Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C o 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)
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.


Crown copyright (UK)[edit]

I have only just realised that:

were closed - in 2017, by User:JuTa - as delete, with a closing summary of "Source site states crown copyright != OGL."

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. As I noted in the discussions:

"The source states "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". "Crown copyright" does not negate that, since it is a statement of the copyright owner, not its licence (note that "crown copyright" is also stated alongside the OGL release)."

The fact that an image is "Crown copyright" no more precludes its release under OGL, or some other open licence, than does my saying my uploads to commons are "Copyright Andy Mabbett, released under CC by-sa" (or indeed, the boilerpate "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license..."). Commons has thousands of other images which are OGL-licensed and at the same time "Crown copyright".

Both images should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These images have been never released under OGL. Ruslik (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How have they not been released under OGL? The source says at the bottom: "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". And "Crown copyright" in the caption does not count as "otherwise stated"; if you follow the "(c) Crown copyright" link at the bottom right, it clearly states that "The default licence for most Crown copyright and Crown database right information is the Open Government Licence", showing that the government does not believe that being under Crown Copyright precludes it from being OGL. -- King of 05:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah agreed, the caption "Crown Copyright" does not mean "otherwise stated", as that is not a license. But, I think that was the rationale on the DR. This should probably be at COM:UDR and not here, but they seem to be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was "otherwise stated" as Fae said here. Ruslik (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, a work must be "Crown copyright" before it can be OGL (and doesn't stop being Crown Copyright once it is). If they credit something other than "Crown copyright", then there would be a problem. So I would disagree with that stance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems like that why both deleted files are matching their "otherwise stated", as the deletion admin @JuTa: could you please explain that for which kind of exemptions from OGL lead your deletion results? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember being involved in the OGL nonsense back then, the reality is that when Fae was incharge of Wikimedia UK, he was told a few times by a few editors to have a talk with the someone from the UK Govt who are incharge of this OGL issue but it never got fixed, the sad reality is that these images are actually OK but because once the images are released, they either forget to or refuse to update the image 'exif data' after a certain timeframe and since a majority of these images were released under the crown licence by the UK MOD (Ministry of Defence), they tend to release such images under their "News" licence, which unfortunately is not free as it specifically says and i quote "It may not be used, reproduced or transmitted for any other purpose" which means its crown copyright but at the same time non-derivative and since we are not a 'news' site, we cannot even use it, there are only one or 2 workarounds for this for example if the same image was released by the original photographer for his military purview such as say the Royalnavy, then it doesn't go through the Crown-News licencing bullshit (pardon my french) and thus can be added to commons under OGL and Crown. Its actually the main reason why we have never added any images from the UK Govt's own flickr feed as one would assume it is OGL as in "OPEN GOVERNMENT" and it is, but because their licencing is so poorly done, its not really worth the risk or time to add images from 'number10gov' to commons cause to date WikimediaUK have not been able to discuss the OGL issue with the UKGovt. The other workaround actually applies to these images specifically, even if these images are owned by the UK MOD (you can see it in the exif of these images if you download them), but because they were added to the UK's gov.uk website, they now fall in their purview of OGL (as you can see at the bottom of the page where the images were taken from) and thus should be allowed usage on commons...--Stemoc 12:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"released under the crown licence " There is no "crown licence". Crown copyright is a statement that the copyright is owned by the crown (i.e. the state); it is not a licence, nor is it an all-rights-reserved notice. A Crown copyright work can be all-rights-reserved, or licensed under the OGL or any other licence. There are even works labelled Crown copyright which are PD, just as there are books labelled as copyright which are PD, because no-one bothers to recall all the copies and erase the copyrights statements in them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the above from the archive, as the matter is unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: What action are you expecting to resolve the issue? If you are trying to restore the images, start a discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm expecting for consensus to show that being "crown copyright" does not preclude any image - including these - from being under OGL, or any other open licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Spain-photo and the URAA[edit]

Pinging @Magog the Ogre: as the user who wrote that template as well as Template:PD-Spain-photo/doc.

Template:PD-Spain-photo/doc#Public domain in the United States says Because the United States has had copyright relations with Spain since 1927, this means the URAA does not apply. Use the Hirtle chart to determine copyright status, but ignore sections on the URAA. In effect this means: [...] If it was first published between 1927 and 1977, it is not public domain.

How so? This is about en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights. We also have our own help page, Commons:Subsisting copyright, outlining the requirements for works to be protected in various cases. Spain has had a Bilateral copyright treaty with the United States since 1895. Pre-1927 US copyrights have expired by now, so every Spanish work after 1926 could be protected by a subsisting copyright in the US, but as I see it, the requirements listed at Commons:Subsisting copyright still would have to be met: either a) a US-compliant copyright notice plus renewal registration if published before 1964, or b) being unpublished before the URAA date for Spain (1996-01-01) and not meeting the requirements of {{PD-US-unpublished}} (either: author is known and died at least 70 years ago, or else the work was created over 120 years ago).

