Commons:Village pump/Copyright: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Older edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:42, 6 December 2024

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.

Please note

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.
Have you read the FAQ?
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

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.

File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg - Copyrighted?

Continued from Wikipedia, File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg was used on a few pages, which I've since reverted since it's unclear what exactly the copyright status is. It's been labeled as an "official" photo of the 119th United States Congress even though it hasn't yet been uploaded on Congress.gov or another official government website, since the 119th Congress has yet to start. It's only been uploaded on Representative-elect Hamadeh's newly-created "official" Twitter account, which leads me to believe that there may be an issue with copyright, and it might not yet be public domain (if it's the official photo in the end), since he's not officially a member of the U.S. government. AG202 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past we have used official images and I have also found this old discussion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anna_Paulina_Luna.jpg for Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna's official image which the consensus was to keep the image in place. (You can also see that I was around during that and I didn't even remember me taking part of it!) Wollers14 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to that, but it looks like it wasn't kept until after she was sworn in. Also, honestly, I don't see that strong of a consensus there on keeping the image before she was sworn in. I see a few comments saying to wait, with some other comments solely giving information. I'd hope that there'd be an official policy on this, hence why I brought the discussion here and not nominated the image for deletion. It's also not just the copyright issue for me, but also calling it the "official congressional photo" without it being posted on an official government website or social media from a current government official. It's also has the author of "Office of Congressman Abraham Hamadeh", even though that office does not yet exist. This would be helpful to explicitly clarify for future situations. CC: Participants in the aforementioned discussion: @A1Cafel, @Curbon7, @Connormah, @Mdaniels5757, @Reppop, @Putitonamap98, @Frodar. AG202 (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the offices do exist even in the physical format. I don't know about the House but Senators-elect are given temporary offices to prepare to be sworn in and take over official duties so they are technically some kind of official as they will also share caseloads of constituent work so it can be completed when the incumbent leaves office and the new member can take it over. As for the images if they were created by the House Creative Services I'd say it is public domain even if not posted by them because they give it to the member for them to use however they see fit such as their government websites when they are created. Wollers14 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy is of the utmost importance here so I'd like to see what others think of this specific scenario before making, though educated, guesses. AG202 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file name used and how the file is described aren't really pressing issues for Commons, or at least not as pressing an issue as copyright status. The caption used on Wikipedia can always been worded to say whatever is encyclopedically correct. What matters most to Commons, in my opinion, when it comes to "PD-USGov" licenses is whether a photo was taken by a federal government employee as part of their official duties. The subject of the photo, where the photo was taken, when it was taken, which website it ends up being published, whether the subject has an official government office or an official government media account/website on aren't really that relevant because the subject of the photo isn't considered to be its copyright holder. You might argue the subject has personality rights, or the file should be renamed, but those things are unrelated to the file's copyright status. So, what needs to be determined is who took the photo, whether they're an employee of the US federal government and whether they did so as part of their official duties. If official photos of newly elected members of the US House of Representatives taken by the House Creative Services are considered "PD-USGov", then the photo should be OK s long as the subject of the photo states as much when posting it online; otherwise, the argument just seems to be that the subject of the photo isn't to be believed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so based on that I think some criteria should be established with these kinds of images when they are posted on social media. Feel free to add points I'm just throwing out suggestions out there. 1. The photo must look like one normally taken by the House Creative Services and 2. The photo is confirmed to be their official portrait by the member themselves. Wollers14 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that I participated in that discussion to say that someone didn't tag their image correctly which is why another, related image was deleted. Otherwise, I somewhat agree with Wollers14, in that there must be a confirmation that it was taken by House Creative Services and is an official portrait. As I recall from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene official photo, 117th Congress.jpg, the image may as well be by a private portrait photographer, which isn't under {{PD-USGov}}. reppop^talk 04:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So there's a way to tell if its done by the House Creative Services because they take their pictures the same way with details such as an American flag in the background and a blueish background along with it. Also to tell if it is by the House Creative Services it can be posted by the member elect on social media. The MTG example you provide was clearly not one done by the HCS as there is no Flag background or blueish back drop. Wollers14 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those cannot give 100% clarity that the image is public domain. there was a period in a time when the House official photos were simply a blue background like File:Greg Lopez 118th Congress portrait.jpg. I don't think that there's a precise way to tell without A. the member being an official member of the government (so that we can assume that it's public domain) and/or B. it's been officially published on House.gov or a similar government-run website. In fact that second MTG photo deletion (also in a blue background with the American flag per archive) is very similar to the situation that we're in right now, and that's why I want to wait until we have official confirmation from House.gov (or a copyright release from the congressman-elect). Again, there's really no harm in waiting. AG202 (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Greg Lopez doesn't have an American Flag behind him nor the traditional blue backdrop. What I'm essentially saying is that you can use the flag and blue back drop to tell or you can email HouseCreativeServices@mail.house.gov for more information. In fact I'll email them to see if we can get answers here. I doubt that they will respond though. Wollers14 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different photograph thing for Lopez, see File:Gabe Amo 118th Congress Official Portrait.jpg. I see it as a Cleark portait photograph, rather than an official House portrait but it's still under a US Government unit. The best way is for a website to actually host it with metadata, but we would just need to actually get confirmation that it's by a government unit. reppop^talk 08:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is to look at familiar details to other images of freshmen in the house such as the previously mentioned above. Also we can call or email the House Creative Services to confirm with them though I imagine it will be hard to talk with them since we are Wikipedia users Wollers14 (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Jameslwoodward's conclusion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg: "Most such images are taken by private portrait photographers because the subjects want the best possible image." If the photograph is hosted on a congressional website, or has metadata that says that it's by a photographer for House Creative Services, then its fine. We just need a way to find out if this is truly a House photograph. reppop^talk 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks to both of y'all, but in that case, yeah if we can't get in contact with them and there's no metadata, then imho it's just best to wait and see. AG202 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can reach out to them too just so you know the email is above and they do have a phone number that you can find online Wollers14 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I’ve reached out to the HCS and they said that best bet is to contact the member-elect’s office to verify but the lady I talked to who is one of their directors said that images done by the House Creative Services are public domain so the only way to verify is to contact the office of the member-elect and ask them. So I will reach out and ask Hamadeh’s office and see what I get from there.Wollers14 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to do this, I do appreciate it. AG202 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I also got a response to the email I sent from the House Creative Services and they are saying that the post by Hamadeh (They linked the post) is by them. So I think the image is fine to use. We good now here? Wollers14 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be fine. Maybe a statement that an email correspondence confirmed that it was by House Creative Services, maybe forwarding via COM:VRT but I'm not sure if that's really needed. reppop^talk 00:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think VRT accepts forwarded emails but perhaps a VRT member could clarify by asking at COM:VRTN. Anyway, even if one's not needed, it might be better to ask the consider sending one anyway because it would be on record if this thing comes up again with respect to another similar image. The HCS could actually word the email to cover not only this particular image, but other images it takes. This could possibly allow a specific copyright license template to developed for HCS images that could be used for its images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have the names of the people who responded to me. I'm sure they'd be willing to talk if you ask them. You will however probably need to use an email that looks like it came from a real person. I used my real name in my emails to them. Wollers14 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we good to add the image back now that we've cleared this up? Wollers14 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the image back to the pages since there seems to be no more objections Wollers14 (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lim Nang Seng.jpg

Tagged as {{PD-Singapore}}, but would this comply with U.S. PD status as well? According to Clindberg at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Singapore, the term before 2004 was 50 years, non-retroactive. So, 1950+50+1=January 1, 2001, which is perfectly well in PD in Singapore. But as per COM:SINGAPORE, URAA date for Singapore was 1996, and this was caught up by the implementation of U.S. copyright overseas, including Singapore, through URAA. Is this old photo unfree for Commons considering the U.S. copyright? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether it's used upon governmental purposes, if yes, {{PD-EdictGov}}, but if not, feel free to request a deletion. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is EdictGov is more for literal laws, executive orders, juridical decisions, etc. Per the Wikipedia article: "It is based on the principle of public policy that citizens must have unrestrained access to the laws that govern them." (w:Edict of government). I don't see how this photo is an edict of government. Intervex (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Kay Bergman Grave.JPG

I've got two questions about File:Mary Kay Bergman Grave.JPG. The first is whether this is OK for Commons as licensed or whether it needs to be treated as a COM:DW given COM:FOP US. The second question has to do with the additional text just added to the file's description and whether it could be considered eligible for copyright protection separately from the image itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text and the pictures on the plaque are unfree and so is the transcription within the file description. I've opened a DR. En:wiki might be able to justify using a low-res copy as fair use, and at that resolution the text would probably be illegible anyway. We could host a version here with the big slabs of text and the images blurred out, but I'll leave it to others to decide it there's much point. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd call for Commons:Requests for comment/Costumed character files

Since nuanced discussion on COM:Costume is sought. Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-positioned recording devices in Syria and Ukraine

I know there's no FOP in either of the countries (though one could argue DM and below-TOO for some buildings), but what about pre-positioned recording devices (kamikaze drone footage, permanently situated cameras, etc)? JayCubby (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NickK: for some Ukrainian copyright insights. In the US, if those are operated by a human operator or specifically placed in order to record an event, they would be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. This goes for the fpv drones as well? I feel they'd fall under the same category as bodycam footage, where there is no originality JayCubby (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be affected by COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings, so they might unlikely be PD in US? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: In Ukraine photographs from pre-positioned recording devices are most likely not copyrighted per Article 8.8, as they are considered photographs that have no signs of originality. For FPV-drones, the question whether there was any creativity involved, if a drone was flying in an unusual trajectory to make a particularly spectacular photo, probably the result is still copyrightable — NickK (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R. I. Pocock.jpg

Is en:File:R. I. Pocock.jpg, published in doi:10.1098/rsbm.1948.0025, "{{PD-US-no notice}}", and can it be imported here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-US-no notice applies to works published in the US. This is a British publication, and its copyright status depends on whether the photographer can be identified "by reasonable enquiry"
- if you can identify the photographer, this photo is protected by copyright until 70 years after the photographer's death. Somebody who took this photo as a young person in 1947 could possibly be still alive today or only recently deceased.
- if you cannot identify the photographer "by reasonable enquiry", copyright of a photo published within 70 years of being taken expires 70 years after publication; in this case, 2019.

So it hinges on what research you have done to try to identify the photographer. If I were attempting this, I'd start by seeing if I could find this image in any other publication, which might include an attribution (I'd probably start with newspaper archives). I would also contact the Royal Society and ask them. Eventually, if you decide to upload the photo, you can add information about the research you did and the dead ends you hit to the "Permissions" field.

Note that given Pocock's prominence, it's very likely easier to find another image of him that would be easier to clear. And my guess is that the free-use rationale on en:wiki is invalid, given the likelihood that a free image exists that we could use.

--Rlandmann (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeomap License Conflict

Everyone, I apologize; I may have violated the Commons policy and now feel heavily guilted, especially since all the time and effort I spent on Wikimedia for the past month may be undone.

On this site, https://zenodo.org/records/10659112, I uploaded what appeared to be Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) licensed files (published in 2024) from it to the Commons and other Wikimedia Projects (mainly Wikidata and the English Wikipedia), and modified them to transparent PNGs (example file: File:Mollweide_Paleographic_Map_of_Earth,_120_Ma_(Aptian_Age).jpg).

However, there was ANOTHER license (from 2010 by one of the files' authors, Christopher R. Scotese; http://www.scotese.com/license.htm) I never knew about that had restrictions denying its use on the Commons, quoting:

 These maps may not be copied, resold, used or modified in any manner for commercial purposes, such as consulting reports, trade journals or the popular press, textbooks, videos, educational CD-ROMS, computer animations, museum exhibits, web sites on the Internet or for any other commercial use, without the express written consent of the author.

At this point, there are four things I want to find out:

With the files ON THE WEBSITE shown through the CC BY 4.0 license, do they dominate over Scotese’s license? (their apart by 13–14 years of age)
Can all of Scotese’s PALEOMAP files be used on the Wikimedia Projects, or at the very least the ones on the Zenodo website? (As of this message, I emailed him 2–3 days ago, but I’m becoming restless over it and am considering to call him, as his contact information is on his homepage)
For those same files published ON THE WEBSITE, is it really under the CC BY 4.0 license? It feels misleading at this point, and I want to know the truth.
How do you all feel about this, or how do you think I should respond?

Again, I apologize for this misstep that went over my head. Still, it’s better to express my concerns than keep them to myself, right?

(I originally made this message longer, and sent this message to Wikimedia's Discord page before coming here) — Alex26337 (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First; don't panic :) None of us are infallible, and we're all capable of innocent mistakes (even if there's a mistake here at all).

The fundamental principle here is that if the author has validly published their work under a suitable free license, we can host that work here; even if another copy of the same work published elsewhere has a more restrictive license.

This document has the CC-BY 4.0 licence embedded in it, and I think there's no question that the authors of the paper have released it under that license. At first glance, it looks to me like the supplementary materials on Zenodo are also uploaded there by the authors of those materials, although I haven't been able to locate the specific document that File:Mollweide_Paleographic_Map_of_Earth,_120_Ma_(Aptian_Age).jpg came from to verify its license details. Can you please point me to where you found it?

Materials from Scotese's personal site that are not included in his other joint publications can't be uploaded here; their license is incompatible with the Commons. Did you take any straight from there, or are they all via Zenodo?

--Rlandmann (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the files from the Zenodo site only. As for the file's location, look under "4b1. Paleogeographic Maps (Rectilinear).zip" and "4b2. Paleogeographic Maps (Mollweide).zip". — Alex26337 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the paper itself, Scotese et al, 2024, "The Cretaceous world: plate tectonics, palaeogeography and palaeoclimate", Geological Society, London, Special Publications carries a CC-BY 4.0 license notice both within the paper itself and on the Geological Society website that hosts it. The paper also contains internal links to the the archive on Zenodo (along with an archive of similar material for the Cretaceous). The archives themselves do not contain any other licensing material, and the host page on Zenodo carries a CC-BY 4.0 license notice. Any image from within those archives is very definitely licensed under CC-BY 4.0 and can be hosted on the Commons. Where a valid free license exists, we can use that license, even if the same material is licensed under a less free license elsewhere (and whether the less free license is newer or older than the free license is irrelevant). While I'm sure that @Hemiauchenia: was acting in good faith, their advice to you was mostly misguided and incorrect.

(They are correct though that images from Scotese's own website, not licensed anywhere else, are not free enough for the Commons). --Rlandmann (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, Alex26337's uploads basically mirror the entire map content of Scotese's website to which he has explicitly disallowed commercial use. It seems reasonable to ask whether this was something to which Scotese had properly consented. I am grateful for Alex's decision to email Scotese for clarification. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia @Rlandmann: So after almost a week from sending my message to Scotese, I got an emailed message from him saying I have permission to use the maps from the Zenodo website, and that the license at scotese.com applies ONLY to the maps on that website. Would you guys like me to tell you the whole email word-from-word for proof? — Alex26337 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you reaching out about this. I am willing to take you at your word, but I wouldn't mind seeing the correspondence.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I normally do is forward the email to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) for the record ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ). You will get a case number in response that you can quote in any further discussions. VRT members are able to view the archived email and verify its contents. When you forward the email to the VRT, include a note to say that this is for the record only and that you're not expecting them to take any action.

More generally, to help anyone wanting to re-use these images and who might want to verify the license, it would also be helpful to note exactly which zip file each image came from; this is not strictly needed for the license, but would definitely make prospective re-users' lives easier. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann: Ok, one question though: I know there are a lot of files hanging on this permission statement, so once I get the verifications settled, is it up to the volunteer team to put the VRT ticket statement in all the image's permission boxes, or myself? Also, if it's up to them, should I mention ALL the files I uploaded to the Commons that connect to the confirmation email in my message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? — Alex26337 (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we don't need the VRT to tag the files -- the license information is right there at the source. There's no reasonable reason for anyone to question it. If you hadn't already reached out to Scotese, I wouldn't have suggested there was any need to bother him, let alone involve the VRT.

So, I'd just forward the email to the VRT as an "FYI" only. The only thing that I would mention on each file is the .zip it came from. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using an artist's images off facebook

I'm sorry if this has been explained somewhere, but I get lost in Wikipedia's jungle of editorial advice. I have created the article Thomas Winkler (artist) and have permission from the artist to use all photos and art by him from his facebook account. How do I go about demonstrating that I have this permission? Many thanks in advance! ˜˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SkaraB: See COM:VRT. We need a specific license from the artist, not just a generic, indirectly passed permission. Most likely he will want to use either CC-BY-4.0 or CC-BY-SA-4.0 and will want to specify how he wants to be credited as an author. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I will see if I can figure out how that works and what it all means :-) ˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a look at what you've uploaded so far. Winkler's self portrait and Ahnoff's portrait of Winkler are the simplest cases. To clear these for the Commons, each of those artists would need to provide permission for their image to be hosted here (assuming that Ahnoff still owns the copyright to her photo of Winkler). There's an email template, and also a release generator they could use: here.

The photos of mugs and Christmas baubles are more complex, for two reasons:

because both the art itself and the photographs of the art are subject to separate copyrights
the art and the photographs seem to have been commissioned by Tivoli Gardens. It's possible that Winkler and the photographer (Lassing for the baubles, but maybe the mugs too?) transferred their copyrights to Tivoli Gardens, in which case, they can no longer give the permissions we need; that permission would need to come from Tivoli Gardens. And the only way to know is to contact Winkler and Lassing and ask whether they still own the copyrights or whether the copyrights now belong to Tivoli Gardens.

In all cases, it's really important that artists and creators and copyright holders understand the implications of what they're agreeing to. You say that Winkler has permitted you "to use" his work, but by releasing under a free license, they must understand that this "use" means:

the permission is not just for Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but the whole world
anyone in the world can copy their work for practically any purpose, including making money from the work, or altering the work. So, for example, anyone could just take the baubles designs, edit out the Tivoli name, then print them on their own baubles (or Christmas cards, or table placemats or whatever) to sell without any further permission or need to compensate the artist.
permission cannot be taken back. Once licensed this way, they are permanently giving up almost all control of the work. Technically, they still own the copyright, but are unable to enforce almost any part of it.

So, for a commercial artist, it's a big deal, and few are probably going to agree to such terms for a recent, commercial work. The only way to know is to ask. I'm happy to help with any other questions or clarifications. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for your comments. I had overlooked that images uploaded to Wikipedia can be use in this way – I think I did know it once. So I had taken some of these images from Tivoli's image bank for the press, thinking that if the press could use it so could I. But I see that I was wrong, and I've taken them down.

I've now uploaded an image of five of those cups which Winkler has photographed himself. I can't imagine who would benefit from using those images. Surely if they decided to copy the design onto a cup and sell it, they'd be infringing a different type of copyright – not over the image but over the design? Similarly, if Winkler gives me permission to share a photo of some carrousel with his artwork on it, it doesn't mean that someone can now use his artwork on their own carrousel? I imagine they can make a poster or a postcard of the image or use it in a collage, but the artwork that is depicted cannot be copied and passed on as their property?

Thanks for taking your time, and my apologies if there are things I've misunderstood!

˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean this image -- whether you can imagine how anyone could use the image or not, we still need Winkler to release both the copyright on the photo and the copyright on the mug design (assuming he still owns the copyright; alternatively, we would need Tivoli Gardens to release the copyright on the mug design). Because yes, you're right, the photo and the artwork in the photo are subject to separate copyrights (and we need both elements to be available under a free license).

In your hypothetical example, Winker takes a photo of a carousel with some of his artwork on it. At this point, he owns the copyright on the photo, and presumably still owns the copyright on the artwork, but depending on the terms of his contract with the carousel owner, might not. To host this picture on the Commons, we would need:

Winkler to license the photo under a free license
To check whether he still owns the copyright on the artwork on the carousel, and:

if he still owns the copyright, that he licenses the artwork under a free license or
if the person/organisation that commissioned the artwork owns the copyright now, that they license the artwork under a free license.

The difficulties here are that the Commons only hosts content that is freely usable by anybody for practically any purpose. Normally, when a photographer or an artist gives someone "permission to share" an image on a website, it's a very limited license: in most simple cases, just to use the image on the website. The permission doesn't extend to printing postcards or T-shirts, or any other use, or for anybody other than the website owner to use the image. But hosting on the Commons needs the permission to extend far, far beyond this.

In your hypothetical example, if Winker licensed his photo of the carousel under a free license, but he (or whoever owns the copyright) did not also license the artwork on the carousel under a similar free license, then no, nobody could legally make a poster or postcard of the image.

Finally, a little point, but which might help with understanding: "passing on" somebody else's work as your own would be legally problematic for reasons other than copyright in many jurisdictions and is contrary to the Creative Commons licenses we're discussing here. When I said that creators give up almost all their rights under such licences, the right to be credited for their work is one right they optionally retain. But claiming to be the artist is not necessary for copying. If the artwork on the carousel were freely licensed, then anybody would be free to reproduce it almost however they liked -- for example, a mural painter could include it in a catalog of designs offered to prospective customers: "This one's a design by Thomas Winkler, but it's available for me to paint on your wall." As long as they incorporate a notice somewhere to acknowledge the original artist and the license, they can do this. But they can't claim it to be their own original art. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Cross-posted, without really reading what Rlandmann wrote; he covered some of the same ground, and brought up some different issues.] @SkaraB: let me spell it out a bit more then.

For File:Five mugs designed for Tivoli by Thomas Winkler.jpg, you say the author is "Thomas Winkler for Tivoli"; you probably also want to add that as an attribution for the cc-by-sa-4.0 license. We need an email to the VRT from Winkler himself, granting that license.
For File:Thomas Winkler self portrait.jpg, you say the author is "Thomas Winkler (self portrait)" (which seems a bit odd; I would think it was simplye "Thomas Winkler". Again, you probably also want to add that as an attribution for the cc-by-sa-4.0 license. And again, we need an email to the VRT from Winkler himself, granting that license.
For File:No Wah-Wah.jpg you oddly claim "own work" and say that you are the author. From what you have written here, I assume that is wrong. Once that is corrected, similar considerations arise as for the other two files.

These do not need to be separate emails, just so long as he mentions all the files in question.

By the way, these files all also need categories. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for responding.

From what I understand, if I post a link to Winkler's image on facebook, and he has posted a comment there, saying "I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence.", the he does not need to email the VRT?

As for the portrait of Winkler, I added "self portrait" to credit him as the photographer. I hope that makes sense.

For No Wah-Wah, it is indeed very odd that it says "own work", but I can't figure out how to change it. I'm not sure if this is auto-generated because I originally filled in that I own this work?

Best, ˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, yes, we would consider such a statement to be evidence of permission. In a case like this, it's a little tricky, because we'd need to be sure whether the license covered just the photo, or the artwork depicted in the photo. So, if you ask him to add such a statement to his Facebook, please ask him to clarify exactly what the license covers. (Taken at face value, such a statement would also place the underlying artwork under a free license, which might not be what he intends! And as discussed above, for commissioned work, permission might no longer be his to give anyway...) --Rlandmann (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. It took me some time to find this thread again, sorry for the late response. I read your longer message and I think I now understand everything. It's far more complicated than I thought, and I think I will advise him to remove his licence statements, given that it is presently unclear if they are even valid. Except for the self-portrait which he created and owns. Meanwhile I've been given some fairly stern warnings, so in addition to me taking them down, they will also be deleted.

Thank you very much for your efforts.

˜ SkaraB (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thanks for your patience and understanding here. I just took a look at the self-portrait as well, and in the conversation in the Facebook thread (maybe with you?) Winkler seems concerned about the implications of the CC-BY-SA license, saying it's a little too permissive ("lidt rigelig 'tilladelse'").

Of course, he's already made the license statement in that thread, so technically we could hold him to it, and he has already given away his right to control commercial use of this image. In practice, we try to be a little more lenient on the Commons (a seven-day grace period is common practice) so it would be great if he could quickly clarify what he really wants. (Note that the CC-BY-NC license discussed in that thread is not compatible with the Commons, so isn't an option. Compatible CC licenses are CC-0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA)

And yes, it can be complicated! And especially so in the field of art that you want to contribute to. A good rule of thumb is that if it's an photo taken by anybody other than yourself personally, or any photo taken by anyone of artwork made in the last 100 years or so, expect it to be difficult.

In case it helps, English Wikipedia has a mechanism for hosting a limited amount of non-free content at low resolutions. (This is also complicated, but I'm happy to help you navigate it if you want): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content --Rlandmann (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Navajo Flag copyrighted?

