Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
Please note
  1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
  5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

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


Warren Laity

[edit]

Warren R. Laity was an American photographer of the early 20th century. He died in 1936, and thus copyright has now expired on all of his works.

His grandson, Colin Talcroft, owns some of Laity's original work — in fact, for some of these, they may be the only remaining copies. Mr. Talcroft scanned these in, digitally restored them, and posted them on his own website. So far, so good.

Then I found them and uploaded them to Commons, because their copyright has expired and because Warren R. Laity was a skilled artistic photographer and also some of his stuff has historic value.

Mr. Talcroft recently discovered this, and is intent on asserting that he still holds the copyright to these images, because he restored them.

Is he right? DS (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he died in 1936 does not mean that copyright has now expired on all his works. COM:US is far more complex than that, and anything first published 1929-2002 may still be in copyright.
Restoration is a complex subject; it's unlikely to create a new copyright, but if whole parts of the photograph needed it replacement or something, it could.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they were on public display (in , e.g., galleries or competitions), that would count as being published, yes? DS (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That again depends on the circumstances. US courts ruled at the time that if precautionary measures had been taken to avoid copying by patrons, then mere exhibition to the public does not count as publication. This is explained in some detail at Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Felix QW (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One image now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Capitol in the rain (Laity).jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US National Archives and Records Administration

[edit]

I am wondering about the copyright status of images in Category:US National Archives series: Artworks by Negro Artists, compiled 1922 - 1967. The issue was previously discussed here. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they are marked PD-USGov, they probably are incorrect, as mentioned in the old discussions. A good percentage are probably PD-US-no_notice or PD-US-not_renewed, but I'm not sure anyone has had the energy to go through them and do the research, and there may be some difficult decisions there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: I'm guessing quite a few of these are probably legitimately PD-USGov from the WPA era. If anything, the lack of knowing in many cases whose work it was leans that way: the obvious ones (like Jacob Lawrence) are identified, but someone who never got famous and whose style wouldn't have stood out would have been "Negro artist working for WPA" and it's likely no one would have thought past that. But, yes, it would be very tricky almost a century later to work out who made what and under what circumstances. - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I know I'm not a registered user, but I just wonder to know what you think about this: If the newbie users of Commons who participated in the WLM, they had casually entered private area and took pictures without get the permission from property owners, or even barged into their buildings, then will you accept them as a competition work according to the rules of the WLM competition? If yes, please explain why. My viewpoint is that what their doing is illegal, so their works are not protected by copyright, isn't it?--125.230.85.17 06:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trespassing is often a tort, not a crime, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with their works being protected by copyright. See COM:GRAFFITI for discussions of the copyright protection of graffiti--in short, it's unclear--and graffiti is clearly a criminal act, whereas again, trespassing is often not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome. In most of the world, due to the Berne Convention, sufficiently original works are copyrighted as soon as they are fixed in a tangible means of expression. Non-copyright restrictions do not negate copyright.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It must be noted that the laws of some countries are, however, not allowed take pictures in private areas, and not even in schools that looks like a public space that's open to everyone. This case might be similar to what COM:FOP says: "in countries without freedom of panorama, Wikimedia Commons requires proof of copyright release from the copyright holder when hosting any images of those buildings". That is to say, participants/photographers basically need to go through the COM:VRT process to get permission from the copyright holder (is the property owner). The problem is that we didn't know if photographers barge into a private area, but they also won't admit that they had not got permission. Obviously, it is a flaw of the mechanism of Commons. If you don't think so, then let's bring the topic back on track. Some countries are not allowed take pictures in private areas. If a participant or a photographer has a legal dispute with property owner, regardless of the outcome of the court's decision, are their works still protected by copyright and accepted by Commons?--125.230.85.17 10:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, WLM-i organizer here. The issue you are presenting here is not directly related to Wiki Loves Monuments, but a question of decency and courtesy of any photographer. Trespassing is never allowed, not for Commons' photograph competitions, nor for any other of our Wikimedia projects and initiatives. A bit of friendliness goes a long way: this means asking the owner of the property if you can take the pictures (and walking away when they refuse) helps against potential take down requests.
We do not require proof to be send to VRT for self-taken images unless there is a dispute on the matter. Please do not create work for our volunteers where simple common sense, decency and assume good faith are the baseline attitude in participation. Ciell (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@125.230.85.17: No, the property owner does not normally own a copyright on a building; where such a copyright exists, it would normally belong to an architect or other designer unless explicitly transferred.
And while we do not encourage people to trespass, unless the photo violates copyright laws or privacy rights, we would not generally delete a photo over claims of trespass. I'm sure we have many photos of building exteriors where someone stepped onto private property to take the photo, or where someone photographed non-copyrighted content in a museum without proper permission from the museum; that is not our problem. - Jmabel ! talk 16:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The property owner is not the copyright owner -- owning a physical object is completely separate from the copyright in that item, which belongs to the author (the person who actually created it). For a building the copyright is actually owned by the architect, unless transferred via contract (or by being an employee of a company, in which case the company owns the copyright). The licensing rules here are very much specifically about the copyright -- so for a photo of a statue, we need permission from the sculptor, not the person who owns the statue, most likely. Photos of a building are not derivative works in the U.S., so photos of U.S. buildings usually don't matter, but in some countries it does. Restrictions based on laws other than copyright are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and fall outside of our licensing policy. Those restrictions can be very real, but it is up to re-users to follow those. For things like house rules on photography, the photographer themselves is most at risk -- they would still own the copyright, but if they are breaking any laws by taking the photograph, or alienating people or institutions they have a relationship with, only they can really weigh that. So, we often leave that up to the photographer. Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum_and_interior_photography has some information on that. Photos which violate someone's privacy (generally people in situations with an expectation of privacy though the specifics can differ by country) will be deleted, as those can be illegal to simply host here. WLM may want to have photos deleted if there was a specific complaint or some discourteous act involving a particular photo -- I'm sure they would not want to get a reputation of having that type of thing happen. Other situations can be case-by-case -- if community consensus is that we don't want to host a photo obtained by dubious means, that can happen in a deletion discussion. But strictly speaking, property owners generally do not own any copyright of photos taken on their property, so they are not involved with the licensing part of policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading movie poster

[edit]

how can we upload a movie poster, i get copyright violation. how can we add the credit and correct Creative Commons license? Bfilmy (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bfilmy: Hi, On Commons, you need the formal written permission from the copyright holder for a free license. But you can upload it locally on the English Wikipedia (and some others) under a fair use rationale. Yann (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks dude... Bfilmy (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm trying to add this gif to an article: https://polytope.miraheze.org/wiki/File:975-Sisp.gif

It is technically copyrighted, but it says it can be used for any non-commercial purposes.

"This file (or parts of it) are copyrighted by Robert Webb.↵↵The copyright holder of this file, Robert Webb, allows anyone to use it for any non-commercial purpose, provided that the name of the software used (Stella 4D), along with a link to the website https://www.software3d.com/Stella.php are given." Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial licenses are not acceptable on Commons. Trade (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, see COM:LJ.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video game screenshots

[edit]

At what point are video game screenshots considered PD-text/PD-simple? See Category:Japanese-language video game screenshots for examples Trade (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very hard to imagine anything copyrightable there.
Warning to anyone clicking through: possibly NSFW text. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis?

