Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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

---

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

---

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Image from EPA website is credited to someone else

File:Graniteville derailment, aerial view closeup.jpg is sourced to an EPA website, [1] which would mean it is a U.S. government work released to the public domain. But while searching the web for a higher resolution version of this photo, I found several websites that attribute it to a Todd Sumlin. [2] According to his LinkedIn profile, [3] Sumlin is photojournalist and was never an EPA employee. Anyone have an idea what's going on here? Is this photo still kosher, copyright-wise? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: No, as it appears that epaosc.org is not properly attributing the photos it hosts.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What's up with that website? If you click the link on top marked "An official website of the United States government - Here's how you know"

It says:

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

But this is not a .gov website. It's a .org site. Anyone can get a .org domain. (I've even got one.) Is this whole website a spoof? Dcs002 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, maybe not a spoof, but do the On-Scene Coordinators subcontract their media to the private sector? Is this an official EPA website? Is an EPA On-Site-Coordinator website different from an EPA website? I'm really concerned about the .org, and it seems to be nationwide. Dcs002 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

its an old site so probably trying to keep its original name to avoid deadlinks..i believe that .gov TLD was not in existence when the site was setup back when we had like 3 options (com/net/org) and we expect poorly kept records and poor attribution because photographers back then weren't greedy lol and would happily share disaster related images with the USGovt.. i think we can keep the Todd image but give him credit in the author section Stemoc 03:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I've seen good spoof websites before, and this seemed far too well interconnected to be one of those, so I'm glad there's an explanation. It had me a bit spooked though. The US federal government is really tight on security issues... I thought. They go through the trouble of having that "Official websites use .gov" warning, but it's on a .org website? That's silly enough to be a government job! Dcs002 (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Stemoc: I don't think that's an acceptable solution. If the photograph wasn't taken by an EPA employee, then publishing it on the EPA website does not put it in the public domain. Arguments such as "The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated their work" go against the precautionary principle. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This image is suspected to be 3rd party content, right? If we know it's 3rd party content, we have procedures for that (as I recently learned...), but do we really know that? Isn't the real question whether it's the reasonable assumption that an image that's not marked or attributed to a 3rd party within the US govt document or webpage is government owned, and that assumption must be overcome with reliable evidence that's more persuasive than a government source that treats it as if it's not? How reliable are those other websites? Do they predate the EPA use? Might the owner have assigned the rights to the lower resolution photo to the EPA once it was no longer in the news cycle? (Do photojournalists do that?) Not an argument for either position, just trying to be thorough. Dcs002 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

And then I read the precautionary principle. Dcs002 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've contacted the EPA to confirm the source of the image, and am now awaiting a response. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about my grandfather's photos

Hello everyone. Before I get to my question, I'd like to give some background. My grandfather, who was born in 1917, served in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in South Korea from 1946 to 1947. While there he took a lot of photos (in 1946 and 1947), either of his camp where he lived, local Koreans, his friends, and other items of interest (like temples and shrines). He died in April 2005 and his photos fell into my possession at that time. After reading COM:L, COM:FAQ, and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Northern America#United States of America, I am under the impression that I could scan in, and upload, these photos, especially those of his camp, the local Korean people, temples, shrines, and more (not necessarily his friends, as some are probably still alive, or even photos of himself), on here. Is this impression correct? Can I upload those photos on here? I'd like some comments about this before proceeding. If this is the wrong place to post, let me know, as I can post this there instead. Thanks and hope you all have a good day. Genealogymanextraordinaire (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Genealogymanextraordinaire: Two separate rights issues here: copyright and personality rights.

Copyright: if you are the heir to his intellectual property rights, then you can do this. You'd use an "heirs" license template, like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. If his will was unclear about the intellectual property rights, then they would go to whoever has the residuum of the estate, and if that's not you then you'd need that person to go through the COM:VRT process. They could do it just once, a blanket statement about you being allowed to upload your grandfather's works. If there is no will, then I'd guess it is reasonable to assume that inheritance of the photos includes inheritance of the rights, but someone else here might know better.

Personality rights:

• For the pictures in Korea, Korean law puts pretty strict limits on photos of identifiable people: https://klawguru.com/2014/02/21/personality-rights-under-korean-law/.
• In the U.S., if photo is taken in a public place, then there should be no problem; if it's in private, you'd have to clear rights from the subject of the photo.

Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Jmabel, thanks for your comment. That's very helpful. I'm pretty sure my grandfather didn't have a will, as he died pretty suddenly (I mean, people weren't expecting it and weren't as aware of his health problems), but I'd be fine with going through the COM:VRT process. Good to know about the pictures in Korea. I mean, only a smattering of them are of people, as most are of landscapes and other monuments, shrines, etc. Genealogymanextraordinaire (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Genealogymanextraordinaire: . If your grandfather did not have a will, then I would work on the assumption that the intellectual rights to the photographs passed on jointly to his children (ie one of your parents and your uncles and aunts) rather than to you. You would then need to get agreement from your parent (and his/her siblings) to publish the photos under creative commons. If any of your uncles and aunts have died, then you would need to get permission from their surviving spoise of their children (your cousins) as appropriate. If however your parent was an only child and has since died, then you will need to get permission from your siblings (if you have any) before publishing. Martinvl (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Martinvl: That's not always true. For joint copyright holders, some countries require all to agree, while others require just one to agree (usually with some provision that any economic proceeds have to be shared equitably). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a guide for what countries require all to agree, while others only require one to agree? I mean, I could just ask my dad if he would be ok with it. I mean, I would like to proceed with this, if at all possible, and want to make sure I take the required steps, so that there aren't any licensing issues in the future with the photos, if that makes sense. Genealogymanextraordinaire (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. My dad has a sister and I don't have any siblings, as I'm an only child. Like with any estate, the possessions were divided, and as I've been researching my dad's roots, I ended up with the photos, and became the family historian. Genealogymanextraordinaire (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Genealogymanextraordinaire and King of Hearts: [this website] explains the situation in the United States. My reading of the article says that under US law any copyright holder can charge somebody for using the copyright without consulting the other copyright holders, but they will have to share the proceeds of such an authorisation with the other copyright holders. However a copyright hold may not render the copyright worthless without the consent of the other copyright holders. It is my understanding that by posting an image on Commons under Creative Commons you will render the copyright as worthless (if I use your image for my own purposes, even for a profit, I do not need to pay you - see for example this photo which is free and this photo for which you have to pay).