We have many copies of the Navajo flag on Commons. It's from 1968. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States it is possible this flag is copyrighted *if* it was published with notice that it was copyrighted. I searched https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/ for "Navajo flag" and got a few hits [1] [2] [3] but none of them appear to be from the Navajo Nation. Does anybody have any evidence one way or the other whether the flag is copyrighted? Intervex (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it would have been very difficult to retain a copyright for a flag in the U.S. in that era. Each actual flag would be a copy without copyright notice, no? The flag does not contain a copyright symbol. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still new to US copyright law. So does this mean a flag in the US from that era would have to have the actual copyright symbol embedded in the flag? I thought a notice meant a text notice that would accompany the image. Intervex (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would presumably have sufficed always to distribute copies of the flag with a notice, but who ever did that? @Clindberg: do you think I'm wrong about this, and if I am wrong, how would it have worked? - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There had to be a visibly perceptible notice on all distributed copies (or the vast majority). For something permanently placed like a statue, it could be on a marker or pedestal nearby. But even a copyright notice on a book's dust cover was not sufficient to cover the book, since it was removable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, that's intense. Well, that gets me on board with "probably fair to assume it's PD". Intervex (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it would have been difficult. There are a couple of different ways that this could have worked, though. As Jmabel says, probably the most obvious is if all authorized distribution had been via one or a small number of authorized distributors for the flag, who could have ensured that a copyright notice was printed on each authorized copy distributed (this could have been a small notice in an unobtrusive place; see for example many mass-produced toys that have small copyright notices printed on or molded into them).

Or, if all authorized, officially printed and distributed versions of the flag carried copyright notices, my understanding is that the distribution of unauthorized copies without copyright notices would not have voided the artist's copyright (although the distribution of significant numbers of authorized copies without notices probably would have). My understanding is that copyright holders were not obliged to defend their works against unauthorized use in order to maintain their copyrights, in the way that trademark holders are so obliged. @Clindberg: , I'd love to hear your thoughts on this hypothetical scenario.

And, in saying all that, these are very specific hypothetical scenarios, and I don't think we need to worry about them without any further evidence that something like this had been the case. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The law did allow for a small fraction of copies to be accidentally distributed without notice -- but I think court cases for those have been between 1 and 2 percent of all copies for cases which kept copyright. The Copyright Compendium First edition (see links on this page), particularly section 4.1.2 but all of part 4 is about notices) did mention that if the first edition had no notice, even if a relative few copies, copyright would still be lost. Unauthorized copies would not lose copyright, correct. Copyright owners can selectively sue -- the lack of suing one infringer does not help a second infringer, to the best of my knowledge. In this case, a seal graphic appears to actually be part of the law[4] -- that much may also be PD-EdictGov. Unsure what the law said about the flag, whether it was a general written design (anyone could make independently copyrightable drawings based on that), or if an actual graphic was part of the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- I'm especially grateful for your check of my understanding around the effect (or lack thereof) of unauthorized copies. So, it seems not quite so difficult for a flag to have kept its copyright pre-1978, at least in theory. (Not that we have any reason to think that anything of the sort happened in this case.) It does make me wonder about the channels through which copies of the flag were manufactured and distributed early on though.

Interesting too that the seal in the Code bears only the most passing resemblance to the seals in the various versions of the flag. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOO UK after the THJ v Sheridan decision

Sheridan replaced the old "skill and labour" test (which was applied in Future and Ladbroke, both of which are currently cited on COM:TOO UK) with the new, "more demanding", "author’s own intellectual creation" test. This seems to have a broader reach than just digital reproductions of 2D images, and likely, in my view, means that the threshold of originality in the UK is now much closer to that of the US. But this doesn't seem to have been discussed much, so I don't want to make any drastic changes quite yet. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

I should note that this came up in a DR. (Cc. @DeFacto) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdaniels5757: You're right, but the question is whether the UK courts will continue to apply the new threshold after Brexit because the reason for the change was EU legislation... Gnom (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question about this. THJ is a post-Brexit decision and explicitly says this threshold is incorporated into British law post-Brexit as part of the EU acquis. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you – but you never know. Gnom (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea of a precedential legal system is that you are supposed to know, though. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1928 image with large watermark

I posted this over at WP:Media Copyright Questions and they suggested I ask here instead.

I would like to add THIS IMAGE to the C&O desk article of the desk being used by the Van Sweringen brothers in 1928. The issue is that while the image should be out of copyright a large watermark appears on the picture by the historic society that uploaded it. Does this watermark make the image unusable? Can I upload it then ask for help removing the watermark? Is it not actually out of copyright because of this watermark? Any help would be appreciated. Found5dollar (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Found5dollar:

It is possible that the watermark is itself copyrighted (though elsewhere we've already considered it below the threshold of originality). You'd have to research that. But, assuming it is not:
Whether it is usable is up to the party that wishes to use it. You can upload it to Commons. Just remember to tag it with {{Watermarked}}.
Yes, you can request help retouching it: Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without more information about the provenance of this image, we can't assess its copyright status. There are multiple ways in which an archival photo like this from 1928 could still be protected by copyright. Is there any evidence other than its age that leads you to think it's free? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA-4.0-Picture retouched

Hello,

I uploaded a pict, that was a little bit retouched by me: File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X-foreground-bottom-right-retouched.jpg. Could you please double-check, if my data are sufficient (base is File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X.jpg). In the past I could put in the original file and the fotographer with the upload. If something has to be corrected, please change it and let me know. Thank you very much in advance. Best regards Wikisympathisant (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I found a better Retouched-brick and categories were automatically reduced, now this topic should be ok. So it remains the question about change of the upload-procedure. KR, Wikisympathisant (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X-foreground-bottom-right-retouched.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikisympathisant: looks fine to me. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti in Rome

Hello,
I took several pictures of the building of the Metropoliz in Rome. I know that there is no freedom of panorama in Italy – but at the same time pictures like this one and this one do not seem to have a problem (?)
Here's my question: Can I upload pictures on Commons with CC BY 4.0 of the Metropoliz-building, resembling this one or this one? Meaning: Pictures of the building from the outside with Graffiti on the walls? Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24): I am afraid but the two example photos that are already on Commons would most probably need to be deleted because the graffitis are so prominent in them that they are not permissible under the de minimis principle (in German: de:Beiwerk). What you could do, however, only upload those of your photos where the graffitis are only visible "in the background". We can also help you with this selection if you want. Gnom (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnom, thank you for the helpful answer. Please take a look at these 3 pictures: 1, 2, 3. I uploaded them after asking Raymond for advice. I understood that they should be ok – are they? Regarding the rest of my pictures, I will try to get CC BY 4.0-releases by the artists for them. Wish me luck :-D --Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24), 3 is definitely fine, 1 should be OK as well, but the design in 2 is most probably copyrighted... Gnom (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom I thought 2 would be old enough but it is based on the motive of File:We Can Do It! NARA 535413 - Restoration 2.jpg. Per above image description it is not copyrighted in the US. But maybe I am on the wrong side? Raymond (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I would say that this derivative work of the public domain original is creative enough to be copyrighted in itself. Gnom (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for your review. I am sorry @Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24). Raymond (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, good to know. Will add this picture to the ones that I will try to get a release by the artists for. Thank you, Raymond and Gnom. Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright dilemma in SVG military insignia

I'm interested in uploading self-made SVG versions of the Turkish military insignia to feature in Wikipedia (regiment-level bodies). The issue is that (on the contrary to most countries) the Turkish copyright law does not consider government emblems/works created by pubic servants in public domain. They also don't have licenses on government websites. Therefore, as a Commons newbie, I cannot find any way to legitimately upload such content. Some people I have seen just credited such works for themselves, and claimed they are the sole owners of the work, but I think such an action would not be allowed. Thanks! AscendencyXXIV (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @AscendencyXXIV, unfortunately there is no "trick" that we can apply here, other than hosting any insignia that are below the threshold of originality (TOO). Gnom (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or old enough to be out of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that is a continuation of a discussion at [5]. Please, @AscendencyXXIV, when continuing a conversation in a different, even a more appropriate place, link what has already been discussed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff project for logos

Currently Commons hosts some logos and Wikipedia some others, normally based on copyright status.

Many logos are registered as trademarks and as such published in relevant publications.

Would there be a potential to create a spin-off project for logos to describe and sort them on a fair use basis? When needed, Wikipedia could use them directly.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Enhancing999, please note that you need to distinguish between copyright and trademark protection, which are very different from each other. Because trademark law does not affect Commons, anything that is protected as a trademark can still be hosted on Commons without any problems. However, we need to respect copyright law, and many logos are protected not only as trademarks, but also as works protected by copyright. Gnom (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What problem is this meant to solve? It is rarely difficult to find an online copy of a Wikipedia-notable logo. For those Wikipedias that allow fair use, someone should easily be able to find and upload any given "fair-use" logo when needed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of projects that need to upload it separately, plus there isn't really an advantage of uploading the few that can go here.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there were to be a spinoff project to allow sharing of fair use images across WMF sister projects, I can't think of any reason to make it specific to logos. However, I believe any online repository of unfree material would probably go against WMF policy. As mentioned at meta:Non-free content, Commons is the one sister project that is explicitly forbidden even to set up an "Exemption Doctrine Policy," a policy on conditions under which we would accept non-free content. That is clearly because WMF didn't want to get in the position of hosting non-free media. It's been a couple of decades, and imaginably WMF could be interested in changing their stance on this, but why would logos be a special case in contradistinction to any other non-free media used by multiple sister projects? - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is a spin-off project. I agree this wouldn't fit at Commons, thus the suggestion to start with.

It's possible that the approach is useful for other fields (other projects), but any such project would need a clear scope.

The question here is if this could work out copyright-wise.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's a big existing problem that I'm not seeing and that this would address, but given that:

the WMF's position on fair use is predicated on whether an image is actually being used on a WMF project; the image can't just live unused in a repository
the conditions (and therefore rationale) under which a non-free image can be used on a WMF project vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
various WMF projects are able to host their own non-free content in jurisdictions where it is possible for them to do so, and each must host a rationale for how and why the image qualifies for fair use in their own jurisdiction for each time it is used in that project
such a project would need a corps of volunteers to oversee the repository, whereas in the current status quo, volunteers from each project look after their own fair-use images based on their own local knowledge, experience, and linguistic ability

"Could work out?" Sure. Very many things are possible if someone is committed to throwing enough time and money at them! But I think that a Commons-like repository to host images that might or might not be fair use in one jurisdiction or another seems like a very expensive solution for very little benefit over the way things work right now. Maybe ask yourself what actual problem this would solve, and go from there. I don't think there are big economies of scale to be found here. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maps from New Zealand

Appreciated community: I need your help.

I'm considering upload to Commons this map and this other map. However, I'm confused about the copyright issues.

While in the pages linked they say about these maps that "No known copyright restrictions", the rules of Commons about intelectual property rules of New Zealand contradict these declarations.

What can I do in regards to these maps? Thanks in advance. Babelia (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a very old map. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the first one, the map itself is PD, the images accompanying it are likely also PD, text on the bottom is from 1969. Abzeronow (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the 1808/1812 original of the first map by Laurie & Whittle, which in this form is certainly free of copyright. On the modern map, the kangaroo in the bottom right appears to be inspired by George Stubbs' painting but is sufficiently different as to probably be separately copyrightable. Cook's portrait is after Nathaniel Dance-Holland's official portrait of him, probably also sufficiently different as to be separately copyrightable. It's probably a similar story for the various other images that I either can't make out or don't recognise. The text at the bottom of the map is modern and copyrightable, credited to "A. D. McKinlay, M.A.". New Zealand copyright on literary works expires 50 years after the death of the author. An Arthur David McKinlay published books on New Zealand history between 1933 and 1969. Separately, an Arthur David McKinlay born in 1899 obtained an M.A. from a New Zealand university in 1930 and died in New Zealand in 1977, so could well be the same person. If so, the text will be protected by copyright until 2028.

As to the modern images in the map, it was published in 1969, and New Zealand copyright on artistic works expires 50 years after publication (2020) for anonymous works. So the question is, can we identify the artist? A bit of detective work might be necessary to see if there's any record of who they might have been.

The second map is by the New Zealand Department of Land and Surveys, a government department, today Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). New Zealand government works are subject to Crown copyright which lasts for 100 years. Unless the copyright on this specific map has been released, its copyright will expire in 2075. I note that the copy hosted by the National Library of New Zealand says "This image may be used, copied and re-distributed free of charge in any format or media", which is not free enough for Commons because we need to allow commercial, for-profit re-use as well. You could check with LINZ to ask about the copyright status. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated @Rlandmann:

In regards to the first map, the page I linked says:

What can I do with this item?
Share it - This item is suitable for copying and sharing with others, without further permission.
Modify it - This item is suitable for modifying, remixing and building upon, without further permission.
Use it commercially - This item is suitable for commercial use, without further permission.

As for the second map, the LINZ site says that:

Unless otherwise specified, content produced by Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. In essence you are free to copy, distribute, and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand and abide by the other licence terms.

So, what do you think? Babelia (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact Auckland Libraries to clarify the copyright of the image in question, some of their images are CC-0 which are listed as 'No known copyright restrictions'. There is a form on the file page to do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: I think I can guess what you mean to say, but "No known copyright restrictions" is not CC-0. The only way something becomes CC-0 is for someone who owns the copyright to overtly offer the CC-0 license. Something that aged out of copyright decades ago cannot possible be CC-0. - Jmabel ! talk 06:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an image listed as no known copyright restrictions that was taken recently enough that it couldn't be PD, after emailing the library I was told it was released without copyright (or something to that effect). I can try and see what exactly was said. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Babelia: The notice on the first map also says that you "You must always check with Auckland Libraries to confirm the specific terms of use" (emphasis added). In this case, I'd be asking them who Hooker and Co. Ltd. are/were and how Auckland Libraries know that copyright has expired or was transferred into the Public Domain (since it appears that at least one author has not been dead long enough).

Auckland Libraries also notes the Islands of the South Pacific map as "No known copyright restrictions", which contradicts what LINZ has to say, so I think we need to be careful about taking the Auckland Libraries website at face value for archival content.

Have you been able to find Islands of the South Pacific on the LINZ website? The map predates Creative Commons licenses by nearly 30 years, so unless it has ever been re-published under this license, or you can find/obtain a statement that LINZ applies this license retroactivally to all material previously published by them and their predecessor organizations, it would still appear to be covered by Crown copyright. Assuming LINZ is prepared to make such a statement, obtaining one and forwarding it to the VRT would be incredibly useful to opening the door to a large amount of New Zealand cartography that could be hosted on the Commons. It would be really great if you could get a definitive answer. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is File:Muwekma Ohlone Tribe flag.png above TOO?

Is File:Muwekma Ohlone Tribe flag.png above TOO in the USA? The picture of the dancer in the middle is from a 1845 painting, so that element of the flag is PD. The shape that the dancer is in the middle of is what I would like feedback on. I leaning towards it being above TOO given the complexity of its colouration and shape, but would like confirmation. Intervex (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that simple geometric design is not original enough and probably falls under the Threshold of Originality. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 22:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also would think that this is below the TOO for the US. Only the texture makes me wonder, but I think even this is probably not enough. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, seems like the consensus is below TOO, but kinda borderline. I've marked it as PD-flag and I guess we'll see if anybody disputes it. Intervex (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is File:Flag of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.gif above TOO?

Is File:Flag of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.gif above Threshold of Originality in the United States? The flag features a geometric pattern, but it's a complex one. Its colouring is also complex, with what appears to be shading and small details. I'm leaning to this being above TOO but would like confirmation since I'm uncertain. Intervex (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the design, coloring and shading as well as lettering position make this meet the Threshhold of Originality and therefore copyright applies. It's funny you've picked the two indigenous peoples I'm most familiar with. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 22:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is above the threshold, for the same reasons of complexity that you give. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Above TOO it is. I haven't been able to find any source corroborating a free license, so I've tagged it as NSD. If anybody knows anything about when it was made please share in case it is PD due to age. Intervex (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Croatian Ministry of Defence

Is image published by Croatian MoD is can be considered as public domain? for example these images. It's terms of use states:
Copyright © 2008-2023 Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Croatia.
All rights reserved.
Contents from these pages can be transferred without special permission, with reference to the source. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a copyright notice, so it's definitely not public domain.

As to whether it's under a sufficiently free license for the Commons, it's uncertain. The license statement allows images to be "transferred", which I take to mean re-published as-is, but it's not certain (to me, anyway), whether modification of the images is permitted, which we require for the Commons. There's an email address on the page, so it would be worth getting in touch with their media team to verify that edits and alterations to the images are permitted. Please forward any response to the VRT ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ) for the record. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann: Thank you for your suggestion. I've sent an email to the media team of Croatian MoD as suggested.

I asked here because I've seen other contributors upload images from their website, but the vague terms of use leave me unsure if these are compliant or potential copyvio. I'll forward any response I receive to the VRT for documentation. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about the copyright tag for File:Flag of Mohawk Warrior Society.svg?

So this flag is much older than Creative Commons, and the license appears to have picked by user who made the SVG version. I'm not sure it's the right copyright tag for this flag though.

You can read about the flag's history here: [6]. It was first made by Karoniaktajeh Louis Hall in what is considered Canada, but the flag is in protest of Canadian colonialism. It feels inappropriate to try and apply Canadian copyright law to it. (It is recent enough and above Threshold of Originality that by default it would be copyrighted in Canada.)

Hall died in 1993. In his will, Hall left the original paintings to the Warrior Society in Kahnawake (see link above). Kahente Horn-Miller from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake has gone on record saying [7]:

"This image may officially belong to the Men’s Society of Kahnawá:ke but it is meant for everyone to use. If someone sells a t-shirt or a pin with the image on it, so be it. If someone uses aspects of it to communicate their own message, so be it. Copyright and exclusion are the antithesis to this flag’s meaning. Karoniaktajeh would be happy to see that the message of unity is spreading further, as he intended it to."

I'm not sure what copyright tag would be most suitable for this flag. It certainly seems intended to have a free license, but I can't find any writing online from Hall that spells out any terms of use. Creative commons seems anachronistic. Suggestions? Intervex (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The various CC licenses are specific in nature, and so only the person who owns the copyright to a work can place it under these licences. That is, even if a copyright holder specifies terms that overlap completely with CC-BY (for example), it's not actually CC-BY unless the copyright holder says it is.

The questions, as I see them are:

is Dr Horn-Miller empowered under either Canadian or tribal law to make this statement on behalf of the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke?
The statement as supplied says that free re-use without further permission is OK, does not ask for attribution, and specifically allows commercial use, but it's not clear to me whether derivative works are allowed. Are they? (Keeping in mind that permitting such use would also permit disrespectful or disparaging use)

I would start by contacting Dr Horn-Miller for advice, and the question might ultimately be one for the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke directly.

Assuming there really are no restrictions on use, then {{PD-because}} is probably the best fit we have, together with an explanation of the rationale. I'd also forward all correspondence to the VRT to keep on file. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that "uses aspects of it to communicate their own message" could be sufficient for allowing for derivative works, if this is a valid granting of license in the first place, especially with the final phrase that supports a reading that releases the flag into the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading, I agree with you on the derivative work question (although clarification would be nice). --Rlandmann (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Copyright and exclusion are the antithesis to this flag’s meaning" sounds like about as explicit a public domain dedication as there can be. This is an explicit renunciation of copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In isolation, I agree. Against that, the first sentence sounds like a statement of ownership and license to use, so I'd like to be more certain about what exactly is intended here. The two parts of the statement seem contradictory to me (acknowledging also that this might be a difficulty of trying to model a system of law with a different and perhaps incompatible one). --Rlandmann (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

en:File:Mariya_Petrovna_Nesterenko.jpg

Is there a way to keep track of files like this, which will enter the public domain in 2031/2 (author died in 2006)? JayCubby (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: Hi, Died in 2006? So you probably mean that it can be restored in 2077. It can be added in this page. Yann (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd also add to it the Undelete in 2077 category, why did you think it would be restored in 2032? Abzeronow (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR has a copyright term of life + 25 years, though the US has life + 70 years (I may have forgotten about the US aspect...).

A second question:

I don't have a lot of experience with the Hirtle chart, but could it be PD due to formality issues in 2031. JayCubby (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Russia extended copyright a few times since the USSR, COM:Russia, Russia is now Life + 70 (with a 4 year extension to those who worked during the en:Great Patriotic War (term).) Abzeronow (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! That probably settles the affair then. JayCubby (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was never on Commons, I don't think we usually track that. But, yes, Category:Undelete in 2077 is where we would track that if we do. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images from New Zealand Archives with improper licences

Many images have been transferred to commons Category:Images from Archives New Zealand from the Archives New Zealand Flickr account: [8] and all of these images are licenced as CC BY 2.0. The problem is this licence is innacurate, many items are PD and many items are copyrighted despite the tag uploaded.

There are almost 10,000 files uploaded from this account (assuming they are all in the category, some might be uncategorised), pretty much all are incorrectly licenced and many are copyright violations. For a very obvious example I had: File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg deleted. The photo can be seen here: [9] The New Zealand Archives may have a copy of the book in their collection but they obviously do not own the copyright to it, which belongs to the publisher/author still.

Correctly licencing these images will be a very tedious task but in the meantime I think it would be good to disallow automated uploads from the Flickr account as the licences provided cannot be trusted. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuk. I've just been through an analogous process with a few thousand images from the US National Weather Service published under an ambiguous and often wrong general disclaimer. I've observed a similar problem with the organisation's Flickr stream too.

I'm willing to lend a hand with any verification or clean-up efforts. Where do you plan to start? --Rlandmann (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My plan was just go look through images as I had time (although I'd certainly never get through it all on my own), correct the category and nominate for deletion if it isn't PD/copyright belonging to Archives NZ.

I've decided to be bold and create a sub-category for Images from Archives New Zealand that have been looked at, to avoid volunteers looking at the same images: Category:Images from Archives New Zealand with verified licence. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament, 10th term

There are 662 files in Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term, seemingly all uploaded by User:Jcornelius @Jcornelius: .

They are all drawn from https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/

Webpages such as https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/photo/irish-meps-official-portraits-10th-parliamentary-term_20240617_MULLOOLY_Ciaran_IE_009 indicate that only an attribution is required for these images to be used by the public.

However, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legal-notice/en/ contradicts this, stating As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it.

This very, very unfortunate line of text suggests the images on www.europarl.europa.eu may be under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives license.

Which view is correct? Are these files under a useable Attribution license, or are they under a Attribution-NoDerivatives license?

Does EU law supersede the legal notice at https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/?

I would love for it to be the case that these files are usable but I myself was previously told they are not. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general legal notice with its ND term explicitly says that it is "a general rule". And even if it didn't, for any given page or piece of content, I would always privilege its own specific notice over a more general notice. Consider the alternative: if the general rule says that generally re-use is OK, but we found a piece of content marked "all rights reserved", we would not think that the general rule covered it.

In this case, I think the image you've linked and any like it are attribution only. As usual though, if in doubt, I recommend contacting the copyright holder or publisher for clarification. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, they're not under a Creative Commons license either way. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV.webm

I don't want to upload a copyvio. Just making sure that CCTV footage is OK in New York, people over at the associated talk page are citing intellectual property as a reason this isn't ok. JayCubby (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being CCTV has no bearing -- the question is if there is at least a bit of creativity in the resulting expression. It is possible that someone positioning that camera may have done enough for a copyright, unless the positioning was obvious. This video has a U.S. copyright registration, for one example. I don't think there is clear case law either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be more and more of this type of image uploaded either to Commons or locally to English Wikipedia under a {{PD-automated}} license in recent years, but I'm not sure whether there's been sufficient US case law to make this clear beyond a shadow of doubt despite Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-automated. For the moment, though, Commons seems to be OK with this. I guess in this case it would depend as to whether there was any human input involved in setting up the camera to create this footage. One thing to remember, though, is that whether Commons can host and image and how that image is ultimately used by English Wikipedia or any other WMF project are essentially two different questions. The first question can be resolved here on Commons, but the other question probably needs to be discussed locally on the project where the image is intended to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is input, I suppose, in setting up a camera so as to capture a specific area, but my sense is that such authorship doesn't really constitute originality (never mind the fact that the people who set up a CCTV cam probably aren't the camera owners). We'll see I guess. JayCubby (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The clip being used here contains original work by the New York Times (their graphic at the beginning of video)

The clip being used here uses the same but from the New York Post.

If either of these publications reproduced the CCTV video obtained by the opposing publication, they would absolutely be the subject of a lawsuit which they'd probably lose. I don't think we should be reproducing the work of either of these publications. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the clips, not Wikipedia pages they were once used on. I only see the New York Post one, which is on Commons: File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV (NY Post).webm. I don't see much likelihood that either publication would sue; the Post copyright would be pretty thin, and it wouldn't look good on Times to use the work of the Post. Commons:PD-Art has long set the precedence that we use public domain works from other publications. It would be good to remove the added material, but legally, the Post logo is PD-text, so that's not the big copyright concern.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organisational Usernames self-licensing as 'own-work'

It's come to my attention that these users have uploaded a batch of images, mostly used on McAslan - Wikipedia two of the users' accounts are organisational entities, not individuals. Is this allowed, It's not clear to me that an organisational account can self-license images as the 'sole copyright holder'?

