This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.
One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
SpBotarchives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.
Source country and the U.S. laws differences[edit]
Hello! I'd like to start a discussion on an issue that is bothering me for a long time: a file (photograph or book) that is public domain on its home country, but under copyright at the US, should never be uploaded at the Commons, and what have been uploaded should be deleted or moved to another project (like Wikisource)? This discussion has been made in the past (2008a and 2008b), but it seems that nothing has come out of it. What do you all think? The differences, for example, between "Publish + 95 years" and "Life + 70 years" is reaching to a point where the Wikisource may not receive newly PD works for some time and it seems that the attempt of a Wikisource clone has been dead for some time now. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I may be mistaken but I believe all of the Wikimedia servers are based in the US, so US copyright law would apply. That normally means that if US copyright has expired, the file can be uploaded to any project. However, because Commons policy requires dual licensing in both the source country and the US, we won't upload here until the "life +x years" rule is also met. That is the reverse of the position you describe (copyright free in source country but under copyright in the US).
Commons has no control over the policies of other Wikimedia projects. If consensus of your local project is to adopt a different copyright policy and you can convince the Wikimedia Foundation that your new policy is not blatantly illegal (to stop them pulling the plug on the server they are hosting your project on) then that is entirely up to you. Hypothetically, you could convince the Wikimedia Foundation to move the server for the Portuguese Wikisource to Portugal, so Portuguese copyright law would be the most prominent concern. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link to a Wikisource clone doesn't seem to go anywhere but does mention Wikilivres.[1] This appears to be a project independent of Wikimedia that is based in New Zealand and subject to New Zealand copyright law. The most recent change was in 2019. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's a project I started in 2006. I don't maintain it anymore, and the last maintainer is unreachable, but if anyone wants to start it again, there are dumbs on Internet Archive. Yann (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But @From Hill To Shore, the standard at Commons would be to delete everything that doesn't complain with US law? Even the files from Template:PD-AR-Photo? The Portuguese Wikisource there's, at much, a draft of a decision: since there's about 3 or 4 active editors, the place is almost a ghost town.
@Yann: and @JWilz12345: : would it be possible to move Wikilivres to East Timor (Life + 50 years)? It seems the best place for this project. Brazil and Portugal are Life + 70 (which is already kind of strict)... Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erick Soares3 consider the threshold of originality issue too. Also, the site itself is de facto dead and no one has tried to fix the codes, so unless there are persevering contributors to Wikilivres, there is no use even if it is migrated to Timor-Leste or anywhere where 50-year term for all works is still applied. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 01:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345 My point is: there are stuff in the Commons that shouldn't be here in the literal interpretation of this site policies (like the 1950s Argentina images). I started to use the Template:Not-PD-US-URAA for some images/books because it was the only that made any sense, but ShakespeareFan00 rose some issues in some of my uploads, and then backed out when he saw that "Commons hasn't made a 'consistent' decision on these yet" (example). In my opinion, if this template shouldn't be used, it should have a clear warning on it (or just redirect it to SD). If books like Escândalo do Petróleo really should not be here, I'm ok with transwiking them to Wikisource. Erick Soares3 (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erick Soares3: Argentina pictures are OK until 1972. Italian pictures are OK until 1976. Yann (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann There's no fundamental difference between the copyright situation of Argentina and Italy. The requirement of a minimum protection of 25 years since creation comes from the Berne Convention, a treaty signed both by Italy (1887) and Argentina (1967). Lugamo94 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a grandfather clause in the Berne Convention which allowed existing members to keep shorter terms than that 25 years, which is why Italy is still fine to keep 20 years for simple photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also the possibility to read the wording of paragraph (4) of article 7 as requiring a minimal 25 year term for only the photographs that are deemed to be artistic works, and not requiring any minimal copyright at all for those that are not. Depending if the condition "in so far as they are protected as artistic works" and the word "they" are understood to apply to both types of works mentioned before it (photographic works and works of applied art), or if they are understood to apply only to the second type of works mentioned (works of applied art). I suppose that it has been interpreted somewhere. Applying the condition to both types of works specified in the article makes sense, and that interpretation is reinforced by the presence of the comma in some linguistic versions (e.g. Spanish, Catalan). Do we know an official interpretation? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is true. Photographs below the threshold of originality may be outside the scope of the Berne Convention but may still be protected by a country anyways, but the length of protection would not be mandated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg Out of curiosity, do you know when the requirement of a minimum protection of 25 years for photographs was introduced? I have checked the links sources listed here, and the first time I could find that specific requirement was in the Article 7, Subsection 4 for the 1971 revision, created 3 or 4 years after Argentina signed the Berne Convention. Lugamo94 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it was the Stockholm revision in 1967.