[edit]

File:Civic Boulevard Entrance, Syntrend Creative Park 20220806.jpg

There's a deletion request on this file due to NoFoP, and while I believe the contents of the file fall under de minimis, the nominator does not. I'm forwarding this here for more information because I'm not an expert. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not de minimis. The main interest of the photo seems to me to come from the copyrighted elements. - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. The image description provided by the uploader primarily describes the advertisements surrounding the door; that leads me to suspect that they are the focal point of the photo, not the architecture of the building. Omphalographer (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi all. I’m wondering if I could trouble someone to explain to me how one might go about determining a copyright was not renewed, as is indicated on File:Sylvia Plath - The Boston Globe (1953).png for example. I read the linked Hirtle chart and copyright logs but I’m sorry to report for the latter I’m still not sure what I’m looking at. Thanks for the help! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): to search for 1953 copyright renewals, you'd want to check the 1980 and 1981 copyright catalogs to see what the Associated Press had renewed. AP generally did not renew copyrights on photographs. Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good to know. Thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To start you can look up The Boston Globe in Wikidata then look for "online books" which takes you to https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/globemaboston which says that "no issue renewals found in CCE or registered works database" The newspaper never renewed any images or issues, which takes us to 1964. They did renew at least one article on "May 7, 1940", it can be fun to look up and see what that article was, I have a list somewhere of what articles were copyrighted in papers and it is always a guest writer who may want to include their essay in a book at a later time. For instance in 1927 several papers ran a first hand account by Charles Lindbergh that he later included in his biography. According to the Library of Congress, the Associated Press did not copyright or renew images, even their most iconic ones. Some local papers never included a copyright symbol in the masthead or on the second page that lists the publisher and editors and the address to write the paper. After 1989 those formalities of registration, renewal, and copyright symbol were no longer needed, everything creative was automatically copyrightable. People would still mail in copies to the USCO to get a date stamp, especially for songs, to show priority, in case someone else claims that they wrote the song first. --RAN (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinating, thanks so much! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this belongs but...

[edit]

I uploaded these images and the author did in fact said he was fine with his images being reused. However the only evidence I have is an email. What do i do to confirm that the author did in fact was fine with his images being reused? Hydrogen astatide (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bultaco logos

[edit]

File:Bultaco logo black bacground.jpg and File:Bultaco logo.png both probably need a closer look because both of them seem to be potential copyvios. The first file was sourced to this Flickr page and looks to be a photo someone took of en:Boltaco's official logo (offcial website). Since Spain's TOO seems to be fairly vague per COM:TOO Spain, I'm not sure it can be stated with any degree of certainty that this logo would be {{PD-logo}} in Spain even if it was considered to be PD in the US per COM:TOO United States. So, that would seem, at the very least make the Flickr photo cited as the source, a case of unintenional COM:LL that can't be kept by Commons. The png file seems to have bascially been created based on that Flickr image, which again seems (at least to me) to be a copyvio; even if，however, it wasn't, the copyright status of the logo itself would need to still be considered if this png is expected to be treated a true and faithful recreation of the logo, which means (at least to me) that it too probably can't be kept if the original logo isn't PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nigeria national anthem Nigeria, We hail thee midi.mid

[edit]

I'm not sure that the licensing of File:Nigeria national anthem Nigeria, We hail thee midi.mid is sufficient given the source being cited. Hamienet.com appears to be some kind midi/mp3 hosting site which seems to make no claim of verifying the copyright status of the content it hosts, but instead places total responsibility on the uploader of the content. Given that a musical performance of a national athem could be eligible for copyirght in its own right even if the musical score itself is now within the public domain, it seems like this particular performance would need to be treated as an anonymous work since the author is unknown per COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings, which means it's probably not even close to being old enough to be PD and OK for Commons. The {{Cc-by-2.5}} certainly seems incorrect given that the author is unknown. Can this file be kept by Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we allowed to copy descriptions from Flickr?

[edit]

Tools like Commons:Flickr2Commons import Flickr files along with descriptions. Flickr argues that copying captions would potentially violate licensing as there's no license for metadata on Flickr [and that only the files are licensed] and copying them to Commons requires a CC0 licensing. Aren't those captions/descriptions "unstructured text" which we share under CC BY SA 4.0 but not "structured data" under CC0? Even so, is copying a violation of licensing / Flickrwashing? (My query is only limited to CC BY 2.0, etc.,. limited licences and not PD works such US-Gov.) -- DaxServer (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If these descriptions are copyrighted and are not licensed at all, then it doesn't matter that we treat them as CC BY SA 4.0 rather than CC0, it would still be a copyright violation.
I don't really know what to make of this. We have been copying Flickr file descriptions for close to two decades and I've never heard of any Flickr user objecting. Flickr themselves don't own any copyright on this content so it's not really their affair. In my experience, most of these are too simple to be copyrightable in any case, but of course some are complex enough to be copyrightable, and for those I guess they have a point, especially given our precautionary principle.
We might want to have some more specific policy here, but certainly it would have to allow for copying over descriptions that are below the threshold of originality. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AIUI, User:Alexwlchan does not represent Flickr, so you are wrong to attribute his views to that organisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the @Alexwlchan's userpage, they work as the Tech Lead at Flickr Foundation. Surely not a legal representative, but we can assume that's what Flickr thinks of the descriptions -- DaxServer (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; and "Flickr Foundation" is not "Flickr". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can count on one hand the amount of times I've had to change a description because it copied and pasted too much from Flickr. So it's possible that there are some that probably need editing, but I don't see it as a major issue for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already posted a similar question here but no one answered. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the descriptions would have the same license as the user specified and which is set for the file. Captions may be more a problem than anything else and I think just having description may even be better (they could and should start with a short description). Moreover, the reality is users don't care how their little descriptive text is licensed...this may be different for very long descriptions where users put a poem or things of that sort. I think the descriptions should be imported to the descriptions field. People often copy parts of the description to the captions (and this may be the best way these are populated) so this would be a bigger issue than just about flickr. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feastogether brand logos and threshold of originality

[edit]

Note: I cross-posted this to en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Feastogether is a Taiwanese company, meaning the applicable copyright rule for is Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan. The page says, "Note that any work originating in Taiwan must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Taiwan and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons."

  1. I plan to upload Feastogether brand logos that are in the public domain in both Taiwan and the United States to Wikimedia Commons.
  2. I plan to upload Feastogether brand logos that are in the public domain in the United States but not in Taiwan to the English Wikipedia.

Which of the Feastogether brand logos in https://www.ieatogether.com.tw/admin/upload/website/kv/20240430114655_PC-KV.jpgInternet Archive (linked from hereInternet Archive and also available at https://eatogo.com.tw/zh-TWInternet Archive) meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan? Which meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan but not the United States?

Here is my assessment:

  1. A Joy (
    中文：饗A Joy
    ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
    • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
  2. Inparadise (
    中文（臺灣）：饗饗
    ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
    • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
  3. Sunrise (
    中文（臺灣）：旭集和食集錦
    ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
    • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
  4. Eat Together (
    中文（臺灣）：饗食天堂
    ): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the blue-green drawing at the top.
    • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
  5. Fruitful Food (
    中文（臺灣）：果然匯
    ): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the plant drawing at the top.
    • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
  6. Little Fuli Spicy Hot Pot (
    中文（臺灣）：小福利麻辣鍋
    ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
    • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
  7. Kaifun Together (
    中文（臺灣）：開飯川食堂
    ): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the pepper drawings at the top.
    • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
  8. Siam More (
    中文（臺灣）：饗泰多
    ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters. However, I am uncertain because the "Siam More" part of the logo uses script that appears like an elephant. Is this enough to make it meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan?
    • Can upload to English Wikipedia. But can I upload it to Wikimedia Commons?
  9. Zhiyun (
    中文（臺灣）：旨醞
    ): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the pink and green drawings at the top.
    • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
  10. Doricious (
    中文（臺灣）：朵頤餐廳
    ): The logo does meet the threshold of originality because of the illustration at the top.
    • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
  11. Feastogether Corporation (
    中文（臺灣）：饗賓餐旅事業
    ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
    • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://eatathome.hoyastore.com/uploads/images/202303/4f941f99ca0585f0d058e3cc2c340002.pngInternet Archive (linked from hereInternet Archive).

