Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


On Italian FOP - cases and status

It seems to me that there are discrepancies regarding Italian FOP. Despite the accepted consensus that there is no freedom of panorama of any sort in Italy, the case I started, Commons:Deletion requests/File:2013-06-15 Roma Stazione FS Tiburtina.jpg, was closed as kept because the closing admin claimed the station lacked creativity and that there is a purported list of protected buildings in Italy by MiBAC. This is a stark contrast to an older case page, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Roma Tiburtina train station. It seems analogous to the case of Rome's Jubilee Church, in which the relevant case pages were variously closed as either deleted or kept. An older DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chiesa dio padre misericordioso roma.JPG, was closed as deleted, while the newer Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chiesa di Dio Padre Misericordioso was closed as kept. This issue even extended to the undeletion requests (where my attempt to restore the deleted Jubilee Church photo failed). Hence I see a lot of discrepancies surrounding the Italian FOP cases, and more so, the Italian FOP situation. I am tempted to restart the deletion request for Tiburtina Station (as I doubt the building as a "protected work by virtue of MiBAC"; the protected work status is supposedly for public domain works anyway according to COM:FOP Italy), but I will leave that nomination to other users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: Please don't restart recently closed DRs! It could be seen as an edit war. In Italy the ToO is very high, meaning that a work, in order to be copyrightable, has to clearly show some creative aspects (this is aplied to photography, for instance, where "simple photographs" have a limited protection). Italian copyright law on architectural works protects the blueprints, of course, but it is not clear how it applies on the representation of the exterior of a building by a mean different from architecture (e.g. painting of photography). The Ministry explicitly protects only the architecture, in the sense that a building in the protected list (which is published and maintained regularly) cannot be modified without a permission, because it is considered important artistic character. All the other buildings can be altered without permission, simply because their aspect is not protected.
In Italy FOP is strict about artworks (e.g. statues), but there are no court cases about architecture. Adopting the list of protected modern buildings from the Ministry is the only official way to consider a building as architecturally creative, all other forms of judging are purely subjective (e.g. an admin's advice). I can understand that this point of view is very close to the ouput we have from the institutions on the matter, but, again, is the only rational way to judge an architectural work in Italy. (for a more detailed review on the matter - a work in progress - you can read this essay) --Ruthven (msg) 10:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven: are there any legal or official documents and/or sources or any other material that state there is de facto FOP in Italy for buildings? (This seems analogous to the Argentine FOP in which even their copyright law has no FOP provisions but a scholarly work of an attorney and legal resources there confirmed the de facto existence of Argentine FOP for buildings only). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether someting is creative or not creative is the main point: if a buliding is architecturally creative, it is in the important buildings list of the Ministry of Culture and it is protected; if it's not in the list, it is not protected because it is not considered creative. For the same principle, if a photograph is not creative, and it is only a documentation of reality, it is protected by law only for 20 years, and afterwards it is PD. --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: As far as I know, the only official pronunciation by the Italian government about panorama freedom is this (we have it on Wikisource!). It was a 2008 parliamentary question. The most important sentence says: "In Italy, since there is no specific discipline, it must be considered lawful and therefore possible to freely photograph all the visible works, from the new building of the Ara Pacis to the Colosseum, for any purpose, including commercial, unless, by modifying or altering the subject, you do not come to offend its decorum and the values it expresses." The following text of the same document suggests (IMHO) that you can upload an image with a free license into Commons and use it on Wikimedia projects, but the eventual reuser of the same images in a differents commercial context (such as, a commercial book printed in a high number of copies) will be required to pay. This does not invalidate the free license of the photo, because it doesn't refer to copyright, but other different laws about the heritage (laws usually applied to the preservation of ancient, non-copyrighted national heritage). --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marco Chemello (WMIT): it seems to be a positive finding. Are there any more documents or any similar writings? This may mean that Italy has de facto FOP for buildings, if the restrictions indicated are COM:Non-copyright restrictions (because as you say even p.d. works like Colosseum, and I assume the Leaning Tower and the Renaissance-era cathedrals of Florence and Venice have restrictions on commercial use on cultural heritage grounds, similar to MiBAC case). I can see the sister of Argentine FOP in Europe, the Italian FOP (if ever), because even Argentina has no FOP provisions, but an official and legal interpretation has made FOP for architecture in Argentina possible. Pinging @Jeff G., Liuxinyu970226, and Clindberg: for this important finding by Marco Chemello :-) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marco Chemello (WMIT) and JWilz12345: This makes photos of protected ALL Italian architecture unfree for use in derogatory commercial derivative works, meaning that we can't host them.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: No, of course. ;) It means that SOME kinds of commercial use of SOME images outside Wikimedia projects may require IN SOME CASES a further authorization (or in other cases a simple and free communication), not that ALL commercial uses are forbidden. It may sound strange, but this does not impact on the Creative Commons License, as the legal code of the license includes explicitly this possibility. In other terms, Wikimedia users are safe. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marco Chemello (WMIT): For argument's sake, let's say I were in the business of digging steel & concrete foundation posts that went all the way down to bedrock, starting in the sands of Italy. I saw a 60 Minutes piece that mentioned such a company in California. Would I be legally allowed to advertise it with a photo of the leaning tower of Pisa and an overlay of text reading the Italian equivalent of "Don't let this happen to your building, use Jeff's Bedrock Foundation Posts"? What if my company expanded outside Italy?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: The question is more on the "moral" side (like in the French copyright law for instance, or in the Korda's case, or for the moral rights in the Creative Commons licenses). You can use the leaning tower of Pisa to advertise your company in that way (to be leaning is not an insult), but you probably cannot do it if you use the image of Pisa to promote/illustrate robbery (which is amoral).
@JWilz12345: This kind of no-copyright protection is already present and used here on Commons for Italian artworks, e.g. {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}, where commercial publications in Italy of Italian heritage need a permission from the Ministry. For the rest, I agree that Italy has de facto FOP for those utilitarian buildings that are not recognized as deserving special protection from the Ministry (but no for artworks in the public space, as they are creative work almost by definition). Ruthven (msg) 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven: in your sense, the restrictions are related to moral rights (non-copyright matter). Inferring from you and Marco Chemello (WMIT)'s inputs, there may be de facto FOP in Italy for buildings, but for those with special architecture a tag {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} is to be used. Then, for all other architecture (those with no creative properties), full de facto FOP? Note that various Italian architecture include Colosseum and Leaning Tower of Pisa (those that are supposed to be public domain), and Jubilee Church of Rome, Tiburtina Station, and Torre Garibaldi (a notable Milan skyscraper). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. The fact is that artworks (architectural works included) cannot be used in Italy in such a way that their use might result as defamatory or however as a detriment to the honour and reputation of the work and/or the author. This is a general rule, it also regards any correctly licensed work. Yes, the reason for this is the protection granted to the moral rights, which are independent from the economical ones, live a completely autonomous life and - expressly - cannot be extinguished (oddly enough, not even in the case the author in person would withdraw himself from them).
The best known case was about Michelangelo's David (this one) which was used to advertise weapons, and for some poorly tasted popular shots (Katy Perry); we unsuccessfully discussed this subject with the Minister's staff and the Director of the Accademia that hosts the statue, in Rome, at Villa Giulia, in a 2017 WLM event. As said, this has nothing to do with the "ordinary" management of economical rights, and literally any work, even if its author releases it in CC0, is subject to the same limitation.