[2] The Rome revision in 1928 mandated protection of photographs, but no minimum term. The Brussels revision in 1948 has no minimum term either. I think Argentina joined the Brussels act right before the Stockholm act came into force, although the grandfather clause is limited to countries which had acceded to the 1928 Rome act, which Argentina had not. Argentina did not ratify the Paris 1971 provisions until 1980.[3]This page has links (if you expand "Contracting parties") to show which countries acceded to each revision of Berne. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erick Soares3{{Not-PD-US-URAA}} has a cutoff date, March 1, 2012. URAA-affected files uploaded after that date are not supposed to be hosted here and must be deleted. Only URAA-affected files that were uploaded until March 1, 2012 can be retained here. We already reject public monuments of no-FoP countries that are now in public domain in those countries but are still copyrighted in the U.S., like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sveti Janez Marija Vianej.jpg (from Slovenia, a pre-1978 sculpture). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 13:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erick Soares3 "complain" => "comply", I presume. And good luck finding hosting that would let you legally claim a base in East Timor. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accd. to meta:Non-free content#Wikisource, the French Wikisource does accept "some media files are free according to lex loci but not US law". You might try that approach at Portuguese Wikisource. --Rosenzweigτ 02:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons is not supposed to host anything which is still under copyright in the U.S. There are undoubtedly some out there -- nobody has wanted to go delete the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} files which were uploaded when the URAA was under a legal challenge. Other projects can if they want -- they could always claim fair use if a legal situation came up. That may be harder for Wikisource than Wikipedia, but probably possible. However, note that works published without a copyright notice lost their U.S. copyright, and only gained it back if it was under copyright in the source country (country of publication) on January 1, 1996. Portugal is in a bit of a gray area for that -- they did not enact the law extending works to 70pma until after January 1, 1996, though it's possible the text of the EU directive became legally applicable in July 1995 even without their law changing, if they deem treaties to be self-executing there. I'm not sure how U.S. courts would treat that. The policy on the URAA here is a little different -- it seems to require showing that a file was in fact restored, at least enough to show there is a significant doubt. So that gray area probably would mean we'd allow uploads which were PD in Portugal under their older terms in 1996, provided they were published without a copyright notice (which most non-U.S. works were). Also note that the text of laws, judicial decisions, and the like do not get a U.S. copyright in any case ({{PD-EdictGov}}). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought that might a possibility, but this seems to have been painted on the wall of a restaurant owned and operated by Fieri; so, perhaps it's more of a en:work for hire, than random graffiti. Anyway, the uploader has stated on their user talk page that they only took the photo and didn't not create the image/graffiti; thus, the "own work" claim only applies to the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was legally painted, then it's not graffiti, and it would have a copyright. (The graffiti question is gray at best if illegally painted, but that has been our policy.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: It looks like this might've have been intentionally painted on the wall of the restaurant/food truck en:Viking Soul Food which was featured in a 2013 episode of Fieri's en:Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives. The photo seems to also show Fieri's signature next to his likeness. It doesn't seem to be a case of random graffiti, at least not to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without reading the long article: under the old U.S. copyright law, any authorized publication without notice put the work in the public domain. It didn't matter if there had also been publication with notice elsewhere. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias and Jmabel: First, my apologies for not being more specific about the part of the article that I thought might be relevant. At the very end of the article, it states the following: "All images featured in this Cover Story are Copyright 1967 and 2008, Karl Ferris and Karl Ferris Photography - All rights reserved." It was the "Copyright 1967" part that made me wonder since the first image in the article is the album cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There would be a valid copyright on it in the UK (and before Brexit all across the EU) -- since it's a British author, they would not use the rule of the shorter term, but 70pma. And there were more photos in the article than just what is on the cover in question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: As posted above, this file was discussed several times before and was deemed to be OK for Commons. Would this assessment need to be revisited if the cover art (based upon the article I found) is still protected by copyright under UK copyright law. The photographer who took the photo en:Karl Ferris apparently is still living so 70 pma would end at the earliest on January 1, 2095, if he died this year, right? What's also interesting is that File:Don gift cover new.jpg and File:Don heaven album w.jpg both are also attributed to Ferris, but are actually VRT verified. It might be possible that if the Hendrix cover is still copyrighted that Ferris might be willing to give his COM:CONSENT for that too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Country of origin is country of first publication, not nationality of the author. Since this was apparently for the U.S. cover only, it would appear it was first published in the U.S., so that would satisfy both the "country of origin and the U.S." rule. It's an odd situation where it's fine (provided our analysis is correct) in the U.S., but not a good many other countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What counts as an "author" for the purposes of copyright (with regard to a still image of a film)?[edit]
(copied from my question over at the English Wikipedia, because my question wasn't answered properly and i figure you all would know more)
The director? The cinematographer? The director in this case died in 1929 (it is a German film from 1920), and the cinematographer died in 1969. Or does it belong to the company?