If those requirements are not met, there would be no subsisting copyright, and the URAA would (only) apply for any Spanish work still protected by Spanish copyright on the URAA restoration date, 1996-01-01. So I don't think the claim from Template:PD-Spain-photo/doc – Because the United States has had copyright relations with Spain since 1927, this means the URAA does not apply. – is correct. How do others see this? --Rosenzweig τ 14:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That statement makes little sense to me either. The URAA had nothing to do with pre-existing copyright relations; it had to do with new obligations the United States had pursuant to joining the Berne Convention -- they were then obligated to protect foreign works for a minimum duration regardless of registrations and renewals. That would include Spanish works still protected in Spain on January 1, 1996. The U.S. used about every aspect of the Berne Convention it could to avoid restoring works (including the concept of the rule of the shorter term, and the 30-day window of simultaneous publication in the U.S. to avoid it being considered a foreign work), but anything else was restored, if it had fallen into the public domain due to lack of registration/renewal. Other works would have needed to have a copyright notice (and be renewed for pre-1964). The old copyright relations only gave Spanish authors protection if they followed the U.S. formalities.
On the other hand, not sure how those simple photos were treated under older Spanish copyright law. The 25-year simple photo provision appeared in their 1987 law. Unsure if those photos were simply below the threshold of originality in the law before that, or if they were 80pma. Spain did not enact the EU directive until later in 1996, so after the URAA date, but their terms were already longer so that did not make much of a difference. The 1987 law was non-retroactive, except for works which failed the registration requirements of the 1879 law (not sure how long those requirements were in effect following the 1886 Berne Convention). So... if simple photos were below the threshold of originality before 1987, than pretty much any pre-1987 photo would seem to be OK in Spain. But anything after would have been copyrighted in Spain in 1996, and thus restored by the URAA, and not OK here. The URAA complication though is that below-threshold works which were above the U.S. threshold did get restored in the U.S. by the URAA, which might mean that simple photos always got restored to the 95-year U.S. terms. If such photos were copyrighted by the older law, but had their term shortened in 1987, then we could only host photos from before 1971 (since those would have expired in 1996, and not be subject to the URAA). Or similar, if the "term" of simple photos was considered as set by the 1987 law. It is possible it is that uncertainty which drove the template documentation to try to restrict to photos which are beyond the 95-year U.S. term. But, those would only have protection via the URAA; any work published without notice before 1989 was PD in the U.S. before that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created this template 6 years ago after a similar discussion (link). I do not even remember creating this template. I'm guessing I read the treaty and/or the article on subsisting copyrights to mean that the US did not require formalities for Spanish works. I would recommend taking a close look at the treaty before updating the language. Sorry that's the best I can do. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote above that there was a bilateral copyright treaty between Spain and the US. Looking further, I see that this might be the wrong term. Accd. to the 2020 edition of the US State Department's list of Treaties in Force (PDF, page 416) this is more of a "copyright agreement" consisting of an "exchange of notes at Washington July 6 and 15, 1895" which "entered into force July 10, 1895" by presidential proclamation (Grover Cleveland) which you can find in the en:United States Statutes at Large, vol. 29, p. 871. Are such notes published/easily accessible, or is the presidential proclamation all that is published in this case? --Rosenzweig τ 21:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A similar agreement between the US and Germany, from 1892, is at s:de:"Ubereinkommen zwischen dem Reich und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika über den gegenseitigen Schutz der Urheberrechte. --Rosenzweig τ 21:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The presidential proclamation triggered a clause in U.S. copyright law (today it is in 17 USC 104, though something similar has existed since the late 1800s) which gave bilateral copyright relations; i.e. the U.S. would protect works from that country the same way it protected its own works, provided the foreign country protected U.S. works to the same extent the foreign country protected its own. Until the Universal Copyright Convention was formed, it usually took agreements of that nature to get copyright relations with the U.S. Well, the U.S. joined the Buenos Aires Convention (where "all rights reserved" came from) in 1911, so they had relations with many South American countries that way. It sounds like the agreement with Spain was renewed in 1902; I'm guessing the Spanish-American War interrupted the relations for a while. The German agreement is still in force; I think a case there ruled that it means U.S. authors still get the full 70pma protection in Germany, even though they use the rule of the shorter term for other (non-European) Berne members. So yes, copyright relations certainly existed, so Spanish authors have since had the right to add copyright notices and renew their works in the U.S. That does not preclude the URAA from also taking effect, that's all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a part of Spanish copyright law, and has been since 1987. And having some actual court rulings on it give a much more concrete way of interpreting it, since each EU country can be quite a bit different in those matters. So, it's certainly a valid tag for Spain. The main question is the interaction with the URAA, which I mentioned in that old discussion but got the year wrong -- certainly anything still under protection in 1996 got restored in the U.S., so nothing since 1987 should be allowed on Commons. It gets a bit more interesting though for pre-1987 photos; I can't quite tell if existing simple photos got the protection or not. If so, then their term was 25 years and 1971 would be the line. If not, would they be considered public domain in Spain "through expiration of term of protection", or would they simply be considered below the threshold of originality? If the latter, they were likely all restored given the wording of the URAA (which restored all works "not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection"). It's an odd situation, since that type of work had started to be protected in Spain, and had a term of protection from 1987 on. But works of that type had always been eligible for U.S. protection, with most probably falling into the public domain via lack of notice etc. If they all got restored by the URAA, then the 95 year term would be the right one (so 1927 now, advancing each year). If on the other hand the new clause in the law could be used to create a "term of protection", precluding pre-1987 works from gaining protection, and 1987 is the line. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1987 law has some transitional provisions. The first of those is Las modificaciones introducidas por esta Ley, que perjudiquen derechos adquiridos según la legislación anterior, no tendrán efecto retroactivo, salvo lo que se establece en las siguientes disposiciones. which Google translates as The modifications introduced by this Law, which harm rights acquired under previous legislation, will not have retroactive effect, except as established in the following provisions.
Which, in my interpretation, means that any more favorable conditions (favorable to copyright holders, like longer terms etc.) granted by the old (1879) law would not be shortened or abolished by the 1987 law, but any conditions more favorable in the 1987 law (new or longer terms) would apply. So the new protection for simple photographs would also apply for simple photographs made before the 1987 law came into force. If those simple photographs were made in 1962 or later, the 25 year term of protection would still run, if they were from 1961 or earlier, it was expired. That's just my interpretation though, but in absence of any case law etc., it might be as valid as anyone else's. --Rosenzweig τ 17:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my attempt at rewriting Template:PD-Spain-photo/doc: 