Apart from this, Ruthven is right and correct in describing how it goes, I would only add that we directly confronted about FOP with Italian MPs in 2015, in a public debate at the Parliament (there we were): the outcome was that most political parties soon after ordered their respective Italian Euro-MPs to actually vote in favour of our indications in the first moves of what would have become the European copyright battle. Within that Roman discussion, no one could provide us reasonable counter-arguments about FOP per se. So FOP in Italy essentially is limited only by a debatable provision that requires the Ministry's authorization only for those architectural works which are specially protected (and expressely listed as such).
I do believe that we should soon start considering a new discussion with the Italian institutions about what is in the list, and the same reasons for a list; in the meanwhile, apart from the list, no rights seem to be hit and rules infringed for all those uses that don't constitute an insult to the author or the work. It's not our job to prevent final users from insulting; rather, our mission is to sell pillows, which is a fully legitimate commerce even if there is a high probability that someone sooner or later will be suffocated with one of our pillows. We sell good stuff, indeed, . Let's respect the list, now, but let's also re-organize our public proposals. --g (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gianfranco: if I may interpret you (correct me if I'm wrong), per Ruthven and Marco Chemello's inputs, there is de facto FOP for Italian architecture (analogous to Argentine FOP for buildings which was made possible by legal or official interpretation despite having no FOP in their copyright law whatsoever), and those buildings on the list should be tagged with {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} (it is irrelevant if it is the millennia-old Colosseum that is supposed to be public domain, or the decade-old Jubilee Church), while all other buildings regular license tags apply (apart from, {{FoP-Italy}}[?]). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Almost right. All the buildings protected by the MiBAC ministry should have the template (which supersedes {{Soprintendenza}}). On one side you have historical architectural heritage buildings for which the template was created (e.g. Tower of Pisa, Colosseum), on the other side you have the recent buildings for which the architect's rights could still hold, but which protection is recognized only if they have "important artistic character" (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, art. 11 co. 1.e). This recognition is made through the Directorate-General for Contemporary Art and Architecture and Urban Peripheries (DGAAP), a commission that evaluates the requests for protection and publishes the updated list of protected contemporary architecture. For these buildings on the list, we applied so far the FOP on Commons by deleting the photos. All the other Italian contemporary buildings are not recognized for special protection by the MiBAC. --Ruthven (msg) 06:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven: for some reason the link you provided doesn't work (is it dead link or was it just my phone's browser?) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Try open it from laptop or PC, it works for me. Unfortunately, the motivations on the list are in Italian, but the list is what matters here, and it's easily readable. FWIW, I can totally confirm Ruthven's and Gianfranco's positions - full disclosure: I was on WMIT's board from 2014 to 2017, and from 2018 on I'm taking care of Wiki Loves Monuments Italy, so I was there when we were bargaining with the Ministry about FOP. Sannita (WMIT) (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMIT): I have no laptop or PC. Sorry. And too bad I cannot read Italian :-( BTW, two unrelated questions: is FOP one of the priorities of Wikimedia Italy? And are there any plans in the Italian government to introduce explicit FOP provision in your country's copyright law (at least for buildings only)? While Marco Chemello (WMIT)'s finding (a statement during the parliamentary discourse) may be a welcoming development (and may change Italy's standing here in Commons from "red countries" to "yellow countries", analogous to Argentine FOP), I find better if there's an explicit provision in your copyright law. Personally, I pity the no FOP status of Italy (under Wikimedia Commons' interpretation) whenever I look this FOP world map, and causes me to ponder when will FOP be officially introduced in this famous and culturally-rich country (at least for buildings only, if outdoor 3D works like sculptures is not yet OK for the country's government officials and relevant agencies). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackcat, JWilz12345, and Ruthven: Note that there's also {{WLM-Italy-disclaimer}} available, which isn't mentioned in the COM:FOP Italy section, and even undocumented. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: Never seen it! :) But I can understand what it is/means. Made by Sannita (WMIT), it should be used for those works that have a permission for WML, so to avoid counterproductive DRs (as it often happens). The main issue here is that such permissions are hosted and made available by WMI (the Italian chapter), and not by OTRS/Znuny. New users are often confused in not seeing the usual "Permission" template. Ruthven (msg) 09:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reformulating the FOP Italy section on the model of the Argentinian one is a really good solution. --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven: I'm leaning towards considering Italy as having de facto FOP for buildings only (analogous to Argentine FOP). However, more insights may be needed from several users: @A1Cafel, Ankry, Yann, Nat, Ox1997cow, David Wadie Fisher-Freberg, and Aymatth2: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mention also @MGA73 and Taivo: for some opinion about the outcome of the discussion, that Italy has de facto FOP for buildings only, as much as Argentina has de facto FOP for buildings (but for Italy, through a 2008 statement from the parliament, which I mentioned again below after being mentioned by Wikimedia Italy's User:Marco Chemello above). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am fine with JWilz12345's proposition. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Had you read Italian copyright rules? Read it carefully and judge whether or not FoP. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: for some reason your mentioning didn't work (again? ☹) . Anyway, Italy's copyright law has no mention of FOP whatsoever, but a recent finding by Marco Chemello (WMIT) of Wikimedia Italy has generated a major breakthrough. This one, a 2008 official pronouncement from the Italian parliament, includes a statement that reads (translated by Italian Wikipedians) "In Italy, since there is no specific discipline, it must be considered lawful and therefore possible to freely photograph all the visible works, from the new building of the Ara Pacis to the Colosseum, for any purpose, including commercial, unless, by modifying or altering the subject, you do not come to offend its decorum and the values it expresses." The specific "restriction" here, according to Italian Wikipedians who commented here, is a form of restriction of moral rights which even exists in various public domain works in Europe and in the Americas (like the Korda's case from Cuba), which is not related to copyright whatsoever. Accordingly, as long as moral rights are respected when making modifications of such images, it is free to photograph Italian buildings from ancient to modern ones, for any purposes, including commercial purposes. The same moral rights restrictions exist for all public domain architecture of Italy, which also includes all Vatican buildings (St. Peter's Basilica, Sistine Chapel, etc..) I see this de facto Italian FOP similar to the Argentine FOP. Argentina too has no FOP provision in their copyright law, but a published legal study from the 1990s state that it is free to photograph buildings there for any intents, without the need to seek permission. I find both Argentine and Italian FOP situation for architecture very similar to each other. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: If Italian FoP is applied for buildings only, we will make {{FoP-Italy}}. And {{NoFoP-Italy}} will be changed like {{NoFoP-Japan}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: Hi, maybe you should read again the whole discussion, because it is the other way around, and nothing to do with {{NoFoP-Japan}}. We should make a template on the model of {{FoP-Argentina}} wrt recent buildings, specifying that there is a local protection for cultural heritage artistic works (and no FoP for artworks). The latter is is already taken care by {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}. Ruthven (msg) 08:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven: I think Ox1997cow meant that if the {{FoP-Italy}} is made (on model to Argentine FoP), the {{NoFoP-Italy}} will might be transformed into a category only template just like Japan's no FoP template. Or, will it be retained as a file namespace template for non-architecture artworks, similar to Russia's no FoP template? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Yes. I told about that. There is currently a discussion on {{NoFoP-Russia}}. It would be good to refer to it together. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Through some examples, I think Italy has very high bar on threshold of originality, in which even complex buildings are not copyrighted. However, I'm not sure if it's related to FOP. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