Since it's before 1928 it's good for America (so it can stay on enwiki) but it comes from a country that has life of the author + 70. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyright term in the EU for a film, these days, is defined in the 2006 directive, article 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. The copyright owner is likely the company, if you are looking to obtain permission. But if you are waiting for the copyright to expire, then you need to look at the lives of those people. If that was a silent movie, then obviously there was no music. The cinematographer does not enter into it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: for a silent, insofar as the author of the dialogue [in this case intertitles] is distinct from the author of the screenplay, there is probably not a clue to be had as to who the former would be. Does that mean we have to wait a full 120 years from initial release for all such EU films? - Jmabel ! talk 08:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what is not credited will be attributed to the director and/or the producer, copyright wise. Nowadays, the producers manage the copyright, but it may have been different in the 1920s. Yann (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For unknown authors {{PD-anon-70-EU}} should apply for works form Europe. As in most cases the credited author was still alive on the date of publication this means that if it is public domain because all known authors are dead for 70 years the hole work is public domain. GPSLeo (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your response!
So in summary:
director died in 1929
no music (silent film)
So on that front I'm good.
Alas the other screenplay writer died in 1966 so not out of the woods there. And I have no idea who the intertitle / dialogue writers would be (unless it's the same as the screenplay). Thanks for answering my question! PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another related question: so when referring to copyright of film stills (not including dialogue/screenplay/intertitles), the same copyright still applies as to the whole work of the film (which would include the screenplay)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm prefacing this comment with a caution that I am not an expert, but I think a lot depends on exactly what you mean by "film still". If you mean actual frames extracted from the film, either by photographic reproduction of an original negative or print, or by capturing an image from a digital scan, then yes, the film copyright would apply. But many "film stills", especially in the silent era, are actually publicity stills: still photographs taken during production with a separate camera by a separate photographer, for use in lobby cards, advertisements, company promotional newsletters, etc. References to "film stills" often conflate both types of material, but it seems to me that any independently created photographs that were not extracted from the finished film have an entirely separate copyright, the term of which is determined by the publication date (in the US) or the death date of the photographer (in most other countries). If, as is usually the case with promotional stills, the photographer is unknown, then the applicable laws for anonymous published photographs (not films) would apply. In the EU, for example, that would be the standard 70 years after publication for works with no claimed author. This, at any rate, is what I have always assumed. If I'm wrong, I'd be grateful if User:Clindberg or someone else would correct me, because I can easily imagine using the wrong license myself when labeling future uploads. Thanks, Crawdad Blues (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that you mention it it seems to be a publicity still of the set. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that's unexpected and very interesting. Thanks very much for the link, Rosenzweig. So the camera operator is irrelevant to the copyright of the film as a whole, but he has the complete copyright for any individual frame of the film. Copyright law is so crazy ... Crawdad Blues (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's quite the paradox. I guess that is what can happen when you're trying to "harmonize" existing copyright law regimes all over the EU. --Rosenzweigτ 23:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So in this case, would that apply to the cinematographer, or would it apply to the unknown cameraman (so PD-anon-70-EU would apply?) PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you say it's a German film, the German law cited in the link given by Rosenzweig above applies. Under that law, it really doesn't matter whether the image is a frame extracted from the finished film or a separately made publicity photo; either way, the copyright is determined by the rules for a single photographic image (70 years pma), with the author being the person who operated the camera. So
If the image is a frame extracted from the film, and the "cinematographer" was the actual cameraman (as was often the case in the silent era), then the image remains under copyright until 2040 (71 years after the death of the cinematographer in 1969).
If the image is a frame extracted from the film, but a separate camera operator (other than the cinematographer) is listed in the credits or is otherwise identifiable, then the image is under copyright until 71 years after the death of that cameraman.
If the image is a frame extracted from the film, and you know for a fact that the cinematographer was not the actual cameraman, and the cameraman himself is not identifiable, then then PD-anon-70-EU would apply.
If the image is not a frame extracted from the film, but a photograph taken at the time of production by some other photographer for publicity or documentary purposes, and the photographer is not identifiable, then PD-anon-70-EU would apply.