Therefore you will need to obtain permission from all the copyright holders. From what you have written, it appears that your father is still alive which makes him, not you as one of the copyright holders. The other copyright holder is your aunt, or if she is no longer alive, then whoever inherited her estate (your uncle or cousins as per your aunt's will or as per local law). Martinvl (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The page you shared links to two posts that seem to argue the opposite; it's not a settled issue. In practice, at COM:VRT we've never required permission from all of the joint copyright holders. Nor, in the case of receiving an email from a representative of a company, do we actually ask to inspect its incorporation docs to make sure the employee is authorized to act on behalf of the company; instead, we just check that the domain matches and trust that they know what they're doing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, could I could make a similar post on COM:VRT about this topic, then receive permission for posting the images? I know my dad would definitely be ok with it, but is there some specific form I need to send him for permission, or can it be something more informal, like an email from him, saying that it be ok with me posting the images on here? I just haven't done this before. Genealogymanextraordinaire (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Black History Month DR's

This National Park Service photograph has been nominated for deletion, by coincidence, during Black History Month. Not a surprise is the reason- No Freedom of Panorama (FoP) for 3-D works. But there are three other Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial files also nominated by the same User:

File:Martin Luther King Jr in November.jpg on Commons since November 2020.

File:Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial.png on Commons since October 2020.

File:ThestoneLutherking.jpg on Commons since September 2016 and uploaded during "Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in the United States"

However, these similar files in the same category have NOT been nominated.

File:Old Guard, MLK Memorial promotion ceremony -Image 1 of 3- (6103464621).jpg

and maybe this File:Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial (777c244c-cb74-4ced-9c29-ab3d06a406da).jpg (depending on de minimis determination).

Why are arbitrary files chosen after years of existence on Commons (not my more recent National Park Service file), while others are allowed to temporary exist until they are chosen to be deleted.

It seems is that this FoP issue is evolving. So, when this category's "NoFoP-US" tag was added in 2021, could there just have been a mass Deletion Request (DR) process to have a more robust community discussion and comments about removing any files not compliant with FoP all at one time and in one place?

What about the other categories with this tag added? What about all the future categories where this tag will be added? Is there a better way or is it possible to make better one. I think there is a missed opportunity to a have a more comments and discussion. Can or should a "whole category FoP DR" process could be done? All file unloaders could be notified at one time and all could share their perspectives and read other comments, which may not happen when files are deleted one or a few at a time.

I don't want any of these great photos deleted, but it seems unlikely they can be saved here on the Commons. I've seen 100's of files from around the world be deleted because of FoP. Now it is the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial statue's turn to be deleted during Black History Month.

If possible, can all deleted FoP MLK Jr. Memorial statue files be pixelated or edited to mask the statue, but still show what is missing within the same photograph? These photos will be educational in the future to many people that do not know about this FoP issue and how it effects The Commons. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

We could keep the images if sculptor Lei Yixin gives his permission to allow them to be published under a free license. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate any contact information. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Can ORTS members send an email about how to give permission, if someone was able to find a artist contact? -- Ooligan (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan: it is the obligation of the Wikipedian photographers or Flickr importers to get licensing permit from Lei Yixin, not the VRTS members. The only job of the members is to authenticare or verify permissions, but the duty of getting permissions from artists falls on uploaders. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Also don't rely on public domain claims by the U.S. government, like in U.S. government-sourced photos. The government itself has committed copyright infringement against the late sculptor Frank Gaylord, in the case Gaylord v. United States, concerning Korean War Veterans Memorial sculptural ensemble "The Column" designed by Gaylord. US Postal Service even tried to escape by claiming fair use but failed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a shower thought: maybe if enough artists sue the U.S. government for using pictures of their sculptures without permission, the government will introduce FoP for their own selfish needs. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: there were already two notable cases. One is the case I mentioned and the other is Davidson v. United States, concerning the Vegas replica of Statue of Liberty. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that February being Black History Month in the US (I believe it's October in the UK) had anything to do with the nomination of these files, but only the user who nominated the files can say for sure. It's kind weird that this is the second time this month that a user (a different user) has suggested in a VPC discussion (a different discussion) that concerns raised about a file's licensing were somehow related to it being Black History Month in the US. These kind of not too subtle attempts to switch the discussion from the validity of a file's licensing to the motives of those questioning said licensing aren't very helpful in my opinion and probably should be avoided. Unless you're willing to start a discussion about such a thing at COM:ANI, you probably shouldn't be making an such statements here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My main point was the timing of this mass Deletion Request regarding a high profile MLK, Jr. statue at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington, D. C. I conceded the deletions per FoP when I wrote, "... it seems unlikely they can be saved here on the Commons." So, this DR timing issue is not "... attempts to switch the discussion from the validity of a file's licensing..." I could have written my comments more clearly.