== Public domain in the United States ==
In order for Commons to host an image, it must be public domain in its host country and in the United States. Use the [[Commons:Hirtle chart|Hirtle chart]] to determine copyright status. In effect this means:
* If the work was created before {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}, it is in the public domain in the US.
* If it was created between {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} and 1961, it was in the public domain in Spain on the URAA date. It is debatable if its Spanish copyright had expired on that date or if such a copyright had never existed. In the latter case, the URAA ''might'' have restored its copyright in the US.
* If it was created from 1962 to 1970, its Spanish copyright had expired on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created after 1970, the URAA restored its copyright in the US.

Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good catch on the transitional provisions -- I had missed the non-retroactive parts were only those which prejudiced existing rights. That seems to imply that anything else *was* retroactive. OK, I can then see presuming that all simple photos retroactively came under that term in 1987. Anything older than 1962 were still public domain (presuming they were simply below the threshold before), but then continued to expire each year. So, anything created before 1971 would have expired by (or on) January 1, 1996, and would then not be subject to the URAA. Do remember that U.S. terms are based on publication, so you would have to also be able to apply {{PD-US-expired}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}, or {{PD-US-unpublished}}. So... your bullet list is basically right, except that it does not get into publication. A simple photo created in 1910 but not published until 1990 would still have U.S. copyright, regardless of Spanish law or the URAA. If we presume that the protection was retroactive, then I think the rule is basically photos created before 1971 (to avoid the URAA) and published (presumably without notice) before 1989 are OK. If we do not presume retroactive effect on earlier photos, not so sure we can use the 1962 year -- it may apply to works created 1987 or later. If 1962 works came under that protection, then I think earlier works also did as well, but were then considered expired per those terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man, this is tricky. My attempt at adding US copyright status based on publication to the text: 

== Public domain in the United States ==
In order for Commons to host an image, it must be in the public domain in its host country and in the United States. Use the [[Commons:Hirtle chart|Hirtle chart]] to determine copyright status.

In effect this means for the [[Commons:URAA-restored copyrights|URAA status]]:

* If the image was created no later than 1961, it was in the public domain in Spain on the URAA date. It is debatable if its Spanish copyright had expired on that date or if such a copyright had never existed. In the latter case, the URAA ''might'' have restored its copyright in the US. Wikimedia Commons will assume its Spanish copyright had '''expired''' on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created from 1962 to 1970, its Spanish copyright had expired on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created after 1970, the URAA restored its copyright in the US.

Since US copyright terms are based on publication, '''additionally''' one of the tags {{tl|PD-US-expired}}, {{tl|PD-US-no notice}}, {{tl|PD-US-not renewed}}, {{tl|PD-US-1978-89}} or {{tl|PD-US-unpublished}} also needs to be applicable to the image for it to be in the public domain in the US.

The following list applies to images created no later than 1970 (so the URAA did '''not''' restore its copyright in the US):

* If the image was published before {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}, it is in the public domain in the US.
* If it was published no later than {{date|1989|02|28}} without a copyright notice, it is in the public domain in the US.
* If it was published after {{date|1989|02|28}}, it is protected by copyright in the US, '''unless''' it
** a) has an author with a known year of death who died before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 70 }}, OR
** b) '''either''' the death date of its author is not known '''or''' it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, '''and''' it was created before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 120 }}.

Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 12:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: That seems accurate, just trying to think if there are any ways to simplify it. I think in most cases, we assume publication was without copyright notice in other countries, particularly for photos. So, maybe just use {{PD-US-expired}} if published before 1927, otherwise {{PD-URAA}} if published before 1989 and created before 1971, otherwise it would have to qualify for {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next attempt (substituting {{PD-1996}} for {{PD-URAA}}): 

== Public domain in the United States ==
In order for Commons to host an image, it must be in the public domain in its host country and in the United States. Use the [[Commons:Hirtle chart|Hirtle chart]] to determine copyright status.

In effect this means for the [[Commons:URAA-restored copyrights|URAA status]]:

* If the image was created no later than 1961, it was in the public domain in Spain on the URAA date. It is debatable if its Spanish copyright had expired on that date or if such a copyright had never existed. In the latter case, the URAA ''might'' have restored its copyright in the US. Wikimedia Commons will assume its Spanish copyright had '''expired''' on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created from 1962 to 1970, its Spanish copyright had expired on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created after 1970, the URAA restored its copyright in the US.