I think that sums it up. Out of curiosity, can you provide a link to the specific image in question? Crawdad Blues (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann moved it over to commons. Not sure about that... PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: @Yann: I'm not going to get into a fight with anyone over this, but I agree that moving the image to Commons was premature, and the grounds on which it was moved and the license now attached to it do not seem valid to me. According to the EU regulation cited by Carl Lindberg above, the film itself remains under copyright until 2037 at the earliest, because one of the two authors of the screenplay, Fridel Köhne, died in 1966. And according to the German law cited by Rosenzweig above, the copyright term on a single frame of the film is tied to the death date of the cameraman, not the director. So, at least as far as German copyright is concerned, I can see no legal justification for Yann's attribution of this image to the director Hans Werckmeister as creator, or the application of a PD-old-70-expired license to it on the basis of Werckmeister's death in 1929. Yann, can you clarify your reasoning here? Now that I've seen the image, I would argue that the creator of the original three-dimensional artwork was Walter Riemann (died 1936), the art director and set designer of the film, and that this photo is a derivative work made by the cameraman, who may have been cinematographer Axel Graatkjaer (died 1969) or someone else. Since Riemann's work is now PD, this image may still be eligible for the Commons, but only if the cameraman died before 1953, or if PD-anon-70-EU is invoked. That, at any rate, is my understanding of the discussion so far. Crawdad Blues (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine, feel free to nominate it for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of this month's photo challenges is "masks" so it seems like a good idea to ensure our guidance on mask copyright is sound.
Currently, the language at COM:COSTUME is ambiguous. It includes a long explanation that, to my reading, can be summarized as "yes, they're copyrightable". But then the very end of that section undermines the rest with a photo of someone dressed as Spider Man and the line Present consensus is that "files that merely show people cosplaying" are acceptable. - What does that even mean? "Merely"? To say, they're copyrighted ... but hey, those people are merely cosplaying doesn't seem to make any legal sense. So a photo of an official Donald Duck costume at Disney World might be copyrighted, but not the same costume on a cosplayer? A copyrighted work hung on a wall is copyrighted, but not on a body? The English Wikipedia article on w:Guy Fawkes mask says Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns Warner Bros. and DC Comics, owns the rights to the image, but we host about 1,200 photos of that mask. Can someone do a better job than COM:COSTUME at articulating some clear rules here? — Rhododendritestalk | 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Rhododendrites, That is a good point and I guess we should add some warning about potential for copyrighted material. Many types of masks like: historical masks, cloth masks, covid masks, welder masks, gas masks, fencing masks, balaclavas, hokey masks, etc. are not copyrighted but Darth Vader mask, iron man mask, Donald duck mask, etc. would be. How should we make people aware of the distinctions. I removed the photo of the batgirl (which we had on Commons for 12 years), because I am not certain of its copyright status. --Jarekt (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you know of any court cases which would clear up some of the gray area? I think "masks", unlike most clothing, are not considered "utilitarian" in U.S. copyright law, so they lose one of their possible ways to avoid infringement. Whether they can still count as "incidental" may be subjective, but if the photo is of the whole person and not the mask specifically, that may hold. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know much about copyrights related to cosplay, etc. So my opinions are mostly based on some discussion from a past. For example I think we had photographs of hot air balloons deleted because one depicted Darth Vadar. In the past we had some Commons:Photo challenges where several winners got deleted for copyright issues. That is a bad publicity and I would like to minimize the chances of the repeat. Commons:Photo challenge/2024 - January - Masks is the link to the current challenge. I added a warning to the page, can I get a second opinion on the wording? I also removed some of the example images I considered more in the "gray zone". Any others I should remove from the example gallery? --Jarekt (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all, sorry for causing such issues with my suggestion. I think the wording is clear, Jarekt, thank you for adding this box. I will remove one more image from the example gallery that might be questionable in terms of copyright and might also attract more questionable entries. Kritzolina (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's one of those gray areas copyright-wise, where they may be OK but they will be arguable, and could end up with some uncomfortable decisions. I imagine those would likely go both ways, as with anything arguable, as there are no bright lines. Which also means we won't have any good answers here either. Some will get nominated, some of those deleted, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just uploaded a 1603 book on Commons. Of course it is in the public domain everywhere on Earth, but Gallica claims commercial use is subject to payment and requires a license (see the second page of the PDF). What should be done here? Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Manuelarosi: Which image? There are several on that page. Some of them are certainly public domain, others less obvious.