Special:ListFiles/John_McAslan_+_Partners - Organisational account, licensed as 'own work'
Special:ListFiles/Philippa_Hurst - Uploaded images with (c) Hufton+Crow but licensed them as 'own work'
Special:ListFiles/Hufton+Crow - Organisational account, licensed as 'own work' JeffUK (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are not OK without a permission via COM:VRT. I tagged 2 of these files. In addition, it needs to be clarify about using multiple accounts from the same organization. The 2 oldest accounts do not have recent edits, so a request for check user cannot be done. @JeffUK: You must inform users when you report them somewhere. I did for you this time. Yann (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> It's not clear to me that an organisational account can self-license images as the 'sole copyright holder'?

Why not? Corporations can be copyright holders. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1943 movie poster

File:Girl Crazy.webp was recently uploaded as PD as copyright was not renewed. Assuming this is right (it seems rare it was renewed?) are other versions such as this one similarly uploadable? CMD (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're different works, so their copyright status needs to be assessed separately. This version of the poster is big enough for me to make out a copyright notice, but I can't actually read it to see who the copyright holder was. Copyright for a 1943 work was due for renewal in 1971-72, and I can't find an artwork or "commercial print or label" renewal for "Girl Crazy" around that time. That, and as you say, renewals were relatively rare, makes me think this is almost certainly OK. I'd be happier if I could see the name of the copyright holder though. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{autotranslate|base=Community tabs}}{{autotranslate|base=Village pump/Copyright/Header}}{{autoarchive resolved section|age=1|timeout=7|archive=((FULLPAGENAME))/Archive/((year))/((month:##))|show=no}}{{Community tabs/end}}
 <!-- NEW DISCUSSIONS GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE -->
+== File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg - Copyrighted? ==
-== Photos / Screenshots from the "Apache" recording of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster ==
-[[File:ColumbiaFLIR2003.png|thumb|left]] Hey everyone, I'm bringing up this photo hosted on the Commons in particular: "ColumbiaFLIR2003.png", which is a frame from [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNfEUkxmliQ this source video] on YouTube, posted back in 2008. I wanted to make this image the infobox photo for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster Space Shuttle Columbia disaster] page on Wikipedia, as it depicts the most historically significant and memorable part of this tragedy. However, from prior mentions on Wikipedia talk pages and in the  [[Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07#Footage taken by Netherlands military pilot, using US equipment, on training in US?|Commons' Village Pump]], there's concerns about its "freeness" to use on Wikipedia and other sites, specifically because the helicopter's camera was operated by a foreign crew, either Danish (as per the CAIB Report Vol. 1), or Dutch (as per YouTube and Reddit comments and "public knowledge", as well as an unsourced article on the aviationist.com). Still frames from the original Apache recording were used and presented in the CAIB report Vol. 1 and 3 (published in August 2003), the Columbia Crew Survival Investigation report (2008), and the ''Loss of Signal'' Aeromedical Investigation Report (2014). All three of these are NASA documents authored by government employees, and none of them mention a linkable source for the original Apache video, besides that it was a military source coming from a helicopter, which is public knowledge. Something else to note is that the YouTube video where the Commons image comes from is clearly edited, specifically at the end with the slow-motion and increased zoom at the end.
-So given all of the above, and previous discussions / context, is this photo, ColumbiaFLIR2003.png free-to-use or not? If it is free, should anything be changed to its Commons description to make that more clear? If it isn't free, it probably should be removed from the Commons, and if that happens, I should be able to use this photo or a similar one of the re-entry in the article under free-use, since there would be no freer options available. [[User:SpacePod9|SpacePod9]] ([[User talk:SpacePod9|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
-:Pinging @{{u|Kylesenior}}, {{u|Prosfilaes}}, {{u|LPfi}}, and [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] as commenters in that section and {{u|UnderworldCircle}} as uploader. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 16:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
-:I see this was previously discussed a few years back at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07#Footage_taken_by_Netherlands_military_pilot,_using_US_equipment,_on_training_in_US? [[User:PascalHD|PascalHD]] ([[User talk:PascalHD|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
-:I don't think my opinion has changed.  Any editing of the video was mostly like by US government employees.  It may well qualify as a work for hire under U.S. law, making it PD-USGov anyways.  I doubt we'd ever know for certain unless a lawsuit was filed and the details of the contracts were spelled out and judged on.  To me, this falls into the "theoretical doubt" area, well below the [[COM:PRP]] threshold.  It's probably fine, and near certain to never find out for sure.  I'd vote keep. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
-::I doubt that USA military would allow a foreign trainee to retain any copyright over such (very sensitive) images. There must be a clause buried in their contracts where they agree to relinquish any claims to copyright. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]] ([[User talk:Ruslik0|talk]]) 20:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
-:I am afraid I don't have anything to add to it. I never got any more details on it and I am not familiar enough with the law. [[User:Kylesenior|Kylesenior]] ([[User talk:Kylesenior|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
-: The description and the licensing don't match.  The description says it's the product of "two RNLAF (Royal Netherlands Air Force) pilots", while the license says it's "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government".  Either the description needs to be corrected, the license needs to be changed.  '''[[user:fourthords|<span style="color:#CC0000">Fourthords</span>]] &#124; [[user talk:fourthords|=Λ=]] &#124;''' 12:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
-:: PD-USGov is also for works which are effectively "works for hire" of the U.S. federal government.  Not directly in the legal text, but the legislative comments say that.  It's just that there is a wide range of government contracts, and many of them would not fit under "work for hire".  If U.S. personnel were directing activities though, this one probably does. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-For what it's worth, here's a quote from the book ''Bringing Columbia Home: The Untold Story'', authored by Michael D. Leinbach (the KSC Launch Director for STS-107) and Jonathan H. Ward, the former I believe is who is narrating here. Pages 158-159, "The pilot of an Apache helicopter, who was returning to Fort Hood from a night training mission when ''Columbia'' broke up, recorded a particularly important video. Seeing unusual streaks in the sky ahead of him, the pilot trained his targeting cameras on the smoke trails. Realizing later that he had witnessed ''Columbia'''s disintegration, he personally drove the tape to Barksdale and played it for Dave Whittle and our leadership team. The tape itself was classified, but '''he allowed us to record portions of the video showing the breakup'''. In the same book, an annotated frame from that recording (which is identical to the below photo from page 1-76 of [https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/298870main_sp-2008-565.pdf the Crew Survival Report]) is credited as a "NASA photo" (9 pages before p. 139). Presumably the recorded video the NASA team obtained was then made public and ended up on the internet that way. But now I've got a question for @[[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]], would the annotated photos in the Crew Survival Report qualify for PD-USGov because they were presumably annotated by US Government employees, even if the original classified video came from a foreign crew, presumably Danish or Dutch? [[User:SpacePod9|SpacePod9]] ([[User talk:SpacePod9|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
-:{{re|SpacePod9}} I'm guessing the "allowed" was because its U.S. government owner normally classifies footage from those cameras, but that particular footage was of course a different situation.  I don't think that statement had anything to do with copyright ownership (though if classified and kept by the U.S., it would be another argument that it is PD-USGov).  Any annotations would be PD-USGov, though much of the time those probably don't have enough originality to create a copyright.  The photographic copyright would be unchanged by adding annotations. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-== Copyright notice Q - Art exhibition catalogues/publications ==
-Question re: copyright notice formalities for published works of art in the US. If a pre-1977 work was published for the first time in a catalogue for an exhibition, does there need to be a separate copyright notice for the individual work, in order for the copyright to have been correctly established? Obviously a copyright marking for the publisher covers most original content in the publication, but would that also the art reproduced in the book?
-Specifically I'm thinking about Méret Oppenheim's ''Object'' (1936). It was first published in the United States in the Museum of Modern Art's catalogue for the exhibition ''Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism'' (1936-1937). The catalogue is available [https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_catalogue_2823_300293441.pdf online] mostly in whole. The book itself has a copyright notice for the Museum of Modern Art trustees from the year it was published, as well as a 2017 copyright notice from their digital upload. But there are no additional copyright markings or rights credits for individual works. Would the overall copyright marking cover the individual works, and if so, how would copyright ownership be established there if MoMA technically claimed the copyright for these individual works?
-Thanks! [[User:19h00s|19h00s]] ([[User talk:19h00s|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
-:Any takers? [[User:19h00s|19h00s]] ([[User talk:19h00s|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
-== Possibly restricted? ==
-I am currently working on an article on Wikipedia and was wondering if [https://catalog.archives.gov/id/148026338 these files] are ok to upload. The description says that they are "Possibly Restricted - Some or all of this material may be restricted by copyright or other intellectual property rights restrictions", but wouldn't the files fall under PD-USGov as the films are taken by US servicemen?
-Also, one clip from [https://catalog.archives.gov/id/148026338?objectPage=5 Reel 12] in particular is also featured [https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn1000805 here] where the film is posted as being public domain (check around 7:26 on Reel 12 and around 0:57 on the other film for comparing the two clips). [[User:Alin2808|Alin2808]] ([[User talk:Alin2808|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
-An update since I didn't receive any replies, I've also found [https://www.iar80flyagain.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-10-29-08_26_36-presa-55.pdf-Adobe-Acrobat-Reader-64-bit.png this report] for the mission which states that the newsreel movies were taken by the the 1st Combat Camera Unit. [[User:Alin2808|Alin2808]] ([[User talk:Alin2808|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
-== Is this image public domain? ==
-{{Moved from|Commons:Help desk}}
-Could the image of Bradley on page 68 of [https://pubs.usgs.gov/book/2015/rabbitt-vol4/pdf/vol4_usgshistory.pdf this USGS report] be covered by [[Template:PD-USGov]]? [[User:BhamBoi|BhamBoi]] ([[User talk:BhamBoi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-: {{ping|BhamBoi}} my take (though you might want to seek more expert opinion at [[COM:VP/C]]) is that it would probably come down to the status of ''The American Journal of Science'' Bradley Volume (1960). As a U.S. federal government document, the USGS report is presumably public-domain when handled as a unit, but if the image in question is copyrighted then its inclusion in the document is somewhere in fair use territory (and we can publish the document as a whole despite its containing copyrighted on something along the lines of a ''de minimis'' basis). The image as such doesn't become public domain just because it is included in a federal government document. Otherwise, the government could take away anyone's copyright by publishing their work in a federal document. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 05:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-::By stating: "<u>Photograph from the USGS Denver Library Photographic Collection, Portraits, in the “Last Name A–B” folder; published in ''The American Journal of Science'' Bradley Volume,</u>" I'm led to think that it was a USGS file, thus government PD, but later republished in the journal volume.
-::For reference, a link to the [https://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/BradleyVol.html Bradley Volume is here], and the image appears in [https://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1960/ajs_258A_11.pdf/1.pdf this article]. [[User:BhamBoi|BhamBoi]] ([[User talk:BhamBoi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-::: USGS having it in a collection doesn't mean it was taken by a U.S. government employee. Again, you might want to seek more expert opinion at [[COM:VP/C]]. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 06:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::I will. Thanks! [[User:BhamBoi|BhamBoi]] ([[User talk:BhamBoi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-::Note that anything that was published before 1964 and first published in the US and did not have a proper notice and renewal is in the public domain, though. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-:Just an update, I have not gotten a response from this board yet but would the image linked above be okay to upload to Commons? [[User:BhamBoi|BhamBoi]] ([[User talk:BhamBoi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-::{{ping|BhamBoi}} I found no related copyright renewal records for [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=American+Journal+of+Science&Search_Code=TALL&PID=kBBZGNNtka5pqdLFMJbS_2RHYMjs&SEQ=20240127152053&CNT=25&HIST=1 "The American Journal of Science"] or [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=The+Bradley+Volume&Search_Code=TALL&PID=-1RzrolTZie20ElesXWFjVRmWtoL&SEQ=20240127152205&CNT=25&HIST=1 "The Bradley Volume"] (the name of [https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Bradley_Volume.html?id=zkEPAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y the book]). So I think you can upload the photo under {{tl|PD-US-not renewed}}. —'''Matrix(!)''' <nowiki>{</nowiki>''[[User:Matrix|user]] - [[User talk:Matrix|talk?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|useless contributions]]<nowiki>}</nowiki>'' 20:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::How does one go about uploading an image found in a PDF article? Screenshot?? [[User:BhamBoi|BhamBoi]] ([[User talk:BhamBoi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::{{ping|BhamBoi}} Please don't screenshot it, you'll lose a lot of the quality of the image. Instead, follow one of the techniques at {{Section link|s:Help:Image extraction|Extracting images from PDF files}}. Let me know if you need any help. Cheers, —'''Matrix(!)''' <nowiki>{</nowiki>''[[User:Matrix|user]] - [[User talk:Matrix|talk?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|useless contributions]]<nowiki>}</nowiki>'' 10:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::{{ping|BhamBoi}}  {{ping|Matrix}}, I have uploaded the photograph as [[:File:Wilmot Hyde "Bill" Bradley, American Journal of Science.jpg]].  I extracted via IrfanView and saved as a jpg because it's a photograph.  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-== [[:File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png]] ==
-Hi, This file was undeleted as per [[Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-01#File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png|this request]], but there is a disagreement about its copyright status. There are more requests on [[COM:UDR#Various professional wrestling logos]]. More opinions needed. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-:I renominated this file: [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png]]. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
-== Swedish FoP ==
-Hi all,
-As a representative of Wikimedia Sverige, I've had the opportunity to participate in a public inquiry convened by the Swedish government, to review and propose modernizations of the exceptions and limitations within Swedish copyright law. Such inquiries are the first step of the Swedish legislative process. One of the key areas under review is the freedom of panorama provision, and today, the proposal was handed over to the Minister for Justice. The proposal is available [https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/6b70735c6c05451c9728a4a2d987bf05/inskrankningarna-i-upphovsratten-sou-2024_4.pdf here].
-The proposal contains several aspects beneficial to the Wikimedia movement. However, one significant obstacle remains with regards to freedom of panorama (regrettably, I'm not the sole representative involved in the inquiry… :/ ). While we intend to keep advocating to eliminate this obstacle throughout the political process, I'm eager to hear your thoughts, and particularly your arguments that could be employed to continue the fight within the parliament.
-The proposal permits the use of all kinds of works permanently placed on or next to public spaces for reproduction through any means, including 3D digitization. It specifically highlights that Wikimedia platforms should be allowed to organize and structure databases of public art, such as the [https://Offentligkonst.se Offentligkonst.se] project that Wikimedia Sverige managed.
-Nevertheless, the proposal is restricted for some cases of "förvärvssyfte," a Swedish legal term that should be understood as using something to make financial gain. That is, the provision prohibits the reproduction of works permanently placed on or next to public spaces for financial gain, similar to the Danish and Norwegian Freedom of Panorama provisions. Presently, Danish and Norwegian Freedom of Panorama is not accepted on Wikimedia Commons.
-The proposal acknowledges that all commercial uses are not excluded, permitting both businesses and private individuals to use these works, even for commercial purposes, as long as financial gain is not the general purpose. Determining the threshold for financial gain is obviously challenging, but the committee report submitted to the government emphasizes that this restriction is vital to adhere to the 3-step test.
-Several Swedish lawyers I've consulted with are perplexed by how Wikimedia Commons can allow Belgian public art but not Danish and Norwegian. The Belgian provision replicates the second step of the 3-step test verbatim, which according to these lawyers also should effectively prohibit economic exploitation of such works. One lawyer even saw the Belgian provision, with the wording from the 3-step test, could be ''more'' restrictive than restriction for "förvärvssyfte".
-I'm keen to hear your views on whether restrictions for "financial gain" are incompatible with Wikimedia Commons and CC BY-SA. If so, what distinguishes such restrictions from reproducing the second step of the 3-step test in the law? And perhaps further, how we can allow FoP works at all, when all exceptions and limitations, at least in EU law, are restricted by the 3 step test?
-Any thoughts and input here will be extremely valuable as the process continues. [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-:Hi, Thanks for your message. Could you please explain, or link to an explanation about, the 3 steps you mention. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-:: Of course, I thought I linked it! [[:en:Berne_three-step_test|This]] is the English Wikipedia article on the [[:en:Berne_three-step_test|3 step test]] and [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32001L0029 here] you find EU version. [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::@[[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] regarding [[COM:FOP Belgium|Belgian FoP]], the latest version no longer contains what you said. For proof, see [https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/loi_a1.pl?language=nl&la=N&cn=2013022819&table_name=wet&caller=list&N&fromtab=wet&tri=dd%20AS%20RANK&rech=1&numero=1&sql=%28text%20contains%20%28%27%27%29%29#Art.XI.190 here]. You may use Google Translate to translate Article XI.190 (2/1°). <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 23:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::Basically, the current Belgian FoP wording has removed the three-step test-like wording, making it compatible with free culture and commercial licenses such as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-zero, and PD. I have some reservation that too much adhering to three-step test may result to Sweden being one-step backward in terms of free appreciation and enjoyment of Swedish public monuments by anyone ''for any purposes''. The [[COM:FOP Spain|Spanish FoP]] was almost revoked here because of two Court rulings that treated the three-step test as a restriction to commercial reuses of Spanish public monuments. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 09:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::Thanks @[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]], this is very helpful. Do you have a link to the discussion on Spanish FoP? What I don't really understand in that regard is how the Commons community views the 3 step test in general? I mean, all EU countries are bound by the 3 step test in the Infosoc directive? [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::@[[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] it is at [[Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#NO-FOP in Spain?]]. {{U|MarcoAurelio}} gave some insight regarding the Spanish FoP and the Three-Step test issue.
-:::::The application of Three-Step Test here is somehow controversial. This is because it can lead to courts ruling that all non-commercial uses are not allowed, directly conflicting [[COM:Licensing]] that is anchored on [https://freedomdefined.org/Definition the Definition of Free Cultural Works], in which commercial uses should not be forbidden by law. This free cultural works definition is what essentially supports the mission of Wikimedia Commons of providing freely-licensed content that anyone in the world can be freely reused, not bound for copyright restrictions. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 11:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::::Thanks for your comments and for the links @[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]], it is a very interesting read from @[[User:MarcoAurelio|MarcoAurelio]]. I think that Marco Aurelio's wording under commercial use of media [[User:MarcoAurelio/FoP-ES|here]] is similar to what the lawyers referred to in their comments on Belgian FoP: that the second step of the 3-step test (especially the version in the [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0029 InfoSoc directive] (art. 5.5)) could be understood as very restrictive when it comes to commercial reuse, whereas the Swedish proposal outlines several ways in which commercial use would be completely legal, even though ''all'' commercial uses are not (depending on the purpose).
-::::::I am very well aware of Wikimedia Commons mission! But I suppose that my main question here is how to find room, given that all EU countries are bound by the 3-step test, for "enough" commercial use according to CC BY-SA, while still being compatible with the 3-step test? Providing such thoughts from the Commons community would be very valuable in my attempts to broaden the proposal and guarantee, to the extent possible, that the law ends up being compatible with CC BY-SA. [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::@[[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] take note, the law should also comply to two most liberal licenses too: CC-zero and PD. Users may share images under {{tl|CC-zero}} or {{tl|PD-user}}. The law should ''not'' restrict any commercial uses that are permitted by these two most liberal free-culture licensing. If not, then the future Swedish FoP becomes ''incompatible''. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 11:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::Noted, but what would the difference be? Are there any differences in what commercial uses are allowed under CC BY-SA, CC BY and CC0?
-::::::::The discussion whether CC0 is compatible with EU law is of course another story… Still, there is no proposal to add an attribution requirement in the exception, and definitely nothing amounting to to SA. [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::I think the FoP to be proposed should not prohibit the following free uses: post cards, calendars, tourism souvenir items, travel websites or travel portals, stamps, TV and Internet advertisements, commercial vlogs on YouTube or TikTok, and website development (if the websites are commercial; that is, they are supported by advertisments). Of course, unreasonable use is not allowed, just like [[COM:FOP Germany|German FoP]]'s prohibition to alter or edit the image (to the point it no longer resembles the work seen as it is found by the Wikimedia/Flickr/500px/Pexels/Unsplash photographer) and [[COM:FOP Netherlands|Dutch FoP]]/[[COM:FOP Brazil|Brazilian FoP]]'s prohibition to edit out surrounding elements like the ground and the sky. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 11:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::Thanks for this very concrete list. It helps a lot! But can you clarify how the prohibitions for altering or editing the image restricts commercial use?
-::::::::In the proposal, it is allowed to use the artworks in any way (including everything you mention) but not for any purpose. Would your view be that everything on this list would need to be allowed freely (edit: that is, for any purpose)? In that case, do you have any thoughts on the compatibility of e.g. TV advertisements and the 3-step test? [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::@[[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] for both of your questions, I think I may call here three people who have sufficient familiariy on FoP: {{ping|Abzeronow|Clindberg|Rosenzweig}}. Anyway, other users ''should'' participate here, not just two of us with Nemo and Jeff G.. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 11:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::::::::Thanks for adding them here! I agree, it would be very useful to have a broad view from the community on these issues, for everyone I hope but for me in the legislative process that will follow in Sweden.   [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::: I generally agree with Rosenzweig's interpretation below, if Sweden explicitly has a noncommercial-only FoP, then we should regard Sweden as similar to their neighbors Denmark, Finland and Norway.  I'll watch this discussion but I don't have much to add since I'm not a lawyer. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::The proposal is not a non-commercial only FoP, but an FoP with some restrictions on commercial reuse (when it is done for "financial gain"). I will of course try to broaden this proposal in the legislative process but I am trying to figure out if it is a matter of degree rather than kind before reaching a proposal that Wikimedia Commons would accept. [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::::: Thanks for the clarification. "Financial gain" is nebulous sounding, but if legally interpreted as a non-copyright restriction like personality rights, I believe it could something workable for Commons. Hopefully WMF provides the necessary legal support to this. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::::For altering/modifying part, I think such acts damage the integrity of the artwork and may lead to artist filing lawsuit against the reuser. Of course it is more on moral rights but we generally respect restrictions to editing notwithstanding the demands of the free-culture CC licenses, and non-invasive edits like non-substantial cropping are tolerated. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 11:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-:(edit conflict) It's a reference to the [[w:en:Berne three-step test]]. The three-step test is problematic (it should [https://www.keionline.org/22011 never be enshrined into law]), but it's also a kind no-op provision because it's required by the InfoSoc directive for all copyright exceptions anyway, and it would probably be harmonized by the CJEU where needed.
-:Eric, can you clarify whether a definition exists in law for "förvärvssyfte", whether case law exists for it, and how it would be interpreted in cross-border situations? [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-::But more importantly, if those lawyers think the "förvärvssyfte" restriction is less restrictive than the three-step test, then they should advise to not add such a restriction at all in the law, given it would be redundant with article 5(5) of directive 2001/29/EC. [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 14:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::There is no legal definition, but there is a lengthy paragraph in the constitutional commentaries. I can try to translate the relevant paragraphs, would that help?
-:::In general, Swedish legislators tend to want to make sure that implemented laws already fulfill the 3 step test, so that users don't need to know the details of this abstract principle. So the idea from the lawmaker would be that a "translation" of the second step of the 3 step test in a Swedish implementation would be to restrict the exception with this "förvärvssyfte". Do you have any good ideas for arguments against that? My main argument is that it makes it much harder for a global movement, since all national or language based definitions make it much harder to understand laws across borders.  [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-::Has any court enforced the three-step test enshrined into law? If not, could we safely ignore it? &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 11:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::Hi @[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]] Yes, Wikimedia Sverige lost a court case in the Supreme Court on Freedom of Panorama, where the supreme court says that courts have to apply the 3 step test when judging individual cases of use based on [[wikipedia:Limitations_and_exceptions_to_copyright|limitations and exceptions to copyright]]. But I don't think that any EU country can ignore the 3 step test? I see that Portugal, Poland, Czechia and Croatia, for example, all have implemented 3 step test verbatim in national law, but Wikimedia Commons still accept FoP from these countries. Do you know of any discussions on this here on Commons (that is, the compatibility of 3 step test and commercial FoP?). [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::Here's the court case for reference, but unfortunately in Swedish: https://www.domstol.se/hogsta-domstolen/avgoranden/2016/36003/ [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::@[[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]]: Thanks. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-: It seems to me that each country can determine the "legitimate interests" of authors in their law.  I think clearly the Berne Convention prohibits these copyright exceptions from allowing an outright copy -- a sculpture of a sculpture, or a photo of a photo or painting (cropped to the original) -- which would compete directly in the marketplace.  But beyond that, countries may have a fair bit of latitude.  For example, in the U.S., in [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/120 USC 17 120] they explicitly define the scope of architectural copyright as not including pictorial representations of any building located in a public place.  So, such photos are not part of the architectural copyright's "legitimate interests".  There is no such provision for sculpture, but that may simply be a U.S. choice based on their situation with past "norms" on what people expect to be able to do, and not criminalizing them (given that the U.S. had no real architectural copyright at all before joining Berne and such photos were common).  The U.S. though explicitly does not consider the text of the Berne Convention to be legally binding, while many other countries do (ones which permit self-executing treaties).