Last year I first noted purposeful timing another mass deletion request here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Goddess of Democracy (San Francisco). I commented at that time, "I assume good faith, but note these multiple deletion requests for the "Goddess of Democracy" related to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre were submitted on October 1st, the National Day of the People's Republic of China" That category has been emptied of images for which the category is named. Does the category there- "United States FOP cases/kept" need changing to "United States FOP cases/deleted?"

I brought this issue to this page, because I knew that the DR above was related to copyright, so I commented here. -- Ooligan (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Peruvian municipal coat of arms

I've come across File:Escudo de Ilabaya.jpg which appears incorrectly tagged as CC-BY-SA. COM:Peru#GOVERNMENT suggests that since it was produced by/for a local government authority it should be illegible for copyright. Would {{PD-PE-insignia}} then be the appropriate tag for the image? Addendum: And also File:Escudo de Tacna.png. —chaetodipus (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Chaetodipus: No way for me to know on this particular image, but there is a distinction between a blazon, which is typically public domain, and any actual visual representation of that blazon, which some artist has to create and which can usually be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 06:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Neither I can comment on the specific case, but in Finland it used to be the practice to include a visual representation in the decision, with the effect that that realisation became PD. –LPfi (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

    I'm pretty unsure about the image. It does differ from the only version I can find online from any government source ([4]; which should be PD), but I'm not totally sure where its uploader found it from. The quality is very grainy and probably from elsewhere. —chaetodipus (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Each drawing of a coat of arms has its own independent copyright (unless it copied actual drawn elements/lines); usually the general design is an "idea" with each drawing being distinct "expressions". See Commons:Coats of arms. That said, usually contributor-drawn versions are .png or .svg files, not .jpg like that, so it's very possible it was copied from a source which would have a different copyright status (be that PD or fully copyrighted). This was the updater's only contribution here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  I came across this image when I came across several of User:Kanepla's uploads that I marked as copyvios. I took a look at their old website via the Internet Archive but they seemed to have used a more corporate logo previously. The municipal Facebook page does have a similar coat of arms, with some different coloration. It could just have been from a government source but it's just lost/difficult to locate I suppose. —chaetodipus (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Facebook page, and the archived website you found, have the same versions I think. They are graphically related to this one, as the branches on the sides and the upper part of the shield are the exact same delineations (which is the copyrightable part), just slightly different colors. The rose and maybe the other portion of the shield has been redrawn, but one of those versions started from (and is derivative of) the other. There is a version of this one here, so the image was out there somewhere to be copied at some point. Internet Archive on the government website unfortunately does not go back to the time period when this was uploaded. If the user's other uploads were copyvios, then this one was almost certainly copied as well, and its license is bogus. I would guess it was the one from the government website at the time though, so if we think that one is PD-PE-insignia, we could just use that license. Or overwrite with the current one, if that is sourced better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

UPenn Scholarly Commons usage

Could I have some views on uploading https://repository.upenn.edu/sims_video/28? I have started an article on this document and the video on Scholarly Commons would be very useful for readers. Looking at the related policies, https://repository.upenn.edu/policies.html, this reads as if the intention is to make free content, though this depends on the copyright of objects. As the object is public domain by age, and the person making the video is doing it as a full time curator at the Penn library, there is no claim of copyright for the video. Can this be uploaded as CC0 on that reasonable presumption? Anstil (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No. Unless you can show a clear license, you can't upload it. The fact that the person doing it works for a private university doesn't change anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I have contacted the curator and asked if they are interested in making a release statement. --Anstil (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

They've got back to me, confirming their intention is to provide the content copyright free. I've suggested a standard release statement unless they update the website policy. Hopefully that will make many interesting and high knowledge value UPenn digital contents available for upload. --Anstil (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Finnish postage stamps

See the discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Finland#Copyright status of stamps. The question is whether a postage stamp is a decision issued by a public authority or other public body, and therefore free of copyright. The design of the stamp would of course by decided by a public body and may be included in the document recording the decision. Any input to that discussion would be welcome. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Stamps are not decisions, the question is whether they are covered by copyright even having been included in decisions by public bodies. For other points, see the discussion. –LPfi (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

So far the consensus seems to be leaning towards stamps not being decisions issued by a public body and therefore not free of copyright. The whole thing about them being included in decisions by public bodies is obviously a strawman, one that LPfi came up with after the whole thing about stamps being decisions by public bodies fell through. In case anyone is wondering, the reason it's a strawman is because something can be included in a decision by a public body and still be copyrighted, or visa versa. In otherwards, it's a distinction without a purpose and one that has zero relevance. Except that it's easier to defend then just outright saying stamps are decisions when they clearly aren't. As a side to that, at least from what I've seen there's zero evidence individual stamp designs are included in decisions by public bodies. Sure, a government employee probably provides written feedback on the designs of the stamps, but that doesn't mean it's part of a decision by a public body. At least not in the way the law is talking about. But again, it's not like it would somehow make stamps magically free of copyright if they were included in decisions by public bodies anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please don't move the argument to here, and please don't put words in my mouth. I have never said that stamps are decisions, and I have at least twice explicitly said they are not. About the straw man: the only reason I know for them being in the public domain is that they were included in statements by a public body. I will ignore the rest of what you say here for now, concentrating on the linked discussion. –LPfi (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

So far I can see no consensus in that discussion. There are still only the original three participants, and none of us have changed their mind. –LPfi (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please don't move the argument to here You were the one doing that by staying "the question is whether they are covered by copyright even having been included in decisions by public bodies." If your going to pose a question, don't be surprised when people answer it. To your other points, as I've said else there's zero evidence that individual stamp designs are included in statements by a public body. Otherwise, be my guest and provide some. Until then though simply stating that they are included in statements by a public body without actually showing the exact statements that the specific stamps are included in is a none starter. At least it is in my opinion. Otherwise we could spend all day speculating about this. Personally, I rather stick to the facts, what we actually have evidence for, and there's zero evidence that they are included in statements by a public body or that it would even make them public domain in the first place if they were.