Quale immagine? Ce ne sono diversi in quella pagina. Alcuni di essi sono certamente di pubblico dominio, altri meno evidenti. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scusami tanto, la foto in questione è la prima in elenco e riporta questa didascalia: [b](fig. 62)[/b]
Questo è ciò che in inglese chiamiamo "copyfraud". No, non è più possibile che qualcuno ora possa avere il copyright su un'immagine della metà del XIX secolo. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And also I'm trying to upload some images from this Flickr album. But I have been unable to upload. What's wrong with the link? Syrus257 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Syrus257: Your uploads have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/142 frequently. Please avoid potentially problematic words and phrases when uploading with a mobile device. Perhaps an Admin can comment further. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: I uploaded them one by one. And this time it worked. Could you please take a look at the PD image. Syrus257 (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the title describes, page x (i.e. after ix, before xi) is missing from the file series Dictionary of the Vilamovan language. The category, created almost a decade ago, has a label indicating that the rights holder has given written permission to license it here and the missing page is also available online from the Polish national library, which labels the file as being in the public domain (in Poland, evidently). However, as a presumably posthumous (author died 1919) work published in 1930-1936 (page x would appear to be part of Vol. 1, so from 1930), I'm not confident on what the status would be for our purposes (i.e. according to the US situation, where it doesn't seem to have ever been published) and I'm not confident that the written permission applies to the whole work or only the files so far uploaded (thus inadvertently excluding the missing page). What are the chances of adding the missing page? Helrasincke (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Helrasincke: While I think it would be reasonable to presume that the intent of the permission would have included that page, this question would be better asked at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard, where someone can actually see the relevant ticket. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On a quick and dirty search, Polish law in 1996 gave 70 years of copyright from publication to posthumous works (s:Polish_Copyright_Law#Chapter_4._Term_of_Author's_Economic_Rights), and thus the work would have been in copyright in Poland and thus in the US until 95 years from publication, so 2026. I don't know about the rights holder; I'd assume any release covers the page, but someone with VRTS access might have to take a look.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, What's the copyright status of this film? This is a Soviet film from 1924, but published in USA only in 1929. The director, Yakov Protazanov, died in 1945. Yann (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia and Template:PD-Russia/en seem to have the most up to date information (the other languages versions of the template are apparently outdated). As a film shown in cinemas before 1943, it's apparently out of copyright in Russia. As for the US: If that stipulation that pre-1943 films are in the PD in Russia is a consequence of Russia's 1993 copyright law, the film probably wasn't protected in Russia on the URAA date in 1996, and the URAA then didn't restore a US copyright. A subsisting copyrights check for Aelita at [4] also didn't bring up anything, and a search for Revolt of the Robots only turned up a 1966 screenplay, presumably for something else. So the film is probably in the PD both in Russia and the US. --Rosenzweigτ 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I added a {{PD-1996}} tag. There is a high resolution version on YT, which I will upload. Yann (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless in the 9th circuit, I think the 1928 line is taken to mean published anywhere. We would use the same thing for any URAA restorations. I think that was restored by the URAA, given the 4-year extension for people who worked during WWII, but should have expired again in 2020 -- the same wartime extension meant it possibly expired in Russia on the same day. For Russia, their 1993 law says the authors were the director, the author of the script, and the author of the music if created especially for the film. If it's silent, that may remove the music part (though some of those movies had music designed to be played by a live orchestra... wonder in the EU if that could be part of the term calculations, though it would not be a co-author as I read it for Russia if not actually in the file). If Protazanov wrote the script, I think the file is fine, though should not have been uploaded before 2020. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Then it will only be in the public domain next year? Yann (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia specifically says that films shown before 1943 are in the public domain in Russia, without making any references to authors, directors or other people attached to the films. The 4-year extensions are only for the pma copyrights attached to people I think. So the terms for any films after 1942 (50 years before the 1993 law) are probably based on the lifespan of the people involved, while those for films before 1943 are probably based on the year of release. At least that is what would make sense to me. I don't have much experience with Russian copyright law though, so I could be wrong. Alex Spade wrote that portion of COM:Russia, so probably he could tell what is correct. --Rosenzweigτ 22:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I did not see anything in their 1993 law which gave a shorter term for films, and they did explicitly name the co-authors of a film. So, I assumed those would be 54pma on the URAA date in 1996. But, I'm sure I missed a detail somewhere, and Alex Spade would know that far better than me -- I missed that point on the PD-Russia tag. So... would seem to be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, the 1993 law had a transitional clause: The copyright of legal persons which originated prior to the entry into force of the aforesaid Act shall cease upon the expiration of 50 years from the time of the rightful disclosure of a work or the creation of a work, where it has not been disclosed. That was extended to 70 years later on, but the 50 would have applied on the URAA date, with no wartime extensions. So this film would have expired long before the URAA date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are citing the sentence about the the copyright of legal persons (aka corporate copyright in legislation of some other countries), which is actual for old, but post-1929 films - see p.3(b) of PD-Russia (which is similar to p.4 - both of them are about the copyright of legal persons). Aelita is pre-1929 film - for it see p.3(a) of PD-Russia (which is similar to p.2(a) - both of them are about cases, where copyright term counts from publication date, not from author death). Alex Spade (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I made a pic for one article, Can I simply upload and the license Commons starts to work or I have to register it in any way? Thank you. AntonioCyla (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AntonioCyla: I'm sorry, but mostly what that question shows me is that you are very confused. "the license Commons starts to work" doesn't make any sense, and I can't even imagine what you are thinking about when you refer to "registering" it.