-: The way I have looked at it is that many countries have decided that in exchange for the notoriety and publicity coming from public (or maybe private) authorities choosing their work to be permanently in public, there is a certain limitation of rights which comes with that -- such authors should not gain rights over pictures of the public area as a result, really.  I would think that any FoP provision would be limited to its depiction as seen in public; if you crop away or otherwise remove the public context then it would be more of a straight copy or "normal" derivative work which would indeed prejudice the normal interests in a work, if it had not been in public.  Outside of that, countries seem to have latitude on how they treat them -- some disallow photos where a sculpture is the main subject (just allowing photos of the wider scene, similar to "incidental" inclusion) or disallow only commercial use, while others allow both -- at that point, that type of photo would seem to not be part of the "legitimate interests" of the underlying author.  So to me, it's a matter of what a country's legislature and/or courts deems "right" or "wrong" for themselves.  We would need to follow that per-country, of course.  Ambiguous phrases like that tend to be interpreted different country to country (and even court case to court case), so not surprising to me there are disagreements.  But I think it's within a country's right (such as the U.S. with architectural works) to define "legitimate" in some of these edge conditions.  It may be considered a way to not dramatically increase an author's rights they gain by having it in public, really -- photos of a private sculpture are not going to happen nearly as often, or give artists nearly as many opportunities to file lawsuits, as numerous photos of a public work do. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-:I guess it's really a matter of how the limitations to FOP are interpreted and handled in each country. If commercial uses of FOP are generally denied by high-level courts because of the three-step test mentioned, I think we should disallow FOP images from those countries so that we can still comply with our ''free media only'' requirements. For Spain that was not really the case (if I remember it correctly) because there were only two cases from lower courts, at least that's how I interpreted it. I don't know about the situation in the countries that were mentioned (Portugal, Poland, Czechia and Croatia), I hope courts there don't interpret FOP in that way. If Sweden explicitly disallows some commercial uses right in the law, we might have to treat Sweden like Finland, Norway, Iceland and Denmark - FOP not applicable as far as Wikimedia Commons is concerned. --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]]  [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 21:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-::@[[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] both Rosenzweig and Abzeronow are right. Commons can only accept freely-licensed content. For me, commercial purpose and financial gain are just the same, no matter how Swedish lawyers and legislators try to differentiate both. A post card publisher that sells their post cards earns, so their commercial activity involves financial gain. Similarly, for-profit website developers who use images gain profit by embedding or adding advertisements. The same is true for travel portal websites. It is not logical to differentiate commercial purpose and financial gain.
-::If the restricted FoP pushes through and becomes part of the law, then we have no choice but no longer accept Swedish landmarks/monuments designed by architects and/or artists who died less than 70 years ago, depending on the outcome if the restriction applies only to sculptures/murals or extends also to architecture. It is also worth knowing if the restrictions are retroactive or not. In the [[COM:FOP Vietnam|case of Vietnam]], they restricted FoP to non-profit or non-commercial use only by 2023, so new uploads from January 1, 2023 onwards are no longer allowed. Older uploads before 2023 are retained because the law is not retroactive. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 03:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::If I understood the limitations correctly it is more like limitations in the use of photos with people. Basically personality rights for buildings. If the limitations are the same we should also accept these photos. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::I must say @[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] that I disagree with your interpretation that commercial use and purpuse of financial gain is the same, and especially if the Swedish legislature by law differentiates between the two of them. The issue here is if a prohibition of purpose of financial gain still leaves enough commercial room. [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::@[[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] you didn't specify what are the so-called acts of financial gain that are to be prohibited by the proposed change to Swedish FoP? Are those copyright-related or non-copyright related (like trademarks, personality rights, museum use restrictions, et cetera)? <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 13:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-::Thanks for these comments. Do I read you correctly, @[[User:Rosenzweig|Rosenzweig]], that a FoP legislation needs to allow ''all'' commercial uses for FoP images to be allowed on Wikimedia Commons?
-::I'd like to reiterate here that I don't think that this is an issue of national courts in our case but the EU court and the mentioned InfoSoc directive. It would be interesting if someone could clarify how a fully commercial FoP provision would be compatible with the second step of the 3-step test in its InfoSoc version? Arguments along these lines would be very useful in the legislative process.  [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::{{Ping|Eric Luth (WMSE)}} Per [[Commons:Licensing]] “'''Wikimedia Commons only accepts {{free content|free content}}''', that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used ''by anyone, anytime, for any purpose''. ” Therfore I don't see how anything that explicitly forbids some commercial uses can be acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]]  [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 11:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::For curiousity @[[User:Rosenzweig|Rosenzweig]], how do you read that in relation to restrictions due to trademark law? [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::Just take a look at Commons:Licensing. The very next sentence there says “The use may however be restricted by issues not related to copyright, though, see [[Commons:Non-copyright restrictions]], and the license may demand some special measures.” --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]]  [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 12:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::::But if only content that can be used by anyone, anytime for any purpose is allowed, how come that Belgian FoP images were allowed when the 3-step test was part of the Belgian law? Or why are e.g. Polish FoP images allowed, that explicitly restrict purposes ([[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland#Freedom of panorama]])? [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::I think it would be good if WMEU could create a professional legal evaluation of this question. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-::: The InfoSoc directive is pretty much the same wording as Berne -- ''do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.''  So what is a "normal exploitation" and what are "legitimate interests"?  Those terms are not defined.  For one example, there was the case described at [[:de:Hundertwasserentscheidung]] -- that was a photo of a copyrighted building in Austria, taken from a private apartment across the street, and sold as a poster.  Selling the poster was legal in Austria, but not in Germany which required such photos to be taken from a public place.  If the three-step test was interpreted as not allowing commercial use at all, then the Austrian law is invalid.  That seems to be a different dividing line on "legitimate interests" -- for Germany viewpoints of a building that everyone can see should not be part of the "legitimate interests" of the architect for making money.  In Austria, ''any'' viewpoint of a public building would seem to not be part of their "legitimate interests".  So each country seems to be able to define that for themselves.  If the act of putting something in public dramatically increases an author's chances to make money, to the detriment of many other people, it may well make some sense to put some limits on that.  I'm not sure that many court cases examine that three-step test wording in particular as they will usually go by the wording in the country's law, but the Hugenholtz and Okediji interpretation mentioned on the Wikipedia article seems way off to me.  Obviously, you can't allow something that amounts to a copy -- that definitely interferes with the "normal exploitation" of the original work, before it became public.  Beyond that, there is lots of gray area.
-::: As for "commercial use", that can be a tortured term.  As Commons uses it, it is strictly in relation to copyright -- things like trademark and publicity rights are considered [[Commons:non-copyright restrictions|non-copyright restrictions]] and are treated differently (it just has to be legal for Wikimedia to host the image, without worrying about how some uses may violate those other laws).  So prohibiting "commercial use" in a trademark context is fine; that has a completely different meaning despite being the same words.  Our question is if a possible commercial use (i.e. one that makes money in some way) could result in copyright infringement particularly.  With photos of course, there is gray area there -- we allow ''[[Commons:De minimis|de minimis]]'' inclusion of copyrighted works.  If you crop an image to the copyrighted object, that ceases to be ''de minimis'' and would not be allowed.  Same if something is "incidentally" included, like the Louvre pyramid in a photo of the entire Louvre plaza.  So our policies have some leeway and interpretation.  The question is more, is there a possible use of the photo exactly as uploaded, which could result in a copyright violation, per the copyright law, simply due to its commercial nature.  If selling postcards of a photo of a sculpture or building is OK, it would seem to be fine.  Moral rights are also considered non-copyright restrictions; we are more about the economic right in particular.  I don't completely understand the limitation that Sweden is contemplating, and if that could result in a violation of copyright specifically or some other Swedish law (a very different situation for us). [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::There are several differences between the 3-step test in the InfoSoc Directive and the Berne Convention – the context differs, where the former closes an exhaustive list of accepted limitations, and it also explicitly concerns applications of the limitations in the article and thus does not work as a general interpretation principle such as in Berne. This turns the InfoSoc 3-step test into a rather special version of the 3-step test. But you are right that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has not defined 'normal exploitation' and 'legitimate interests', giving some leeway for national interpretation (until the CJEU harmonizes these concept). My understanding is that the Swedish proposal perfectly allows users to add a CC BY or CC BY-SA license on reproductions of FoP artwork (as the proposal does not prohibit commercial use) but that does of course not mean that Wikimedia Commons accepts such FoP images.  [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-I think [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]]'s formulation of "Basically personality rights for buildings" is on the mark. We're going to have to see where the courts actually draw this line. For example, we certainly accept that in the U.S. a photo of a person cannot be used to imply an endorsement they didn't make, and hence cannot be used in an advertisement without their permission. As far as I can tell, the same also goes for the use of someone's image on trading cards. It seems to me that if this turns out to be something like that, we should probably accept it on that precedent. I'm going to guess (though this is only a guess) that it will turn out to be fine to use these in any "normal" way in a book, magazine, website, etc., and that all that will be excluded will be directly monetizing the image as such, and I bet even a lot of cases of that will be tolerated. It's going to be interesting to see what they say about postcards, for example, or selling such an image as a stock photo. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
+Continued from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:Abraham_Hamadeh_119th_congress.jpg Wikipedia], [[:File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg]] was used on a few pages, which I've since reverted since it's unclear what exactly the copyright status is. It's been labeled as an "official" photo of the 119th United States Congress even though it hasn't yet been uploaded on Congress.gov or another official government website, since the 119th Congress has yet to start. It's only been uploaded on Representative-elect Hamadeh's newly-created "official" [https://x.com/RepAbeHamadeh Twitter account], which leads me to believe that there may be an issue with copyright, and it might not yet be public domain (if it's the official photo in the end), since he's not officially a member of the U.S. government. [[User:AG202|AG202]] ([[User talk:AG202|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
-:@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] (also ping {{re|Rosenzweig|Clindberg}} here) will this have a bearing on our treatment on Norwegian and Finnish FoP for monuments? {{Re|Eric Luth (WMSE)}} basically says that the proposed Swedish FoP would be more or less similar to Norwegian and Finnish FoP here. But Eric may need to clarify if the Norwegian and Finnish FoP do allow commercial use of public monuments just like what Swedish lawyers claim (this is per what Eric said: "Several Swedish lawyers I've consulted with are perplexed by how Wikimedia Commons can allow Belgian public art but not Danish and Norwegian.") And again, the restrictive three-step test style in the Belgian FoP has been removed in the current version of the law, so the use of Belgian FoP here as an example is now moot. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 02:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
-:: I think we have taken Norway's law to mean you can't sell a postcard if the sculpture is the main subject of the photo.  It's OK if it's part of a wider scene, but we typically allow that type of picture anywhere as I don't think we have been shown a court case from any country which has ruled a photo like that an infringing derivative work.  Finland is pretty much the same -- buildings OK, sculpture not, with the same qualification.  That would still be an improvement on the current situation in Sweden, where it's clouded by that court case.   Non-commercial use where the statue is the main subject is  fine without permission, so it would be legal for Wikimedia to host.   If that is the distinction -- photos where the sculpture is the primary subject versus photos which included it as part of the scene -- then no change.  I'm only going by the English translations though which may miss nuances in the original language.  If there is an implication that the "for gain" or "used commercially" in Finland/Norway's laws more refers to using it in advertisements only as a form of publicity rights, then less sure -- but if using it in advertisements is a copyright violation of the economic right as a derivative work, with the full penalties which come with it, still not sure it would be OK as that is a restriction based on copyright. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::Thanks all for these insightful comments. This conversation is helpful to me, and for the continued legislative process.
-:::I am not an expert on the Danish, Norwegian and Finnish provisions, so I don't know exactly to what extent they allow commercial use. It would require looking into court cases and legal commentaries from the respective countries. There is an extensive amount of court cases in Sweden that tries to establish the scope of "purpose of financial gain", and from what I understand from the lawyers I am talking with, courts have tended to limit the scope, meaning that more and more commercial uses are seen as falling outside it. I initially proposed that "marketing purpose" would be better from our perspective, but was advised that in contrast, courts have tended to widen the scope of "marketing purpose", meaning that marketing can be pretty much anything, the result being that Sweden would likely end up with a more restrictive limitation if it used "marketing purpose" rather than "purpose of financial gain".
-:::I think you are right @[[User:Clindberg|Clindberg]] that this is a question of nuances, which is difficult to transfer between languages (and to English). What I am trying to understand is if there is a way in which a restriction of "purpose of financial gain" can still be compatible with Wikimedia policies. If there is, I am optimistic that we can get improvements in the political process to that end. If the Wikimedia Commons community, on the other hand, is convinced that there is ''no'' such way, then we would need to initiate a political campaign for a completely different proposal, which is perhaps less likely to be achieved and with the risk of losing other potential improvements as per above. So it is somewhat of a strategic choice here to be made.   [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::It's important to mention too that this restriction does not apply to buildings, like in other Nordic countries. Buildings are completely free to reproduce (according to the proposal).  [[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] ([[User talk:Eric Luth (WMSE)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::@[[User:Eric Luth (WMSE)|Eric Luth (WMSE)]] I hope for the successful endeavors of your Wikimedia chapter. The ball is now on the legislation of Sweden if the proposal would continue to [[:File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg|classify Sweden as a yes-FoP country for permanent outdoor works]] or not (yellow in map, meaning only architecture is allowed).
-:::::But just a note, not all Nordic countries. Iceland, which is a Nordic country too, [[COM:FOP Iceland|severely restricts anything]]. Even buildings there cannot be freely distributed under commercial-type Creative Commons licenses or PD-user. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 14:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:In the past we have used official images and I have also found this old discussion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anna_Paulina_Luna.jpg for Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna's official image which the consensus was to keep the image in place. (You can also see that I was around during that and I didn't even remember me taking part of it!) [[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
-::::: That is very good for buildings, which is by far the most aggravating part of FoP when it comes to deletions here.  But if there is any other restriction on sculpture (other than say attribution type stuff), enforced via copyright law, it still may not be "free" -- as the law would clearly be treating the two types of works differently for a reason, and there are different allowed scopes.  If a law does not distinguish between types of work, we generally assume that it applies the same way to *all* types -- so if there is no FoP, that applies to architecture too since there isn't anything explicit in Berne which treats them differently (and which the case in Germany showed is in fact possible).  I don't recall anything in the EU directives treating them differently either.  So if a country has the right to make photos of buildings completely free to reproduce, they should have the same right for photos of public sculpture if they so choose.  It's certainly a valid choice to not 100% allow sculptures (the U.S. does the same thing).  If there is no way to get the conditions on sculpture the same as what is currently proposed for buildings, then it may not be worth it to fight.  Using a term which is defined more narrowly by the courts will help practical usage in Sweden -- which is probably more important -- even if it doesn't attain our theoretical "free" threshold.  And given that Finland and Norway have similar criteria, it seems understandable the sense of "right" and "wrong" would be the same in Sweden, too. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+::Thank you for pointing me to that, but it looks like it wasn't kept until after she was sworn in. Also, honestly, I don't see that strong of a consensus there on keeping the image before she was sworn in. I see a few comments saying to wait, with some other comments solely giving information. I'd hope that there'd be an official policy on this, hence why I brought the discussion here and not nominated the image for deletion. It's also not just the copyright issue for me, but also calling it ''the'' "official congressional photo" without it being posted on an official government website or social media from a ''current'' government official. It's also has the author of "Office of Congressman Abraham Hamadeh", even though that office does not yet exist. This would be helpful to explicitly clarify for future situations. CC: Participants in the aforementioned discussion: @[[User:A1Cafel|A1Cafel]], @[[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]], @[[User:Connormah|Connormah]], @[[User:Mdaniels5757|Mdaniels5757]], @[[User:Reppop|Reppop]], @[[User:Putitonamap98|Putitonamap98]], @[[User:Frodar|Frodar]]. [[User:AG202|AG202]] ([[User talk:AG202|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
-:{{Re|Eric Luth (WMSE)}} an important question is the retroactivity of the proposed changes in Swedish FoP for sculptural monuments (if ever passed). If not retroactive, the restrictions only cover future uploads from the date of effectivity of the proposed revision of the copyright law; but if retroactive, then the restrictions also cover ''all'' existing uploads of copyrighted Swedish public monuments here, from around 2002 (the beginnings of Wikipedia, if the files were later transferred here to Commons) up to the date a day before the proposed revision to the law became effective. See, for example, [[COM:CRT/Eswatini]]. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 19:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::Technically the offices do exist even in the physical format. I don't know about the House but Senators-elect are given temporary offices to prepare to be sworn in and take over official duties so they are technically some kind of official as they will also share caseloads of constituent work so it can be completed when the incumbent leaves office and the new member can take it over. As for the images if they were created by the House Creative Services I'd say it is public domain even if not posted by them because they give it to the member for them to use however they see fit such as their government websites when they are created. [[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::Accuracy is of the utmost importance here so I'd like to see what others think of this specific scenario before making, though educated, guesses. [[User:AG202|AG202]] ([[User talk:AG202|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::::The file name used and how the file is described aren't really pressing issues for Commons, or at least not as pressing an issue as copyright status. The caption used on Wikipedia can always been worded to say whatever is encyclopedically correct. What matters most to Commons, in my opinion, when it comes to "PD-USGov" licenses is whether a photo was taken by a federal government employee as part of their official duties. The subject of the photo, where the photo was taken, when it was taken, which website it ends up being published, whether the subject has an official government office or an official government media account/website on aren't really that relevant because the subject of the photo isn't considered to be its copyright holder. You might argue the subject has personality rights, or the file should be renamed, but those things are unrelated to the file's copyright status. So, what needs to be determined is who took the photo, whether they're an employee of the US federal government and whether they did so as part of their official duties. If official photos of newly elected members of the US House of Representatives taken by the House Creative Services are considered "PD-USGov", then the photo should be OK s long as the subject of the photo states as much when posting it online; otherwise, the argument just seems to be that the subject of the photo isn't to be believed. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::::Ok so based on that I think some criteria should be established with these kinds of images when they are posted on social media. Feel free to add points I'm just throwing out suggestions out there. 1. The photo must look like one normally taken by the House Creative Services and 2. The photo is confirmed to be their official portrait by the member themselves. [[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::I'd just like to point out that I participated in that discussion to say that someone didn't tag their image correctly which is why another, related image was deleted. Otherwise, I somewhat agree with Wollers14, in that there must be a confirmation that it was taken by House Creative Services and is an official portrait. As I recall from [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg]] and [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene official photo, 117th Congress.jpg]], the image may as well be by a private portrait photographer, which isn't under {{tl|PD-USGov}}. <span style=" font-size:100%; font-family:Century Gothic;" >[[User:Reppop|<span style="color:#063970"> '''reppop'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Reppop|<span style="color:#1e81b0">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 04:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::So there's a way to tell if its done by the House Creative Services because they take their pictures the same way with details such as an American flag in the background and a blueish background along with it. Also to tell if it is by the House Creative Services it can be posted by the member elect on social media. The MTG example you provide was clearly not one done by the HCS as there is no Flag background or blueish back drop. [[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Both of those cannot give 100% clarity that the image is public domain. there was a period in a time when the House official photos were simply a blue background like [[:File:Greg Lopez 118th Congress portrait.jpg]]. I don't think that there's a precise way to tell without A. the member being an official member of the government (so that we can assume that it's public domain) and/or B. it's been officially published on House.gov or a similar government-run website. In fact that second MTG photo deletion (also in a blue background with the American flag per [https://web.archive.org/web/20220811174049/https://www.congress.gov/member/marjorie-greene/G000596 archive]) is very similar to the situation that we're in right now, and that's why I want to wait until we have official confirmation from House.gov (or a copyright release from the congressman-elect). Again, there's really no harm in waiting. [[User:AG202|AG202]] ([[User talk:AG202|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::::The Greg Lopez doesn't have an American Flag behind him nor the traditional blue backdrop. What I'm essentially saying is that you can use the flag and blue back drop to tell or you can email HouseCreativeServices@mail.house.gov for more information. In fact I'll email them to see if we can get answers here. I doubt that they will respond though. [[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::::That's a different photograph thing for Lopez, see [[:File:Gabe Amo 118th Congress Official Portrait.jpg]]. I see it as a Cleark portait photograph, rather than an official House portrait but it's still under a US Government unit. The best way is for a website to actually host it with metadata, but we would just need to actually get confirmation that it's by a government unit. <span style=" font-size:100%; font-family:Century Gothic;" >[[User:Reppop|<span style="color:#063970"> '''reppop'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Reppop|<span style="color:#1e81b0">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 08:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::The best way is to look at familiar details to other images of freshmen in the house such as the previously mentioned above. Also we can call or email the House Creative Services to confirm with them though I imagine it will be hard to talk with them since we are Wikipedia users [[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::See Jameslwoodward's conclusion on [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg]]: "Most such images are taken by private portrait photographers because the subjects want the best possible image." If the photograph is hosted on a congressional website, or has metadata that says that it's by a photographer for House Creative Services, then its fine. We just need a way to find out if this is truly a House photograph. <span style=" font-size:100%; font-family:Century Gothic;" >[[User:Reppop|<span style="color:#063970"> '''reppop'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Reppop|<span style="color:#1e81b0">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::Ahh thanks to both of y'all, but in that case, yeah if we can't get in contact with them and there's no metadata, then imho it's just best to wait and see. [[User:AG202|AG202]] ([[User talk:AG202|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::You can reach out to them too just so you know the email is above and they do have a phone number that you can find online [[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::Ok so I’ve reached out to the HCS and they said that best bet is to contact the member-elect’s office to verify but the lady I talked to who is one of their directors said that images done by the House Creative Services are public domain so the only way to verify is to contact the office of the member-elect and ask them. So I will reach out and ask Hamadeh’s office and see what I get from there.[[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::Thank you for taking the time to do this, I do appreciate it. [[User:AG202|AG202]] ([[User talk:AG202|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::::So I also got a response to the email I sent from the House Creative Services and they are saying that the post by Hamadeh (They linked the post) is by them. So I think the image is fine to use. We good now here? [[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::::Then it should be fine. Maybe a statement that an email correspondence confirmed that it was by House Creative Services, maybe forwarding via [[COM:VRT]] but I'm not sure if that's really needed. <span style=" font-size:100%; font-family:Century Gothic;" >[[User:Reppop|<span style="color:#063970"> '''reppop'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Reppop|<span style="color:#1e81b0">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 00:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::I don't think VRT accepts forwarded emails but perhaps a VRT member could clarify by asking at [[:COM:VRTN]]. Anyway, even if one's not needed, it might be better to ask the consider sending one anyway because it would be on record if this thing comes up again with respect to another similar image. The HCS could actually word the email to cover not only this particular image, but other images it takes. This could possibly allow a specific copyright license template to developed for HCS images that could be used for its images. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::Well I have the names of the people who responded to me. I'm sure they'd be willing to talk if you ask them. You will however probably need to use an email that looks like it came from a real person. I used my real name in my emails to them. [[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::Are we good to add the image back now that we've cleared this up? [[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::I've added the image back to the pages since there seems to be no more objections [[User:Wollers14|Wollers14]] ([[User talk:Wollers14|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