Since US copyright terms are based on publication, '''additionally''' one of the tags {{tl|PD-US-expired}}, {{tl|PD-1996}} or {{tl|PD-US-unpublished}} also needs to be applicable to the image for it to be in the public domain in the US.

The following list applies to images created no later than 1970 (so the URAA did '''not''' restore its copyright in the US):

* If the image was published before {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}, it is in the public domain in the US. Use {{tl|PD-US-expired}} (or a combined tag that includes PD-US-expired).
* If it was published no later than {{date|1989|02|28}} without a copyright notice, it is in the public domain in the US. Use {{tl|PD-1996}}.
* If it was published after {{date|1989|02|28}} and before {{date|2003|01|01}}, it is protected by copyright in the US until at least {{date|2047|12|31}}.
* If it was published after {{date|2002|12|31}} , it is protected by copyright in the US '''unless''' it
** a) has an author with a known year of death who died before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 70 }}, OR
** b) '''either''' the death date of its author is not known '''or''' it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, '''and''' it was created before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 120 }}.
** Use {{tl|PD-US-unpublished}} in these cases.

For {{PD-US-unpublished}}, works have to be (first) published after 2002, so I tried to specify the status for works published from March 1, 1989 to the end of 2002 as well. Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 18:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bombardiranje Zuzemberka 1945.jpg[edit]

The picture shows SAAF Beaufighter, which were under RAF control and the picture was taken in Slovenian (ex-Yugoslavian) airspace. Which tag should be the correct one? {{PD-Slovenia}} is for now, but an option is also PD-machine as it is an airplane camera. Have asked before, but nobody couldn't really define the correct tag. Thanks, A09090091 (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It only matters where the image was first published, not where it was taken. Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries, like Italy, claim jurisdiction over any and all images taken within their borders. --RAN (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is new and contested, and Commons has been treating it as Copyfraud, for example museums, which have been adding signs: "no photos, copyright" to ancient sculptures. --RAN (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): So until there is no consensus on Commons we may proceed further. Thanks for the info. A09090091 (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Was there any similar law for the WW2 Italy (which occupied Zuzemberk at the time) or was the law written after WW2? A09090091 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per [1], it seems to have been taken from British magazine en:Aeroplane Monthly. If it is a photo taken originally by the Royal Air Force, {{PD-UKGov}} could apply. If it is a SAAF photo, {{PD-South-Africa}} could apply. For photos, both of theses tags don't depend on date of publication, but date of creation. There is no "PD-machine" tag btw. --Rosenzweig τ 16:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: There is PD law in Russia for cameras, hence I asked. Thanks for the response. A09090091 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution of PD-Text files from other Wikipedias[edit]

With the understanding that PD-Text work is not eligible for copyright, would it not still be inappropriate to simply copy files from (for example) ENWP and upload them here without any attribution to the original editor that uploaded them? Example: en:File:GM_Financial_(logo).svg vs. File:Gm_financial_logo.svg (note that on the ENWP file page it correctly notes that the Commons file is a "duplicate", meaning they are the exact same file, and the source listed on the Commons file is not the same file as the one uploaded). I don't claim to "own" the work, but I did make the effort to extract the logo and output as an SVG that can be used here, that is my "contribution" to the project, but this editor is only attributing the work to themselves (and appears to be doing so deliberately because of a conflict on ENWP). —Locke Cole o t o c 15:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

w:en:Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_Commons says that "You must state the username of each uploader and the date/time at which the upload was performed". Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, I thought there was a requirement but could not find it anywhere. —Locke Cole o t o c 18:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template (with symbol pic) for not using pictures etc. on social media[edit]

Please refer to this discussion: there is the question whether a special template (with symbolic picture) should be used to show that pictures (and other matierial) are not to be used in social media (as facebook etc.). In general, matierial from WP is not to be used in social media - but the question is whether such a template should exist or not. Please discuss – thank you. --ProloSozz (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are public domain publicity photos still a thing?[edit]

It is my understanding that publicity photos have traditionally not been copyrighted. However, works created since 1989 are automatically copyrighted and do not require registration or a copyright notice.

So my questions are:

  1. Does this mean that a publicity photo must be specifically released into public domain by the author to be considered as such?
  2. If so, are film studios still willing to release publicity photos into public domain or under a free license in this day and age if we ask them nicely?