If the image is a photograph you took yourself, and it does not include anyone else's copyrighted work, just upload it as your own work, give it a license like {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} and it will be fine. If it is something else, please explain what the image is, and then someone can give you a more useful answer. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: No conozco el umbral de originalidad para Venezuela, pero eso es mucho más complejo de lo que normalmente se entiende por una "geometric shape". - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
) What does published mean? Formally published in a register or simply made known to someone
) What does anonymous mean? That we don't know him because we didn't make enough researches or that the author's name is lost forever
) Is that template valid? Because I have seen many photos, taken in Italy before 1976, deleted. So I do not understand
Can anyone knowledgeable take part in the discussion, please? Thanks a lot. Kind regards. Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read COM:DR and COM:SD. This should be a regular deletion anyway. Yann (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Distributing copies to people is always publication. The definitions can get blurry for types of works which you don't make copies of, and can differ somewhat between countries. However, the anonymous term in the EU starts from the "making available to the public", which is different than pure "publication" in their definitions, and includes public display and broadcast. So the definition of publication rarely matters for the term, in the EU.
Anonymous is simply published (or made available) without naming a human author. It's true that it's not simply lost and now unknown, but if you can find the original publications and no author is named there, it's anonymous. If the author becomes known (or in some countries, they have to make themselves known) within the 70 years, it can move to 70pma. So if the real artist of that was known by the 1980s, it could be 70pma now. Otherwise, its copyright expired long ago.
"Simple" photos are 20 years in Italy. Artistic photos are 70pma. I think such things as studio portraits, where everything is under control of the photographer, are not "simple". I think carefully-composed landscape photos have also been ruled not simple. Also, works also need to be free in the U.S. to host here -- and simple photos from 1976 and later got restored by the URAA (since the 20 year term was still valid on the URAA date of 1996), so 1976 is really a more realistic limit for Italian photos here (not just current year - 20). There was also a time when we did not accept the PD-Italy tag, and photos got deleted then. So there could be lots of valid reasons why photos get deleted (and I'm sure some were deleted incorrectly, too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have recently checked the DALL-E model and found it interesting to generate AI photos. However, I wonder that FOP (Freedom of Panorama) has effects across various countries, if someone utilizes DALL-E to produce AI-generated photos of buildings and scupltures, could they potentially encounter copyright issues? A l p h a m a Talk 13:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My take: I doubt you could get in trouble for using DALL-E to generate the image, but you could presumably get in trouble for publishing it. (Just like you couldn't get in trouble for photographing a recent building in France, only for publishing that photo.) Someone who published could certainly encounter copyright issues in any country where the resulting image might be considered derivative work. E.g. an identifiable image of the Memorial of Rebirth in Bucharest or the pyramid entrance to the Louvre in Paris would presumably not be shielded from copyright because it was generated by AI. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"AI-generated photos of buildings and sculptures" are almost always going to be either out of scope or copyright violations. If the building or sculpture is in the public domain or ineligible for copyright, freely licensed photos of it probably exist, so an AI-generated image is unlikely to have any educational use and is out of scope. If, on the other hand, it's protected by copyright, an AI-generated image is necessarily a derivative work which we cannot host. Omphalographer (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at the Open Source repository of Oracle, and found the UPL (Universal Permissive License). I didn't find a corresponding template on Commons. 1. Did I missed it and if not: 2. Does this license qualify to be used on Commons? OSI provides a page for the license here: https://opensource.org/license/upl/.