-== WW1 Propaganda Posters ==
+== [[:File:Lim Nang Seng.jpg]] ==
+Tagged as {{tl|PD-Singapore}}, but would this comply with U.S. PD status as well? According to {{noping|Clindberg}} at [[Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Singapore]], the term before 2004 was 50 years, non-retroactive. So, 1950+50+1=January 1, 2001, which is perfectly well in PD in Singapore. But as per [[COM:SINGAPORE]], URAA date for Singapore was 1996, and this was ''caught up'' by the implementation of U.S. copyright overseas, including Singapore, through URAA. Is this old photo ''unfree'' for Commons considering the U.S. copyright? <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">([[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contributions]])</span></span> 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
-I recently came across some references to https://www.ww1propaganda.com/ which seems to be no longer online, but can be accessed through [https://web.archive.org/web/20180210220929/http://www.ww1propaganda.com/ archive.org]. I thought that all these posters could be a good addition to Wikimedia Commons. The copyright side of this should also be not a problem since it's all WW1 propaganda posters which should all be in {{tl|PD-old}}. <br/>
-My question now is if this is consensus for most people here (or if there will be a DR within the first five minutes after being uploded) --[[User:D-Kuru|D-Kuru]] ([[User talk:D-Kuru|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-: If these are European propaganda posters, then the author of the poster would have needed to have died before 1954, and there are definitely cases of German propaganda poster creators living to 1954 and beyond.  So death dates of authors has to be checked before uploading here.  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-::I assume You'd also have to account for the URAA along with the normal term, which I assume probably wouldn't have lapsed yet or whatever when the copyrights were restored by it in a lot of cases. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-::: These are all from the 1910s.  They are definitely public domain in the US.  [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-::: Yup. As Abzeronow indicates, U.S. law is not a factor here, because these were published before 1929. If you can establish an author having died before 1954, that puts you in good stead in most European countries; also, for some countries, anonymous or collective works only get 70 years from publication, so those would be good as well where applicable. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 23:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::My bad. I stand corrected. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
-:Yes, interesting, but they have a proeminent watermark, and the first one is already [[:File:"A happy new year to our gallant soldiers!" You can make it certain if you join now LCCN2003668179.jpg|on Commons]], copied from the LoC. They are probably better sources for these posters. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
+:Depends on whether it's used upon governmental purposes, if yes, {{tl|PD-EdictGov}}, but if not, feel free to request a deletion. [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
-== Source url deleted ==
+::My understanding is EdictGov is more for literal laws, executive orders, juridical decisions, etc. Per the Wikipedia article: "It is based on the principle of public policy that citizens must have unrestrained access to the laws that govern them." ([[w:Edict of government]]). I don't see how this photo is an edict of government. [[User:Intervex|Intervex]] ([[User talk:Intervex|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
-The only source url of [[:File:Kenkichi Tomimoto and Shinichi Sasagawa, circa 1917-1918.jpg]], [[:File:Kenkichi Tomimoto (right) with unknown, circa 1917.jpg]], [[:File:Kenkichi Tomimoto, his family and his mother in front of his workshop, 1918.jpg]], [[:File:Kenkichi Tomimoto in front of his house, circa 1918.jpg]], [[:File:Kenkichi Tomimoto (left) with unknown, circa 1917.jpg]], [[:File:Kenkichi Tomimoto and his family, end of 1917.jpg]] is cancelled from internet. Can you delete them since they haven't another source now? [[User:Nanafuji|Nanafuji]] ([[User talk:Nanafuji|talk]]) 12:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
-:I have amended your comment to convert file names to links. [[User:From Hill To Shore|From Hill To Shore]] ([[User talk:From Hill To Shore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
-:{{cmt}} I have denied deletion, as there is no valid reason for that. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
-::I see Nanafuji has been blocked. However, for reference of other editors, I have added an archive link to the source from WayBackMachine. All files above came from the same source document. [[User:From Hill To Shore|From Hill To Shore]] ([[User talk:From Hill To Shore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
+== File:Mary Kay Bergman Grave.JPG ==
-: Just because sources go away, does not mean deletion.  If we have verified the license, or the license does not depend on the source (such as in this case and most other PD licenses), they are fine.  We shouldn't upload files in the first place if keeping them was dependent on their continued existence elsewhere. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
+I've got two questions about [[:File:Mary Kay Bergman Grave.JPG]]. The first is whether this is OK for Commons as licensed or whether it needs to be treated as a [[:COM:DW]] given [[:COM:FOP US]]. The second question has to do with the additional text just added to the file's description and whether it could be considered eligible for copyright protection separately from the image itself. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
-== History of Hindu–Arabic numerals images are almost certainly copyright violation ==
+:The text and the pictures on the plaque are unfree and so is the transcription within the file description. I've opened a DR. En:wiki might be able to justify using a low-res copy as fair use, and at that resolution the text would probably be illegible anyway. We could host a version here with the big slabs of text and the images blurred out, but I'll leave it to others to decide it there's much point. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
-The image [[:File:Evolution of Hindu-Arabic numerals.jpg]] is a very lightly modified version of a diagram from [[w:Karl Menninger (mathematics)|Karl Menninger]]'s book ''Number Words and Number Symbols'' (1969), [https://archive.org/details/numberwordsnumbe00menn/page/418/mode/1up page 418], originally published in German (1934) as ''Zahlwort und Ziffer''. This is a very clear copyright violation, though the author [[user:Hu741f4]] claimed this as their own cc-by-sa licensed work.
+== 2nd call for [[Commons:Requests for comment/Costumed character files]] ==
-A couple other images are almost certainly also copyright violation: [[:File:Numeration-brahmi fr.png]] is translated into French, and according to the image description got the numeral images from Datta and Singh (1935) ''History of Hindu Mathematics'' which according to [[w:History of Hindu Mathematics]] [https://archive.org/details/HinduMathematics and IA] is in the public domain (I am not sure if that is accurate; the copyright page of these scans says "all rights reserved"). I can't immediately tell if this is true and the uploader [[user:Piero]] remade the image, or if this was also just scanned from Menninger then overwritten with translated labels, but either way this diagram is too closely based on Menninger's diagram to not be a clear-cut derivative work, and it's especially shady that there's no attribution to Menninger. This was then translated back into English as [[:File:The_Brahmi_numeral_system_and_its_descendants.png]] by [[user:Tobus]]. Again Menninger is not credited, and this one has a description page which no longer makes any claims about where the glyph images come from.
+Since nuanced discussion on [[COM:Costume]] is sought. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
-It would be nice if someone would redraw an image that is not such a blatant ripoff. The wide use of these images across Wikimedia projects testifies to their importance. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">–[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] ([[User_talk:jacobolus|t]] · [[w:user:jacobolus|wp]] · [[w:user talk:jacobolus|wt]])</span> 23:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
-: Not obvious to me that there is anything copyrightable there. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-::The precise layout, labels, and content of a diagram are assuredly copyrightable. The generic idea of drawing a tree is not copyrightable. So if you take the raw data for the chart (collection of re-drawn glyph shapes, historical connections between sets of numerals) and then hand it to someone who never looked at the original and ask them to draw a new diagram, what you end up with is going to look substantially different from the original, and should be free and clear. But just directly duplicating someone else's diagram without attribution is (a) very likely copyright infringement, and (b) unethical plagiarism. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">–[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] ([[User_talk:jacobolus|t]] · [[w:user:jacobolus|wp]] · [[w:user talk:jacobolus|wt]])</span> 08:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::No, these are not original enough to get a copyright. These are factual descriptions, and only a few words. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::Are you @[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] or @[[User:Yann|Yann]] a copyright lawyer/expert, or just laypeople speculating based on personal desires? My somewhat experienced layperson's understanding is that the "factual description" part is not copyrightable, but the choices made in the diagram (how to lay out the numbers, how to lay out the boxes, the choice of labels, the precise choice of examples to use, the specific drawings of the numerals, the choice to put a vertical divider between 1–5 and 6–0, the style of the arrows, etc. isn't something you can just copy wholesale and then pass off as your own original work. It's extremely unlikely that someone will sue Wikimedia in this case, since it's an 89-year-old diagram by an author who has been dead for 60 years, which has been widely copied in the mean time, but that's a different question than whether the work is copyrightable or not. But it also shouldn't be hard for someone to draw a new better diagram, especially anyone willing to do some additional research to find better examples; I'd recommend e.g. using colorful backgrounds instead of solid boxes, arranging the numerals in 2 rows for each set, adding a couple of other examples of further evolution of the Sanskrit numerals to make the diagram less Eurocentric, etc. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">–[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] ([[User_talk:jacobolus|t]] · [[w:user:jacobolus|wp]] · [[w:user talk:jacobolus|wt]])</span> 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::: {{ping|jacobolus}} I'm not a copyright lawyer, and in my experience there are probably a dozen, maybe two dozen, people on Commons who are more expert than me on copyright (most notably Carl who replies below), but I'm certainly more than routinely knowledgeable. I don't particularly feel like rattling off credentials and history here, but since you raise the subject: are ''you'' a lawyer, and if so in what country, and do you have any particular specialization in copyright? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::::No I am not a lawyer, that's why I say "my layperson's understanding". I'm not trying to be passive aggressive. Copyright law is just somewhat tricky. I think Wikimedia should err on the conservative side, absent specific legal advice. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">–[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] ([[User_talk:jacobolus|t]] · [[w:user:jacobolus|wp]] · [[w:user talk:jacobolus|wt]])</span> 21:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
+== Pre-positioned recording devices in Syria and Ukraine ==
-: The 1934 original appears to be [https://digi20.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00107066.html?pageNo=459 here], on page 233 of ''Zahlwort und Ziffer''.  Our graphic is pretty clearly a copy (using the same exact glyph drawings) with the Shang numerals added at the top.   Our image was copied directly from [https://books.google.com/books?id=PFNsm_IaymYC&pg=PA31 here] (same faded lines on the top box), an article called ''The Evolution of Mathematics in Ancient China'' by Frank Swetz, on page 31 of a book called ''Mathematics: People, Problems, Results'' edited by Douglas M Campbell and John C. Higgins of Brigham Young University (each article had a different author, dozens of them).  It was published in 1984 and has a copyright notice by "Wadsworth, Inc.".  The article says ''If one views a popular schematic of the evolution of numeration and places the Chinese system in the appropriate chronological position, an interesting hypothesis arises, namely that the numeration system commonly used in the modern world had its origins 34 centuries ago in Shang China!'' (and no further credit that I see).  So, the Shang element at the top was an addition by that author, with the rest a direct copy.  Unsure if it was (and is) considered a "popular schematic" such that it was commonly copied and considered general property, or not eligible for copyright in the first place, or only because the original book was probably public domain in the United States at the time.
-: It was obviously copied.  But, none of the numerals or labels would have a U.S. copyright.  It would come down to "selection and arrangement".   They are arranged chronologically, which is not original, and vertically, also not really original either.  The placement of the East/West Arabic, bit more likely but extremely thin.  The choice of which ones to include, the "selection" part, may have a bit more merit (especially the ones at the bottom).  It's not all that many elements though.  Certainly the original upload, with an "own work" claim which was clearly a scan, and with no credits or context, is bad.  It would be an ''extremely'' thin copyright, protecting mostly exact copying, with almost any other variation not being derivative.  And it's possible this diagram was routinely copied.  Still, it rubs me the wrong way that we have an exact scan from still-copyrighted works, where there is a slight question of copyright, when it would be rather easy to make an original representation showing the same idea, or copy a similar comparison from an out-of-copyright work such as [https://books.google.com/books?id=ucIZAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA this] or [https://books.google.com/books?id=2cz7XJB6y34C&pg=RA1-PA25 here] or I'm sure many more (those cite some others). [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
+I know there's no FOP in either of the countries (though one could argue DM and below-TOO for some buildings), but what about pre-positioned recording devices (kamikaze drone footage, permanently situated cameras, etc)? [[User:JayCubby|JayCubby]] ([[User talk:JayCubby|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
-== Please, rev del these 3 files.  ==
+: {{ping|NickK}} for some Ukrainian copyright insights.  In the US, if those are operated by a human operator or specifically placed in order to record an event, they would be copyrighted. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
+::Interesting. This goes for the fpv drones as well? I feel they'd fall under the same category as bodycam footage, where there is no originality [[User:JayCubby|JayCubby]] ([[User talk:JayCubby|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
+::Might be affected by [[COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings]], so they might unlikely be PD in US? [[User:Liuxinyu970226|Liuxinyu970226]] ([[User talk:Liuxinyu970226|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
+::{{ping|Abzeronow}} In Ukraine photographs from pre-positioned recording devices are most likely not copyrighted per [https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21708 Article 8.8], as they are considered photographs that have no signs of originality. For FPV-drones, the question whether there was any creativity involved, if a drone was flying in an unusual trajectory to make a particularly spectacular photo, probably the result is still copyrightable — [[User:NickK|NickK]] ([[User talk:NickK|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
+== R. I. Pocock.jpg ==
-To avoid COM:DW issue.
+Is [[:en:File:R. I. Pocock.jpg]], published in {{doi|10.1098/rsbm.1948.0025}}, "{{tl|PD-US-no notice}}", and can it be imported here? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 21:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
-# [[:File:British Ambassador to the United States hosts the premiere of The Boys in the Boat in Washington, D.C.on December 14, 2023 - 1.jpg]]
-# [[:File:British Ambassador to the United States hosts the premiere of The Boys in the Boat in Washington, D.C.on December 14, 2023 - 2.jpg]]
-# [[:File:British Ambassador to the United States hosts the premiere of The Boys in the Boat in Washington, D.C.on December 14, 2023 - 3.jpg]]
+:* PD-US-no notice applies to works published in the US. This is a British publication, and its copyright status depends on whether the photographer can be identified "by reasonable enquiry"
-Thanks you, -- [[User:Ooligan|Ooligan]] ([[User talk:Ooligan|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
+:** if you can identify the photographer, this photo is protected by copyright until 70 years after the photographer's death. Somebody who took this photo as a young person in 1947 could possibly be still alive today or only recently deceased.
+:** if you cannot identify the photographer "by reasonable enquiry", copyright of a photo published within 70 years of being taken expires 70 years after publication; in this case, 2019.
+:: So it hinges on what research you have done to try to identify the photographer. If I were attempting this, I'd start by seeing if I could find this image in any other publication, which might include an attribution (I'd probably start with newspaper archives). I would also contact the Royal Society and ask them. Eventually, if you decide to upload the photo, you can add information about the research you did and the dead ends you hit to the "Permissions" field.
+:: Note that given Pocock's prominence, it's very likely easier to find another image of him that would be easier to clear. And my guess is that the free-use rationale on en:wiki is invalid, given the likelihood that a free image exists that we could use.
+:: --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
+== Palaeomap License Conflict ==
-: {{d}} [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
+Everyone, I apologize; I may have violated the Commons policy and now feel heavily guilted, especially since all the time and effort I spent on Wikimedia for the past month may be undone.
-== Popeye cartoons under character copyright? ==
+On this site, https://zenodo.org/records/10659112, I uploaded what appeared to be [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)] licensed files (published in 2024) from it to the Commons and other Wikimedia Projects (mainly Wikidata and the English Wikipedia), and modified them to transparent PNGs (example file: [[:File:Mollweide_Paleographic_Map_of_Earth,_120_Ma_(Aptian_Age).jpg]]).
-We have ''quite a few'' Popeye cartoons that presumably were not renewed in their own right, but due to [[Commons:Character copyrights]], shouldn't these be under perpetual copyright? Popeye's first appearance was in a 1929 comic, which presumably is PD next year, and his first appearance in film was in a 1933 Betty Boop cartoon which I believe was renewed. Although I doubt his appearance in either matched [[:File:Popeye the Sailor Meets Sindbad the Sailor.webm|his appearance and likeness in 1936 and beyond]], so I think it's safer to undelete them later than 2025...
+However, there was ANOTHER license (from 2010 by one of the files' authors, Christopher R. Scotese; http://www.scotese.com/license.htm) I '''never knew about''' that had restrictions denying its use on the Commons, quoting:
-Here's the ones I could find that probably need to be assessed based on similarities to previous likenesses of Popeye:
+  These maps may not be copied, resold, used or modified in any manner for commercial purposes, such as consulting reports, trade journals or the popular press, textbooks, videos, educational CD-ROMS, computer animations, museum exhibits, '''web sites on the Internet or for any other commercial use''', without the express written consent of the author.
-* [[:Category:Popeye the Sailor Meets Sindbad the Sailor|Popeye the Sailor Meets Sindbad the Sailor]] (1936)
-* [[:Category:Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba's Forty Thieves]] (1937)
-* [[:File:Popeye Gopher Spinach.webm|Gopher Spinach]] (1954)
-* [[:Category:Bride and Gloom (1954 film)|Bride and Gloom]] (1954) [[User:SnowyCinema|SnowyCinema]] ([[User talk:SnowyCinema|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-:*{{ping|SnowyCinema}} Yes, please create deletion requests. Thanks, [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-::: {{ping|Yann}} How do you make one to nominate several at a time? [[User:SnowyCinema|SnowyCinema]] ([[User talk:SnowyCinema|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::@[[User:SnowyCinema|SnowyCinema]]: Hi, and welcome. Please see [[Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request|Mass deletion request]] (manual tagging for standard deletion of a mass of files), which links to [[Help:VisualFileChange.js|VisualFileChange AKA VFC]] (semiautomatic tagging and other operations for 1 or more files). &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 11:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::I'd like to add to this. I did some research on Popeye about a month ago, and it seems like his status is a bit more in-flux than assumed.
-:::::It seems he was first introduced in a weekly comic strip entitled Thimble Theatre, which was published in The New York Journal. However, I could only find one renewal for [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Catalog_of_Copyright_Entries_Third_Serie/ZB0hAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=thimble Thimble Theatre] from 1956-1958, the 27-29 year range from 1929. This renewal is for a 1930 contribution. Additionally, I did a more broad search through the logs for "king features syndicate" which the copyright is attributed to, and I found no renewals for a 1929 work. Again this was only for 1930.
-:::::The original strip from a publication in a syndicated newspaper does feature a copyright notice physically, but without a registration he might never have been under copyright at all.
-:::::As for his shorts, [[:en:Popeye_the_Sailor_(film)|the first cartoon]] was produced in 1933. That short was [https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyr3151213libr/page/66/mode/1up?view=theater&q=popeye renewed] in 1961. So honestly, I would consider the cartoon Popeye to be a derivative of the 1931 short. So those later shorts should be held off until at least 2027 when the short will be public domain. @[[User:Yann|Yann]]@[[User:SnowyCinema|SnowyCinema]]@[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]] [[User:SDudley|SDudley]] ([[User talk:SDudley|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
+At this point, there are four things I want to find out:
-== AntiCompositeBot ==
+# With the files ON THE WEBSITE shown through the CC BY 4.0 license, do they dominate over Scotese’s license? (their apart by 13–14 years of age)
-A message by y AntiCompositeBot advised me to ask here about [[:File:Msc.Can.3 0008.jpg]]. The image is not in copyright, and I think the information is both complete and consistent, but all help is welcome as the bot sounded like deletion was likely nonetheless. [[User:CRolker|CRolker]] ([[User talk:CRolker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
+# Can all of Scotese’s PALEOMAP files be used on the Wikimedia Projects, or at the very least the ones on the Zenodo website? (As of this message, I emailed him 2–3 days ago, but I’m becoming restless over it and am considering to call him, as his contact information is on his homepage)
+# For those same files published ON THE WEBSITE, is it really under the CC BY 4.0 license? It feels misleading at this point, and I want to know the truth.
+# How do you all feel about this, or how do you think I should respond?
+Again, I apologize for this misstep that went over my head. Still, it’s better to express my concerns than keep them to myself, right?
-:@[[User:CRolker|CRolker]]: It is finally complete 13 months after upload. Please be more careful. The bot does not withdraw posts. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-::thanks for the prompt reply! what exactely caused the problem? My guess what that the relevant tag <nowiki>{{PD-Art-100}}</nowiki> was required twice, so I added it. It's very useful to have such bots, but it would be even better if they gave hints as to what the problem was. atb [[User:CRolker|CRolker]] ([[User talk:CRolker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::@[[User:CRolker|CRolker]]: Are "valid [[Commons:Copyright tags|copyright tag]]" in [[special:diff/716218907]] and "our basic '''[[Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Licensing|licensing policy]]'''" in [[special:diff/293048073]] not enough? &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 14:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::For me, it was not clear; I thought that the <nowiki>{{PD-Art-100}}</nowiki> tag [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Msc.Can.3_0008.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=716513476 I inserted 18 Dec 2022] would be enough, so at first I was confused what was wrong with it. But again, no offense: you do help the project, and more experienced users than me would probably not have been confused. All well. [[User:CRolker|CRolker]] ([[User talk:CRolker|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::@[[User:CRolker|CRolker]]: That insertion was 3h33m after the post in [[special:diff/716218907]]. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 03:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
+''(I originally made this message longer, and sent this message to Wikimedia's Discord page before coming here)'' — [[User:Alex26337|Alex26337]] ([[User talk:Alex26337|talk]]) 09:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
-== help with copyright identification, for Wikisource ==
+:* First; don't panic :) None of us are infallible, and we're all capable of innocent mistakes (even if there's a mistake here at all).
-confused and new to this, just don't want to get anything wrong.
+:: The fundamental principle here is that if the author has validly published their work under a suitable free license, we can host that work here; even if another copy of the same work published elsewhere has a more restrictive license.
+:: [https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/pdf/10.1144/SP544-2024-28 This document] has the CC-BY 4.0 licence embedded in it, and I think there's no question that the authors of the paper have released it under that license. At first glance, it looks to me like the supplementary materials on Zenodo are also uploaded there by the authors of those materials, although I haven't been able to locate the specific document that [[:File:Mollweide_Paleographic_Map_of_Earth,_120_Ma_(Aptian_Age).jpg]] came from to verify its license details. Can you please point me to where you found it?
+:: Materials from Scotese's personal site that are ''not'' included in his other joint publications can't be uploaded here; their license is incompatible with the Commons. Did you take any straight from there, or are they all via Zenodo?
+:: --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::I uploaded the files from the Zenodo site only. As for the file's location, look under "4b1. Paleogeographic Maps (Rectilinear).zip" and "4b2. Paleogeographic Maps (Mollweide).zip". — [[User:Alex26337|Alex26337]] ([[User talk:Alex26337|talk]]) 23:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::* So, the paper itself, Scotese et al, 2024, "[https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/full/10.1144/SP544-2024-28 The Cretaceous world: plate tectonics, palaeogeography and palaeoclimate]", ''Geological Society, London, Special Publications'' carries a CC-BY 4.0 license notice both within the paper itself and on the Geological Society website that hosts it. The paper also contains internal links to the the archive on Zenodo (along with [https://zenodo.org/records/10659104 an archive of similar material for the Cretaceous]). The archives themselves do not contain any other licensing material, and the host page on Zenodo carries a CC-BY 4.0 license notice. Any image from within those archives is very definitely licensed under CC-BY 4.0 and can be hosted on the Commons. Where a valid free license exists, we can use that license, even if the same material is licensed under a less free license elsewhere (and whether the less free license is newer or older than the free license is irrelevant). While I'm sure that {{ping|Hemiauchenia}} was acting in good faith, their advice to you was mostly misguided and incorrect.
+::::: (They are correct though that images from Scotese's own website, not licensed anywhere else, are not free enough for the Commons). --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::::I mean, Alex26337's uploads basically mirror the entire map content of Scotese's website to which he has explicitly disallowed commercial use. It seems reasonable to ask whether this was something to which Scotese had properly consented. I am grateful for Alex's decision to email Scotese for clarification. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
+:@[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] @[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]]: So after almost a week from sending my message to Scotese, I got an emailed message from him saying I have permission to use the maps from the Zenodo website, and that the license at scotese.com applies ONLY to the maps on that website. Would you guys like me to tell you the whole email word-from-word for proof? — [[User:Alex26337|Alex26337]] ([[User talk:Alex26337|talk]]) 21:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+::: I really appreciate you reaching out about this. I am willing to take you at your word, but I wouldn't mind seeing the correspondence.
+::[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+::What I normally do is forward the email to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) for the record ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ). You will get a case number in response that you can quote in any further discussions. VRT members are able to view the archived email and verify its contents. When you forward the email to the VRT, include a note to say that this is for the record only and that you're not expecting them to take any action.
+::More generally, to help anyone wanting to re-use these images and who might want to verify the license, it would also be helpful to note exactly which zip file each image came from; this is not strictly needed for the license, but would definitely make prospective re-users' lives easier. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::@[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]]: Ok, one question though: I know there are a lot of files hanging on this permission statement, so once I get the verifications settled, is it up to the volunteer team to put the VRT ticket statement in all the image's permission boxes, or myself? Also, if it's up to them, should I mention ALL the files I uploaded to the Commons that connect to the confirmation email in my message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? — [[User:Alex26337|Alex26337]] ([[User talk:Alex26337|talk]]) 23:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::In this case, we don't need the VRT to tag the files -- the license information is ''right there'' at the source. There's no reasonable reason for anyone to question it. If you hadn't already reached out to Scotese, I wouldn't have suggested there was any need to bother him, let alone involve the VRT.
+::::So, I'd just forward the email to the VRT as an "FYI" only. The only thing that I ''would'' mention on each file is the .zip it came from. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+== Using an artist's images off facebook ==