As to if there is a consensus in the original discussion or not, there's zero consensus that stamps are decisions. Which is what I started the discussion to find out. I don't really care about the other post-hawk minutia that you brought up after the fact. I didn't start the conversation to endlessly wax poetic about increasingly obscure, irrelevant legal definitions or whatever. The conversation would have ended there if you hadn't of steamrolled the conversation by Gish Galloping and miss-representing things though. But in my mind at least it's settled that stamps of Finland aren't copyright free, at least not on the grounds that they are decisions. Maybe they are for other reasons, but the onus is on the people who disagree that they copyrighted to present valid and compelling evidence that aren't. I don't currently see anyone doing that and we don't just default to something being PD purely because there's an ongoing discussion about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that there is consensus related on that. You continuously repeat your argument in the discussion but it doesn't make it consensus. It just makes lot of text to read. --Zache (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your talking about. Pretty much everyone in the discussion agrees that stamps aren't decisions. Including LPfi and the person who originally drafting the article that added the part saying they were. It would help if you were more specific about what exactly your referring to though. As to the last bit of your comment, there's naturally going to be lot of text when one side is forced to repeatedly counter loads of obviously false information from the other. Maybe tell LPfi to stop with the Gish Galloping if it's something you really care about. I'm going to keep correcting clearly wrong information as long as people keep repeating it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, you can count me as second opposing your interpretations in addition to LPfi. I don't know what is the correct answer related to if stamps are under Finnish copyright law 9 § exception, but least we seem to be able to read Finnish and have some understanding on history of Finlands copyright law. -- Zache (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

All I've done is quoted the documents that LPfi told me to read. So I'm not really sure what "interpretations" your talking about. What exactly about what I quoted do you disagree with though? Also, not to be rude but you don't get to claim your somehow automatically right and the other person is wrong just because you speak the language, know the history of the country, and they don't. Sorry, but that's not how this works. It's based on evidence, not who is native to the country being discussed or whatever. I don't get to tell everyone in the world to piss off when it comes to anything having to do with English or the United States just because I'm America, have a history degree, and speak English more fluently then they do. Get rule dude. More on topic, what evidence do either of you seriously have that Finnish stamps are copyright free? Because I don't see any. Even LPfi has said it's their "opinion" that stamps are copyright free because the designs are included in decisions. Where's the evidence of that being the case though? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we need more participants in the discussion. My impression is that we are not understanding each other's arguments, and would need an unbiased voice, perhaps somebody who could make the argument more structured. –LPfi (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Flickr uploads, invitation only

An Instagram friend uploaded some nice pics and I requested that he share them on Wikipedia. He doesn't want to have to deal with signing up etcetera, so instead he uploaded them to Flickr (cc-by-sa-2.0). One is publicly available, but for the other three photos he gave me private links. Therefore Flickrreviewer cannot find the image; how can I go about to make sure that the licenses of these photos are cleared? See 1992 Ford P100 TD, rear right.jpg for instance. I will be happy to share the private urls with VRT or whichever reviewer can help with this. Thank you, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If your friend doesn't want to make their images public, then it's seems rather odd (at least to me) that they would be OK with them being uploaded to Commons. They do understand that once their work is uploaded to Commons under an acceptable free license, they won't be able to keep it private any more per se, right? Did you explain to them that CC licenses are non-revocable and the the only ones that Commons accepts basically allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the images at any time to use pretty much any way they want (including commercial and derivative uses) as long as they comply with the terms of the images' licensing. Moreover, any problems with license enforcement are going to need to be sorted out by the copyrighit holder. As for your question about VRT verification, you can ask about it at COM:VRTN, but they might require your friend send them the links by email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

They are fine with that. They didn't want to upload them all in their public stream because the photos do not fit the way they want to present their accounts (doesn't want to show four pictures in a row of the Ford P100). I will go to VRTN. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 17:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Louvre pyramid

Would File:Détail d'une des petites pyramides du Louvre (31088931).jpg be a copyvio as France does not have FoP? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably yes, it would, though it does show much of the pyramide. Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Primož Trubar woodcut

Hello. Could someone please check that the information on File:Primož Trubar (woodcut).jpg is provided in accordance with the site terms and that the licence is correct? I've done several changes. I don't think this image is from the 16th century as was initially claimed and the linked page only provides the CC-BY-SA-3.0 DE tag and no information on provenance. There are other files from this collection that may have to be tagged in the same way. Thank you. --TadejM ^(t/p) 18:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As no one has commented on this, I am also going to implement such or slightly modified attribution and possibly licence change on other file pages in the category. --TadejM ^(t/p) 19:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Public Domain

Hello, I wanted to know if it is necessary to cite a public domain image if I based on it to make a drawing. And if it is necessary to quote it, how should I do it? Thank you. 181.94.146.228 19:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Attributing as "drawing based on (insert title) by (insert name of artist if known)" and including the date of the public domain work should be sufficient. Abzeronow (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't say necessary for what. If you are uploading to Commons, what Abzeronow says, because that is our rule as a site. In terms of legality, elsewhere? You can do pretty much anything with a public domain image. Acknowledgment is a matter of intellectual honesty, not legality. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that in some jurisdictions, right of authors to be attributed falls under moral rights. https://deakin.libguides.com/copyright-module1/moral-rights Moral rights do not expire. For the OP, here's the English Wikipedia link on moral rights w:Moral rights Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK in most parts of the world you don't have to, with the probable exception of Germany.