I separated this into another subsection as this has become too long. With inputs above about the high bar of TOO in Italy, perhaps it can be accepted that Italy has a high bar of TOO for architecture. COM:FOP Italy may need to be modified. But it does not in any way change Italy's FOP status (my answer to Ox1997cow's input.

  • For the FOP, however, after translating the whole Parliamentary reply just recently, it appears it doesn't suit Commons' conditions, because of one strange and disappointing thing (see the quote and the Google translated version in the collapsible box).
Parliamentary reply, original Italian

OGGETTO: Interrogazione parlamentare n. 4-05031

In merito all’opportunità di introdurre nel nostro ordinamento giuridico l’istituto del "panorama freedom" per consentire ai gestori di siti internet privati la pubblicazione di immagini di opere d’arte contemporanee e non, al fine di favorire ed accrescere in Italia ed all’estero la conoscenza del nostro patrimonio culturale, occorre procedere ad alcune precisazioni preliminari.

Pur non essendo espressamente disciplinata nel nostro ordinamento, la libertà di panorama ossia il diritto spettante a chiunque di fotografare soggetti visibili, in particolare monumenti ed opere dell’architettura contemporanea, è riconosciuta in Italia per il noto principio secondo il quale il comportamento che non è vietato da una norma deve considerarsi lecito.

In altre legislazioni, invece, tale diritto è disciplinato diversamente a seconda dell’interesse che si ritiene di tutelare prevalentemente (si pensi, ad esempio, alla legislazione belga ed a quella olandese che consentono di fotografare liberamente solo gli edifici mentre è necessaria la richiesta di un permesso per le sculture ove costituiscano il soggetto principale della fotografia; oppure a quella tedesca secondo cui è possibile invece fotografare anche le sculture pubblicamente visibili per usi commerciali; infine a quella statunitense che, similmente a quella italiana consente di poter utilizzare le fotografie scattate in luoghi pubblici o aperti al pubblico per qualunque scopo, salvo che si tratti di opere d’arte non stabilmente installate in un luogo pubblico poiché in tal caso è necessaria l’autorizzazione del titolare).

In Italia, non essendo prevista una disciplina specifica, deve ritenersi lecito e quindi possibile fotografare liberamente tutte le opere visibili, dal nuovo edificio dell’Ara Pacis al Colosseo, per qualunque scopo anche commerciale salvo che, modificando o alterando il soggetto, non si arrivi ad offenderne il decoro ed i valori che esso esprime.

Per quanto attiene alla tematica del pagamento dei diritti agli autori delle opere contemporanee, si evidenzia che l’art. 2 della legge 9 gennaio 2008, n. 2 (in G.U. serie generale n. 21 del 25 gennaio 2008) ha modificato l’articolo 70 della legge sul diritto d’autore ampliando il regime delle esenzioni. In particolare, è consentita la libera pubblicazione attraverso la rete internet, a titolo gratuito, di immagini e musiche a bassa risoluzione o degradate, per uso didattico o scientifico e solo nel caso in cui tale utilizzo non sia a scopo di lucro.