-I got a PDF of [https://wellcomecollection.org/works/dcy3yd8x The Retreat by Samuel Tuke (1813) from Wellcome Collections] and as I am in the process of uploading it I can't figure out the exact license to answer with upon being asked for that information in Step 1 of the Release Rights section. The only information provided by Wellcome Collections is "Works in this archive created by or for The Retreat, York are available under a CC-BY-NC license" which isn't very specific. many thanks in advance. [[User:ScooterDooter|ScooterDooter]] ([[User talk:ScooterDooter|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
-*<Nowiki>{{PD-Scan|PD-old-expired}}</nowiki> [[User:From Hill To Shore|From Hill To Shore]] ([[User talk:From Hill To Shore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
+I'm sorry if this has been explained somewhere, but I get lost in Wikipedia's jungle of editorial advice. I have created the article [[Thomas Winkler (artist)]] and have permission from the artist to use all photos and art by him from his facebook account. How do I go about demonstrating that I have this permission? Many thanks in advance! ˜˜˜˜ [[User:SkaraB|SkaraB]] ([[User talk:SkaraB|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
-== Ambigious PD-animal situation ==
+:{{ping|SkaraB}} See [[COM:VRT]]. We need a specific license from the artist, not just a generic, indirectly passed permission. Most likely he will want to use either CC-BY-4.0 or CC-BY-SA-4.0 and will want to specify how he wants to be credited as an author. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 18:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
+::OK thanks, I will see if I can figure out how that works and what it all means :-) ˜˜˜ [[User:SkaraB|SkaraB]] ([[User talk:SkaraB|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::* I've just taken a look at what you've uploaded so far. [[:File:Thomas Winkler self portrait.jpg|Winkler's self portrait]] and [[:File:Tivoli-Thomas Winkler-27553.jpg|Ahnoff's portrait of Winkler]] are the simplest cases. To clear these for the Commons, each of those artists would need to provide permission for their image to be hosted here (assuming that Ahnoff still owns the copyright to her photo of Winkler). There's an email template, and also a release generator they could use: [[Commons:Email templates/Consent|here]].
+:::: The photos of mugs and Christmas baubles are more complex, for two reasons:
+::::# because both the art itself and the photographs ''of'' the art are subject to ''separate'' copyrights
+::::# the art and the photographs seem to have been commissioned by Tivoli Gardens. It's possible that Winkler and the photographer (Lassing for the baubles, but maybe the mugs too?) transferred their copyrights to Tivoli Gardens, in which case, they can no longer give the permissions we need; that permission would need to come from Tivoli Gardens. And the only way to know is to contact Winkler and Lassing and ask whether they still own the copyrights or whether the copyrights now belong to Tivoli Gardens.
+:::: In all cases, it's really important that artists and creators and copyright holders understand the implications of what they're agreeing to. You say that Winkler has permitted you "to use" his work, but by releasing under a free license, they must understand that this "use" means:
+::::* the permission is not just for Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but the whole world
+::::* anyone in the world can copy their work for practically any purpose, including making money from the work, or altering the work. So, for example, anyone could just take the baubles designs, edit out the Tivoli name, then print them on their own baubles (or Christmas cards, or table placemats or whatever) to sell without any further permission or need to compensate the artist.
+::::* permission cannot be taken back. Once licensed this way, they are permanently giving up almost all control of the work. ''Technically'', they still own the copyright, but are unable to enforce almost any part of it.
+:::: So, for a commercial artist, it's a big deal, and few are probably going to agree to such terms for a recent, commercial work. The only way to know is to ask. I'm happy to help with any other questions or clarifications. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Hi and thank you for your comments. I had overlooked that images uploaded to Wikipedia can be use in this way – I think I did know it once. So I had taken some of these images from Tivoli's image bank for the press, thinking that if the press could use it so could I. But I see that I was wrong, and I've taken them down.
+:::::I've now uploaded an image of five of those cups which Winkler has photographed himself. I can't imagine who would benefit from using those images. Surely if they decided to copy the design onto a cup and sell it, they'd be infringing a different type of copyright – not over the image but over the design? Similarly, if Winkler gives me permission to share a photo of some carrousel with his artwork on it, it doesn't mean that someone can now use his artwork on their own carrousel? I imagine they can make a poster or a postcard of the image or use it in a collage, but the artwork that is depicted cannot be copied and passed on as their property?
+:::::Thanks for taking your time, and my apologies if there are things I've misunderstood!
+:::::˜˜˜ [[User:SkaraB|SkaraB]] ([[User talk:SkaraB|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::::* Assuming you mean [[:File:Five_mugs_designed_for_Tivoli_by_Thomas_Winkler.jpg|this image]] -- whether you can imagine how anyone could use the image or not, we still need Winkler to release both the copyright on the photo ''and'' the copyright on the mug design (assuming he still owns the copyright; alternatively, we would need Tivoli Gardens to release the copyright on the mug design). Because yes, you're right, the ''photo'' and the ''artwork in the photo'' are subject to separate copyrights (and we need both elements to be available under a free license).
+::::::: In your hypothetical example, Winker takes a photo of a carousel with some of his artwork on it. At this point, he owns the copyright on the ''photo'', and presumably still owns the copyright on the artwork, but depending on the terms of his contract with the carousel owner, might not. To host this picture on the Commons, we would need:
+:::::::* Winkler to license the ''photo'' under a free license
+:::::::* To check whether he still owns the copyright on the artwork on the carousel, and:
+::::::::* if he still owns the copyright, that he licenses the artwork under a free license ''or''
+::::::::* if the person/organisation that commissioned the artwork owns the copyright now, that they license the artwork under a free license.
+::::::: The difficulties here are that the Commons only hosts content that is freely usable by anybody for practically any purpose. Normally, when a photographer or an artist gives someone "permission to share" an image on a website, it's a very limited license: in most simple cases, just to use the image on the website. The permission doesn't extend to printing postcards or T-shirts, or any other use, or for anybody other than the website owner to use the image. But hosting on the Commons needs the permission to extend far, far beyond this.
+::::::: In your hypothetical example, if Winker licensed his photo of the carousel under a free license, but he (or whoever owns the copyright) did not also license the artwork on the carousel under a similar free license, then no, nobody could legally make a poster or postcard of the image.
+::::::: Finally, a little point, but which might help with understanding: "passing on" somebody else's work as your own would be legally problematic for reasons other than copyright in many jurisdictions and is contrary to the Creative Commons licenses we're discussing here. When I said that creators give up ''almost'' all their rights under such licences, the right to be credited for their work is one right they optionally retain. But claiming to be the artist is not necessary for copying. If the artwork on the carousel were freely licensed, then anybody would be free to reproduce it almost however they liked -- for example, a mural painter could include it in a catalog of designs offered to prospective customers: "This one's a design by Thomas Winkler, but it's available for me to paint on your wall." As long as they incorporate a notice somewhere to acknowledge the original artist and the license, they can do this. But they can't claim it to be their own original art. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
+::: [Cross-posted, without really reading what Rlandmann wrote; he covered some of the same ground, and brought up some different issues.] {{ping|SkaraB}} let me spell it out a bit more then.
+:::* For [[:File:Five mugs designed for Tivoli by Thomas Winkler.jpg]], you say the author is "Thomas Winkler for Tivoli";  you probably also want to add that as an attribution for the cc-by-sa-4.0 license. We need an email to the VRT from Winkler himself, granting that license.
+:::* For [[:File:Thomas Winkler self portrait.jpg]], you say the author is "Thomas Winkler (self portrait)" (which seems a bit odd; I would think it was simplye "Thomas Winkler". Again, you probably also want to add that as an attribution for the cc-by-sa-4.0 license. And again, we need an email to the VRT from Winkler himself, granting that license.
+:::* For [[:File:No Wah-Wah.jpg]] you oddly claim "own work" and say that you are the author. From what you have written here, I assume that is wrong. Once that is corrected, similar considerations arise as for the other two files.
+::: These do not need to be separate emails, just so long as he mentions all the files in question.
+::: By the way, these files all also need categories. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::Hello, and thank you for responding.
+::::From what I understand, if I post a link to Winkler's image on facebook, and he has posted a comment there, saying "I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence.", the he does not need to email the VRT?
+::::As for the portrait of Winkler, I added "self portrait" to credit him as the photographer. I hope that makes sense.
+::::For No Wah-Wah, it is indeed very odd that it says "own work", but I can't figure out how to change it. I'm not sure if this is auto-generated because I originally filled in that I own this work?
+::::Best, ˜˜˜ [[User:SkaraB|SkaraB]] ([[User talk:SkaraB|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::::* Generally, yes, we would consider such a statement to be evidence of permission. In a case like this, it's a little tricky, because we'd need to be sure whether the license covered just the photo, or the artwork depicted in the photo. So, if you ask him to add such a statement to his Facebook, please ask him to clarify exactly what the license covers. (Taken at face value, such a statement would also place the underlying artwork under a free license, which might not be what he intends! And as discussed above, for commissioned work, permission might no longer be his to give anyway...) --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::::*:Hello again. It took me some time to find this thread again, sorry for the late response. I read your longer message and I think I now understand everything. It's far more complicated than I thought, and I think I will advise him to remove his licence statements, given that it is presently unclear if they are even valid. Except for the self-portrait which he created and owns. Meanwhile I've been given some fairly stern warnings, so in addition to me taking them down, they will also be deleted.
+:::::*:Thank you very much for your efforts.
+:::::*:˜ [[User:SkaraB|SkaraB]] ([[User talk:SkaraB|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::::*::No problem and thanks for your patience and understanding here. I just took a look at the self-portrait as well, and in the conversation in the Facebook thread (maybe with you?) Winkler seems concerned about the implications of the CC-BY-SA license, saying it's a little too permissive ("lidt rigelig 'tilladelse'").
+:::::*::Of course, he's already made the license statement in that thread, so ''technically'' we could hold him to it, and he has already given away his right to control commercial use of this image. In practice, we try to be a little more lenient on the Commons (a seven-day grace period is common practice) so it would be great if he could quickly clarify what he really wants. (Note that the CC-BY-NC license discussed in that thread is not compatible with the Commons, so isn't an option. Compatible CC licenses are CC-0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA)
+:::::*::And yes, it ''can'' be complicated! And especially so in the field of art that you want to contribute to. A good rule of thumb is that if it's an photo taken by anybody other than yourself personally, or any photo taken by anyone of artwork made in the last 100 years or so, expect it to be difficult.
+:::::*::In case it helps, English Wikipedia has a mechanism for hosting a limited amount of non-free content at low resolutions. (This is also complicated, but I'm happy to help you navigate it if you want): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+== Is the Navajo Flag copyrighted? ==
-[https://augustinlignier.com/selfie-rats These photos] were taken by the rats pushing the button on the bottom of the frame, making them arguably PD-animal. However, in the only precedent I know of (the [[w:monkey selfie|monkey selfie]], of course) the situation was far less engineered than this one. Lignier picked the camera angle, not the rats, and the box was specifically designed to get the rats to take these pictures. There's also no precedent at all in France. [[User:Snowmanonahoe|Snowmanonahoe]] ([[User talk:Snowmanonahoe|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
+<gallery>
-:It doesn't strictly matter whether or not there is precedent in France — both because of how the French legal system works, and because Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States, not France. (Compare PD-Art and, in effect, PD-algorithm.)
+File:Original Navajo Tribal Flag, 1968.jpg
-:Anyway, I do not think there is any human authorship here. The entire content of the images is determined by the rat positioning itself and pressing the button at a time not determined by the human. The presence of the button at the bottom is not enough to put human authorship in the image. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
+File:Official design of the Navajo Nation flag as it was adopted on May 21, 1968.svg
+File:Official design of the Navajo Nation flag as it was adopted on May 21, 1968.png
+File:Amended Navajo Nation Flag.jpg
+File:Original flag of Navajo Nation.svg
+</gallery>
+We have many copies of the Navajo flag on Commons. [[w:Flag of the Navajo Nation|It's from 1968]]. Per [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States]] it is possible this flag is copyrighted *if* it was published with notice that it was copyrighted. I searched https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/ for "Navajo flag" and got a few hits [https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/26908854] [https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/4567448] [https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/19180144] but none of them appear to be from the Navajo Nation. Does anybody have any evidence one way or the other whether the flag is copyrighted? [[User:Intervex|Intervex]] ([[User talk:Intervex|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
+: It seems to me that it would have been ''very'' difficult to retain a copyright for a flag in the U.S. in that era. Each actual flag would be a copy without copyright notice, no? The flag does not contain a copyright symbol. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
+::I'm still new to US copyright law. So does this mean a flag in the US from that era would have to have the actual copyright symbol embedded in the flag? I thought a notice meant a text notice that would accompany the image. [[User:Intervex|Intervex]] ([[User talk:Intervex|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+::: It would presumably have sufficed always to distribute copies of the flag with a notice, but who ever did that? {{ping|Clindberg}} do you think I'm wrong about this, and if I am wrong, how would it have worked? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 19:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::: There had to be a visibly perceptible notice on all distributed copies (or the vast majority).  For something permanently placed like a statue, it could be on a marker or pedestal nearby.  But even a copyright notice on a book's dust cover was not sufficient to cover the book, since it was removable. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Oh wow, that's intense. Well, that gets me on board with "probably fair to assume it's PD". [[User:Intervex|Intervex]] ([[User talk:Intervex|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::::* Agreed that it would have been difficult. There are a couple of different ways that this ''could'' have worked, though. As Jmabel says, probably the most obvious is if all authorized distribution had been via one or a small number of authorized distributors for the flag, who could have ensured that a copyright notice was printed on each authorized copy distributed (this could have been a small notice in an unobtrusive place; see for example many mass-produced toys that have small copyright notices printed on or molded into them).
+::::::: Or, if all authorized, officially printed and distributed versions of the flag carried copyright notices, my understanding is that the distribution of ''un''authorized copies without copyright notices would not have voided the artist's copyright (although the distribution of significant numbers of authorized copies without notices ''probably'' would have). My understanding is that copyright holders were not obliged to defend their works against unauthorized use in order to maintain their copyrights, in the way that trademark holders are so obliged. {{ping|Clindberg}}, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this hypothetical scenario.
+::::::: And, in saying all that, these are very specific hypothetical scenarios, and I don't think we need to worry about them without any further evidence that something like this had been the case. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::: The law did allow for a small fraction of copies to be accidentally distributed without notice -- but I think court cases for those have been between 1 and 2 percent of all copies for cases which kept copyright.  The Copyright Compendium First edition (see links on [https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/prior-editions.html this page]), particularly section 4.1.2 but all of part 4 is about notices)  did mention that if the first edition had no notice, even if a relative few copies, copyright would still be lost.  Unauthorized copies would not lose copyright, correct.  Copyright owners can selectively sue -- the lack of suing one infringer does not help a second infringer, to the best of my knowledge.  In this case, a seal graphic appears to actually be part of the law[https://www.nnols.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/V0010-2.pdf] -- that much may also be PD-EdictGov.  Unsure what the law said about the flag, whether it was a general written design (anyone could make independently copyrightable drawings based on that), or if an actual graphic was part of the law. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)  [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::* Thank you -- I'm especially grateful for your check of my understanding around the effect (or lack thereof) of unauthorized copies. So, it seems not ''quite'' so difficult for a flag to have kept its copyright pre-1978, at least in theory. (Not that we have any reason to think that anything of the sort happened in this case.) It does make me wonder about the channels through which copies of the flag were manufactured and distributed early on though.
+:::::::::: Interesting too that the seal in the Code bears only the most passing resemblance to the seals in the various versions of the flag. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+== [[COM:TOO UK]] after the THJ v Sheridan decision ==
-:This could be interesting.  Per court cases the copyrightable aspects are generally the framing of the camera, possibly the posing, maybe the lighting, maybe the timing, and other effects under control of the photographer.  Who presses the shutter does not necessarily matter.  But, most of those aren't done by a human here.  A human did set the camera framing, but it's pointing straight at a blank wall -- might be a non-created framing and positioning given the rest of the setup.  Humans did set up the lighting.  A bit different than the monkey selfies, where the camera was also held by the animal so there could be no claim of framing (and it was natural lighting outdoors).  Not sure authorship could be claimed here either, but it's a tiny bit closer than the monkey selfies.  [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
+[https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/1354.html Sheridan] replaced the old "skill and labour" test (which was applied in ''[https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1489.html Future]'' and ''Ladbroke'', both of which are currently cited on [[COM:TOO UK]]) with the new, "more demanding", "author’s own intellectual creation" test. This seems to have a broader reach than just digital reproductions of 2D images, and likely, in my view, means that the threshold of originality in the UK is now much closer to that of the US. But this doesn't seem to have been discussed much, so I don't want to make any drastic changes quite yet. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
-== Town Meeting TV ==
+I should note that this came up in [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jaguar-Logo.svg|a DR]]. (Cc. @[[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]]) —&#8205;[[User:Mdaniels5757|Mdaniels5757]] ([[User talk:Mdaniels5757|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Mdaniels5757|contribs]]) 04:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
-Recently I was reviewing from the [https://www.youtube.com/@townmeetingtv YouTube channel of Town Meeting TV], a public broadcaster, and although the videos have the CC-BY 3.0 license when reading the description of a video I found the following text:
-<blockquote>
- This video belongs to http://www.cctv.org and published with permission under Creative Commons License CCTV Center for Media & Democracy Programming is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.</blockquote>
-It is also present on other random videos from the same channel that I opened. Their official website http://www.cctv.org has on the footer also the CC-BY-NC-SA symbol. I guess they selected the "Creative commons" license in YouTube  assuming they could pick any of the CC licenses. As there are a lot of images involved I would like to ask for opinions before opening a DR. [[User:Günther Frager|Günther Frager]] ([[User talk:Günther Frager|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
+:@[[User:Mdaniels5757|Mdaniels5757]]: You're right, but the question is whether the UK courts will continue to apply the new threshold after Brexit because the reason for the change was EU legislation... [[User:Gnom|Gnom]] ([[User talk:Gnom|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+::There is no question about this. ''THJ'' is a post-Brexit decision and explicitly says this threshold is incorporated into British law post-Brexit as part of the EU acquis. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::I don't disagree with you – but you never know. [[User:Gnom|Gnom]] ([[User talk:Gnom|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::The whole idea of a precedential legal system is that you ''are'' supposed to know, though. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+== 1928 image with large watermark ==
-:The licenses are ''both'' valid. The videos are available under both CC BY 3.0 unported and CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Yes, they're mostly redundant, but there is no valid reason to delete these items. We can acknowledge the additional license offered in addition to the CC BY license. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
+I posted this over at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions WP:Media Copyright Questions] and they suggested I ask here instead.
-== Reproductions of 2D Public Domain Works in Germany ==
+I would like to add [https://archives.cohs.org/?db=0&is=%27archives_number%3D30107%26db%3D0%27 THIS IMAGE] to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%26O_desk C&O desk] article of the desk being used by the Van Sweringen brothers in 1928. The issue is that while the image should be out of copyright a large watermark appears on the picture by the historic society that uploaded it. Does this watermark make the image unusable? Can I upload it then ask for help removing the watermark? Is it not actually out of copyright because of this watermark? Any help would be appreciated. [[User:Found5dollar|Found5dollar]] ([[User talk:Found5dollar|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
-I recently stumbled across some scans of drawings of Alexandrian archaeological sites done by August Thiersch on a website from the Technical University Munich. August Thiersch died in 1917 so the original drawings are definitely in the public domain in Germany. However, the website lists the scans as being CC BY-NC-ND. Now, it's my understanding that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works are themselves not copyrightable under German law but I'm by no means an expert on the subject. I e-mailed the website admins about it and they pretty much ignored my question in their reply and simply restated that the images were subject to the licence listed on the website. Was hoping that either someone with more knowledge of German copyright law could chime in or that someone in a different jurisdiction (like the US, where these would absolutely be public domain) could upload some of these for me?
+:{{ping|Found5dollar}}
+:# It is possible that the watermark is itself copyrighted (though [[:File:C&O logo.png|elsewhere]] we've already considered it below the [[COM:TOO|threshold of originality]]). You'd have to research that. But, assuming it is not:
+:# Whether it is usable is up to the party that wishes to use it. You can upload it to Commons. Just remember to tag it with {{tl|watermarked}}.
+:# Yes, you can request help retouching it: [[Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop]]. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 17:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
+:* Without more information about the provenance of this image, we can't assess its copyright status. There are multiple ways in which an archival photo like this from 1928 could still be protected by copyright. Is there any evidence other than its age that leads you to think it's free? --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
+== CC-BY-SA-4.0-Picture retouched ==
-These are some of the works in question:
-* http://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065643
-* http://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1075571
-* http://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065646
-* http://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065645
-[[User:Not-A-Kitty|Not-A-Kitty]] ([[User talk:Not-A-Kitty|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
+Hello,
-:You are right, as the author died more then 70 years ago, the images are in PD in Germany. Do you happen to know when these drawings were published? If these were published before 1929, the images are also in PD in the USA and you can use {{tl|PD-US-expired}} when uploading the files to Commons. [[User:Ellywa|Ellywa]] ([[User talk:Ellywa|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-::If they were published before 1964 and there was no renewal, or before March 1989 without following US notice requirements, they'd also be PD-US. Works from Germany by an author who died in 1917 aren't URAA-eligible. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
-:{{ping|Not-A-Kitty}} The three paintings appear to be preliminary proofs of illustrations for a work that may or may not have been published at the time. Do you know if they were actually published in any form before they appeared on the website of the Technical University of Munich? If not, that's a problem, because there is an additional publication right in Germany, separate from the original creator's copyright. The first publisher of an unpublished work (as long as that work had previously fallen out of copyright, as was the case here) gets 25 additional years of protection. See [[:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Related_rights]] and [[:en:Publication right]]. So if the university library first published them on its website in 2015 (for example), they hold the publication right, the NC license is binding, and the images would not be eligible for uploading to the Commons until 2040. That, at any rate, is how I understand the current law. [[User:Choliamb|Choliamb]] ([[User talk:Choliamb|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
-::Well, binding in Germany, anyway. However, a few considerations.
-::* If first published online, we should just apply US rules (per our practice for simultaneously-published works). See [[:Template:Simultaneous US publication]]. A work first published online, which is accessible to US internet users, is first published in the US (and simultaneously in other countries), even if the author wasn't and the publisher isn't American.
-::* In Germany, this work would be considered in the public domain (that is, its copyright has expired), but protected by a related right (which is technically separate). Should we reject works protected by related rights but not by the copyright (which can only vest in the originator and heirs)?
-::* Also, if the work is redistributable in Germany under a non-free (NC) license, but actually free in the US (being in the public domain), could that be fine to post?
-::In any case, the ''US'' copyright status is as follows, according to the actual date of first publication. This is relevant for English Wikipedia, at the very least, even if the work is not accepted by Commons due to the community rules.
-::* 1928 or earlier: definitely PD-US-expired
-::* 1928–1963: potentially PD-US-not renewed + PD-URAA (if no US-form notice+renewal)
-::* 1964–1977: potentially PD-US-no notice (if no US-form notice)
-::* 1978–1989: potentially PD-US-1978-89 (if no US-form notice and no use of curing provision)
-::* 1989–2002: copyrighted in the US until 2048
-::* 2003 or later: PD-US-unpublished
-::[[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::Thanks for the reply! It took me a bit to research whether they'd been published before but at least some of them appear to have been published in 1904 in a book called "Zwei antike Grabanlagen bei Alexandria. Untersucht und beschrieben" by Hermann Thiersch. I have not been able to find a digital copy of the book (even though it, too, should be in the public domain by now) but some of the illustrations can be seen in this listing of a physical copy: https://antiquarisch.de/giaq/article/42609675-aegypten-aegyptologie-alexandria-thiersch-hermann-zwei-antike-grabanlagen-bei-alexandria#
-:::I would need to find a digital copy to ascertain which specific illustrations were part of the publication, though. From photos in this and oher online listings of the book, I know that at least the following ones are included:
-:::https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065643
-:::https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065646
-:::https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065645
-:::http://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065644
-:::Although in all these cases the published versions have been altered/cleaned up compared to the TUM scans (pencil notes and scribbles around the sides have been removed in the book versions). Also, in some cases there appear to be at least two separate versions of the same illustration that look almost identical at first glance but are definitely separate drawings/paintings as there are subtle differences in the linework, etc. Thus, since Thiersch was apparently very good at creating what are essentially carbon copies of his own work, it's theoretically possible that some of the illustrations that were published in 1904 are not the exact ones that the TUM uploaded here. (But I believe the ones I listed are - the only real differences I  can spot in these are the removed scribbles around the edges and the colours having faded a bit over the last century. The question then would be whether these scribbles showing up for the first time in the TUM scans counts as its own original publication or whether it'd still be considered the same work published in 1904.)