Ixfd64 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to your first question, yes, it means that all recent US publications are automatically copyrighted and you would need a permission from the copyright holder to upload them here. The answer to the second question in my opinion is "no" because that would mean that anybody else could make a profit off such photos, and that is obviously not in the interest of either the studious or the respective artists. Publicity is business, too. De728631 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) "Tradition" will vary by country and I believe that most countries had automatic copyright provision prior to 1989. What may have been traditional in one country may not have applied in others. Publicity photos may have been released into the public domain or they may have been released on a limited licence for the purpose of promoting the subject of the photograph. Public domain waives all control of the image whereas a licence would allow the creator to prevent inappropriate uses of the promotional image. We would need to see evidence of the licence or evidence of the PD release for upload at Commons. For your second question, some film studios embrace creative commons licences as a tool to promote their new releases, whereas others are more wary. It is up to the individual studio (or the photographer they commissioned if the photographer has retained copyright) on which conditions they use to release the image. If you ask them to release an image under a suitable licence for Commons, I expect some will be more co-operative than others. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the information. It doesn't seem there are many companies that use Creative Commons. Do we have a list of companies that are or are not willing to release promotional materials under a free license? I proposed creating a similar list on the English Wikipedia a while ago, but the idea never gained much traction. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've often had reasonable success getting more indie projects (whether films, games, etc.) to grant a free license. -- King of 22:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that indie game development companies do tend to be more willing to release screenshots under a free license. I wouldn't be surprised if this is also the case for film studios. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Printed_dresses_by_Lily_Pulitzer,_ca.1965_03.jpg[edit]

File:Printed_dresses_by_Lily_Pulitzer,_ca.1965_03.jpg I have submitted my new article on en:Suzie Zuzek (the textile designer responsible for the prints on the dresses) to DYK on Wikipedia, and the reviewer is challenging the claim that this image is PD/fine to use on the front page, saying that the textile prints are in copyright. I think their interpretation of copyright law is possibly overzealous, but what do you think? The way I understand it is that clothing is impossible to copyright per American law, especially as it is seen as being functional, and while a surface pattern or unique element can be argued to be in copyright, that would also mean that ANY image showing a person wearing a printed garment or even being seen in the vicinity of a printed textile is in violation, and I think per American copyright law, that is debatable and nearly impossible to police, especially as these were mass-produced ready-to-wear garments made in their hundreds and would have been snapped, photographed, and seen virtually everywhere. Can someone please give an expert opinion on this? The photos are low-resolution, and the textiles are distorted and shadowed and incompletely visible, so I think while they do showcase the print, it is not the same situation as if it were a flat, high-resolution, 2-D reproduction of the textile that could be used to create a knockoff. Opinions please? Mabalu (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing is not copyrightable, but designs on them are "conceptually separable" and can be registered as graphic works. In other words, a copyrightable drawing doesn't become uncopyrightable just because you put it on clothing. Per s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., a photograph of a bottle with a copyrightable label is not derivative, as the label is "incidental", unless the photo is focusing on the label. So a photo of people on the street would not be derivative of their clothing, as whatever clothes people are wearing would be "incidental" too. But if the point of the photo is to focus on the designs on the clothing, it does get harder. A 1965 work would never have needed to be renewed, but on the other hand, it would have needed a copyright notice on all (or at least most) copies, for clothing before 1989. More often, I believe U.S. designers got design patents instead, and have them protected that way -- it was probably easier than copyright back then. Since 1989, it has been much easier to protect clothing designs through copyright. If there is a copyright notice on the clothing somewhere (which I'd guess would be rather rare overall), I think it may be a problem, otherwise I'd lean toward the photo being fine (as the photo itself is licensed CC-Zero). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:PCP and its Application Towards Conflicting Copyright Statements[edit]

On 11 July, some of the screenshots uploaded by Yinyue200 was nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yinyue200 and Commons:Deletion requests/File:5月21日，河南鄭州市，河南銀行保險監督管理委員會門口維權抗議的儲戶！.mp4 20240710 202321.364 crop.jpg. They are published on Epoch Time's Youtube channel, which was originally created by Chinese netizens. The reasons for deletion mainly focuses on the following 2 reasons:

  1. That as the videos are created by netizens (instead of Epoch Times journalists), Epoch Times does not have the authority to license them under {{YouTube CC-BY}}
  2. That as the source pages are marked with both Youtube CC-BY license and all rights reserved, the files violate COM:PCP

After I raised the second reason for deletion, Yinyue200 proposed that China News Service, a Chinese news agency which regularly mark Youtube CC-BY on their videos, also contained a statement on their main website that make their videos all rights reserved.

"凡本网注明“来源：中国新闻网”或<略>的视频，版权均属中新社或中新网所有，未经本网书面授权，任何媒体、网站或个人不得转载、链接、转贴或以其他方式使用，否则即为侵权...
Translation: All videos that are marked with "source: China News Service", <other attributions omitted> are all rights reserved by China News Service or chinanews.com. Without written permission, all media, websites or persons must not republish, link, repost or by other means reuse <CNS works>. Such acts are deemed to be copyright violation..."

I'd therefore like to enquire whether COM:PCP applies to the Epoch Times files, as well as media files created by CNS?廣九直通車 (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, a previous Chinese Wikipedia discussion discussed the case for ARR statements embedded in CNS videos, and the majority opinion believe that the CC license on Youtube supersedes the embedded statement.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have "conflicting" files here on Commons as well. Imho it's what we call "double license": you can release a work under more than one license, and the final user selects the one they prefer. It's not a problem: in presence of a publication under a free license, there are no issues in mentioning it even if the same media is also published under another license that is not compatible with Commons rules. --Ruthven (msg) 05:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so you mean the Epoch Times files are also allowable here?廣九直通車 (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNS owns the copyright of their videos (although they published on YouTube with CC license), but Epoch Times doesn't. They just downloaded video clips from social media (with "Internet videos" marked), and republished on their YouTube channel. I don't think files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yinyue200 have an issue of "double license". Tim Wu (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that "all rights reserved" is the equivalent thing to a copyright notice, under the Buenos Aires Convention. It does not contradict a CC-BY (or other) license -- it simply says they are the copyright owner. They are free to license that copyright as they wish. If there is a global statement on a website, but a particular license on one element, it seems fine to use that element. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO)[edit]