"how should I do it?"

Every Wikimedia Commons file has a series of links below the title that say "Download / (World icon) Use this file / (Wikipedia icon) Use this file / Email a link / Information".

The resalted icon generates an attribution that you can use if you need it or want to. Lugamo94 (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Public domain images for Wikipedia article?

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the right place but thought I'd bring attention to several public domain images available for Canadian professional wrestler John Katan.

• University of Waterloo: One photo
• Toronto Public Library: Five photos

The National Library of New Zealand also has one photo from the Wellington Evening Post (May 4, 1940). The website lists the copyright status under "Some rights reserved" but Template:PD-NZ says photos / works published prior to 1973 are in the public domain. 173.162.220.17 21:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I added the first one as its licenced in the Public Domain, you can use it on wikipedia now..The Toronto one may be free too, i'll look further into that but the NZ one is noncommercial unfortunately... Stemoc 00:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Threshold of originality for text

Do we have a general idea of the amount of text needed for copyright protection?

I uploaded File:Mcom-92-340-print-matter-1.png a while ago as it consists only of a title, a list of names and a fairly simple logo. However, a similar file on the English Wikipedia was listed for discussion at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 February 24#File:American Journal of Mathematics (front cover).jpg on the grounds that it might meet the ToO. One user mentioned that it would be similar to a list of API function names, which was ruled copyrightable. Thoughts? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• It isn't the amount, it's the originality. Ashleigh Brilliant has a self-imposed limit of 17 words for his epigrams; most are rather shorter; and more than one court has upheld their copyrightability. - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I see. Would you say the given examples are original enough to meet the ToO? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    • For that, no. A list of names in alphabetical order is not really copyrightable (unless the selection itself is creative, but not when it's just a list of editors). You can look at the Copyright Compendium; chapter 300 is on the general topic of copyright ability, and chapter 700 deals with literary works in particular. As noted, it is not the amount of text. Per regulations, titles and slogans and short phrases are not copyrightable. Going beyond that, is how much originality and creativity it took to create. A short haiku could be copyrightable, while all the text in a phone company white pages book was ruled to not be copyrightable (Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.). So you have to look at the nature of the text, not the size. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I see. So it looks like we don't need to nominate it for deletion then. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Urbiztondo Ordinance no. 1- 2022.pdf

@Turistaboy: posted this as Creative Commons, but I'm seeing a government edict, albeit a local one from the Philipines? Surely those are technically public domain (PD-Edict-Gov)? There isn't an incompatibility either way, but I'd like a clarification before updating the license tag. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree; that's {{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}}; it's not restricted under a Creative Commons sharealike license. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is a government edict. For Philippines the appropriate tag is {{PD-PhilippineGov}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Or {{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}} as indicated above. Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about a photo of questionable copyright

I have a question about File:AzMarie Livingston drawtober 2021.png. The current illustration is a horizontally-mirrored copy of a copyrighted photo (see here), which is featured on IMDB and is credited to "Alan Weissman". Compare the original version of this upload, before it was mirrored horizontally, and note the precise similarities in the pose and lighting. Note, specifically, how the shadow beneath her chin is exactly the same as the original photo.

This supposed copyright issues of this illustration were discussed a couple years a ago here. I'm puzzled as to why an administrator, User:Yann, felt that this illustration was "OK for commons" given that the illustrator, User:Nattes à chat, admitted to using the photo as a basis. It doesn't help that the relevant conversations were all held in French. -- Veggies (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Family member loves cameras, hates computers, how to upload for them?

Good FAQ: Q: My spouse / child / parent / grandparent is good with a camera, but not willing to make their own account and upload I have decided to use my own account to upload, and they think that is great. Also they told me to just pick the default licensing terms too. So what is the proper way to still give them credit somewhere? Jidanni (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jidanni All files require personal attribution, therefore you cannot use your own account to upload photos taken by one of your relatives and licensing it as "own work". You can, however, upload any file licensed under a CC-By/CC-By-SA license and published elsewhere. I suggest you open a Flickr account, put all the photographs taken by your family there, with precise name of each photographer and the correct license, and then upload them to Commons. Skimel (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It is a bit odd that we trust such a Flickr account more than we trust our own users. Wouldn't the proper way to do this be to authorise an account to upload photos of those photographers? If they have an e-mail account, sending an e-mail to VRT shouldn't be too hard. The user could do the needed handholding. If they don't have an e-mail account, I think a scan of a corresponding authorisation should do. We ought to have an example letter for such authorisation, like we have on individual files on COM:VRT. –LPfi (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@LPfi I admit I am not familiar with the VRT process. Your solution might be better! Skimel (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Upgrading of GNU 1.2 Only license to CC3.0

