totally clear what technicality/chain of rules would have resulted in that. For context, these sculptures are medallion sized relief carvings - visually, they just comprise small carvings of the illustrations Smith made and published. Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Shoot sorry forgot to @Jmabel 19h00s (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

[I was a bit confused when I wrote the following but leaving it here for reference - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)]

First a disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'm extrapolating from some legal advice I received around 1978 (so right around the time of the first of the major transitions of U.S. copyright law from then to 2003) about songs, rather than sculptures. I had copyrighted (with notice and registration) an unpublished collection of songs I'd written; later I published them, with some minor modifications. I was advised that because the first version had been unpublished and the second was published, any failure to "do it right" would put all rights at risk, because, despite my earlier registration without publishing, this could count as publication without notice.

I guess this is a little different, because those preliminary drawings were published, so the sculptures would almost certainly be defensible at least as derivatives of that earlier published work.

This probably calls for someone with more expertise than I have. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@19h00s: Still, a question: was that 1940 copyright renewed? Because, if not, as an extinct copyright it is probably not relevant. - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I feel stupid but: you say the 1940 catalogue did not have notice. So certainly those prelimimary drawings are PD; being derivative from those is irrelevant. The sculpture either was properly copyrighted or it wasn't; and I get back to my "or... no copyright at all". I mean, it might have a separate lack of copyright... - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

This is super helpful, thank you! I'll try and find/make a scan of the 1940 catalogue, those illustrations are very useful at least, as are Smith's self-written captions for each image. To be quite honest, after staring at those illustrations for quite a while in my camera roll, I think half of them are in fact photographs of the sculptures and the other half are the final charcoal/pencil drawings. There's no real way to know for sure which is which so I'm gonna call that a dead end in terms of figuring out the sculptures' copyright. Will do some digging to find other early publication examples and see what trail of publication I can establish (have found at least one other catalogue - MoMA, 1957 - with no renewal that includes illustrations of two of the sculptures). Appreciate your help here! 19h00s (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

(Copy from Help desk thread)

I am checking the copyright information of zh:檔案:Forth generals.jpeg on zh-wiki, but I have trouble checking the picture's detail. The picture was from Reddit. After searching, I got some info from Wikipedia for Schools. According to the site, the identifier is "Bild 183-14059-0018" by Bundesarchiv. However, when accessing the picture on the Commons, the picture was deleted. The deletion log says the picture's copyright holder is TASS instead of Bundesarchiv.

I can't access OTRS, so I want to know details - Is the zh-wiki picture "Bild 183-14059-0018"? What is the copyright status? I think the picture is now (2025) in public domain in Germany (or Russia?) and URAA-restored in the US, but I am not sure. Saimmx (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Saimmx: I can't access OTRS, but I can confirm that it is the same photograph (possibly "enhanced" by AI). Because it is apparently a 1945 photo by Soviet news agency TASS, per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia#Durations the photo is probably in the public domain in Russia and also the US, with license tag {{PD-Russia-1996}}. ("The work is an information report (including photo report), which was created by an employee of TASS, ROSTA, or KarelfinTAG as part of that person’s official duties between July 10, 1925 and January 1, 1955, provided that it was first released in the stated period or was not released until August 3, 1993.") Per the Bundesarchiv description, it was definitely released in 1985 on the 40 year anniversary, but that was most likely a re-release, and it is likely (I think) that the first release was in 1945. --Rosenzweig τ 07:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Should we undelete File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-14059-0018, Berlin, Oberbefehlshaber der vier Verbündeten.jpg under your statement? Saimmx (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

FYI, it is on Commons now: File:Forth generals.jpeg. Yann (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Saimmx (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The image is available in an archive maintained by the institution and use is granted on a web page stating this fact. How do I add this information to wiki commons>? CPViolation (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@CPViolation: Could you be more specific? What institution, where is the image hosted, where is the web page stating that the image is available (and under what license)? - Jmabel ! talk 23:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I have it fixed. See File:StuartJayFreedman.jpg in wiki commons. Also File:Ghtrilling.jpg and File:JDJ-LBL.jpg. For all three I have given the original file and the URL for the general permission granted by the institution. CPViolation (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@CPViolation: I fixed your links here and on the file pages. The page you cite says, "You may use the Image solely for your own non-commercial purposes" and no free license is provided. What is your basis to think these are available under some free license acceptable to Commmons? What license would that be? - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I will inquire of the institution (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) regarding free license. CPViolation (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

My institution, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is now addressing this issue and will inform me (soon, I think) about their revised policy. I will keep you informed. CPViolation (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/01&oldid=997845652"

Hidden categories:

• Pages with non-numeric formatnum arguments
• Commons talk archives
• Commons pages with broken file links