I assume it is only reserved for software, like GPL and others, and of course screenshots that show result of code, etc. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PantheraLeo1359531: I guess if it is free enough and likely to be used, you could create a license tag. I can't imagine it will be used much. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know copyright is by jurisdiction, but in cases where it's from a department of the Government of California (whose works are in the public domain), but are there any different circumstances for FOIAs? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So a FOIA wouldn't be any different? I guessed it wouldn't but wasn't sure because it wasn't "published" prior to them giving it to me in most cases PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: I don't think that's any different, but let's see what our experts say. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: It doesn't matter if it's from a FOIA or not. What matters is whether or not it meets the conditions specified in {{PD-CAGov}}. Nosferattus (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mannequins cosplaying copyrighted characters with simple clothing designs[edit]
I was wondering the legal status of mannequins dressed as copyright-protected characters wearing "the kind of clothing that an ordinary person might wear on the street or on the job" per COM:COSPLAY (for example: Emmet Brickowski, Lois Griffin, Lincoln Loud, Dipper Pines and Steven Universe). May one illustrate copyrighted characters with simple outfits by using photos of mannequins cosplaying them? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JohnCWiesenthal: I'm sorry: do you mean "mannequin" in the sense of a doll used to model clothing or a human modeling clothing? The word can mean either. Normally I'd guess the former, but "cosplay" suggests the latter. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A doll modeling clothing, such as in department stores. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is how you get close enough to be useful without getting close enough to be a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has nothing to do with de minimis. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? It's an overall public-domain work (a report written by an FBI agent) incorporating seven medium-to-large pieces of copyrighted content. That seems to be equivalent to the examples at COM:DM. I'm just asking for a check whether those copyrighted images are a substantial-enough burden on the PDF to render it unsuitable for our purposes here (as the images themselves, excised therefrom, are). Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, really. The notion cannot apply to that. The photos are included voluntarily in the document and are intended to be seen as part of it. It's not as if taking a photo and inadvertently a small part of a non-free statue happens to be far in the background. Not sure if DM could make sense at all in the context of a document. Maybe if a small corner of a kitten photo happened to be inadvertently photocopied on the side of a page. To the other question, the proportion of the document taken by the photos does not matter. If there is one non-free photo included with a 30-page free text, the photo cannot be hosted. It is different from trying to determine an acceptable proportion for an extract in fair use. But the document can be hosted with the non-free photos removed. It is not unusual. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias: could you explain what you are saying here? Fourthords's question seems to me to be very much on the mark. And, in any case we certainly could host a redacted form of the PDF with the photos removed (blacked out or something like). - Jmabel ! talk 22:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias: Going by your comment above, which you wrote after mine but for some reason chose to place above it: perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here. I agree that the images cannot be pulled out. They are copyrighted. But "It has nothing to do with de minimis (emphasis mine)? Clearly de minimis is exactly why we can host the document as a whole, and the fact that when you zero in on the individual image, you are taking precisely the copyrighted portion, so de minimis no longer applies. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you publish a 200-page book, you think you can, without permission, grab 20 non-free illustrations and photos from the internet and include them in your book and say "abracadabra, de minimis!"? That, without permission, it's not ok to use those non-free works outside a book but it's ok to use them in a book? That does not work. That has literally nothing to do with a notion of de minimis nor with a notion of incidental inclusion. It is just copyright violation. Unless in fair use or other exception (e.g. publication in judicial documents or whatever), but still not a matter of de minimis. (The 22:42 UTC comment is in reply to fourthords' 21:29 comment and therefore it is correctly positioned accordingly. Why did you position your 00:29 comment as if it were a reply to your own 22:05 comment?) -- Asclepias (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Why did you position your 00:29 comment as if it were a reply to your own 22:05 comment?" you had made enough of a hash of things by replying up-thread that there was no "normal" way to do this. Any placement at all would have had one problem or another at that point. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If you publish a 200-page book, you think you can, without permission, grab 20 non-free illustrations…" of course not. Conversely, if an entire copyrighted book is introduced into evidence in a trial, do you think it becomes PD on that basis? - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then what exactly are you saying? Using 20 non-free images in a 200-page book is not ok, but Commons hosting a 16-page document with 7 non-free images is ok? The mystery thickens. You have not explained the rationale by which one might reach such a conclusion. What is that about a book into evidence? Can Commons host a non-free book if it was used as evidence? If not, then what? And what connection, if any, does that have with the file under discussion? The licensing of the file is that the text of the document is PD as a text written by an employee of the US government. That does not apply to the non-free images. How is it possible to extend the "freeness" to those 7 non-free images in a 16-page document? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The US government employees can insert non-free images under a fair use rationale in a document and publish it. The whole document is in the public domain, but not the images. This is the same rationale as freedom of panorama. We can host host pictures of non-free artworks if the law of the place allows that. It doesn't make the artworks free, and there are restrictions of what can be done with these artworks. Yann (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can host the whole documents, but we can't extract the pictures which are not in the public domain. That seems pretty clear. We already have had similar cases, i.e. court verdicts, etc. Yann (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ICJ says on their website (https://www.icj-cij.org/media-services): "The Court produces videos and still pictures of all its public sittings and various official events. A presentation video is also available in a large number of languages. Such material is made available to the press, schools and universities free of charge for editorial use (copyrights exempt)."