There is a person on Wikimedia who uploaded 1,212 images of classic aircraft about a decade ago, via a Wiki user who placed them on Wikimedia. The man's name is Jon Proctor. He died almost three years ago. The photos on Wikimedia have the old GNU 1.2 Only license, which is very complex when compared to the CC licenses. Mr. Proctor's photos have been in the hands of an aviation organization since his passing. I contacted the organization as I wanted to inform them that Jon's photos are in Wikimedia commons and the license that Jon used is complex and could the organization allow Wikimedia to upgrade the license to the newer CC3.0. They said they'll discuss this with their Attorney. They did so, and I received an email from them today stating that their attorney recommends the upgrading of the license. The organization's name is: World Airline Historical Society (WHAS), and their website is: https://wahsonline.com/. The person who sent me the email, was Tom Livesey, the Board Director of WAHS. I have his telephone number, but cannot disclose it in public. These photographs which are not used due to the GNU 1.2 only license , need to be easier to access for every aviation enthusiast worldwide. You cannot find quality classic airliner photos like Jon Proctor's anywhere these days. He was a master of classic aviation photos. So, as I am not savvy on upgrading licenses, could any one assist to just upgrade the photos to CC3.0 or CC4.0?

Thanks.

Ted 707 Ted 707 (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ted 707: There are a couple of issues here. First, you say the photos are "in the hands of" World Airline Historical Society (WHAS) but what does that mean? There is a difference between ownership of the physical photo and ownership of copyright. Does WHAS own the copyright of the photos? If not, the copyright may be owned by Jon Proctor's estate (often under the control of the next of kin).

Second, if copyright ownership has passed to WHAS, we will need evidence of their agreement of the new licence to be sent to Commons:VRT. If you have email correspondence from them already, that may be sufficient (hard to tell without seeing the content and I am not a VRT member) for you to forward to VRT yourself. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, From Hill To Shore I have contacted the WHAS Board Director, Mr. Livesey, and he would like to get in touch with you directly. He prefers email, or chat. Is that ok with you? Ted 707 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ted 707 Besides the points already raised, you may want to specify if the copyright holder wants the BY or the BY-SA license (any other kind of Creative Commons license -except for CC0- is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons). Lugamo94 (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lugamo94, I will say to you what I stated above to 'From Hill To Shore. I have contacted the WHAS Board Director, Mr. Livesey, and he would like to get in touch with you directly. He prefers email, or chat. Is that ok with you? Ted 707 (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but for the sake of clarity, three things: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not American, and I'm not a VTRS member (which is the Wikimedia Commons team that handles verifications), I'm just a community member. If they still want to contact me to explain the differences between the two licenses, you can send me their e-mail via this this link so I can contact them. Greetings. Lugamo94 (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

1984 Virginia Yearbook

Looking online to how copyright was handled for Yearbook photos in 1984 in Virginia USA, the best I can find is a vague statement that all Yearbooks Published Before 1989 are Public Domain...but it doesn't elaborate on that, so I'm being cautious here. The yearbook in question was published with no copyright notice (and is on Archive.org who I assume THEY vetted it for copyright but I figure we want to be more careful ourselves here) - would appreciate any help confirming it is not in copyright and also which tag to use. LauraIngallsEvenWilder (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@LauraIngallsEvenWilder: Can you share a link to the copy at archive.org? A US yearbook from 1984 with no copyright notice could be {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but one would need to check a few things. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States provides an overview of copyright rules of the United States relevant to uploading works into Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 08:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Uploading a photograph taken by someone recently deceased

My father died recently, but had been meaning to add a photo of the construction of the New Otani Hotel in Tokyo that he took in 1964. I have now uploaded that citing his copyright CC BY-SA 4.0. But I now think I should contact the VRS team about this as I think my mother would now hold the copyright as next of kin. So she should provide her permission to them. Is that right? Gilgongo (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If you had inherited the copyright then you could use the {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}} template. However, if your mother has inherited the copyright then a declaration to Commons:VRT would be wise. In many countries, someone is appointed to manage the estate of the person who has died (even if the management is as simple as saying, "all the possessions are now owned by this other person"). If no one knows who owns the copyright but you have someone who was appointed to manage the estate, you could ask them to make a statement/decision about who now owns the copyright. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks. In the UK, the estate of the deceased generally passes to the surviving partner automatically, so I assume that logically includes the ownership of copyright as it does property and finance. I'll see if she can make a declaration to the VRT. Gilgongo (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If you are not in the UK, other laws might well apply. I believe that in Spain, for example, inheritance passes first to the descendants, if there are no descendants, then to the antecedents, and only the to a surviving spouse. Martinvl (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

CC BY applicable or not: can I upload this image?

I would like to upload this image used by Huntley (2019: 34), with the statement "After Burgess et al. 2004, map used with permission". Please download its PDF version and you will find CC BY with remarks "Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (...) The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material" at page 42, i.e. the end of the article. These two statements are tormenting me and I am not sure whether I can upload the image here under CC BY. Burgess et al. (2004), copyrighted work with no known CC licenses, is available at ResearchGate and I have found a possibly corresponding map at page [20] from which Huntley apparently took only their concept with very limited part of the whole map and arranged in a somewhat different style. Can't we infer that CC BY is applicable to the image since the authorship of the image now fully belongs to Huntley and the permission Burgess et al. gave him also includes their acceptance of the licensing, or since their essential concept of the map itself is free of copyright restriction? --Eryk Kij (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Ayala Avenue photos

I just noticed one w:en:Ayala Avenue photo was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ayala avenue street scene.jpg. Around a month late. In my understanding, while buildings here are not so trivial, the photo depicts more of the road scene. This is similar to File:Ph-mm-makati-makati cbd-ayala ave. - gt tower eastbound (2015-04) 01.jpg which I requested for undeletion, with that undeletion being successful.