Pertanto, ove il soggetto fotografato fosse un’ opera di autore vivente, l’utilizzo non potrà avvenire che nei limiti anzidetti. Il problema chiaramente non riguarda le opere considerate beni culturali, ossia aventi più di cinquant’anni e di interesse culturale che si trovano in consegna nei musei o negli altri luoghi della cultura, le quali possono essere riprodotte ai sensi e con i limiti previsti dagli art. 107 e 108 del Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio (autorizzazione da parte dell’amministrazione consegnataria e pagamento di un canone, salvo che la riproduzione non sia chiesta per scopi personali o didattici e non commerciali).

IL SOTTOSEGRETARIO DI STATO

On. Danielle Mazzonis.

Translated (rough translation via Google Translate)

SUBJECT: Parliamentary Question no. 4-05031

Regarding the opportunity to introduce the "panorama freedom" institution in our legal system to allow the managers of private websites to publish images of contemporary and non-contemporary works of art, in order to encourage and increase in Italy and foreign knowledge of our cultural heritage, it is necessary to proceed with some preliminary clarifications.

Although not expressly regulated in our legal system, the freedom of panorama, that is the right of anyone to photograph visible subjects, in particular monuments and works of contemporary architecture, is recognized in Italy for the well-known principle according to which behavior that is not prohibited by a rule must be considered lawful.

In other legislations, however, this right is regulated differently depending on the interest that it is believed to protect mainly (think, for example, of the Belgian and Dutch legislation that allow you to photograph freely only the buildings while the request for a permit for sculptures where they are the main subject of the photograph; or to the German one according to which it is possible to photograph sculptures publicly visible for commercial use; finally to the US one which, similar to the Italian one, allows you to use the photographs taken in public places or places open to the public for any purpose, except in the case of works of art not permanently installed in a public place since in this case the authorization of the owner is required).

In Italy, since there is no specific discipline, it must be considered lawful and therefore possible to freely photograph all the visible works, from the new building of the Ara Pacis to the Colosseum, for any purpose, including commercial, unless, by modifying or altering the subject, you do not arrive to offend its decorum and the values ​​it expresses.

As regards the issue of the payment of rights to the authors of contemporary works, it should be noted that art. 2 of the law 9 January 2008, n. 2 (in the Official Gazette General Series No. 21 of 25 January 2008) amended Article 70 of the copyright law by expanding the exemption regime. In particular, the free publication through the internet, free of charge, of low resolution or degraded images and music, for educational or scientific use and only if such use is not for profit.

Therefore, if the photographed subject is a work of a living author, it can only be used within the aforementioned limits. The problem clearly does not concern the works considered cultural heritage, that is, having more than fifty years and of cultural interest that are delivered in museums or other places of culture, which can be reproduced pursuant to and within the limits provided for by art. . 107 and 108 of the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code (authorization by the consignee administration and payment of a fee, unless reproduction is requested for personal or educational and non-commercial purposes).

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE

Hon. Danielle Mazzonis.

While I may agree that Italy may have de facto commercial FOP for buildings, I need additional responses from Wikimedians from Italy on what I call "resolution restrictons" ("of low resolution or degraded images..."). This seems to contradict the previous paragraph which states all Italian architecture can be photographed freely for any purposes, including commercial exploitations. Pinging @Marco Chemello (WMIT) and Ruthven: , what are the "of low resolution or degraded images" condition for? Is it for other works of art only, or extends to architecture too? Also pinging @Ox1997cow, Jeff G., and Nat: to analyze this Parliamentary response. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: I think kept photos are due to high threshold of originality in Italy. It's not related freedom of panorama. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: The "low resolution or degraded" condition allows to freely distribute copies of original copyrighted works (such as a music or a painting) for non-commercial purposes and was originally approved to facilitate the spreading on the web by anyone with no permission from the original authors. I think this doesn't apply to buildings, as a photo of a building is not a "copy" of the building. So I think it only applies to bi-dimensional artworks or music. Consider also that any jpeg image is "degraded" because the jpeg compression is lossy, and that there is still no further explanation from the Italian Parliament or government of what exactly means "low resolution" or even "degraded". The original proposer of the law - that I met in person many years ago, before the law - said that it simply means "with a lower quality than the original" [1]. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To go into more detail on this part, I opened a related discussion in Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Italy. It would be better if you participate together. Ox1997cow (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the deletion of banknotes and sculptures different between SK and UK?

Photos of sculptures of SK are deleted, but photos of sculptures of UK are kept.

Conversely, photos of banknotes of SK are kept, but photoes of banknotes of UK are deleted.

Why do these differences occur?

2001:2D8:E516:E87A:0:0:301:483D 18:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this section, SK means South Korea, not Slovakia. 2001:2D8:E515:75C7:0:0:514:C83D 18:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @2001:2D8:E515:75C7:0:0:514:C83D: see Commons:CRT/United Kingdom and Commons:CRT/South Korea, under sections "Currency" and "Freedom of panorama". Someone will address your question on banknotes; for the sculptures these are typically artworks that are eligible for copyright protection in all countries, if the sculptors are either still alive or dead recently (in most countries deceased for 70 years or less). Commons doesn't accept images showing copyrighted sculptures (even publicly-situated monuments), unless there is a freedom of panorama, suitable for Commons, that allows free reproductions and publications of freely-licensed images of sculptures. UK has that provision in their copyright law, but sadly SoKor has none. Technically SoKor has FOP but limited only to noncommercial uses of such images, which is incompatible with Commons:Licensing. The pillar of licensing policy is that media licensed under noncommercial licensing is unacceptable. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding banknotes, there are two possible answers. One is that the Bank of England's conditions for reproducing banknotes[2] are stricter than those of the Bank of Korea[3], and that puts them on opposite sides of the boundary of what's acceptable on Commons. Another possibility is that our documentation is wrong and either South Korean banknotes should not be allowed or UK ones should be allowed. Personally, I think the list of forbidden kinds of advertising in the Korean restrictions are enough to make them non-free, falling within the "Political" group of restriction that are not permissible on https://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions. --bjh21 (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjh21: An example of authors' moral rights is this: I worked hard to draw a pretty school girl character. I have released this character for use under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. However, someone is using this character for inappropriate purposes, such as using it for pornography. In this situation, no matter how freely licensed I distribute it, I can respond with author's moral rights. This is also stated in the Bern Convention. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish radio recording