  1. Eat@home (
    中文（臺灣）：饗在家
    ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
    • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://web.archive.org/web/20160322003020im_/http://dacoz.com.tw/images/logo.png (linked from here):

  1. Dacoz (
    中文（臺灣）：大口吃
    ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
    • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://play-lh.googleusercontent.com/bRVFib-dahozjAjk5gcQgh1zsZ09AlAtI-h3b4vIWY0FBVR-vc0FVasZ3kXhJ2ML5z4=w480-h960-rwInternet Archive (linked from hereInternet Archive).

  1. iEat (
    中文（臺灣）：iEAT饗愛吃
    ): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and English characters.
    • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting only on Siam More: I believe it is over COM:TOO-US. Glrx (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persée

[edit]

Hello, what is the copyright situation of articles that were uploaded to Persée site (Commons category)? Can I take an image from an article and upload it to Commons?

I'm asking because I want to upload the cylinder seal that appears here Pl. XV (an article in Syria by André Parrot, appears also here), but I would also like to get a more general answer about this website since I often find there images that can contribute to Wikipedia articles. פעמי-עליון (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy clarification - Prohibiting AI/LLM training with a user's uploaded file

[edit]

I suspect I know the answer, but I wanted to toss the question out there: If I am uploading a file I created (ex: photo I took), I can't try to prohibit a specific use, while allowing all others; as this isn't a truly free file; it'd be 'some rights reserved' and thus not complying with Commons:Licensing policy.

Example: 'File/work not authorized for use in AI/LLM model training; all other uses, including commercial, allowed.'

(Aware this isn't legal advice, looking for confirmation on Commons policy.)-- The Navigators (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Commons content needs to be freely licensed - "usable by anyone, anytime, for any purpose". I understand where you're coming from, but usage restrictions are usage restrictions. Omphalographer (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, suspected this was the case.-- The Navigators (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is if the conditions of the license you are granting allows it. I think you are free to express your POV that it doesn't.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No free license can prohibit use in AI. It arguably might require that the AI be under the same license or carry attribution, and if it creates derivative works, those will be controlled by the license (though that has little to do with whether it was used as input to train the AI), but it can't prohibit it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you have a good sample of AI doing such attribution and licensing.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR there is an ongoing battle on whether AI output is derivative of everything it was trained on. Commons weakly agrees that generally it isn't - Gabuxae (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without addressing that question at all, even if we accepted that generative AI works are derivative of all training materials, that wouldn't violate the terms of any free license (so long as attribution and, where applicable, copyleft requirements were followed). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maldive government website

[edit]

I'm not seeing how {{Presidencymv}} is an applicable licence for images such as:

The text of the template reads:

The Government of the Republic of Maldives may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site can only be licensed for reuse through the independent consent of the original content owner.

Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to presidency.gov.mv under the Attribution 4.0 International License.

so the CCC licence only seems to apply to submissions made by visitors to the website; in which case the attribution is missing.

The linked page prefixes the above text with:

Pursuant to law, materials to be published in the public domain produced by The Government of the Republic of Maldives appearing on this site are not copyright protected.

but in that case we need evidence that the images concerned are indeed "produced by The Government of the Republic of Maldives", not "third-party content" (unless separately "licensed for reuse through the independent consent of the original content owner.", and in that case would not be under a CC licence as claimed on the image pages.