Now there are two different outcomes on the photos of the near-identical scene of Ayala Avenue, which one will prevail? I'm leaning towards requesting for UNDEL for the deleted file but I want a wider input regarding this. Ping the peeps involved in the deletion request as well as the undeletion request: @Taivo, Ikan Kekek, P199, Abzeronow, Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, Clindberg, and Yann: . Also ping a few Pinoy Wikipedians — @Ganmatthew and Inarawan1979: — to judge the undeleted photo (File:Ph-mm-makati-makati cbd-ayala ave. - gt tower eastbound (2015-04) 01.jpg) if the buildings are indeed trivial or incidental. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The photos are really similar. In my opinion deletion was correct and undeletion was incorrect. Taivo (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a lot like one that was deleted. I felt it was borderline on the deleted one, but this shows even more of the building on the left than the deleted photo. I'm inclined towards deletion, but I'm definitely interested in reading what the others have to say on this since I'm not that familiar with Philippines law (and hopefully Philippines gains FoP soon). Abzeronow (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It's borderline to me. The DR had some reasoning I disagree with -- don't care how much of the photo is taken up by buildings; if each one individually is de minimis or incidental then the photo should be fine. Focusing on one particular building is when it becomes not OK. We always keep cityscape photos, for example, even if they are entirely copyrighted buildings. "Incidental" is when a building (or other work) is unavoidably part of a larger scene. This one... half the photo is one building, so you could argue it is focusing on that, though the other half is the street. I would probably lean keep, as the photo to me seems more of the street than the building. But it doesn't surprise me that we would have divided opinions (and results) on photos like this. If a judge feels the photo is materially enhanced by the design of the foreground building, they could rule otherwise. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My feeling is either both or neither should be deleted, but the decision should be based on things like the precise language in the relevant legislation, case law and legislative history, and I don't know anything about those fine points. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Case law on photos of buildings being ruled derivative is exceedingly rare (I doubt there is any in the Philippines). (Which is probably why this type of deletion is on the unpopular side.) I can't see the deleted one, of course. There is probably no way to really know. In general, for all cases I'm aware of anyways, the copyrighted subject was either the obvious focus of the photograph, or was intentionally included by the photographer for effect. It's that latter aspect which is the question here, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is that neither applies/applied to the two photos in question. It's a street scene that includes buildings, none of which was the focus. I don't really know how to interpret "effect," as the buildings (or, more properly, parts of them) are part of the scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

One example case that I recall was one of a fashion shoot, where the photographer had the model wear a pair of (very) fancy glasses. The glasses turned out to be copyrighted, and since the purpose was to enhance the photograph (it was not "incidental" at all), it was derivative. Basically, the expression of the glasses enhanced the expression of the photo, and it was all under control of the photographer. A snapshot of a person walking down a street who happened to be wearing those same glasses, would almost certainly be "incidental". Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That is an interesting case. Which country was it adjudicated in? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It was a U.S. case. Been a while since I've been able to find the actual reference, though somewhere years back I did have a link, and posted it somewhere here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Both pictures should have the same decision, as there are very similar. Yann (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that both pictures should have the same decision whether it be deletion or undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Although the title of the image is "Ayala Avenue", obviously the asphalt that is literally the Avenue is not the reason for the photo. We have a nondescript car, bus, and scooter and the buildings lining both sides, all of which are copyrighted. Without the buildings there would be no reason to keep the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Nah, the interesting part to me is probably the vegetation and divider as well. It'd still be plenty useful if you blurred the foreground building. The rest of the buildings are definitely fine; it's not derivative of anything other than that first one on the left (if even that). A photo of a street (prominently including a copyrighted building at the end) was the exact case that a French court ruled was OK ("theory of the accessory" or something like that). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't really invalidate DM, though. Pretty much every single building in La Défense is copyrighted, and without them there would be no skyline, but we accept photos of the La Défense skyline anyways. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

CCTV and public domain

Hi everyone. I wanted to ask particularly about this template which says "CCTV, dashcam, and bodycam footage has no creative input" and therefore is in the public domain. Is this something related to a country's law or is it something globally accepted on Commons? HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyright in CCTV footage would typically be owned by the organization that created it. It is NOT automatically in the public domain.

(Aside) There are also issues of privacy rights if using extracts in which specfic indviduals can be clearly identified.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00 Thanks. So I assume files like this or this are problematic? There are also many other files using this template. I think if there is a problem with Template:PD-CCTV, then we should consider deleting that template. Right? HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The template should be revised and files using it re-evaluated certainly. Bear in mind I am based in the UK, and thus my views on copyright matters might not be a global view.

In respect of the specific media you link, the second example seems to have formed part of an official press release, and thus it would be under whatever license the govt agency obtained/released it under. Almost certainly 'fair-use' on a local project, but without a specfic 'free' license, not necessarily compatible with Commons automatically.

The video you linked, would most likely need a specific VTRS, it seems to be privately held footage, and it's not clear if the uploader is also the copyright holder.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

JSTOR "free" content

JSTOR has a lot of early material with the headline "free to anyone in the world", but when you read down it says this for non-commercial purposes, so not free by Commons standards. The original sources for this material are generally clealy PD. For example I have uploaded this file from an 1831 article by an author who died in 1863: File:Map of Marocco Washington 1831.jpg, from https://archive.org/details/jstor-1797664. I've used the template Licensed-PD-Art, which passes through the JSTOR restriction and also states the WM disclaimer. Is the the most appropriate way to deal with this? Thanks Kognos (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyright 1974 Italian film?