Hello, I have a recording which comes from Swedish national radio from a program that was broadcast in July 1935. The person speaking in the recording died in 1938. In Sweden this would be in public domain as it is older than 70 years. I wrote to Sveriges Radio (SR), and they confirmed this (they said that recordings older than 50 years are free to use). Since audio recordings often seem to be special cases, I wanted to ask here before uploading whether it would also be free in the US. --Lundgren8 (t · c) 13:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#General_rules its copyright term in USA is 100 years after publication. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UN SDG logos and icons

Currently, the images in Category:Sustainable Development Goals English icons are tagged with Template:PD-UN-doc. Given they are not text documents, this does not feel correct. Further, there are UN guidelines about their use, including the need for permission for certain uses, which suggests they are not in the public domain. Are these images useable on commons, and if so, what would the correct licence be? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The death of a 'juristic person'

I've built a new article for the german wikipedia (Splash_(Musikgruppe)) and rebuilt the as 'stub' marked english version (Splash_(German_band)). Not clear is, how to arrange the copyright situation of the promo picture of this band . The groups existence ended with their label WEA - WEA was not adopted to Warner Music - they only adopted the companies structure, as officials say. Within this, there doesn't exist any copyright anymore, but I don't know, how to declare this within Wikimedia Commons. As my discussions show, there seems not to be a clear 'official' information background for the major differentiation of a living and juristic person, within the case of copyright (regular humans knowledge) and I don't know, how far this is made clear by law. I need help to get a clear state about this and how to arrange this within Wikimedia.
(Splash_(Musikgruppe).jpg)
--Jörg Lenau (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are referring to an orphan work. Orphan works are still protected by copyright, even if the original rights holders no longer exist or are untraceable. Yes, it is ridiculous, but so is most of copyright law. Kaldari (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Escritura cortesana samples

Hi, I'd like to create an article about escritura cortesana (court script) and I would like to know if these samples of ancient writing can be uploaded to commons:

  1. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Dokument_Katholische_K%C3%B6nige_1501.jpeg
  2. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Cortesana_procesal_Buchstaben.gif
  3. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:A_cortesana.jpg
  4. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:B_cortesana.jpg
  5. ...rest of these letters [4]
  6. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Abk%C3%BCrzungen_cortesana.jpg

The first is a monochrome copy of an ancient letter which i presume is PD-old. The others seems to be scans of a book, but within that book they are copied from ancient documents so not sure if that material can be copyrighted. Thanks for your help.--Serg!o (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serg!o:
  1. Yes, for sure; it is PD-scan.
The rest: I do not know, but I would lean towards yes, because it does not meet the TOO (those are just letters). Veverve (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to upload South Korean cheques?

I coincidentally have a South Korean cheque.

I want to upload a South Korean cheque for explaining.

However, South Korean cheques are copyrighted by Korea Federation of Banks.

I entered website of Korea Federation of Banks, but I didn't find terms of use of South Korean cheques.

Is it OK to upload South Korean cheques?

For reference, banknotes and coins of South Korea are copyrighted by the Bank of Korea, and for uploading availability, please refer to COM:CUR SK.

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you know that cheques are copyrighted, and you can't find the terms, then you'd better assume that they're copyrighted "all rights reserved", or anyway you can't assume that they're copyleft. So no, it's not OK to upload images of them. -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: Oh, I see. It's OK to upload banknotes and coins of South Korea, but it's not OK to upload cheques of South Korea. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IS THIS simple enough iranian app icon? https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%BE%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87:Logoshad.jpg Baratiiman (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baratiiman. It seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the United States per COM:TOO United States, but the copyright laws of the country of origin (which I'm assuming is Iran) also need to be taken into account. According to COM:TOO Iran, the threshold for originality (TOO) in Iran seems to be quite low and thus most logos are not OK to upload to Commons. So, if the Iranian TOO is anything close to COM:TOO United Kingdom, then this probably shouldn't be uploaded to Commons. Perhaps someone else more familiar with Iranian copyright law will clarify things, but it will need to be {{PD-logo}} in both the US and Iran for it to be OK to upload to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valinor map

The file Valinor.jpg has been shared by User:Saggittarius A under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, in which he states to be the original creator and copyright holder. However, this fictional map is a derivation of one I made in October 2000, which has since been made public at Tolkien Gateway under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. For context, I used to edit tolkienion.com and tolkien-maps.com, which have been out of mainetenance for 15 years now. While I do not mind the usage of something I made, I am concerned about someone claiming sole authorship. What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cush (talk • contribs) 08:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cush: The uploader has recent contributions. IMHO, you should contact the uploader on his talk page and settle this amiably with him. If he admits that the file is derived from your map, tell him how you want to be credited and what free license (other than GFDL) you offer. Although not necessary, it might be a good idea to consider adding the same free license to your map on tolkiengateway. If you accept to offer a free license and the uploader accepts your conditions, problem solved. If you refuse to offer a free license or if the uploader refuses your conditions, then there's a problem and the file can be nominated for deletion from Commons. Do you have anything to say about File:Numenor.jpg and File:Terra di Mezzo.jpg? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cush: It's true that from your image I took (precisely) the profile of the coast and (less precise) the mountain range. However, there are also differences, as in the small central island. I can make changes to the image and remove the similarity, or indicate your name in the summary. On the other two maps there is no doubt because they are better known territories and there are many maps all the same. Valinor's geography is little known and i needed to see on the web. -- Saggittarius A (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of discussion, I visited this site to check the status of the banknote copyright in UK.