Am I correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm noticing files like File:Birkenau Three Jewish men holding an elderly woman looking behind her.jpg have been tagged with PD-US alien property, but there isn't any evidence of the Alien Property seized the copyright to this image. Was there ever a blanket seizure of enemy government intellectual property by the APC (incl copyright) during WW2? Otherwise this image shouldn't be allowed. I found this US government magazine which said During World War II, the U.S. government ... assumed control of the copyrights of alien combatant nationals. Citizens of Germany, Italy, and other countries at war against the United States lost their intellectual property rights in the United States, but I could be misinterpreting it. Thoughts? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 20:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any copyrights or claims to copyright owned by the German or Japanese governments during World War II were included within the scope of the Alien Property Custodian's control over government property. The APC controlled copyrights held by governments themselves in addition to those of citizens of enemy countries. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what happened to the copyrights after the war? I know that the State of Bavaria acquired the copyright to Mein Kampf and they used their ownership to block its publication in Germany. However its copyright expired in 2015 (70 years after Hitler's death) and this caused the Bavarian Government some concern. Furthermore, the Auschwitz Album was ever under US control until after the war. Its owner, a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz found it in a drawer after the SS had fled and before she was liberated by the Soviets. This suggests to me that after the war, the copyrights, along with all sorts of other objects were returned to their rightful owners. I know that when William Shirer write his monumnetal book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", he had a limited time to consult the original documents before the US Government retunred them to the Federal Republic of West Germany. As a result, I doubt that the US Government still controls such copyrights. Another point is that we do not know who the photographers were - two names were metioned, but it is not knows who took which photo (or even if they were the original photographers). All that we can say for definite is that the photogrpahs were taken as part of the official duties of employees of the Nazi State and as such are protected as annonymous photographs. Martinvl (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scenario probably falls under {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}, since I doubt the work (photo) itself indicated the name of the author. At least that's what DeepL translates this German law as, it could be a bit off. It's not relevant whether the US government returned the copyrights or not, because s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 104A#(a)(2) says was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian. Therefore, since the copyright would also still have been owned by the German government in 1996, there is no URAA restoration and since there's a very high chance US copyright formalities weren't followed for {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} to apply in the first place, it would be PD in both Germany and the US. Did I make a mistake in this comment? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 10:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} is very tricky. First of all, it only applies to regularly published works (“Juristische Personen des öffentlichen Rechtes, die als Herausgeber ein Werk erscheinen lassen, das den Namen des Urhebers nicht angibt, werden, wenn nicht ein anderes vereinbart ist, als Urheber des Werkes angesehen.”), not just any photo created for the state or by state employees. And by published I don't mean that some photographic prints were made and sent to others, which we often consider to be enough for publication in the context of US copyright law. I don't see PD-Germany-§134-KUG applying here. And that no names are indicated on a print does not necessarily mean we can consider such works to be anonymous. Per German law, if the author is known in some way that's enough for 70 years pma protection. It's very hard to find out if an author is known in some way, which is the main reason why the German wikipedia does not accept anonymous works which are only 70 years old; they need to be at least 100 years old and thoroughly researched. --Rosenzweig τ 12:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what this essentially means is that the Auschwitz album is technically unpublished, since the photos weren't published with the consent of the author. Therefore the photos would have to be considered 70pma works, and they should be deleted. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 14:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole APC scenario only applies inside the US. It does not affect copyright in Germany. So while the US copyrights to Mein Kampf were controlled by the APC, the German copyrights were transferred (by a tribunal decision) to the state of Bavaria (and finally expired at the end of 2015). --Rosenzweig τ 12:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Vaschem website Walters, in 1965/6, initially tried to deny taking the photos but eventually admitted to having taken some of them (we don't know which ones). According to Wikidata, he died on 7 August 1994. Ernst Hoffman disappeared after the war and could not be found in order to give evidence at the 1965/6 trial. Martinvl (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vivited the New York Digital Collections Website and found similar photographs by anther Hoffman (a very common German surname). This Hoffman died in 1957. The copyright status, as given by the library was "The copyright and related rights status of this item has been reviewed by The New York Public Library, but we were unable to make a conclusive determination as to the copyright status of the item. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use." In other words, they were ducking the issue. Martinvl (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be de:Heinrich Hoffmann (Fotograf), Hitler's favorite photographer. His photographs are still protected in Germany until the end of 2027. --Rosenzweig τ 16:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Hoffman is a very common name in Germany. Ernst Hoffman and Heinrich Hoffman were two different people. Heinrich died in 1957 and nothing has been heard of Ernst since 1945, even though the Germans wanted him to testify at the Frankfurt Trial of 1963/5. Martinvl (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were writing about "anther Hoffmann" who "died in 1957". If this is not Heinrich Hoffmann, then who else? --Rosenzweig τ 07:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I visited the website of the United Stats Holocaust Museum and their website stated that there were no known copyright restrictions on the Auschwitz Album. (See for example here). The image in question is from the same collection, so in my view it should have the same copyright notice (ie PD). Since Walters would not identify which photos in the Auschwitz album were his, and Hoffman wad dissappeared, we must assume that the photos are orphaned and that we should count 50 years from the time of the 1963/5 Frankfurt Trial. maning that they are now in the public domain. Martinvl (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original publication of these photos was presumably made without complying with the US notice and renewal requirements. And any work whose rights were ever held by the APC, and which would, if restored, belong to a foreign government or an instrumentality thereof (and these would belong to a government entity in Germany), is ineligible for URAA restoration.
This of course only speaks to the public domain status of these photos in the US. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about the copyright of these images. They qualify for {{Orphan work}}, and there is no way a former employee of a Nazi concentration camp could claim a copyright today. Yann (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
German copyright law disagrees with that notion. Even Hitler's works were protected by copyright until the end of 2015. --Rosenzweig τ 10:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But you need to make the distinction between theoretical copyright, and practical possibilities of enforcing it. The potential copyright owner would need to prove that he is the author, which not only practically very difficult, but also very risky as implication for his criminal activities. There is no contest that Hitler was the author of My Kampf. It is very different for an obscure employee to prove his status, and that he was the photographer. Concretely for us, this is way beyond significant doubt. Yann (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should be keeping files like this if they are not PD in the country of origin. The question is about the US side of things, if they are. (This one seems to be PD-anon-70 in Germany, now.) The US and other allies did confiscate foreign copyrights[1], but I think they gradually restored the copyright of any private individuals after the war. Owners likely could not sue for infringement which happened during the war, but did get their rights back for any future infringements. I'm not sure if that happened for government-owned works though. Of course, those rights did include the requirement to have a copyright notice on published works, and file renewals, so most still fell into the PD in the US anyways. The British did something similar -- they extinguished the copyrights in their territory. They did restore copyrights of private citizens, but not sure they ever did for government woks (and the EU copyright restorations may have only applied to expired works, not extinguished works -- there was a scholarly article which argued that.[2]) The URAA of course restored copyright lost to lack of notice; it does have the exception that any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof was not restored. This particular work was never physically owned by the US government it sounds like, though became known, and used in evidence in some 1960s trials. The US copyright would have been conceptually owned by the Alien Property Custodian though, and it would be owned by a government today if it still existed. I'm not sure how such works would be treated, but of course the big reason behind that clause was to not allow suppression of Nazi materials via copyright machinations. It's a gray area, but you could make the argument that it was owned by the Alien Property Custodian. Not sure we should be deleting it, if the only reason is a maybe/maybe-not URAA restoration where we don't have any precedent. These copyright seizures of course only applied within the United States (and the British extinguishments within the UK) -- usage in other countries would not be affected, so we should be looking at the term in the country of origin as well. I would say the file in question is licensed OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we know the author, and s/he died after 1953, then it is clearly still under a copyright in Germany. I am talking about files for which authorship is unknown. For these World War 2 images, the copyright expired after 1996, so URAA may apply. If I understood correctly, that was the initial question, and that's why the Alien Property matters. In addition, for pictures of Auschwitz, Polish law applies, not German law. Yann (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to both Vashem and United States Holocaust Museum photos from the AUschwitz Album are Public Domain. Unless you have a qualification in copyright law (I don't), I believe that it is sufficent that we accept their word. In order to comply with Commons rules, I suggest that it is in order to place PD templates for both the United States and Germany wth a note stating that we are following the advice of Yad Vashen and of the United States Holocaust Museum. Martinvl (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't get the impression that either of these institutions particularly cares about German copyright, they focus on US copyright. In Germany, works by de:Bernhard Walter (SS-Mitglied) (who died in 1979, not 1994) are still protected until the end of 2049. Works by Ernst Hofmann (with one f, not Hoffmann with two f's) are also obviously not anonymous, since we do know the author. As long as we don't know when he died, the only way we could keep his photographs when applying German copyright is with {{PD-old-assumed}} after 120 years, so in 2065.
Yann claimed that for Auschwitz photographs, PD-Poland applies. Inside Poland, certainly. For us – I do have my doubts. The Auschwitz camp was located in a part of Poland that had been formally annexed by Nazi Germany. It's debatable of course if that annexation was legal, but it happened, and I've used the fact to actually keep files (not photographs, but stamps from there with PD-Germany-§134-KUG, one of the cases in which that template does apply). If these were photos taken by Poles somewhere in that annexed territory (not necessarily just the camp), I'd be less hesitant to apply PD-Poland than in this case, where the known authors were Germans taking the photos in a territory which had been officially declared to be a part of Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 11:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These would have been simple photos in the pre-EU German law I think, maximum 50 years from publication, or 50 years from creation if not published. (At the time of creation, that term was 25, not 50. I can't remember exactly when the extension to 50 happened.) After the EU directive they would be anonymous, 70 years from publication, or creation if not published in that time. If Walters did not identify which photos were his, then I'm not sure that's enough to remove the anonymous state (the author must reveal their identity). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Simple" photographs that were "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" (documents of contemporary history) were protected for 50 years in 1985; then in 1995 the distinction was dropped and all "simple" photographs were protected for 50 years. And then the courts basically abolished simple photographs (by declaring them to be photographic works with 70 years pma), with only few exceptions. The protocol of what Walter (not Walters) said is here. To me, it reads like Walter claimed these photos of prisoners arriving at the Rampe were taken by Hofmann. --Rosenzweig τ 14:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality is not a criteria used to determine copyright. It is the place of publication which matters. So unless we would know that the pictures taken in Auschwitz were brought to actual Germany and first published there, and never used at the time in actual Poland, I don't see any reason to doubt that Polish law applies. Yann (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we assume that they were first published in Poland? Even if they were developed in Poland, where they were handed to a publisher and reproduced is the question, and I can't see that being in wartime Poland.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was the purpose of these pictures? Were they not used within the Auschwitz camp itself? IMO that would count as publication. Yann (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Auschwitz, at that time, was in a territory which had been officially annexed by Nazi Germany. See above. --Rosenzweig τ 11:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Using that excuse for deleting images of Auschwitz is certainly not right for me. Do we use Russian law for historical images of Baltic states, or for the part of Poland which was annexed by the Soviet Union at the same time? In addition, you seem to change tactics when one doesn't work: first saying nationality matters, and then annexation of territories by Nazi Germany should be taken into account. What next? Yann (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using any "tactics" here, so I don't see how I could be changing them. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. --Rosenzweig τ 19:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Call it what you want, but you made arguments not based on copyright law. And you didn't answer my questions. Actually, after reading en:Auschwitz Album and fr:Album d'Auschwitz, I see that you could have made a useful argument. It is said there that these pictures were made to be shown to high-level Nazi officials, or in French, to "be shown to his superiors in Berlin" (montrer à ses supérieurs à Berlin). So one could indeed argue they were never used in Auschwitz, and that first publication occurred in Berlin only. Yann (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moral outrage is also not a criterion of copyright. And what "arguments not based on copyright law"? You mean your remark about nationality? Please take a look at the Berne Convention, Article 5 (4) (c) about the country of origin for unpublished works (as these may well legally be), saying that the country of origin in that cases shall be "the country of the Union of which the author is a national". And yes, in the case of territories which belonged to different states over time (and I'm not talking about a "mere" occupation), we should consider which law to use when a specific period of time is concerned. I've applied German law to works published in the German empire in places which are now a part of Poland or Russia (or Denmark, Belgium, France), but were not in 1910 or 1925. Or take a place like Lemberg/Lwów/Lwiw, which changed hands several times. Between the World Wars, the city belonged to Poland, and if we have a work originating or published there in that time, we should consider using Polish law. --Rosenzweig τ 09:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hoffman never claimed authorship himself -- so I do wonder if under German law they are still technically anonymous, thus PD-anon-70-EU. The English translation of the German law says it moves to 70pma only if the author reveals his or her identity within the period designated. The "leaves no doubt as to his or her identity" part seems to be only for a pseudonym, not purely anonymous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: The relevant law for these old works is the old version of the Urheberrechtsgesetz before it was changed in 1995, see [3]. And § 66 about anonymous and pseudonymous works in that version says (2) Die Dauer des Urheberrechts berechnet sich auch im Falle des Absatzes 1 nach den §§ 64 und 65, [...] wenn innerhalb der in Absatz 1 bezeichneten Frist der wahre Name oder der bekannte Deckname des Urhebers nach § 10 Abs. 1 angegeben oder der Urheber auf andere Weise als Schöpfer des Werkes bekannt wird, [...] The important part is the last one: or if the author becomes known as the creator of the work in another way. No need for the author to reveal himself. --Rosenzweig τ 11:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the old version of this law they became PD in 1970 or so (25 years after publication, or if not considered published, then creation). So not sure the older situation there matters -- just what is the law after the EU directive, since that is the only thing which could give it a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, yes, that is a bit of a quandary in this particular case. The rule is (COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works) to apply the old version of the law if the new version would shorten the term of protection. For most kinds of works, that is the case, since Germany had introduced terms of 70 years (pma) in 1965. Not for photographs though, because while the 1965 law already defined photographic works, they had the same term of 25 years (not pma) as the "simple" photographs. The 70 years pma for photographic works came in 1985, along with the 50 years for "simple" photos that were "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" (which those arguably are). If we take the year 1944 as the start year for the 25 year term, it would have expired in 1969. If we take 1965 as suggested somewhere above (and still within 25 years from creation), the original term would have lasted until 1990, and they would have received the new 70 years pma term introduced in 1985 (because the author had become known, and the change which eliminated that clause from the law happened only in 1995). So it seems to depend on what year is defined as the year of publication. Per [4], the publication history is somewhat convoluted, and I'm not sure which of the events mentioned there (copying, use of some photos in books and trials etc. until there was a book in 1980/1981) count as proper publication per German copyright law. --Rosenzweig τ 13:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like they would have been "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" even in 1985 -- it would not be until the EU directive went in, which also changed the threshold of originality, that their restored copyright would been longer. The old term would not have depended on the anonymous definition, at all -- before the EU directive they were (at most) 50 years from publication, or creation if not published. Even if not published until 1965, the maximum old term would have expired in 2016. So the only copyright is from the restored copyright in the EU directive. At that point, the question is if it's still anonymous (under the new law) or if 70pma applies. If 70pma, we are in orphan work territory, but with a government-owned copyright. If anonymous, then the publication date matters a lot -- if in 1944, or technically never, they are PD. If 1965, they would still have a copyright. It's on the fringiest edge though. I would care more about a private copyright, rather than government-owned where there are all sorts of additional gray areas and uncertainties. If the government issues a take-down (or DR) with supporting logic, we could analyze it better then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A demand by the German government for Auschwitz photos to be taken down is extremely unlikely :-) --Rosenzweig τ 19:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a totally different approach that can be taken - at the Frankfurt Trial Walter denied taking the photos, though he later admitted to having taken some, but did not clarify which ones. If his statement to the court is interpreted that he did not want to be associated with the photographs that he took, then he effectively put them into the public domain (or was happy for Hoffman to be credited with taking them). The copyright of the photographs that were taken by Hoffman however remained Hoffman's property. We know that Hoffman was born in 1901 and that he was last seen in 1945 when the Russians were advancing on the eastern parts of Germany. Under the German law of presumption of death, Hoffman would be presumed to have died on 31 December 1955, unless his presumed death was under "other disappearances under life-threatening circumstances [in which his death is assumed to have occurred] 1 year from the end of the mortal danger (one year after 8th May 1945) - ie 8th May 1946.