-:::In any case, perhaps the safest route would be to find a digital copy of "Zwei antike Grabanlagen bei Alexandria. Untersucht und beschrieben" and take the illustrations from that. That way I'll know for sure that I'm dealing with the published version and I'll also get copies with the original colours rather than the faded ones of the TUM scans. [[User:Not-A-Kitty|Not-A-Kitty]] ([[User talk:Not-A-Kitty|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::Ah, of course, I would succeed in finding it just after submitting. If anyone else is interested: https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/thiersch1904/0029/image,info [[User:Not-A-Kitty|Not-A-Kitty]] ([[User talk:Not-A-Kitty|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::The TUM website entries seem to imply that some of the almost identical copies are prints which, I guess, he then drew and painted over. For example, this is apparently the original drawing of the Sidi Gaber cross section: http://mediatum.ub.tum.de/?id=1065638
-::::The image quality is markedly better than the book scan (not least since the latter is a print with the usual printing artefacts) so it would be ideal if I could use this but like I said, I'm not sure whether the changes made for the book version mean that the TUM publication is technically the first publication or not. [[User:Not-A-Kitty|Not-A-Kitty]] ([[User talk:Not-A-Kitty|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::These are not distinct works of authorship from one another. They are different copies of the same work of authorship. You can upload either. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+I uploaded a pict, that was a little bit retouched by me: File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X-foreground-bottom-right-retouched.jpg. Could you please double-check, if my data are sufficient (base is File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X.jpg). In the past I could put in the original file and the fotographer with the upload. If something has to be corrected, please change it and let me know. Thank you very much in advance. Best regards [[User:Wikisympathisant|Wikisympathisant]] ([[User talk:Wikisympathisant|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
-Another possibility for U.S. public domain: any images that were ''not'' published as of the end of 2002 would also be public domain in the U.S., because then p.m.a.+708 would apply under current U.S. copyright law. (If you don't follow that, look for "2003 or later" in the [[Commons:Hirtle chart|Hirtle chart]].) - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+:Meanwhile I found a better Retouched-brick and categories were automatically reduced, now this topic should be ok. So it remains the question about change of the upload-procedure. KR, [[User:Wikisympathisant|Wikisympathisant]] ([[User talk:Wikisympathisant|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
-== PD-old-70 and Cc-pd-mark-footer ==
+:: Convenience link: [[:File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X-foreground-bottom-right-retouched.jpg]]. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 19:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+:: {{ping|Wikisympathisant}} looks fine to me. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 19:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+== Graffiti in Rome ==
-From [[:Template_talk:Cc-pd-mark-footer#PD-old-70]]
+Hello,<br/>
-{{tl|PD-old-70}} includes the well-known requirement {{tq|You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States.}} It has long been a requirement that a tag like {{tl|PD-US-expired}} must be added ''in addition'', or else material is subject to deletion ''despite being PD in its home country'' (and for once, without involving URAA).
+I took several pictures of the building of the [[:en:Metropoliz|Metropoliz]] in Rome. I know that there is no freedom of panorama in Italy – but at the same time pictures like [[:en:Metropoliz#/media/File:Graffiti@Space_Metropoliz_01.JPG|this one]] and [[:File:Abstract graffiti in Rome - La Rustica 14.JPG|this one]] do not seem to have a problem (?)<br/>
+Here's my question: Can I upload pictures on Commons with CC BY 4.0 of the Metropoliz-building, resembling [https://galerie.biblhertz.it/en/maam/ this one] or [[:File:Graffiti@Space Metropoliz 01.JPG|this one]]? Meaning: Pictures of the building from the outside with Graffiti on the walls? [[User:Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)|Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)]] ([[User talk:Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
+:@[[User:Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)|Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)]]: I am afraid but the two example photos that are already on Commons would most probably need to be deleted because the graffitis are so prominent in them that they are not permissible under the ''de minimis'' principle (in German: ''[[:de:Beiwerk]]''). What you could do, however, only upload those of your photos where the graffitis are only visible "in the background". We can also help you with this selection if you want. [[User:Gnom|Gnom]] ([[User talk:Gnom|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
-Yet {{tl|PD-old-70}} also includes {{tl|Cc-pd-mark-footer}} https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ which places such content into {{cl|CC-PD-Mark}}. Yes, they're both PD.  But their semantics are different.
+:: Hi [[User:Gnom|Gnom]], thank you for the helpful answer. Please take a look at these 3 pictures: [[:File:Maam-wand-mit-tuer-2024.jpg|1]], [[:File:Maam-power-to-the-people-2024.jpg|2]], [[:File:Maam-senatus-populusque-2024.jpg|3]]. I uploaded them after asking [[User: Raymond|Raymond]] for advice. I understood that they should be ok – are they? Regarding the rest of my pictures, I will try to get CC BY 4.0-releases by the artists for them. Wish me luck :-D --[[User:Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)|Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)]] ([[User talk:Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::Hi @[[User:Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)|Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)]],  3 is definitely fine, 1 should be OK as well, but the design in 2 is most probably copyrighted... [[User:Gnom|Gnom]] ([[User talk:Gnom|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::@[[User:Gnom|Gnom]] I thought 2 would be old enough but it is based on the motive of [[:File:We Can Do It! NARA 535413 - Restoration 2.jpg]]. Per above image description it is not copyrighted in the US. But maybe I am on the wrong side? [[User:Raymond|Raymond]] ([[User talk:Raymond|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::::I understand, but I would say that this derivative work of the public domain original is creative enough to be copyrighted in itself. [[User:Gnom|Gnom]] ([[User talk:Gnom|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::::I see, thank you for your review. I am sorry @[[User:Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)|Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)]]. [[User:Raymond|Raymond]] ([[User talk:Raymond|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::No problem, good to know. Will add this picture to the ones that I will try to get a release by the artists for. Thank you, Raymond and Gnom. [[User:Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)|Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)]] ([[User talk:Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+== The copyright dilemma in SVG military insignia ==
-So is that requirement no longer in force?  Is {{tl|PD-old-70}} alone sufficient?   Either the template message should be revised, or {{tl|PD-old-70}} should not imply {{tl|Cc-pd-mark-footer}}, or at the very least we need to stop doing DRs for either missing a {{tl|PD-US-expired}} or for {{tl|PD-US-expired}} being later than 1929.
+I'm interested in uploading self-made SVG versions of the Turkish military insignia to feature in Wikipedia (regiment-level bodies). The issue is that (on the contrary to most countries) the Turkish copyright law does not consider government emblems/works created by pubic servants in public domain. They also don't have licenses on government websites. Therefore, as a Commons newbie, I cannot find any way to legitimately upload such content. Some people I have seen just credited such works for themselves, and claimed they are the sole owners of the work, but I think such an action would not be allowed. Thanks! [[User:AscendencyXXIV|AscendencyXXIV]] ([[User talk:AscendencyXXIV|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
-[[:File:Avenue de Stalingrad with railroad bridge near Place Lamartine, Arles PK-F-EAB.2005.jpg]] as an example. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
+:Hello @[[User:AscendencyXXIV|AscendencyXXIV]], unfortunately there is no "trick" that we can apply here, other than hosting any insignia that are below the threshold of originality (TOO). [[User:Gnom|Gnom]] ([[User talk:Gnom|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
-: I'm guessing that since most PD-old-70 files are also PD in the US, that mark was added in preference to not adding it at all for those files, as there is no easy way within a template to find out if another US template also exists, and many files only have that tag for better or worse.  The policy has not changed, but adding PD-mark is probably just an expedient as being "more correct than not", without a better solution being available.  And really, the file would be PD in most of the world, which is what that mark is for -- our policy for keeping a file is PD in the US and in the country of origin, but that is not necessarily the same policy when it comes to adding PD-mark.  And in fact, files we do keep per that policy may well still be under copyright in many other countries besides the two we look at, so as always you need to look at your own country's laws to see if a work is actually PD there even if it has that mark (or other PD tags). [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+: Or old enough to be out of copyright. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+: Note that is a continuation of a discussion at [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&oldid=964847485#The_copyright_dilemma_in_SVG_military_insignia]. Please, @[[User:AscendencyXXIV|AscendencyXXIV]], when continuing a conversation in a different, even a more appropriate place, link what has already been discussed. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
-== Copy Rights ==
+== Spinoff project for logos ==
+Currently Commons hosts some logos and Wikipedia some others, normally based on copyright status.
-Good Morning I am trying to find out what we need to just show the dvd Patch Adams at our booth at a health and wellness shows in Wisconsin.
-My boss has the DVD and would like to show it but do not know if we need anything to say we have the right to play it.
-I would apricate if someone can help me. Thank You Dawn [[User:DawnTurnKey|DawnTurnKey]] ([[User talk:DawnTurnKey|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
-: Not something we can really help with, as it's outside our control.
-: That said, something like that DVD will be the publisher's copyright and you will need their permission to either watch it yourself, to show it 'publicly' (as here) or to hire it out like Blockbuster used to.  If you read the small print on the DVD, it will usually tell you.  Typically this includes the right to watch it privately (they'd not sell many otherwise), clearly prohibits rental for reward, but the rules for a free showing in a space that somewhere between private and public will be complicated and you're going to have to read that particular disc's licence statement. I'm afraid that's as much anyone outside the publisher can really tell you, speaking generically. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
-:: In the US, the first sale doctrine gives you the right to watch it privately or rent it (Blockbuster just had to buy normal DVDs in the US), but showing it publicly is going to cost an extra penny; I've heard that they sent a bill of $300 for a PTA to entertain kids with The Lion King while running a fundraiser for their parents. [https://www.mplc.org/ MPLC] looks to be a good bet in the US for proper commercial licensing.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
+Many logos are registered as trademarks and as such published in relevant publications.
-== Giuseppe Castiglione painting A Hundred Horses ==
-A mid 1750s Qing Dynasty treasure, 12 picture folio of 3' x 25' scroll painting scanned by me and reassembled. My version is much improved from the one in the artist's wiki. I have several resolutions available and would like to know what is preferred and how to donate it. [[User:Dave42Hasse|Dave42Hasse]] ([[User talk:Dave42Hasse|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
+Would there be a potential to create a spin-off project for logos to describe and sort them on a fair use basis? When needed, Wikipedia could use them directly. <br/>&nbsp;∞∞&nbsp;[[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+:Hello @[[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]], please note that you need to distinguish between ''copyright'' and ''trademark'' protection, which are very different from each other. Because ''trademark'' law does <u>not</u> affect Commons, anything that is protected as a ''trademark'' <u>can</u> still be hosted on Commons without any problems. However, we need to respect copyright law, and many logos are protected not only as trademarks, but also as works protected by copyright. [[User:Gnom|Gnom]] ([[User talk:Gnom|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
-:@[[User:Dave42Hasse|Dave42Hasse]]: Hi, and welcome. Please see [[COM:HR]] re resolutions. Artwork from the mid 1750s Qing Dynasty should be PD. You are welcome to upload (and to improve [[:en:Giuseppe Castiglione (Jesuit painter)#Style and techniques]] and similar sections), but please do not overwrite [[:File:A Hundred Steeds.jpg]] per [[COM:OW]] (although you may copy from the file description page and link the two images). Any donation has to comply with [[COM:L]]. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 11:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:What problem is this meant to solve? It is rarely difficult to find an online copy of a Wikipedia-notable logo. For those Wikipedias that allow fair use, someone should easily be able to find and upload any given "fair-use" logo when needed. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 19:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+::There are dozens of projects that need to upload it separately, plus there isn't really an advantage of uploading the few that can go here. <br/>&nbsp;∞∞&nbsp;[[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+::: If there were to be a spinoff project to allow sharing of fair use images across WMF sister projects, I can't think of any reason to make it specific to logos. However, I believe any online repository of unfree material would probably go against WMF policy. As mentioned at [[:meta:Non-free content]], Commons is the one sister project that is explicitly forbidden even to set up an "Exemption Doctrine Policy," a policy on conditions under which we would accept non-free content. That is clearly because WMF didn't want to get in the position of hosting non-free media. It's been a couple of decades, and imaginably WMF could be interested in changing their stance on this, but why would logos be a special case in contradistinction to any other non-free media used by multiple sister projects? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 01:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::The idea is a spin-off project. I agree this wouldn't fit at Commons, thus the suggestion to start with.
+::::It's possible that the approach is useful for other fields (other projects), but any such project would need a clear scope.
+::::The question here is if this could work out copyright-wise. <br/>&nbsp;∞∞&nbsp;[[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::::* Maybe there's a big existing problem that I'm not seeing and that this would address, but given that:
+::::::*the WMF's position on fair use is predicated on whether an image is ''actually'' being used on a WMF project; the image can't just live unused in a repository
+::::::*the conditions (and therefore rationale) under which a non-free image can be used on a WMF project vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
+::::::*various WMF projects are able to host their own non-free content in jurisdictions where it is possible for them to do so, and each must host a rationale for how and why the image qualifies for fair use in their own jurisdiction for each time it is used in that project
+::::::*such a project would need a corps of volunteers to oversee the repository, whereas in the current status quo, volunteers from each project look after their own fair-use images based on their own local knowledge, experience, and linguistic ability
+:::::: "Could work out?" Sure. Very many things are possible if someone is committed to throwing enough time and money at them! But I think that a Commons-like repository to host images that might or might not be fair use in one jurisdiction or another seems like a very expensive solution for very little benefit over the way things work right now. Maybe ask yourself what actual problem this would solve, and go from there. I don't think there are big economies of scale to be found here. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+== Maps from New Zealand ==
-== How does Google Images determine the copyright status? ==
+Appreciated community: I need your help.
-Google Images allows users to filter for images available under a Creative Commons license. But how does it determine the copyright status of the image?
+I'm considering upload to Commons [https://digitalnz.org/records/44678461 this map] and [https://kura.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/digital/collection/maps/id/2166/ this other map]. However, I'm confused about the copyright issues.
-For example, [https://www.9dashline.com/article/tag/Confucius+Institutes this page] showed up when I applied the Creative Commons filter to my search results. However, the page in question does not seem to mention any sort of free license. [[User:Ixfd64|Ixfd64]] ([[User talk:Ixfd64|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
+While in the pages linked they say about these maps that "No known copyright restrictions", [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand|the rules of Commons about intelectual property rules of New Zealand]] contradict these declarations.
-:If you click on each article, you'll find links to the source of the image, and all three are under a free license. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
-::Oh I see. I was searching for "Creative Commons" on the page. It seems Google checks for image attribution and follows any links to their sources. [[User:Ixfd64|Ixfd64]] ([[User talk:Ixfd64|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+What can I do in regards to these maps? Thanks in advance. [[User:Babelia|Babelia]] ([[User talk:Babelia|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+:It looks like a very old map. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]] ([[User talk:Ruslik0|talk]]) 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+:For the first one, the map itself is PD, the images accompanying it are likely also PD, text on the bottom is from 1969. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+:* [https://i.imgur.com/tdeiuW9.jpeg This] appears to be the 1808/1812 original of the first map by Laurie & Whittle, which in this form is certainly free of copyright. On the modern map, the kangaroo in the bottom right appears to be inspired by [[w:The Kongouro from New Holland|George Stubbs' painting]] but is sufficiently different as to probably be separately copyrightable. Cook's portrait is after Nathaniel Dance-Holland's official portrait of him, probably also sufficiently different as to be separately copyrightable. It's probably a similar story for the various other images that I either can't make out or don't recognise. The text at the bottom of the map is modern and copyrightable, credited to "A. D. McKinlay, M.A.". New Zealand copyright on literary works expires 50 years after the death of the author. An Arthur David McKinlay published books on New Zealand history between 1933 and 1969. Separately, an Arthur David McKinlay born in 1899 obtained an M.A. from a New Zealand university in 1930 and died in New Zealand in 1977, so could well be the same person. If so, the text will be protected by copyright until 2028.
+:: As to the modern images in the map, it was published in 1969, and New Zealand copyright on artistic works expires 50 years after publication (2020) for anonymous works. So the question is, can we identify the artist? A bit of detective work might be necessary to see if there's any record of who they might have been.
+:: The second map is by the New Zealand Department of Land and Surveys, a government department, today Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). New Zealand government works are subject to Crown copyright which lasts for 100 years. Unless the copyright on this specific map has been released, its copyright will expire in 2075. I note that [https://natlib.govt.nz/records/35336779 the copy hosted by the National Library of New Zealand] says "This image may be used, copied and re-distributed free of charge in any format or media", which is not free enough for Commons because we need to allow commercial, for-profit re-use as well. You could check with LINZ to ask about the copyright status. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::Appreciated @[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]]:
+:::In regards to the first map, the page I linked says:
+:::{{quote|What can I do with this item?<br/>Share it - This item is suitable for copying and sharing with others, without further permission.<br/>Modify it - This item is suitable for modifying, remixing and building upon, without further permission.<br/>Use it commercially - This item is suitable for commercial use, without further permission.}}
+:::As for the second map, [https://www.linz.govt.nz/copyright the LINZ site] says that:
+:::{{quote|Unless otherwise specified, content produced by Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. In essence you are free to copy, distribute, and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand and abide by the other licence terms.}}
+:::So, what do you think? [[User:Babelia|Babelia]] ([[User talk:Babelia|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+:You can contact Auckland Libraries to clarify the copyright of the image in question, some of their images are CC-0 which are listed as 'No known copyright restrictions'. There is a form on the file page to do so. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:: {{ping|Traumnovelle}} I think I can guess what you mean to say, but "No known copyright restrictions" is ''not'' CC-0. The only way something becomes CC-0 is for someone who owns the copyright to overtly offer the CC-0 license. Something that aged out of copyright decades ago cannot possible be CC-0. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 06:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::I saw an image listed as no known copyright restrictions that was taken recently enough that it couldn't be PD, after emailing the library I was told it was released without copyright (or something to that effect). I can try and see what exactly was said. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::* {{ping|Babelia}} The notice on the first map also says that you "You '''must always check''' with Auckland Libraries to confirm the specific terms of use" (emphasis added). In this case, I'd be asking them who Hooker and Co. Ltd. are/were and how Auckland Libraries know that copyright has expired or was transferred into the Public Domain (since it appears that at least one author has not been dead long enough).
+::::: Auckland Libraries also notes the ''Islands of the South Pacific'' map as "No known copyright restrictions", which contradicts what LINZ has to say, so I think we need to be careful about taking the Auckland Libraries website at face value for archival content.
+::::: Have you been able to find ''Islands of the South Pacific'' on the LINZ website? The map predates Creative Commons licenses by nearly 30 years, so unless it has ever been re-published under this license, or you can find/obtain a statement that LINZ applies this license retroactivally to all material previously published by them and their predecessor organizations, it would still appear to be covered by Crown copyright. Assuming LINZ is prepared to make such a statement, obtaining one and forwarding it to the VRT would be incredibly useful to opening the door to a large amount of New Zealand cartography that could be hosted on the Commons. It would be really great if you could get a definitive answer. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+== Is [[:File:Muwekma Ohlone Tribe flag.png]] above TOO? ==
-== Andy Warhol's films ==
-Hi, I wonder what is the copyright status of [[:en:Andy Warhol filmography|Andy Warhol's films]], i.e. [[:File:Kiss (1963) by Andy Warhol.webm]]. I think most of them do not have a copyright notice, but were they published? Some of them were shown to a large audience, but what's the limit? (''Kiss'' was shown as small TV-sized projections at the entrance lobby to the third New York Film Festival held at Lincoln Center.) See also [[:en:Andy Warhol#Filmography]]. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+Is [[:File:Muwekma Ohlone Tribe flag.png]] above TOO in the USA? The picture of the dancer in the middle is from a 1845 painting, so that element of the flag is PD. The shape that the dancer is in the middle of is what I would like feedback on. I leaning towards it being above TOO given the complexity of its colouration and shape, but would like confirmation. [[User:Intervex|Intervex]] ([[User talk:Intervex|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
-: I known nothing about the legalities here, but do be aware that the Warhol Foundation area roughly as litigious as Disney, so with anything about Warhol makes sure you are standing on very solid ground. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 20:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
-:@[[User:Yann|Yann]] I think you need to delete this. Exhibition under the 1909 act is performance, '''not''' publication. The number of people who saw a film is not relevant to copyright status. Films became published because they were offered to theaters (that is, copies were offered to someone for distribution). If they were published (offered to theaters) without a notice, then they entered the public domain. A film that was shown to a large audience, but which never had its copies distributed, is not published.
-:A pre-1978 work would only have a statutory copyright (subject to the renewal requirement in 1963 and earlier) if registered with the copyright office. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:In my opinion, that simple geometric design is not original enough and probably falls under the Threshold of Originality. [[User:Bastique|Bastique]] <sup>[[User talk:Bastique|☎ let's talk!]]</sup> 22:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
-: There is some info on [https://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch01.html this page], and court rulings on [https://chart.copyrightdata.com/c01B.html this page], about publication in motion pictures.  That also mentions the first Compendium, which stated: ''Publication of a motion picture is generally deemed to have taken place when prints of the film are placed on sale, sold, distributed to the public, or distributed to film exchanges, film distributors, exhibitors, or broadcasters under a lease or similar arrangement.'' [...] ''Mere public exhibition or performance is not generally regarded as publication of a motion picture.''  They give some examples either way.  It's not the size of the audience (broadcasting over TV wouldn't be publication either), it's more when copies left his control.  By the above, not sure it was officially published.  Was it registered for copyright, and if so what did they give as a publication date? [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
-::Registered 1990 (PAu001359108); no publication date given. 1963 is given as the date of creation. Unless you have evidence that it was ''distributed'' without a notice (during the time period when that was still required), it can't be here. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+:* I also would think that this is below the TOO for the US. Only the texture makes me wonder, but I think even this is probably not enough. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
-:::OK, and when will it be in the public domain? [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+:*:Okay, seems like the consensus is below TOO, but kinda borderline. I've marked it as PD-flag and I guess we'll see if anybody disputes it. [[User:Intervex|Intervex]] ([[User talk:Intervex|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
-:::: The "u" in the "PAu" prefix indicates it was registered as an unpublished work.  A work created before 1978 but which was unpublished as of 1978 has a term of 70pma, so undelete in 2058.  (There is a minimum term until 2048 if it was actually published between 1978 and 2002, but that's moot because 70pma is longer.) [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::OK, deleted, and added in [[:Category:Undelete in 2058]]. Thanks for the links above. I added one in [[Commons:Publication]]. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+== Is [[:File:Flag of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.gif]] above TOO? ==
-== Conflicting licenses? ==
+Is [[:File:Flag of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.gif]] above Threshold of Originality in the United States? The flag features a geometric pattern, but it's a complex one. Its colouring is also complex, with what appears to be shading and small details. I'm leaning to this being above TOO but would like confirmation since I'm uncertain. [[User:Intervex|Intervex]] ([[User talk:Intervex|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
-If someone's userpage says that all their images are available under CC-BY-SA, and then subsequently they add that none of their images can be used for commercial purposes, but "CC-BY-SA" is still on there, which license takes precedence?
+:In my opinion, the design, coloring and shading as well as lettering position make this meet the Threshhold of Originality and therefore copyright applies. It's funny you've picked the two indigenous peoples I'm most familiar with. [[User:Bastique|Bastique]] <sup>[[User talk:Bastique|☎ let's talk!]]</sup> 22:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
-And if it's the latter, do we need to delete all the images they've uploaded since adding the 'no commercial use' statement to their userpage? [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:* I also think it is above the threshold, for the same reasons of complexity that you give. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:*:Cool. Above TOO it is. I haven't been able to find any source corroborating a free license, so I've tagged it as NSD. If anybody knows anything about when it was made please share in case it is PD due to age. [[User:Intervex|Intervex]] ([[User talk:Intervex|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+== Images from Croatian Ministry of Defence ==
-:@[[User:Neuroforever|Neuroforever]]: Please explain. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 19:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+Is image published by Croatian MoD is can be considered as public domain? for example [https://www.morh.hr/fotogalerija-morane-zajednicke-aktivnosti-hrvatskog-i-francuskog-ratnog-zrakoplovstva/ these images]. It's [https://www.morh.hr/en/terms-of-use/ terms of use] states:<br> {{tq|Copyright © 2008-2023 Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Croatia.<br>All rights reserved.<br>Contents from these pages can be transferred without special permission, with reference to the source.}} [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk:Ckfasdf|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
-: Is this a hypothetical, or are we talking about a particular user? Presumably, someone cannot retract an irrevocable license they have already issued by writing something on their user page. Otherwise, any user could trigger the removal of all of their original work from Commons by making a note on their user page. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 20:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
-::As mentioned, it's [[user:Neuroforever]], who last edited 7 weeks ago, and who uploaded +1800 high-quality images of ancient artifacts ''after'' making his statement of "no commercial use". Do those all need to go? [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] ([[User talk:DragonflySixtyseven|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