I would like to upload these photos from this link https://www.icj-cij.org/multimedia/203403 of today's proceedings. They say "Photograph: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved".
Can I upload these, and if so under what license? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. (1) You can't make up a license. The copyright-holder has to offer the license. (2) This is sort of like when someone puts out a publicity still. They are saying "Go ahead and use it for the sort of thing it's meant for." But it presumably doesn't allow derivative works, and it's not clear whether commercial use would be allowed (e.g. an excerpt in a commercial film). - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Does anyone have any ideas where I might find public domain photos of the hearing? I know that a number of national news agencies release their photos into the public domain, but I cannot find a list? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Just the images at the top? Those should be fine. If you meant something else, please be more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the ones in the gallery itself. Click, e.g., on Fruits > Berries > Strawberries or Protein foods > Poultry > chicken. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would think those are fine. It says, with reference to the copyrighted content on the site, "USDA with permission, and USDA has made every attempt to identify and clearly label them." These are not labeled, so it's reasonable to assume they are not copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'll try to upload some of them soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
USDA Eat Healthy Food Group Gallery serving size small apple
Here's my first. Before I upload any more, would you please let me know if there's anything I should do differently? It'll be easier to get it right on the first try than to fix them all later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe upscaled from a smaller version of the image (instead of making a new larger image from the photo)? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source photo at [5] is out of focus to begin with. --Rosenzweigτ 16:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The license {{CC-AR-PrensaObrera}} is for images taken from the website Prensa Obrera ("Workers' Press"), a site managed by the Partido Obrero, a minor left-wing political party from Argentina. On first sight, it seems legit, the cc-by license is there at the bottom of the page. Problem is, if we check more closely, the site relies on license laundering, grabbing images from bigger and more reputable news pages and using and licensing them without attribution. Let's take a look on the images used today in the front page, January 11, 2024.
Gas hob -> Seems original, search does not give similar results (but it's too generic, so that perhaps confuses Google]
So, of all the images used in articles today, if I uploaded them with this license only a kitchen hob would survive a deletion discussion. I don't think this site can be trusted to be the author of the images it uses. Cambalachero (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So: should we consider dropping that license (at least going forward) and blacklisting the site? Or what? - Jmabel ! talk 04:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would a 911 call (in California) be public domain?[edit]
I doubt I'd upload the file I'm thinking of anyway (it's interesting but I'm unsure if I'd want to use it in the relevant article) but would it be public domain in theory? Who would it belong to if not? (unrelated to FOIA question above, was released by news) PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably to the operator who recorded it. Since the operator will likely be a state employee then it follows that the recoding will be in public domain in California. Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies if this has been asked already, but say I upload some historical photographs that haven't been published anywhere before. Would I be the "author" or would the photographer? Also, would I put when they were originally taken or when I uploaded them to Commons in the date field? Or would the date of publication be whenever the person who sold them to me posted a picture of them on the internet? Adamant1 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, There is no reason for you to be the author. Best is mentioning the date when they were taken AND the date when they were published (now). Yann (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the person who sold them to you posted to the Internet, that is definitely publication.
Do you have the copyright to these images (and if so on what basis)? Or are they public domain (and if so on what basis)? Physical possession of the photos does not give you any right to publish. If someone were to acquire an envelope of photos I shot in the 1960s, they would not have a legal right to publish them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presence of a frame in the photograph of a 2D painting[edit]
Is the presence of the frame of a painting in a photograph (to be more specific, this one) enough to make it not qualify for {{PD-Art}}? I know it could be cropped, but I wanted to know if it was really necessary. The painting is from 1884 (according to the sources I could find) and the author died in 1952, for the record. Lugamo94 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I searched in the archives, and I've found somepreviousdiscussions on this very matter (which I should have done earlier). It is definitely enough to make it not qualify for {{PD-Art}}, but, given that we have the permission of the copyright holder of photograph, the main question is to find if the frame itself meets the threshold of originality, which is a complex matter. Lugamo94 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Lugamo94 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Does the frame in this picture meet the threshold of originality? I know that some frames were able to, hence the question. It could also be {{PD-old-auto}}, but I have no way to know that. There are not old pictures of that painting that I could find, especially with the frame included. --Lugamo94 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Lugamo94 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
![[5]](../../../myplate-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/2020-12/apples.jpg){kind=link}