If the latter case were to be accepted by the courts, then any photos taken by Hoffman are out of copyright as 70 years have passed since his death, otherwise they enter the public domain on 1 January 2026. In summary then, we don't know which photos were taken by Walter and which were taken by Hoffman. Walter's performance in the Frankfurt Trial was tantamount to renouncing his claims on the photos that he took and there is a good case that Hoffman's images are already in the public domain. Therefore, either way, the photos are in the public domain. Martinvl (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Hofmann (not Hoffman) was declared dead by a court, there must be a record somewhere. From what I know, such cases were recorded in the death register of the Standesamt I of Berlin (the civil registration office I). The records of that register from 1939 to 1955 are online at Ancestry, I could not find him in there. Maybe he was declared to be dead after 1955. Or maybe he was not. Such a declaration is only made on request (§ 16 of the Verschollenheitsgesetz) by either a state attorney, a legal representative of the missing person, family members or someone else having a legal interest in the matter. --Rosenzweig τ 18:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate: Werner Würbel was declared to have died on December 31, 1945 by a court declaration dated May 21, 1976. That death was recorded in the 1976 volume of the Buch für Todeserklärungen (book of death declarations) by the Standesamt I in Berlin. It was also added to the birth and marriage records of Würbel. I couldn't find those for Hofmann either, probably because he was born in a small town and those records are not yet available in digital form. --Rosenzweig τ 19:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other alternative is that Hoffmann died in the general upheaval of 1945 and was buried as an unidentified person (or his ID papers were lost). I have not seen anything about where he was last seen, though his case might be similar to that of Martin Bormman who, in May 1945, committed suicide by biting a cyanide capsule. Borman was sentenced to death in absentia at Nuremburg (1946) on the assumption that he was still alive. His remains were found in 1972. Of course, Hoffmann might have fled to South America as did Adolf Eichmann, but unlike Eichmann, was never found. Unless there is a lead, no-one will put much effort into finding out what really happened to Hoffmann unless money is involved. Martinvl (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, this article by historian Christoph Kreutzmüller credits many photos to either Hofmann or Walter and only a few to Hofmann or Walter. I don't know how he arrived at these conclusions. Christoph Kreutzmüller is the co-author of a thorough book about the album published in Germany in 2019, maybe he and his co-authors, while researching the book, found records allowing them this attribution to the photographers. --Rosenzweig τ 18:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That book is apparently not available online, but the en:Federal Agency for Civic Education offered a special edition for a rather low price. I've went ahead and ordered it; should arrive in a few days (Thursday or so). --Rosenzweig τ 19:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see what the legal pages of the book have to say. As I have said before, Yad Vaschem have stated that the images in the book are in the public domain, though we don't know how they came to that conclusion or whether there are any limitations as to what they mean by "public domain". I kinow that certain publishers are very careful about attributing the correct rights to the creators of images. As an example, in 2020 I received e-mail asking for permission to use an image that I had donated to Commons. The writer's publishers would not accept a Creative Commons licence, so I gave him explicit permission to use the image. One hopes that the authors of the book that you have ordered also give explict information about the copyright status of the photos that they have used. Martinvl (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extracted audio from a CC-BY-ND work