-::Noting DS also alerted the user in question [[User talk:Neuroforever#Commercial use]]. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
-:Anything submitted under a CC BY-SA license is '''still valid''', notwithstanding any contrary conditions offered by the uploader on other pages. As the license itself says:
-:<blockquote>For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License.</blockquote>
-:<blockquote>Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.</blockquote>
-:[[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
+:* There's a copyright notice, so it's definitely not public domain.
-== Aba-liga.com ==
+:: As to whether it's under a sufficiently free license for the Commons, it's uncertain. The license statement allows images to be "transferred", which I take to mean re-published as-is, but it's not certain (to me, anyway), whether modification of the images is permitted, which we require for the Commons. There's an email address on the page, so it would be worth getting in touch with their media team to verify that edits and alterations to the images are permitted. Please forward any response to the VRT ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ) for the record. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+::*{{re|Rlandmann}} Thank you for your suggestion. I've sent an email to the media team of Croatian MoD as suggested.
-This website says ''Legal notice: ABA League, in cooperation with its clubs, grants access to a number of photos from ABA League games, as well as some additional events, linked to the competition. These images are high resolution and downloadable directly from the the photo galleries. They are free to use for editorial purposes. Please, make sure to credit the authors of the photos with the source, signed beneath each photo in order to avoid undesirable legal consequences.'' Does this mean images from there are suitable for Wikimedia Commons? [[User:Radun Balšić|Radun Balšić]] ([[User talk:Radun Balšić|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::I asked here because I've seen other contributors upload images from their website, but the vague terms of use leave me unsure if these are compliant or potential copyvio. I'll forward any response I receive to the VRT for documentation. [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk:Ckfasdf|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+== What to do about the copyright tag for [[:File:Flag of Mohawk Warrior Society.svg]]? ==
-[https://www.aba-liga.com/player/1178/23/1/danilo-andzusic/] --[[User:Radun Balšić|Radun Balšić]] ([[User talk:Radun Balšić|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
-: {{ping|Radun Balšić}} No. "free to use for editorial purposes" is not a general license allowing derivative works and commercial use. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 17:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+So this flag is much older than Creative Commons, and the license appears to have picked by user who made the SVG version. I'm not sure it's the right copyright tag for this flag though.
-== Claire Mathieu ==
+You can read about the flag's history here: [https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/oka-crisis-the-legacy-of-the-warrior-flag/]. It was first made by Karoniaktajeh Louis Hall in what is considered Canada, but the flag is in protest of Canadian colonialism. It feels inappropriate to try and apply Canadian copyright law to it. (It is recent enough and above Threshold of Originality that by default it would be copyrighted in Canada.)
-A picture of Claire Mathieu is here (bottom of the page) :
-https://www.irif.fr/users/claire/index
+Hall died in 1993. In his will, Hall left the original paintings to the Warrior Society in Kahnawake (see link above). Kahente Horn-Miller from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake has gone on record saying [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299545293_From_Paintings_to_Power_The_meaning_of_the_Warrior_Flag_Twenty_Years_after_Oka]: {{quote|"This image may officially belong to the Men’s Society of Kahnawá:ke but it is meant for everyone to use. If someone sells a t-shirt or a pin with the image on it, so be it. If someone uses aspects of it to communicate their own message, so be it. Copyright and exclusion are the antithesis to this flag’s meaning. Karoniaktajeh would be happy to see that the message of unity is spreading further, as he intended it to."}}
-It is written "Libre de droit" (Copyright free).
+I'm not sure what copyright tag would be most suitable for this flag. It certainly seems intended to have a free license, but I can't find any writing online from Hall that spells out any terms of use. Creative commons seems anachronistic. Suggestions? [[User:Intervex|Intervex]] ([[User talk:Intervex|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
-It can be useful for this wikipedia article :
-https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Mathieu
+:* The various CC licenses are specific in nature, and so only the person who owns the copyright to a work can place it under these licences. That is, even if a copyright holder specifies terms that overlap completely with CC-BY (for example), it's not actually CC-BY unless the copyright holder says it is.
-So, is it possible to add it to Wikimedia Commons ? [[User:Dubdub|Dubdub]] ([[User talk:Dubdub|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+:: The questions, as I see them are:
+::* is Dr Horn-Miller empowered under either Canadian or tribal law to make this statement on behalf of the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke?
+::* The statement as supplied says that free re-use without further permission is OK, does not ask for attribution, and specifically allows commercial use, but it's not clear to me whether derivative works are allowed. Are they? (Keeping in mind that permitting such use would also permit disrespectful or disparaging use)
+:: I would start by contacting Dr Horn-Miller for advice, and the question might ultimately be one for the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke directly.
+:: Assuming there really are no restrictions on use, then {{Template|PD-because}} is probably the best fit we have, together with an explanation of the rationale. I'd also forward all correspondence to the VRT to keep on file. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::I would think that "uses aspects of it to communicate their own message" could be sufficient for allowing for derivative works, if this is a valid granting of license in the first place, especially with the final phrase that supports a reading that releases the flag into the public domain. [[User:Felix QW|Felix QW]] ([[User talk:Felix QW|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::* On re-reading, I agree with you on the derivative work question (although clarification would be nice). --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::"Copyright and exclusion are the antithesis to this flag’s meaning" sounds like about as explicit a public domain dedication as there can be. This is an explicit renunciation of copyright. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::* In isolation, I agree. Against that, the first sentence sounds like a statement of ownership and license to use, so I'd like to be more certain about what exactly is intended here. The two parts of the statement seem contradictory to me (acknowledging also that this might be a difficulty of trying to model a system of law with a different and perhaps incompatible one). --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+== [[:en:File:Mariya_Petrovna_Nesterenko.jpg]] ==
-:I would reach out to the institution or photographer first, who is named in the statement. It is better to confirm the copyright status than to assume it. [[User:PascalHD|PascalHD]] ([[User talk:PascalHD|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
-:"Libre de droit" perhaps is better translated as "royalty-free." That is a type of license, bjt we shouls really get a more specific and permissive license. "Libre de droit" doesn't necessarily imply the right to make derivative works. Can we send an email asking for CC BY-SA, CC BY or CC Zero to be applied? [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+Is there a way to keep track of files like this, which will enter the public domain in 2031/2 (author died in 2006)? [[User:JayCubby|JayCubby]] ([[User talk:JayCubby|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
-== Advise on uploading on someone's else work ==
+:{{ping|JayCubby}} Hi, Died in 2006? So you probably mean that it can be restored in [[:Category:Undelete in 2077|2077]]. It can be added in this page. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:: Yeah, I'd also add to it the Undelete in 2077 category, why did you think it would be restored in 2032? [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+::The USSR has a copyright term of life + 25 years, though the US has life + 70 years (I may have forgotten about the US aspect...).
+::A second question:
+::I don't have a lot of experience with the Hirtle chart, but could it be PD due to formality issues in 2031. [[User:JayCubby|JayCubby]] ([[User talk:JayCubby|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+::: Ah, Russia extended copyright a few times since the USSR, [[COM:Russia]], Russia is now Life + 70 (with a 4 year extension to those who worked during the [[:en:Great Patriotic War (term)]].) [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+::::Ah, thanks! That probably settles the affair then. [[User:JayCubby|JayCubby]] ([[User talk:JayCubby|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+:If it was never on Commons, I don't think we usually track that. But, yes, [[:Category:Undelete in 2077]] is where we would track that if we do. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
+== Images from New Zealand Archives with improper licences ==
-Hi,
-Recently, I noticed a major change to the uploading template on Commons, and I've been struggling with uploading someone's work, although I've gotten permission to do so. Previously, we used to add "{{tl|OTRS Pending}}" to notify the community about this type of upload. Unfortunately, I don't know where to apply the template now.
-Can someone help me? [[User:Olaniyan Olushola|Olaniyan Olushola]] ([[User talk:Olaniyan Olushola|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
-: {{ping|Olaniyan Olushola}} I'm not sure what you mean by "uploading template". What tool are you using to upload? [[Special:UploadWizard]] or something else?
-: Please see [[Template:PP]] for the correct way to mark a file for VRT (formerly OTRS).
-: This can to pretty much anywhere on the file page; at the top is ideal. '''If you can't work out how to do it with the uploading tool, you can always add it by editing the file page immediately after upload.''' - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 17:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
-::@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]], Yes, i used the Special:UploadWizard. [[User:Olaniyan Olushola|Olaniyan Olushola]] ([[User talk:Olaniyan Olushola|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-::: {{ping|Olaniyan Olushola}} I don't much use the Wizard. But, as I say, once you upload, if it didn't produce quite what you intended you can just go in and edit. Again, please see [[Template:PP]] for the correct way to mark a file for VRT. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+Many images have been transferred to commons [[:Category:Images from Archives New Zealand]] from the Archives New Zealand Flickr account: [https://flickr.com/photos/archivesnz/with/53878723327] and all of these images are licenced as CC BY 2.0. The problem is this licence is innacurate, many items are PD and many items are copyrighted despite the tag uploaded.
-== Frederick Murray Trotter ==
+There are almost 10,000 files uploaded from this account (assuming they are all in the category, some might be uncategorised), pretty much all are incorrectly licenced and many are copyright violations. For a very obvious example I had: [[:File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg]] deleted. The photo can be seen here: [https://flickr.com/photos/archivesnz/15068363802/in/photostream/] The New Zealand Archives may have a copy of the book in their collection but they obviously do not own the copyright to it, which belongs to the publisher/author still.
-I did a quick Google search for an image of [[:en:Frederick_Murray_Trotter|Frederick Murray Trotter]] after seeing him on the front page of Wikipedia, and have [https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pZZ4X-dNWIY/W-L4JCiow4I/AAAAAAAAAVE/o7ADSbHRpV0MC_V0fNFp6nVIexz23EwewCLcBGAs/s1600/Trotter.jpg found this image] of him [http://britgeoheritage.blogspot.com/2018/11/frederick-murray-trotter-1897-1968.html here], but I'm not sure of whether it's in the public domain or not. Presumably, if it depicts him in 1927, it should be in the public domain at least in the US, no? I'm sorry, I'm not very well versed in the public domain. [[User:Pineappman|Pineappman]] ([[User talk:Pineappman|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
+Correctly licencing these images will be a very tedious task but in the meantime I think it would be good to disallow ''automated'' uploads from the Flickr account as the licences provided cannot be trusted. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
-:The main relevant factor for the US is when the image was ''published'', not when it was taken. If it was ''published'' in 1928 or earlier, then it's in the public domain in the US. If it was only published afterwards, then it depends on when it was first published (and some other factors).
-:You can upload to Commons if the image is in the public domain in the country of origin (probably the UK) ''and'' the US. You can upload to English Wikipedia if it's in the public domain in the US even if it isn't in the country of origin.
-:Note that if the image is under Crown Copyright in the UK, then different rules apply. If you can find an image of Trotter which was created by the UK government, then it is in the public domain (if published over 50 years ago, or created before June 30, 1957). See [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom]]. This applies worldwide and any expired UK government work can be uploaded on Commons.
-:If you ''can't'' find a photo that is a government work, then here's how you determine the status. You may need to know the year of ''publication'' (different from the year the photo was taken). You also may need to know if the photo was first published in the US (which includes any instance where it was first published in both the UK and US). However, we can say that in all likelihood we can assume any photo ''wasn't'' first published in the US, so I'll give the rules for determining status in the US under this assumption.
-:#First published in 1928 or earlier?
-:#* Yes
-:#**<code><nowiki>{{PD-US-expired}}</nowiki></code>
-:#* No
-:#**Continue
-:#First published in 1929–1963?
-:#* Yes
-:#*#Is there a valid copyright notice ''and'' a renewal in the US Catalog of Copyright Entries?
-:#*#*Yes
-:#*#**Not PD-US until 95 years after publication
-:#*#*No
-:#*#**Continue
-:#*#Was it in the public domain in the UK on January 1, 1996?
-:#*#*Yes
-:#*#**<code><nowiki>{{PD-URAA}}</nowiki></code>
-:#*#*No
-:#*#**Not PD-US until 95 years after publication
-:#*No
-:#**Continue
-:#First published in 1964–1977?
-:#*Yes
-:#*#Is there a valid copyright notice?
-:#*#*Yes
-:#*#**Not PD-US until 95 years after publication
-:#*#*No
-:#*#**Continue
-:#*#Was it in the public domain in the UK on January 1, 1996?
-:#*#*Yes
-:#*#**<code><nowiki>{{PD-URAA}}</nowiki></code>
-:#*#*No
-:#*#**Not PD-US until 95 years after publication
-:#*No
-:#**Continue
-:#First published in 1978–February 1989?
-:#*Yes
-:#*#Is there a valid copyright notice?
-:#*#*Yes
-:#*#**Not PD-US until 95 years after publication
-:#*#*No
-:#*#**Continue
-:#*#Was it in the public domain in the UK on January 1, 1996?
-:#*#*Yes
-:#*#**<code><nowiki>{{PD-URAA}}</nowiki></code>
-:#*#*No
-:#*#**Not PD-US until either 2048 or 70 years after the author's death, whichever is later
-:#*No
-:#**Continue
-:#First published in March 1989–2002?
-:#*Yes
-:#**Not PD-US until either 2048 or 70 years after the author's death, whichever is later
-:#*No
-:#**Continue
-:#First published in 2003 or later?
-:##Is the author known to have died in 1953 or earlier?
-:##*Yes
-:##**<code><nowiki>{{PD-US-unpublished}}</nowiki></code>
-:##*No
-:##**Not PD-US yet
-:To determine the UK status, including the status on January 1, 1996, if relevant, see [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom]].
-:[[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-::Thank you, that seems to be the only image online of him, so I'll look for where it's from. [[User:Pineappman|Pineappman]] ([[User talk:Pineappman|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-::: See also [[COM:Hirtle chart]], probably the best summary of the interaction of authorship, publication date, etc. under U.S. copyright law. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+:* Yuk. I've just been through an analogous process with a few thousand images from the US National Weather Service published under an ambiguous and often wrong general disclaimer. I've observed a similar problem with the organisation's Flickr stream too.
-== Public domain? ==
+:: I'm willing to lend a hand with any verification or clean-up efforts. Where do you plan to start? --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+:::My plan was just go look through images as I had time (although I'd certainly never get through it all on my own), correct the category and nominate for deletion if it isn't PD/copyright belonging to Archives NZ.
+:::I've decided to be bold and create a sub-category for Images from Archives New Zealand that have been looked at, to avoid volunteers looking at the same images: [[:Category:Images from Archives New Zealand with verified licence]]. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+== Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament, 10th term ==
-[https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/edward-ayearst-reeves-there-is-no-official-date-for-this-news-photo/1034329240 Edward Ayearst Reeves] via Getty Images, also available from [https://www.davidgrann.com/gallery/lost-city-of-z/]. [[User:BhamBoi|BhamBoi]] ([[User talk:BhamBoi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+There are 662 files in [[:Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term]], seemingly all uploaded by [[User:Jcornelius]] {{reply|Jcornelius}}.
-:In the US, almost certainly not, if actually taken in 1930. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+They are all drawn from https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/
-== Copyright violation on the main page ==
+Webpages such as https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/photo/irish-meps-official-portraits-10th-parliamentary-term_20240617_MULLOOLY_Ciaran_IE_009 indicate that only an attribution is required for these images to be used by the public.
-The ''Merrie Melodies'' cartoon ''Fox Pop'' is on the front page, as [[:File:Chuck Jones - Merrie Melodies - Fox Pop (1942) (restored HD version) (2).webm]].
+However, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legal-notice/en/ contradicts this, stating
-The copyright in the cartoon was not renewed. '''But the opening theme was separately published earlier (first in 1935) and is still under copyright.''' The file must be deleted until the opening theme is muted, at the very least (assuming for the moment that the visual sequence is not copyright protected, purely for the sake of argument — although it well may be).
+{{tq|As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, '''provided that the entire item is reproduced''' and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it.}}
+This very, very unfortunate line of text suggests the images on www.europarl.europa.eu may be under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives license.
-cc @[[User:Yann|Yann]] since I know you deal with copyright in videos fairly often. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+Which view is correct? Are these files under a useable Attribution license, or are they under a Attribution-NoDerivatives license?
-:@[[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]]: Do you have details on that 1935 publication of the opening theme? It's also used in the closing. Is it listed on [[:en:Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1929–1939)#1935]]? &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small><sub> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</sub></small>🇺🇦 13:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+Does EU law supersede the legal notice at https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/?
-::The original song ''Merrily we roll along'' was by Eddie Cantor, Charlie Tobias, and Murray Mencher (words and music).  Wikipedia article is {{W|Merrily We Roll Along (song)}}; more info [https://cartoonresearch.com/index.php/the-merrie-melodies-theme-merrily-we-roll-along/ here].  It was registered for copyright (E46607) with a publication date of February 15, 1935, and was published as sheet music (plus arrangement for guitar) by Harms Inc.  There were three renewals for it all dated Feb 14 1962, R209953 (by Eddie Cantor, author), R209954 (by Charles Tobias, author), and R291199 (under the names of all three authors, specifically for the words and music and not the arrangement).  I think today there is a royalty split between Eddie Cantor and Warner Brothers.  Don't think it was used as the opening for the cartoons until later in 1936, which was a different recording at the least and maybe arrangement.  But, the song is definitely under copyright until 2031. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::Yes, the cartoons' theme music is derivative of this copyrighted song, and the theme music (the version in the cartoons) was likely first published in that arrangement by inclusion in the first cartoon that used it, which wasn't this one. And that cartoon (from 1936) remains under copyright. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+I would love for it to be the case that these files are usable but I myself was previously told they are not. [[User:CeltBrowne|CeltBrowne]] ([[User talk:CeltBrowne|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
-== Copyright relinquishment statement ==
+:* The general legal notice with its ND term explicitly says that it is "a general rule". And even if it didn't, for any given page or piece of content, I would always privilege its own specific notice over a more general notice. Consider the alternative: if the general rule says that generally re-use is OK, but we found a piece of content marked "all rights reserved", we would not think that the general rule covered it.
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLqjlTKiR9o&t=110
+::In this case, I think the image you've linked and any like it are attribution only. As usual though, if in doubt, I recommend contacting the copyright holder or publisher for clarification. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+:To be precise, they're not under a ''Creative Commons'' license either way. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
+== [[:File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV.webm]] ==
-he says "i've relinquished all copyright on it". is this a sufficient statement such that the video he was referring to can be uploaded to commons? [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-:If he really said that, then that is a public domain dedication. However, note that this doesn't apply to any content integrated into the video from a copyrighted source (that is, the things which were ''not'' created by him). [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+I don't want to upload a copyvio. Just making sure that CCTV footage is OK in New York, people over at the associated talk page are citing intellectual property as a reason this isn't ok. [[User:JayCubby|JayCubby]] ([[User talk:JayCubby|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+: Being CCTV has no bearing -- the question is if there is at least a bit of creativity in the resulting expression.  It is possible that someone positioning that camera may have done enough for a copyright, unless the positioning was obvious.  [https://www.jukinmedia.com/licensing/view/893711 This video] has a U.S. copyright registration, for one example.  I don't think there is clear case law either way. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
-== Copyright issue: incorrect source image ==
+:There seem to be more and more of this type of image uploaded either to Commons or locally to English Wikipedia under a {{tlx|PD-automated}} license in recent years, but I'm not sure whether there's been sufficient US case law to make this clear beyond a shadow of doubt despite [[:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-automated]]. For the moment, though, Commons seems to be OK with this. I guess in this case it would depend as to whether there was any human input involved in setting up the camera to create this footage. One thing to remember, though, is that whether Commons can host and image and how that image is ultimately used by English Wikipedia or any other WMF project are essentially two different questions. The first question can be resolved here on Commons, but the other question probably needs to be discussed locally on the project where the image is intended to be used. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+::There is input, I suppose, in setting up a camera so as to capture a specific area, but my sense is that such authorship doesn't really constitute originality (never mind the fact that the people who set up a CCTV cam probably aren't the camera owners). We'll see I guess. [[User:JayCubby|JayCubby]] ([[User talk:JayCubby|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+:The clip being used [[:en:Brian_Thompson_(businessman)|here]] contains original work by the New York Times (their graphic at the beginning of video)
+:The clip being used [[:en:Assassination_of_Brian_Thompson|here]] uses the same but from the New York Post.
+:If either of these publications reproduced the CCTV video obtained by the opposing publication, they would absolutely be the subject of a lawsuit which they'd probably lose. I don't think we should be reproducing the work of either of these publications. [[User:Dreameditsbrooklyn|Dreameditsbrooklyn]] ([[User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+:: Please link to the clips, not Wikipedia pages they were once used on. I only see the New York Post one, which is on Commons: [[:File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV (NY Post).webm]]. I don't see much likelihood that either publication would sue; the Post copyright would be pretty thin, and it wouldn't look good on Times to use the work of the Post. [[Commons:PD-Art]] has long set the precedence that we use public domain works from other publications. It would be good to remove the added material, but legally, the Post logo is PD-text, so that's not the big copyright concern.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+== Organisational Usernames self-licensing as 'own-work' ==
-[[:File:Zx spectrum 8x2 attributes.png| (This_image) ]] suggests that [[:Image:Parrot.red.macaw.1.arp.750pix.jpg | (this_PD_image) ]] is the source image.
+It's come to my attention that these users have uploaded a batch of images, mostly used on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAslan|John McAslan - Wikipedia] two of the users' accounts are organisational entities, not individuals.  Is this allowed, It's not clear to me that an organisational account can self-license images as the 'sole copyright holder'?
-However, the actual source appears to be: [https://images4.imagebam.com/ab/0d/90/MERD6DK_o.png | this image on a third-party website].
+* [[Special:ListFiles/John_McAslan_%2B_Partners]] - Organisational account,  licensed as 'own work'
+* [[Special:ListFiles/Philippa_Hurst]] - Uploaded images with (c) Hufton+Crow but licensed them as 'own work'
+* [[Special:ListFiles/Hufton%2BCrow]] - Organisational account,  licensed as 'own work' [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
+:Yes, these are not OK without a permission via [[COM:VRT]]. I tagged 2 of these files. In addition, it needs to be clarify about using multiple accounts from the same organization. The 2 oldest accounts do not have recent edits, so a [[COM:RFCU|request for check user]] cannot be done. {{ping|JeffUK}} You must inform users when you report them somewhere. I did for you this time. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
-In relation to that, the author, the copyright and license of the image might all be incorrect.
+:>  It's not clear to me that an organisational account can self-license images as the 'sole copyright holder'?
-What should be done about this situation? Is there some suggested tag or review process to invoke in this case? The uploader seems unresponsive ([https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk#Copyright_problems | see this]).
+:Why not? Corporations can be copyright holders. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
+== 1943 movie poster ==
-In short: what should be done to clear up this situation? [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-:The photo is in the public domain. The gradient pattern is ineligible for copyright. Even if it were, the source, [[:File:RGB 24bits palette color test chart.png]], is dedicated to the public domain. Putting this on a ZX Spectrum screen is not authorship of any kind. Dithering methods are not authorship. The notion that there is some copyright being infringed here is spurious, as [[User:Yann|Yann]] said on the other page you've linked to. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+[[:File:Girl Crazy.webp]] was recently uploaded as PD as copyright was not renewed. Assuming this is right (it seems rare it was renewed?) are other versions such as [http://www.impawards.com/1943/girl_crazy_xlg.html this one] similarly uploadable? [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
-::Thank you for partially clearing it up.
-::However, I've got two objections:
-::#The source is not [[:File:RGB 24bits palette color test chart.png]], as you claim. The gradients are similar, but not the same.
-::#"The gradient pattern is ineligible for copyright" - in which country / jurisdiction? Are you sure? Can you back up your claim?
-::Noone would be happier than me if your claims are correct. However, you haven't presented sufficient evidence. Why can't it be cleared up, why must there be doubt?
-::What's the process for clearing it up? [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
+:*They're different works, so their copyright status needs to be assessed separately. [https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/53dd3572e4b05697521b4b5f/1456468896497-5V9WIFL0IST5ETKJU0CC/%C2%A9RGeroni_GC_1943Poster.jpg?format=2500w This version] of the poster is big enough for me to make out a copyright notice, but I can't actually read it to see who the copyright holder was. Copyright for a 1943 work was due for renewal in 1971-72, and I can't find an artwork or "commercial print or label" renewal for "Girl Crazy" around that time. That, and as you say, renewals were relatively rare, makes me think this is almost certainly OK. I'd be happier if I could see the name of the copyright holder though. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
-::: You haven't supplied any evidence that it is copyrightable, either.  What expression do you think is copyrightable here, aside from the parrot photo?  I don't see any difference at all in the gradients, let alone anything that could qualify for a copyright. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::# The gradients are the same in terms of what they are; the fact that they are rendered without a black border is irrelevant. Even if they were appreciably different in any way, this difference is not reflected in [[:File:Zx spectrum 8x2 attributes.png]].
-:::# This gradient pattern is virtually certainly ineligible for copyright in ''any'' jurisdiction. It is simply a light-dark gradient of red, green, blue, the CMYK colors, the CMYK colors' halfway points, a rainbow and a rainbow crossed with a light-dark gradient. This is a ''paradigmatic'' example of something that is ''not'' a work of authorship. You cannot copyright a spectrum. [[User:D. Benjamin Miller|D. Benjamin Miller]] ([[User talk:D. Benjamin Miller|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::#:My original question is (still unanswered):
-:::#:*What should be done with images that have source image incorrectly specified, in a way that could affect their copyright status?
-:::#:Unrelated, about copyright eligibility: I thought that test images (monitor test image, image quality test, and similar images) are eligible for copyright. For example: [https://arachnoid.com/HDTVTestPattern/resources/HDTVTestPattern.png | this test image] [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)