Because there were already several stills from other older Italian films on Commons, I uploaded some from the film Arabian Nights, some of which I used for Wikipedia articles. Now there seems to be a problem with these uploads. Can anyone tell me if there is indeed a problem? According to my interpretation of Italian copyright rules there is not. A I wronɠ? @Judithcomm Judithcomm (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The stills may be out of copyright in Italy... but are they out of copyright in the USA (where Commons is hosted)? Muzilon (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply, but could someone please answer this question for me? Stills from Italian films of 1974 are uploaded all the time and not just by me. --Judithcomm (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This discrepancy of US and other countries copyright is one of the most difficult and unsolved issues on Commons. The Anne Frank diary was deleted per this ruling of the Wikimedia Foundation, in PD in Europe since 2016. You can also read the URAA statement. Sorry, this is not of any help in this particular case. If somebody bites in your uploads and writes a rationale to delete the images from the US servers perhaps they will be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellywa (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Italian law gives film stills a copyright of 20 years from creation, even if the film itself is copyrighted for far longer. The U.S. question is, would it use the URAA to determine that the film still was public domain in Italy in 1996 and thus not restored, or would it use the copyright for the film which would be far far longer (2070). If there was a copyright notice on the film, then the URAA would be moot as the U.S. copyright would have never gone away. I don't think there has been a test case for this particular and odd situation, but I'm sure we have some files uploaded under that theory. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The film is online (somewhere) and does have a 1974 copyright notice in the opening credits. Muzilon (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

In that case, the license tags which claim the movie was published without a copyright notice are incorrect. The stills would be under U.S. copyright until 2070. In the rest of the EU, if they follow the film copyright, the end date is not known yet (one of the writers is still alive, so her life plus 70 years). If a still is just based on the cinematographer's life, then 2078. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Is Bing "Public Domain" search fit for Commons

I found this image under Bing Public Domain search, is it fit for Commons? I followed The Username Policy (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The URL indicates that image of actress w:Apoorva Srinivasan comes from this set of photos hosted on a "Bollywood" site. The website also has a copyright notice, so I'd be skeptical of the Bing bots claiming it's public domain. Muzilon (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that notice, I just wanted to see if there was a photo I could upload of her. I was assuming the copyright was embedded into the image, but I guess I was wrong. I followed The Username Policy (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Any search tool is, at best, "potentially useful". It is not going to pronounce a reliable verdict. - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding an image uploaded to Unsplash AND to elsewhere by the original author.

So, I've got this picture, which this website from the Integrated Group of Aquaculture and Environmental Studies (GIA) identifies as Astyanax altiparanae, and I'm currently setting up a page for the fella. (It's a real honker of an article, so I'll probably seek out peer review at some point. The Google Doc itself is 5 pages long.) I'd like to upload the image to Commons for use in the article, and evidence (such as presence on gallery sites) suggests the picture was available for use as early as 2010. The website cited earlier used it in an article from April 2017. The issue arises when the original photo I linked is an Unsplash post from December 2020, which is outside of the noncopyright date range for Unsplash. However, one of the tags is "free images". Given its original availability before the Great Unsplash Copyright Overhaul of 2017, and the fact that the author uploaded it with a "free images" tag, plus its presence on an informational site from ichthyological authorities, is it reasonable to assume that the image is actually free for use? Or should we fear the Wrath of Unsplash? (...Or is it just better to play it safe?) Snugglyaggron (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no clear alternative release, so it does seem that this is an unfortunate casualty of the Unsplash change to terms. The tag 'free images' could apply to the general Unsplash license which although 'free' does not allow all commercial reuse under Creative Commons definitions. It could be that the photographer would be fine with it, so may be worth contacting them to check. --Anstil (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Contacting the photographer is a good idea, so I might try that at some point. My current priority is to get the page itself up for review, however, so I'll see if I can find something under a proper license for commons use. Thanks for your help!

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. -> Snugglyaggron (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify, is there any evidence of the photo being shared with a CC or compatible license? Many images get distributed with a range of licenses, and that is not unusual. If there is one valid case of the copyright holder distributing it with a compatible license, then that is all we need. If that is not present, then we do not make assumptions. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems as though it may be best to find a different image, as I can't find an upload under a compatible license. Disappointing, but not at all unexpected. Thank you for your help! -> Snugglyaggron (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Burberry 1901 logo

Mrmw recently converted the 1901 Burberry logo to SVG format:

• File:Logo Burberry 02.svg
• File:Logo Burberry 03.svg
• File:Logo Burberry 04.svg

The files were tagged for speedy deletion. {{PD-textlogo}} clearly does not apply.

In the US, the 1901 logo should be public domain because Burberry would have published the logo ca 1901.

I do not know what to do for the UK copyright. If the author were unknown, then {{PD-UK-unknown}} would have applied in 1971. However, the author should be known to Burberry. Is there a corporate author expiration date in the UK? Is there a 120-year presumption? Glrx (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that you can use {{PD-old-assumed}} tag. Ruslik (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Glrx: There is no "corporate author" in the UK, authors are always human beings accd. to UK law. If the logo is indeed from 1901 though (is there evidence for this? It says somewehere that the logo was trademarked in 1909), you can use PD-old-assumed as already suggested. --Rosenzweig τ 09:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

1901 seems to be correct accd. to [5]. --Rosenzweig τ 09:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

And this (via [6]) was probably the original drawing. --Rosenzweig τ 09:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)