[edit]
Resolved

I’ve extracted audio (the Saturn and Neptune movements) from a CC-BY-ND work (specifically, the complete performance found here) at IMSLP. I have not altered it in any way. (In my view, as long as I attribute the National Youth Orchestra of Toronto, CC’s answer to this FAQ applies.) I have already uploaded the MP3 files onto the Commons and intend to use them for illustrative purposes on English Wikipedia’s page for The Planets, the same reason the USAF Band’s extracts are on there. Is this an acceptable idea? Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarrod Baniqued: You can't upload those files, please read COM:L#Acceptable licenses. Also you haven't actually uploaded any MP3 files to Commons and you can't because you're not autopatrolled. Indeed, the abuse filter prevented you from uploading the MP3 files. If you can find a freely licensed audio file, you can pop in my talk page and I can upload it for you. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 10:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I use the Commons infrequently enough that I didn’t even know the Commons doesn’t accept ND licensed files. I don’t think I can find a freely licensed audio file, so expect no such uploads in the future. Honestly I’m disappointed that the entirety of Holst’s suite isn’t on Wikipedia, but someday soon it might. Thanks. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new NC Commons project acepts both CC_BY_NC and CC-BY-ND files. It is however not yet integrated into the rest of the Wikimedia projects. Martinvl (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m heartened to hear that. When might the integration happen? Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been pressing the administrators of that project about that point for a few months as thre are a number of images that I want to load, but I don't want to spend time loading them until I am certain that mm efforts will not be wasted. Martinvl (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarrod Baniqued @Martinvl
To be clear, NC Commons is totally independent website and not a Wikimedia project. It has nothing to do with Wikimedia and has no affiliation with Wikimedia. It is run by WPMEDF, which, while independent of Wikimedia, is recognized as a "thematic organization" that supports work on Wikimedia projects. That work supporting Wikimedia projects does not include NC Commons — and, arguably, by running NC Commons, WPMEDF is working against the goals of the WMF (on free content) even as it may work to improve free medical information at the same time.
The goals of NC Commons are so completely and diametrically opposed to those of the Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy that there is no possibility that NC Commons will ever be integrated into a Wikimedia Project, unless the Wikimedia Foundation were to totally abandon its position on free licensing. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s hope the latter is the case in the near future. That would entail a wider variety of works being added to the Commons, a championing of accessibility.
Again, is it too much to ask for Holst’s Saturn and Neptune movements to be on Wikipedia? Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly hope the latter is not the case. The most important thing about Commons is that it is only for free content. By the way, I work at IMSLP, and we no longer would accept these recordings under such a non-free license — and for good reasons.
It has nothing to do with Holst. It has everything to do with allowing non-free files (in this case, the recordings) on the site. Arguably, one of the greatest things about Wikimedia is that it has encouraged the creation of genuinely free files. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks for your insight Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as it says literally at the top of this page —
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.
Anyway, there is an early recording of The Planets (published 1923 by Columbia) which is in the public domain and which I'll upload. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I was a bit naïve here Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See: File:Holst - The Planets (Columbia 1922-23).flac D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I’ve extracted the Saturn and Neptune movements. I’m about to upload them. Wish me luck. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh

[edit]

COM:Bangladesh is already outdated; the country introduced a new copyright law last year (Copyright Act 2023, in Bengali text unfortunately and I can't find an English translation online).

Screenshot-"ing" and translating parts of the law using Google Translate mobile app, especially those at Sections 70–73, made me guess that there may be no more Freedom of Panorama there. My guess may be wrong though, it is very hard if there is still no available English text that is reliable, whether official or unofficial translation.

Though this Daily Star article may give a clue: the new law abolishes majority of the British law-inspired exceptions and limitations (including fair dealing ones), replacing with a fewer list inspired by American fair use concept. Since copyright laws patterned after the U.S. law are notorious for lacking Freedom of Panorama (see also COM:FOP Sri Lanka; U.S. FoP itself is not emulated outside the U.S. as it is subject to scholarly criticism within the U.S. itself), my guess is that FoP has ceased to exist in Bangladesh since last year.

Though I would want to have Bangladeshi users analyze the Bengali text of the law. Ping the organizer of Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2024 in Bangladesh, @Aishik Rehman: . Ping also @আফতাবুজ্জামান and Mrb Rafi: from the talk page of WLM-2024 to help in finding a Freedom of Panorama clause in the new (2023) law, if it still exists (hopefully it still exists). Ping also @Moheen: whom I recently interacted on Messenger about FoP. Again, here is the official Bengali text copy of the new law, from the Bangladeshi copyright office website.

Note to Bangladeshi users: the lack of FoP only impacts the inclusion of recent monuments and architecture of Bangladesh in WLM events, typically those whose architects, sculptors, and artisans (of artistic craftsmanship works) have not yet died for more than 60 years (consistent with the copyright terms of Bangladesh). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping peeps who regularly discuss FoP-related things @Clindberg, Adamant1, Yann, and Jmabel: . It's frustrating that there is no immediate English translation that is available online, and I instead rely on news or online articles, one of which (that I mentioned here) implies that the 2023 Copyright Act of Bangladesh eliminated the long list of exceptions based in British-style fair dealing regime, replacing these with U.S.-inspired fair use exceptions, and it is worth noting that U.S.-inspired laws do not permit FoP (regardless of AWCPA amendment of 1990 which introduced architectural FoP in the U.S.), like the case of Sri Lanka. Even the Philippine law, which is heavily inspired by the old U.S. laws (with roots in the 1909 Copyright Act of the United States), does not allow FoP too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Memorial to Louis J. Robichaud.jpg

[edit]

Can File:Memorial to Louis J. Robichaud.jpg be kept as is or does it also need {{FoP-Canada}} for the photographed work per COM:FOP Canada? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accd. to [5], this is a 2005 work by visual artist Luc A. Charrette, and it definitely looks copyrightable. So adding the FoP tag along with information about the artist and year of creation would be a good thing IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 10:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images without valid source

[edit]

The uploader, KOKUYO is a good contributor but he probably didn't know that Commons cannot accept images with invalid sources. He has some photos uploaded eight years ago, their source is no longer the webpage originally seen by the uploader, so the authenticity of the license cannot be confirmed. For example,

If the source is valid, then we can see information that might be useful for images. Especially the description, we can find more information through the source and then to help it get exactly described, even get properly categorized. But he uploaded images without valid source makes them suspected as copyrighted and is not useful for education.--125.230.65.194 18:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is too bad that these were not license-reviewed in a timely manner, but what makes you think the URLs given as sources were not valid at the time of the upload? - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll know a link is broken when you click on the link in the source field and you come to the web page. Because it shows the main page on the web site.--125.230.65.194 20:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know it is broken now, but that is not reason to think it wasn't a valid link at the time. Links "go dead" continually. I had to deal at one point with the Seattle Municipal Archive rearranging their URL scheme and invalidating about 2 or 3 thousand links we had. Fortunately for me, they were aware of my work here and got hold of me to work with them on how to migrate links on Commons and en-wiki, but usually that doesn't happen. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't become a invalid source just because the link goes dead. It may make it hard/impossible to do a license verification though, which should have been done. While this page in particular does not seem to have been archived, other similar galleries were, and the copyright terms page also was -- this seems to be the copyright terms from around when the uploads were made. We probably should copy the license text over. The Google Translate seems like they should be OK, but probably needs a Japanese speaker to say for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasu: can you help out here? - Jmabel ! talk 13:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Anyone who speaks Chinese would be better. Unfortunately I don't have much knowledge of the language... Yasu (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasu: my apologies, I didn't even look at the file names again, I just saw Carl's call for a Japanese-speaking admin. - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
King of Hearts (talk · contribs) could you have a look, or suggest who else could? - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The license is basically a custom-worded equivalent to CC-BY, with several key features such as ability to use, copy, and modify without restrictions, irrevocability, and requirement of attribution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect propositions in the official policy

[edit]

Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Examples contains several strings like this: If the photograph itself is demonstrably old enough to be in the public domain, use {{PD-old}}. For me, this looks fundamentally wrong: even if something looks old, it doesn't mean it's author died over 70 years ago (this PD rationale is exactly what {{PD-old}} claims). This leads to numerous unfounded uses of this rationale in uploads where the author's name is not specified. Is it possible to clarify this? Quick1984 (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not factually wrong. But may be it should specified that on which conditions a picture is demonstrably old enough to be in the public domain. Or just a link to COM:HIRTLE? Yann (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the author of the underlying work is not known, or known when they died, then it's probably if {{PD-old-assumed}} can be applied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992)

[edit]

About Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Copyright status of photos by French photo studio Harcourt.