This EU directorate uses the standard EU copyright notice. However, its Flickr stream has usage restrictions: see the About page and a sample photo. Do these supersede the EU policy? Joofjoof (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The About page has a disclaimer about personality rights. It is a non-copyright restriction. The photo on the other hand is distributed under a cc-by-nd-2.0 license, which is incompatible with Commons. The standard EU copyright notice is applied only to the website (I think), not the Flickr stream. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Documents, issued by the Ukrainian national government (1941)[edit]

File:УДП_10-41.jpg
File:УДП_13-41.jpg
File:УДП_30-06-1941-.jpg
File:УДП_30-06-1941.jpg
File:УДП_30-06-1941--.jpg
I have found (on different websites and Facebook) and uploaded documents, issued in 1941 by the Ukrainian national government.
So, can I use "PD-UAGovDoc" for these documents, or they should be deleted? — (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These government was never internationally recognized. So, using {{PD-UAGovDoc}} is not appropriate. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transferring 3D model of JWST[edit]

Hey folks,

I was looking for a 3D file of the James Webb Space Telescope and found this site: https://nasa3d.arc.nasa.gov/detail/jwst. Can we extract a 3D model from the file as public domain work, because it is from NASA?

Thanks and greetings, --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this all NASA 3D models are free to download and use. Ruslik (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you, then I will upload this :) --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a copyright for typography of sheet music?[edit]

In this discussion on the EN Wikipedia, User:Kusma and I are discussing whether typography of sheet music is subject to copyright, independent of the original score. Specifically, Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56 is a Cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, performed in 1726, published in 1863, on which German copyright should have lapsed long ago. However, the International Music Score Library Project has a variety of modern sheet music scores for this work, some marked Public Domain, but some with other licences. If we assume this sheet music is accurate to Bach's original, is there a copyright that comes from the typography? For books, I'm reading Template:PD-text to mean one can't retype a public domain work and claim copyright. But Kusma believes it may be different for musical notation than for text. Has this been discussed before? Is there a definitive ruling somewhere? --GRuban (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The UK (and some countries which inherited their law) has a typographical arrangement copyright (25 years or something like that). The U.S. does not. Don't think the rest of the EU does. There would have to be a selection and arrangement copyright above the threshold of originality to qualify, I'd think -- and that all looks pretty standard to me. On the other hand, it costs nothing to claim copyright. The licenses would be useful in the UK, at the very least, but beyond that not really sure. On the page you linked, the two marked "PDF typeset by editor" are the ones with licenses, and the scanned ones are not, so their authors may be under the impression that typesetting qualifies for a copyright (or are supplying the license for the UK). I don't have any real idea if there have been court cases over it anywhere else. Actually, in looking, Germany does have something like that, provided it "differs substantially" from previous editions. Not sure what the standard is, but given those are German works, the licenses are likely meaningful there too. Not the U.S., though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it (from places like this article), in Germany (where copying of in-copyright musical scores is generally illegal even for personal use; you are allowed to copy by hand or by re-typesetting) a "scientific edition" of a musical (or other) work old enough that the music is PD (70 years after the composer's death) gives a 25 year copyright protection from the date of publication. law text. No idea how to test this in practice. Kusma (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: The test would be case law, or finding some fool in Germany who wants to get sued (jk). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no typographical arrangement copyright in Germany, besides the UK I've only seen this in New Zealand law and in Australia (where they call it copyright in published editions of works, COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 88). Germany does have something which is called editio princeps (or Publication right in English), which is a protection term of 25 years for the first publication of previously unpublished works if these works would normally not be protected by copyright anymore. The Copyright Duration Directive brought that to other EU countries as well. Then there's a 25 year term for scientific editions of public domain works, that's the § 70 UrhG linked above. But the paragraph disallowing the copying of music notes is § 53 (4) UrhG: "Die Vervielf"altigung a) graphischer Aufzeichnungen von Werken der Musik, […] ist, soweit sie nicht durch Abschreiben vorgenommen wird, stets nur mit Einwilligung des Berechtigten zul"assig oder unter den Voraussetzungen des Absatzes 2 Satz 1 Nr. 2 oder zum eigenen Gebrauch, wenn es sich um ein seit mindestens zwei Jahren vergriffenes Werk handelt.“ § 53 generally allows copies of works still protected by copyright for private (non-commercial) use, with some stipulations. But § 53 (4) then disallows private copies of "graphic records of works of music" (meaning music notes) and of complete books and magazines. To complicate matters further, there are exemptions inside the exemption: private copies of music notes and complete books/magazines are allowed again if the work in question is out of print for at least two years or if you make a duplicate for your personal archive if it is necessary (however that is determined) and you use an original copy you own for the duplication.
Now, § 53 is part of a section (no. 6) called Schranken des Urheberrechts durch gesetzlich erlaubte Nutzungen, boundaries of copyright through uses allowed by law. So it only applies to works still protected by copyright. Which brings us back to our original question: Is sheet music for a work by Bach that was published in 1860 or so protected by copyright? If it is an exact representation of the original work, I'd say probably not. If something was altered, additional instruments or voices added (I'm not a musician, so my terms here might be far from accurate), that edition with the alterations might be protected, and you might not be allowed to make private copies. At least that's how I interpret the situation. --Rosenzweig τ 19:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about book cover[edit]