This phrase was written at the top of the site.

"We allow you to use images of our banknotes if you comply with our reproduction conditions."

I have confirmed on this site that the copyright rules for British banknotes have changed in 2019.

Will the changed rules allow UK banknotes to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons?

If so, what are the current copyright rules for British coins?

Ox1997cow (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, It seems that the inappropriate or novelty reproductions clause appears to correspond to COM:NCR#Authors' moral rights. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pajz, Verbcatcher, ShakespeareFan00, Bjh21, Ameisenigel, Wehwalt, and DemonDays64: What do we think about their situation? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the limitations in the reproductions conditions is incompatible with Commons' requirement for allowing commercial use of the work: "You must not produce or use images of our notes in a way that we consider offensive, inappropriate or that undermines the integrity of the currency. This includes reproductions that: [...]" I don't think we can discount this as 'authors' moral rights'. The limited permission given by the Bank of England only applies to banknotes, UK coins are the responsibility of the Royal Mint. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: My opinion is different. Since banknotes are the core works of certain countries, I believe that moral rights are strongly applied. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, they look like personal rights or trademarks laws. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: Authors' moral rights allow (for example) an author to object to some uses of a work, outside of the framework of economic rights, and does not require an associated licence clause. In this case the Bank of England's reproduction rules require users to meet the specified conditions. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: However, these terms of use often include non-copyright restrictions as well. This is because even if there is no problem with copyright, there may be problems elsewhere. Ox1997cow (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, this is straddling the lines. I have no doubt that we can host the images they provide, and many others, without breaking their conditions. The question is if they are "free" or not. If the only rights they will use to enforce are moral rights or counterfeiting laws, then you know they are non-copyright restrictions, and the boundaries of what they can enforce. If they are also going to use copyright to enforce their terms though, which they explicitly note they could, then it could be an entirely different matter. They do not allow use of any "inappropriate" uses, with the determination of "inappropriate" being their "sole opinion". So they do not have to prove inappropriate to anyone else -- if they feel it is inappropriate, then you could be automatically committing a copyright violation. That in a way is almost a revocable license, and there is no way terms like that would ever be considered "free" in a normal context. The stated goals of their rules are somewhat in line with preserving integrity, i.e. moral rights stuff and in the interests of currency-specific concerns, but ... if they will use copyright to enforce their view of things, it's probably quite different. They disallow putting someone else's face on a bill -- that would normally be well within derivative work possibilities of a "free" work, and also normally outside of moral rights if it's a clear modification. I can see the currency-based or even trademark-based restriction in that you don't want to possibly confuse users that it might be real currency, but if they use copyright to enforce that restriction, then there is a "free" problem. Similarly, they don't allow any modifications along those lines they feel are "disrespectful", which can go beyond moral rights as well (which are usually limited to cases which are prejudicial to the author themselves). Those type of terms in a copyright license would absolutely be non-free. So it's a bit hard for me to see through to calling these "free", unless they disclaim using copyright to enforce them, where the opposite appears to be true. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carl, we should not be hosting photos of British banknotes.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg and Jeff G.: I read the page carefully, and there was the word "infringe copyright" in the section of the article in question. In view of this, it seems that the restrictions on British currency are not non-copyright restrictions. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which license do I use?

I wish to upload a copyrighted logo file [5] which I plan on using only once in the infobox of the relevant awards page to help readers identify it. I'm not sure what license to use so the file doesn't get deleted. Alexataylor07 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You upload it to English Wikipedia under en:Wikipedia:Fair use rules. Ruslik (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go to English Wiki- on the left bar -Chose upload file. A wizard opens, you click the big button- and follow the questions. The tricky one is at the end ´How are you ensuring the file is minimal' Reply 'Encased in a single infobox'. It seems to be sufficient. I call each logo file 'Fair use logo organisation name.png' but do keep them small- it is checked. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexataylor07 and ClemRutter: Hi, and welcome. Small as in under 100,000 pixels (0.1 megapixels). Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload svg or jpg versions, too.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are election ballots subject to copyright?

Hello. I had a discussion on wikipedia years ago which had an user assure me that ballots used in election or referendum were in the public domain. It's been quite some time since then so I'm unable to find it back, but I remember asking it because the ballot had the photos of the candidates for the second round of the tunisian presidential election, and I had been enquiring if we could use them. I do recall that the answer I had been given was that the ballots were by definition somewhat in the public domain, but only if reproduced exactly as they were, so you couldn't cut out the photo out and publish it separately. I didn't end up doing that, but ever since then I have been thinking ballots could be posted on here. Now, there's been this discussion, and I find myself not knowing how to prove it, nor even be so sure of it anymore. Do anyone here know the answer to that specific problem? I tried searching for "Ballot" in the FAQ but it came out empty. --Aréat (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment - The copyright status of election ballots varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some countries, they may be copyrighted. If the ballot is entirely designed or produced by the government in a jurisdiction where governments works are PD, the ballot may be PD. Generally, ballots are protected by other non-copyright restrictions regardless of whether they are PD or not. T CellsTalk 20:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status (ie Public Domain or otherwise) of the of images produced by the state of Michigan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain_status_of_official_US_government_works#U.S._State_governments

The licence template "PD-MIGov" is not active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geodeakgol (talk • contribs) 02:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geodeakgol: Hi, and welcome. They are nonfree. Please see COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Val Valentino.jpg