Following this previous discussions on the subject, here are sources to demonstrate that Studio Harcourt has officially released the rights to photos dating from before 1992. This evidence is based on two distinct elements: an article published in 2019 in the Canadian national newspaper (Quebec) "Le Devoir", specifically presenting as an example, a portrait of the film director Abel Gance, the date when this picture was taken, and the file uploaded and signed by Harcourt itself in Commons.

  • The source of the file also distributed by RMN (Ministry of Culture): [6] with precision of the date (1957) by the RMN archives for the same series of Harcourt photos: [7].
  • The source on Commons with uploaded by the official account of Studio Harcourt in 2010: File:GANCE Abel-24x30-.jpg.
  • The article published in 2019 by Le Devoir (national French-language daily newspaper of Canada / Quebec) about Wikimedia Commons and the public domain: [8] where its very last paragraph states that:

"In France, Harcourt studio in Paris has released (has freed), since the beginning of the decade, magnificent black and white portraits of stars. Hundreds of uploads now make it possible to illustrate pages on Abel Gance or Roger Federer in dozens of languages.".

This article therefore clearly states that Studio Harcourt has formally “released” (had freed) the rights of the photographs, including the portraits taken as an example, that of the director Abel Gance (died in 1981) whose Harcourt photo is dated 1957 which illustrates his Wikipedia page and which is cited as a reference in this article; this file was officially uploaded in 2010 to Commons by Studio Harcourt itself File:GANCE_Abel-24x30-.jpg. How can we explain that a photo dating from 1957 and uploaded in 2010, would be the only exception to the rights released and fallen into the public domain among all the photos dating from before 1992, then entrusted to RMN?

This clearly demonstrates that as an author, the current Studio Harcourt has clearly released the rights to the photos it holds concerning the archives dating from before 1992. These photographs have therefore been in the public domain since 1992. In its VRT ticket (#2020112910005534), the statement of the person in charge of the valorization of the collections, Mrs. Agnes BROUARD of Studio Harcourt Paris, also confirms this free status: "I must inform you that our archives from 1934 to 1991 are now the property of the Ministry of Culture, preserved by an entity called the Media Library of Architecture and Heritage and distributed by the RMN-Grand Palais photographic agency. This photographic collection is not subject to property rights, so anyone who has a portrait from the 1934-1991 period can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet." (notably cited here: File:Marcel Vaucel.jpg (« Il me faut vous indiquer que nos archives de 1934 à 1991 sont désormais propriété du Ministère de la Culture, conservées par une entité appelée Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine et diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais. Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial donc quiconque possède un portrait de l'époque 1934-1991 peut l'utiliser librement et vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet. »).

I will leave it to the admins and contributors more experienced than me, to definitively close this contradictory debate on Commons and why not, define a specific model for Studio Harcourt's files (PD-Studio Harcourt?). Tisourcier (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you claim, Studio Harcourt " has officially released the rights to photos dating from before 1992", why did they upload this 1957 photo in 2010 with a cc-by-3.0 license tag and not as public domain? That is not the same. --Rosenzweig τ 11:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig Without saying that the public domain dedication is definitely correct, I don't think this disproves it either. It's pretty common for organizations to mistag PD items as CC-BY or similar when uploading. (You also see this on library/institutional websites, where the wrong copyright tag is put on some files.) A lot of the time, it is because the person using the wizard doesn't understand how it works or doesn't know the difference. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean that anything Studio Harcourt says is apparently not exactly trustworthy, and an offhand remark by a Harcourt employée (as discussed earlier) is not a solid enough basis to host hundreds, potentially even many thousands of files. --Rosenzweig τ 11:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't indicate anything about trustworthiness (which is largely irrelevant, frankly, when it comes to licensing to anything for which Studio Harcourt might own a copyright). In any case, a mistake made by a user uploading a file on Wikimedia Commons, even on behalf of Harcourt, cannot invalidate a statement from the studio on the photos being in the public domain. (You might argue that the statement itself was never properly given by someone with the authority to give it, but that's another matter entirely.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such mistakes (there is at least one other, a ca. 1980 photo also among the 2010 uploads) do make me doubt how serious we can take anything coming from that user. And I think it's one more reason that we should have a proper declaration, with all the legal trimmings we usually demand for VRT permissions, by the current or former copyright holder of the images in question, precisely spelling out the copyright status of these images. For (right now) hundreds (and potentially even many thousands) of images we should not rely on guesswork and vague claims. --Rosenzweig τ 09:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we just ask Ministère de la Culture for confirmation of the tag to use for the 1934 to 1991 collection?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999 :
This point has allready been discussed. On December 17, 2014, this official information report filed with the National Assembly under number 2474, publicly reveals that RMN (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Ministry of Culture) commits multiple "copyfrauds" and that it is appropriate to put an end to them (page 42, proposal No. 9 of the official national publication, here)[[9]].
  • For intellectual and industrial property in France, unlike the "copyright" of English-speaking countries, the "droit d'auteur", that is to say the recognition of the author of the work, can never be assigned. In this case, because the official "author" recognized by French regulations is not RMN (Ministry of Culture / French State) which manages this "patrimoine" (patrimonyy/legacy), but remains necessarily Studio Harcourt. The quality of author can never be granted, in accordance with French regulations.
  • Given that the Studio Harcourt company has never been put into "liquidation" (closeout) but has been taken over several times by various successive shareholders and that this company still exists today, the declaration it made to Wikimedia Commons confirming that all photos dating from before 1992 are indeed free of all rights, there is no valid reason for RMN or the French State to disclose a contractual document dating from the same period and covered by business secrets ("secret des affaires"). Since the official "author" recognized as such provides a declaration attesting that the Studio Harcourt photos from before 1992 are free of rights, is therefore clearly sufficient.
Tisourcier (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim “that the Studio Harcourt company has never been put into "liquidation" (closeout)” clearly contradicts what Günther Frager wrote here, namely that “The current company, Studio Harcourt, was established in October 30th, 1992 [10]. The previous company, Studios Photographiques Harcourt, was established in 1980 and closed in November 7th, 1991 [11].” Technically, it would be correct because the "old" Harcourt company was apparently not officially named Studio Harcourt (its name was Studios Photographiques Harcourt), but according to that info the current company was founded in 1992 and is apparently not the author of the pre-1992 images. Which makes one wonder how they could upload that 1957 Abel Gance photo (and another ca. 1980 photo I found among their 2010 uploads) with a CC license. --Rosenzweig τ 11:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I would add yet another reference, in this official document from the Ministry of Culture summarizing the achievements during the period 1988-1993 mentions Liquidation judiciaire des studios HARCOURT. Günther Frager (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The research I had done in the past concluded that the images were released into the public domain by the French Government for the pre-1992 tranche that they have in their possession. I don't have the time to start the research all over again. The issue in the past was if the images were "public domain" or released under a "creative commons" license. I had a conversation with the current copyright holders, who have been posting more recent images that were not part of the government tranche. They were not sure what the terms of the transfer were. Has anyone been in contact with them more recently? They may have found out more details since my last contact. --RAN (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have claimed that the French state released all of those photos under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. See here and here. But you provided zero evidence for that claim. See also the previous (now archived) VPC Harcourt thread linked at the beginning of that thread. --Rosenzweig τ 10:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Canadian article mentions the 100 photos that Harcourt uploaded to Commons (and that you can find in the category Uploads by User:Studio Harcourt), what is adding to the discussion? Nothing. Nobody is trying to delete the images uploaded by that particular user. Jumping to the conclusion that 5.000.000 images are in the public domain because they licensed 100 photos under CC-BY is a fallacy. Also, an image with a CC-BY license is not in the public domain, it is a copyrighted image with a license that has few restrictions and no monetary obligation. Releasing a 1957 photo under CC-BY gives evidence that it is copyrighted. Günther Frager (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > Also, an image with a CC-BY license is not in the public domain, it is a copyrighted image with a license that has few restrictions and no monetary obligation. Releasing a 1957 photo under CC-BY gives evidence that it is copyrighted.
    It is true that CC-BY is a license that can only apply to a copyrighted image, but uploading a file to Wikimedia Commons with such a tag isn't evidence that is it copyrighted. Many users have erroneously uploaded public domain images under CC licenses (on Commons and elsewhere). Such a license tag has the effect of granting a license if the user is a copyright holder, but doesn't provide evidence of anything in particular. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about "releasing" not about tagging files in Commons and I'm doing so to point out the faulty reasoning used by another user. I'm neither claiming that the 1957 image is copyrighted nor that it is in the public domain nor that its copyright holder is the company legally established in 1992 under the name Studio Harcourt. Discussing the verity of a conclusion is pointless when the reasoning is invalid. Günther Frager (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct templates for illustrations from UK-1849-book