I create book articles quite often on Wikipedia. I'm considering uploading a book cover for His Name Is George Floyd, a bio of George Floyd. Looking at the cover, do you believe I could export this to the Commons based on how simple the design is? ie is it eligible for copyright or is it too simple? Thank you. I asked on enWP and was advised to ask here, but I was also advised it was too simple and it would be a good fit for the Commons. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In USA it is quite possible. Ruslik (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this would be ok to upload with the {{PD-text}} template. --Rosenzweig τ 22:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can this photo be uploaded to the Commons?[edit]

It is on the following web site. https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/james-hayllar It was taken in the 1860s. BFP1 (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) The copyright policy of the Royal Academy is on the following web site https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/copyright-policy BFP1 (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Use the license tag {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1887}}, the category Category:David Wilkie Wynfield and {{Creator:David Wilkie Wynfield}} in the author field of the image description. --Rosenzweig τ 07:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is helpful. BFP1 (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracing and fan art[edit]

This image at English Wikipedia (along with other images used in the article 15.ai) is derivative of the animated series My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, specifically this scene 25 seconds into S1E1, and tracing is evident overlaying the images onto each other. According to Commons:Derivative works, "tracing is a copy without new creative content", but aside from the lines there are creative modifications; has this modified the original to the extent that copyright is not applicable? 93 (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A derivative work potentially has two copyrights: that of the creator of the original work and that of the creator of the derivative work. A slavish copy of an original work does not give the copy maker a copyright, and the copyright of the original applies to the copy. If the person who made the copy made a significant creative changes then they will have a copyright, but this will does not override the original copyright, both copyrights must be respected. A derivative work based on a non-free original cannot have a valid free license. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing changes[edit]

I would like to know if it is forbidden to change the license from cc-by-sa-4.0 to the other license (Self-GFDL-4.0,3.0,2.0,1.0). Can anyone give me some information. Please. -- Leonaardog (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can only change to GPLv3 or Free Art License. See https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses Yinyue200 (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can change to {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}, because it is a superset of the existing license. Licenses can only be added, not removed. -- King of 18:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: , The file would be this one here. File:2024-07-03 TV Globo Pernambuco - TV Globo Nordeste - Rede Globo Nordeste.jpg could you help me by changing the license there in the file please. Replace with this one. (Self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|author=Leonaardog). -- Leonaardog (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yinyue200: , But the file is my own, I would never make changes to other authors' files, you understand. But thanks for your comment, @King of Hearts: i am authorizing you to make the change please. -- Leonaardog (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Fae..[edit]

Before they abruptly left Commons a prolific uploader to Commons contributed around 1.5 millon scanned books (mostly from Internet Archive) Category:Books uploaded by Fae and Commons:IA books

It would be greatly appreciated if Commons contributors could undertake a systemic copyright audit of these uploads, so as to identify those that are due to the nature of the mass upload badly or incompatibly licensed for distribution on Commons.

Amongst the issues identified are:

  • "in copyright" works wrongly tagged with a PD license. ( Such as PD-US Gov or PD-old) due to metatdata issues.
  • Items that are tagged as being under a PD US Gov license, despite being works by Non-federal third parties.
  • Perodicials with the date of the start of the series used as in the date field as opposed to the actual publication/copyright date.