File of concern: File:Val Valentino.jpg. Is the purported statement of permission at File talk:Val Valentino.jpg sufficient, or not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: No, an OTRS is needed. Also, on the conversation on the talk page, the actor released the image under GFDL, but did he have the rights to? Veverve (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done adding no permission warning tag (also to its derivative File:Val Valentino (cropped).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note an admin reverted my tagging of that warning tag, so now I commenced a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Val Valentino.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Vatican II Ordo missaes and others

@Snaevar: , @Jmabel: , @HyperGaruda: , @Jeff G.: after this discussion, I decided to dig further into the images of Catholic Ordo Missae. I have found several of those which were published after 1965:

As well as some with no date given: File:Lectionarium Missae cum Ordo Missae Coreanorum.jpg (also contains a lectionary) and File:Missale Romanum 01.JPG
Do you think those should be nominated for deletion? I believe they do, because the post-Vatican II missals and lectionaries are quite different from the pre-Vatican II ones. The drawings are also very likely copyrighted. Pinging the authors of the pictures : @U2em: , @Patnac: . Veverve (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Support a DR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:1800Shakey's Pizza in the Philippines 17.jpg

Is File:1800Shakey's Pizza in the Philippines 17.jpg a COM:DW/COM:PACKAGING problem or not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading an image that I have permission for?

I find the image upload process confusing. I wish to upload an image to a page (the page is not yet public but hopefully will be). The image is the logo of the organisation and is copyrighted, but I have permission from the organisation to use it. However, the four freedoms that are listed in the help article on the topic suggest that everyone else who can view the image should also be allowed to use it, or at least that is how I read it.

I would appreciate some clarification on this, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardmw (talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wardmw: Hi, and welcome. Exactly where may we find the logo online, and what permission were you given? Please see COM:L and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jeff G: . The logo is visible here: https://widowssons.org.uk/contact.html (and other pages on this site). I was given permission by the copyright holder because I am one of the IT people for the group. I am looking at creating a Wiki page for us and we would naturally want our logo to be included.

Also, sorry for the lack of signature, I am still trying to find my way around the wikiverse. Wardmw (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wardmw/sandbox

Hmm, I reread your question so let's try again: I was given permission to use the logo, unaltered, by the copyright holder. Wardmw (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wardmw: Please have an authorized representative post permission on the organization's official website or social media or send permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to you. Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload an svg or jpg version, instead. If you can't get a compliant license, the logo may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response :@Jeff G.: , I will keep the image size and type in mind. I can certainly get the authorisation you ask for but I need to know what constitutes an authorised representative? I'm not trying to be awkward or rude, I just want to be sure that the chairman of the organisation, who will be responding, does so in the correct manner. Peter can send you an email but how would you know that he is the chairman of the organisation? It wouldn't be from a WSMBA-based email address because we don't have that facility, sadly. We *do* have email forwarding though, so if you were to send an email to chairman@wsmba.uk, for example, then it would route to Peter and he would respond, but it would come from his personal email.

Again, I am not trying to be awkward, I just want to be sure that you get the approval you need and in the correct manner. Wardmw (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wardmw: He may carbon copy that email address, or you may set up one of his devices or webmail accounts to use that address as part of an alternate identity or user profile.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Space Images

https://www.roscosmos.ru/29219/#foto

The above link contains historical photographs in the lower section that could be useful for Soviet space pages like Luna 15, which currently rely on images of postage stamps:

Roscosmos material usage guidelines:

Roscosmos text, photo, audio and video materials (hereinafter - media materials) are available for free use and distribution for purposes, that do not mean a direct or indirect commercial and political benefit-sharing. The authors, who intend to use media materials in accordance with this policy, may not apply for the permission of the State Corporation, but are obliged to indicate Roscosmos as a source.

Roscosmos may decide to restrict the use of some media materials. Such materials will contain relevant information on the limitation of distribution.

Roscosmos website can contain media materials, protected by copyright. In this case, Roscosmos notifies the site users about these restrictions, indicating the authorship of the media. The using of media materials with copyright protection by Roscosmos does not mean that this right passes to users of Roscosmos website. The user shall discuss the question of using the copyrighted media together with the author of the media material.

Because no direct license is specified, how should the images be attributed? Or, could these images potentially fall under PD-RU-exempt?

W3r456 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a free licence (it doesn't permit commercial use) so they're still not OK here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Thanks for reviewing. W3r456 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the copyright on images on FindaGrave specifically these photos,https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/182937642/john-henry-hammond/photo? Is it like Wikipedia where any image you find is useable since it is user generated or is there copyright on certain images? Thanks for clearing this up! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandalf the Groovy: I just had a quick wander around the site, and I can't see any indication that pictures there are required to be freely licensed in the way the Commons requires. However individual members can license their own work and I notice that Bobby Kelley, who supplied the pictures on the page you cite, says in his profile, Any photo i have taken is open source, they can be reposted, saved, and used for any purpose.[6] I'd say that that's sufficient permission for Commons' purpose for photos taken by Bobby Kelley: use {{Copyrighted free use}} and quote the text from their profile in the "Permission" field of the {{Information}} template. I don't think that the photo of John Henry Hammond II is covered by that permission, though. --bjh21 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@bjh21 How do I find I find out the copyright of the photo of John Henry Hammond II? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandalf the Groovy: You'd need to find out who took it and what its publication history is. There are several different ways it might now be out of copyright (see Commons:Hirtle chart), or you might be able to track down the photographer or their heirs and ask them to release it under a free licence. Your first step, though, is to find out the history of the photo, and for that you might start by contacting Bobby Kelley, who added it to Find A Grave. I notice that Getty have this picture in their library[7], which may mean that it's still in copyright, but may just mean that Getty want you to think it's still in copyright. --bjh21 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Rights

I have a question regarding this photo, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/168352747/william-douglas-sloane/photo. The person who added it allows for the use of all of his photos and it is from an unknown author before 1920. I believe that means it should be in the public domain. Am I correct? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If published only recently, the copyright in USA will last for 120 years after creation. Ruslik (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea is an ally of the United States, and for this reason, there are the United States military bases in South Korea.