[edit]

Hello! I am somewhat at a loss as to which copyright-statements I need for the structured data (Wikidata) of illustrations taken from a book published in 1849 in England (see my User-page for more. I am uploading using OpenRefine. A test-image (about 1900 images will follow as a batch-upload) can be found here. The previous discussion can be found in this Help Desk-Thread. Right now, my OpenRefine-Schema uses the following:

  • "copyright status" = Public Domain = reconciled with Wikidata as 100 years or more after author(s) death (Q19652)
  • "copyright license" (1) = {{PD-US-expired}}, reconciled as published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828)
  • "copyright license" (2) = {{PD-scan}}, reconciled as countries where faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art do not have additional copyrights (Q80258411)
  • "copyright license" (3) = {{PD-old-100}}, reconciled as 100 years or more after author(s) death (Q29940705)

I can upload the file, and the structured data for these licenses is visible at the Commons-page of the above file, but these are listed with a "!" (= Potential Issues). Am I doing something wrong? Note: The Copyright-information section of the above file has this: {{PD-scan|PD-old-100|deathyear=1891}}. Can anyone tell me, what I should use in the Commons-information and as the structured data? Thank you in advance! CalRis25 (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context: This has already been discussed at some length and I would suggest that anyone responding might first want to read my remarks there. - Jmabel ! talk 12:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything published that long ago isn't really in question. Technically, the policy is that something needs to be PD both in the country of origin, and in the US. For the UK, PD-old-100 is the tag. For the US, technically it's PD-US-expired. {{PD-old-100-expired}} is a combined tag which is what most would use for simplicity. Or, {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1891}}, which chooses the correct PD-old-xxx based on the death year (but 100 is pretty much the current maximum, so PD-old-100 is fine). PD-scan is usually not applied to self-scanned works -- only from scans taken from other sites where the scanner appears to be claiming a copyright on it. See Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. It's not incorrect, but taking that out may simplify your situation.
As for the structured data, I really don't know a lot about that. Looking at examples, it would seem as though that distinguishes between files still under copyright but which are licensed (which uses the "copyright license" field), and ones which have expired (which use a "copyright status" (P6216) of "public domain" (Q19652), then a "determination method" (P459) using instances of "copyright determination method" (Q61005213), such in this case "100 years or more after author(s) death" (Q29940705) and "published more than 95 years ago" (Q47246828). Whether upload tools know about that distinction, or the desired usage of the structured data has changed over time, no idea. Questions on this topic may be better asked at Wikidata. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Carl. Thank you for the information. Based on it, I uploaded another image. I removed the PD-scan-tag. Your suggestion also solved the problems with the structured data. It seems that the copyright license makes sense only when copyright status is not "Public Domain". So I removed the copyright license-instances and moved PD-US-expired and PD-old-100 to the copyright status-instance, in exactly the way you said. And lo and behold, in the "Structured data"-tab of the new image there is no longer any warning about potential issues. Thanks to everyone who has helped me! CalRis25 (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CalRis25: Glad that helped. One question though -- why is creator "unknown" in the structured data, when there is a named author in the Information template? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the illustrations in the strictest sense is "unknown" in the structured data because the engraver is unknown. I put Anthony Rich into the Commons-field Author because he is the author of the book, created many of the original drawings/tracings the engravings are based and supervised the creation of all engravings (see second paragraph on page x of the Preface to the Illustrated Companion). Was I wrong to do so? And which one would be more correct? CalRis25 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the author of the book was not the engraver or the person who made the original drawings the engravings are based on, then technically they are anonymous. PD-old-100 is fine for something published in 1849 -- it's pretty much certain either way and any PD distinctions are technicalities. But, technically, {{PD-UK-unknown}} would also apply at that point. If Rich did make the original drawings, then that is at least part of the copyright, and he would be an author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I will keep PD-old-100, because I feel that it makes the method of determination more clear, and, as you say, at this stage these are mere technicalities. As for the author I will err on the side of safety and switch the Author in the Information-Template to {{Anonymous}} so that it agrees with the structured data. CalRis25 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. CalRis25 (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Would this be suitable here?

[edit]

The cover of this album appears to be a mere crop of this image, which was taken by the US government, and is therefore in the public domain. The edits done to the photo are minimal and the only copyrightable portion of the image would be the graphic at the corner, which I assume would fall under de minimis given that it doesn't take up most of the image.

Would this be suitable to upload to Commons? I'm only considering uploading the cover btw, I won't upload any of the songs. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That image is uploadable. There is no copyrightable material added to the original PD photo. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright :) AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Steven Universe" and Image Problems

[edit]

Not so long ago, I tried to upload to Wikimedia Commons an image of the screensaver of the cartoon "Steven Universe Future" for the article of the same name in the Russian segment of Wikipedia. However, I can't do that. The image is deleted all the time due to copyright infringement. Please tell me how to solve this issue Протогеобиолог (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot accept it on Commons without VRT permission from Rebecca Sugar or Cartoon Network. I don't know if Russian Wikipedia accepts non-free files but if they do, you might be able to upload there if it's to be used for the Steven Universe Future article. Abzeronow (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow and @Протогеобиолог: They do like the English segment per ru:Википедия:Критерии добросовестного использования, but restricted to administrators, uploaders, eliminators, and file movers.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Are the images (especially the old logo) in Category:HathiTrust under TOO? They're also tagged as CC0, which I can't find evidence of. Nardog (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these are simple enough and the licensing is dubious. These should be deleted Bedivere (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have a copy of the booklet: "A Pocket Guide to the Middle East", published in 1962 by the US Armed Forces, Information and Education Department of Defense. It's alredy published in Google Books, you can find it here. Since this is a publication of the US Armed Forces, is it correct to say that it is in the public domain? Would it be eligible to upload part or all of it to Commons? Thank you for your feedback. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 16:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the expert in US copyright but it seems {{PD-USGov-Military}} is enough as in page 159 it clearly states it is an official publication of the Department of Defense. Günther Frager (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really safe as PD: if somehow it were not entirely US-government-produced, it still lacks the copyright notice that would have been required to secure U.S. copyright at that time, so it would still be PD. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=921022750"