1.5 millon works is significantly more works than a single contributor can audit, This needs a systemic effort, and if it was another uploader I would lareayd have asked for a CCI style process to be instigated. 07:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an intial petscan query - https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=18122064 that can assist in finding some of these.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that our processes are overloaded already. If people who are active doing something else stop doing that and turn to auditing these bulk uploads, backlogs elsewhere will grow. So anyone auditing these would need to a) have knowledge in copyright matters and b) be inactive or nearly inactive until now. Good luck in finding these people :-/ An alternative solution could be to summarily delete those huge file dump uploads and only restore those that were thoroughly checked in the Internet Archive before (or were already kept in a deletion request or reviewed otherwise). One would need some bot-prepared list concordance of Commons and IA URLs for such a purpose. This is counter to our usual procedures, but dumping 1.5 million files here without thoroughly checking them first is so irresponsible that only drastic measures will achieve anything meaningful. --Rosenzweig τ 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had already filed mass DR's for some portions of this, but they were rejected as 'unmanageable'. If you want to file a DR for the whole of the relevant tracking category you are more than welcome to , bearing in mind that some of the files were already kept ( Category:IA_mirror_related_deletion_requests/kept) reviewed (Category:Books uploaded by Fae/reviewed ) were in use on Wikisources... etc... There are also some works which whilst not outright in a reviewed category were liek the following, Category:Catalogs_of_Copyright_Entries which are clearly acceptbale for commons.
I wouldn't be opposed to a wholesale deletion of items that are not in use (and don't have derived images) though, as auditing 1.5 millon files would be time consuming.. Are you willing to do this?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of the project initially was to mirror public domain works from IA holdings in case IA had problems. I don't have a problem with that, however there's no auditing going on at Commons which is a shame. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this with regular DRs would overload our processes only further. There would need to be some kind of vote and the support of enough people behind such a proposal (summarily deleting the files) that would be counter to our usual processes. So unless a sizable number of users express their support for something like this, nothing will happen. --Rosenzweig τ 18:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
these were some DR's that should ideally have been closed as Delete but were considered unmanageable. -
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked randomly a book [2] in one of those DRs and the "Rights & Access" section at the Library of Congress website states "The books in this collection are in the public domain and are free to use and reuse." And LoC makes them fully available online. For all book copies that are from that public domain LoC collection, can't we just trust the LoC? (I'm not speaking of other material that is not from that collection.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to undertake some review of works in the relevant category? which is basically using the Catalog Of Copyright Entries (i think Stanford had a search tool) to check for 'active' renewals? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I would agree wholeheartededly that the LoC IS a trustable source, there have been instances in respect of uploads from other GLAM entites where works with active renewals appeared in collections that where nominally otherwise of non-renewed or expired works. Commons may be over cautious. but it's better for the benefit of re-users, to be sure there are not active renewals. None of the remaining LoC/unchecked files have been deleted as far as i can tell. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are always going to be some mistakes made, but if the vast majority are fine, then lack of checking is no reason to mass delete all of them. We don't check all of the own-work claims either, but when we find issues, we nominate those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with some of the files isn't that they aren't compatible with Commons, indeed a vast majority of them are, it's the upload process wasn;t robust enough in some situations the IA metadata was lacking or inaccurate. For a very small proportion of these, I had updated the meta-data based on the works themselves. 18:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The LoC (and other US institutions like NARA) might be trustworthy, but only as far as US copyright is concerned. I don't think they care about UK, Canadian, German or French or essentially any non-US copyright laws. So anything they say regarding works that were not (only) published in the US should be viewed with caution. --Rosenzweig τ 19:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=22472855 These are items flagged as being in LoC collections that might be incorrectly licensed as PD-USGov...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mehr[edit]

{{Mehr}} states This is a file from the Mehrnews.com website, which states in its footer, "All Content by Mehr News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." But apparently not every image by Mehr is ok, because File:Farzad Hosseinkhani.jpg was nominated for deletion (and subsequently deleted) in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Farzad Hosseinkhani.jpg with the rationale = received, not taken by Mehr photographers.

As a result, we now have several open deletion requests from February 9, see [3], with the same rationale Received, not taken by Mehr photographer.

In these deletion requests, several users argue that It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers). or similar. The nominator replies that he had thought the same, until Commons:Deletion requests/File:Farzad Hosseinkhani.jpg happened.

So what is the deal with files from the Mehr agency? When are they ok, when not? The template does not tell us more than I quoted at the beginning. Pinging @Hanooz, 4nn1l2, Maometto97, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), HeminKurdistan, and M.nelson: as the users who were involved so far. --Rosenzweig τ 17:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I must say that I think the word "Received" here means that the photographer of this photo is not employed by Mehr News Agency, but took it and sent it exclusively for Mehr News Agency. (This trick seems to be used by photographers who live in smaller towns and cover less newsworthy events.) As a result, in my opinion, this cannot affect the copyright of Mehr News Agency and these files were licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
But another important point is that some of these images (like Farzad Hosseinkhani's case) have the photographer's name in the photo watermark, but in cases such as the recent cases, the photo simply says "Received" and I think more sensitivity should be applied to the second type. --Maometto97 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleted image should be restored, there was no debate. The only person responding to deletion was arguing for keeping. Generally we accept the authority of corporations to release images and text under a license, and assume they are legally sound, and have been vetted by corporate lawyers. The images, which contain the name of the photographer in the camera metadata, should be assumed to be released under the same license until proven otherwise. All my non-iPhone digital cameras have my name in the metadata, and so do any I edit in Photoshop, even when I am taking images as an employee. Should the website change their license information to exclude images, then we can delete, if the license is no longer compatible. --RAN (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Template:Tasnim please. These are similar and should be treated the same way. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tasnim template has additional wording though that is not present in the Mehr template. Why? --Rosenzweig τ 22:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of copyright of the soundtrack on File:Deliverance.webm[edit]

This film was originally made in 1919, so it's definitely in the public domain in the United States (due to being released before 1927). However, the movie's file on Commons has a soundtrack, which was almost certainly added in later. My initial thought was to reupload the video without the soundtrack, but then I realized that the film was originally uploaded from the Library of Congress- so would that make the film's soundtrack PD-USGov? Lizardcreator (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very end of the video, the music is credited to Stephen Horne. He doesn't appear to be a US government employee, so {{PD-USGov}} doesn't seem to apply unless there was a written work-for-hire agreement. Without evidence of such an agreement, or a release of the music under a free license, I think the soundtrack needs to be removed. Toohool (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Soundtrack removed. —Racconish 06:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for original work[edit]

Hello! I'm amid a Featured Article nomination, and one reviewer asked me to add tag for original work to several of the images. Where can I find those? Thanks. Amir Ghandi (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=675059602"