And as far as I know, US military bases in South Korea are treated as US territories.

Which country's copyright laws apply to the United States military bases in South Korea?

Do the laws of South Korea apply? Or does the law of the United States apply?

In other words, is there freedom of panorama for buildings only at US military bases in South Korea?

See also: COM:FOP SK, Template:NoFoP-South Korea, COM:FOP US, Template:FoP-US

Ox1997cow (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: US, N, Y, Y.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Thanks. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: You're welcome. They should be just like embassies.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. and Ox1997cow: I don't think embassies enjoy that same treatment: see Nat's input at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-03#File:US Embassy Athens.jpg. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanese embassy in Iceland.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Embassy in Paris.jpg, both of which formed my bases for starting Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Embassy of Vietnam (Malate, Manila). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf the Groovy

Pre 1926

Are all U.S photo from before 1926 copyright free except for potential exemptions? For example if I find a photo of someone from 1906 is that free for use anywhere? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandalf the Groovy: Not necessarily; see User:Alexis Jazz/Assuming worst case copyright.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know if the pictures I have uploaded recently are in public domain. They are almost all pre 1900 and have no photographers or artist mentioned anywhere. I have seen multiple times that most Pre 1922-1926 photos have no copy-right. Am I correct in the uploading of these images. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Photo

Is this photo under copyright. (note it is pre 1926) https://minnetrista.pastperfectonline.com/photo/B5FC4AA3-9536-4011-B81E-280254548200. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 13:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandalf the Groovy: My answer above stands. See also COM:HIRTLE, COM:TALK, and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most probably OK for me. --Yann (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Firebird Suite

Am I correct in judging Stravinsky's "The Firebird" (1919) as public domain in the United States but NOT public domain in its country of origin because it was first published in Switzerland and Stravinsky died less than 70 years ago?  Mysterymanblue  17:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping, copyright, and the author field

Last August I opened a discussion about the appropriateness of someone who crops someone else's photo adding their name to the author field as "cropped by". This came up initially because I saw a photo I took "in the wild" attributed both to me and the person who cropped it.

It was archived without a clear resolution, and I continue to see this so I'm hoping to ping participants there.

Here is my position following that thread: The author field is typically for attribution, and that attribution is determined by the copyright holder. Assuming a standard crop which does not render a new creative work, if the copyright holder would like to specify that it was cropped by someone else, they can, but otherwise the author is the only one who should appear in that field. It is appropriate, however, for information about who cropped it to appear in the description.

Is this an accurate summary of the discussion (or of consensus regarding this issue)? — Rhododendrites talk |  23:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newb: how to credit a photo?

Hi all, uploaded a photo to Wikimedia, did not see how I could credit it. It's now registered as own work, photographer would be fine with it, but I want to give credit where due. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideeënbus (talk • contribs) 08:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ideeënbus: Hi, and welcome. What can you tell us about the name and lifetime of the photographer and the dates and countries of photography and publication? Also, please see COM:L and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ideeënbus and Jeff G.: You could also try asking the creator of the image to fill out this form and then copy the generated text and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, attaching the image too. --Red-back spider (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ideeënbus: If the photo is by Mirjam van der Linden, then write "Mirjam van der Linden fotografie" in the "author" field. In the "source" field, write how you obtained this copy of the photo. Ask Mirjam van der Linden to send the permission for free licensing according to Commons:OTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G., Red-back spider, and Asclepias: Thank you, adapted and will use for next page! Ideeënbus (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Red-back spider (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I get my photo from BBC. How can I know their license?

Title. - On that page, not is specified on what date is, also the license - can any help me? Impostor7804 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Impostor7804: Hi, and welcome. Exactly what page are you writing about? See also COM:UK.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: File:7 colors' mountain, Cusco, Perú.jpg Impostor7804 :p - 10:38, Wed, Apr 28 (UTC -5)
@Impostor7804: That appears to be from https://cdn-image.travelandleisure.com/microsites/images/2017/photo-contest/color-thumb.jpg , first found on Oct 3, 2017. The largest version available appears to be at https://tr-images.condecdn.net/image/Ad465WrYwLK/crop/3000 as displayed by http://www.cntraveller.com/gallery/where-to-go-on-holiday-in-september , first found on Jun 1, 2018. It is probably copyrighted by Condé Nast Britain or one of their contestants.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Impostor7804 and Jeff G.: To piggy-back off on Jeff's research, Conde Nast credited the photo to Getty Images (https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/vinicunca-cusco-region-peru-royalty-free-image/697536378) which in turn sourced it from their stock photo website IStock (https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/vinicunca-cusco-region-peru-gm697536378-129201379). IStock photo was uploaded on June 18, 2017 by a user named sorincolac. Howhontanozaz (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Howhontanozaz: Thanks! Of course, neither Getty nor IStock provides licenses we can use on Wikimedia Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darya Dadvar concert

I just can't believe BBC Persian has released this concert under a CC license. Does BBC hold the full copyright over it or just an honest mistake (maybe just the video, not the audio)? If it's okay, then I'm going to upload it to Commons. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the BBC directly? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: I just sent an email to BBC Persian using this form. However, I don't hope they reply back as I have contacted them several times about other issues (not about this concert or any licensing matters), but I have never received any responses. Maybe I should write in English and send it to BBC itself (not its Persian service). The form reads in Persian "we try to read all messages but can't guarantee responding to all of them".
That being said, isn't BBC supposed to be well-versed regarding licensing matters? If we can't rely on BBC for such matters, who else can we trust? 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even the BBC can overlook things, and generally the BBC hasn't released material under Creative Commons in the past. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2 and ShakespeareFan00: As I wrote in this edit, I would not trust BBC Persian's photo credits if I were you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=556505714"