Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


Open Data (Brazil)

Hello,

I was looking into the Brazilian Decree nº 8777 which has an interesting Chapter 2 (Translating with DeepL):

"Art. 4 The data made available by the Federal Executive Branch and the active transparency information are free to use by the Public Authorities and by society. (Edited by Decree no. 9.903, of 2019)

§ Paragraph 1 Authorizes the free use of databases and information made available under the terms of item XIII of the caput of Article 7 of Law No. 9,610, of February 19, 1998, and whose copyright holder is the Federal Government, under the terms of Article 29 of said Law. (Included by Decree No. 9.903, of 2019)

§ Paragraph 2 - The Federal Executive Branch is obliged to indicate the holder of copyrights belonging to third parties and the conditions of use authorized by them in the disclosure of databases protected by copyrights referred to in item XIII of the caput of art. 7 of Law No. 9,610 of 1998. (Included by Decree No. 9.903, of 2019)"

Would this really mean that the materials produced by the Brazilian Government should be free to use on Commons under an expansion of Template:PD-Brazil-Gov or even a new template (example GODL-India)? I'm personally curious about the possible use of texts and images (of public and historical interest) released under the Freedom of Information Law here. I'm also worried with the fact that the official gov.br domain is under CC BY-ND 3.0 Deed, which may create some eventual deletion requests if this domain is used as a source for the files. Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Freedom of Information Act", it covers the Brazilian Government (União Federal), the States, the Federal District and the Cities in general. By the paragraph 2 from the above decree, only the third party materials would receive a different license. Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this 2020 discussion is understood that the Decree 9903, which edits the Decree 8777, makes mandatory the free/nonrestricted use of the Government Data, going against any restrict CC license - the Decree 9756, which created the gov.br domain, doesn't mention any type of license. Erick Soares3 (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erick Soares3: Do our accepted file types count as data under the Decree 9903?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. The decree only says about data and information, without mentioning any file type. Using this example from the Brazilian Space Agency, I believe that most data from the Data Base would be CSV and JSON. Erick Soares3 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And @Jeff G.: since the Decree also covers the "Freedom of Information Act" as being Open Data, you can add "PDF" files in the mix. There's even a official search website for the FOIA requests - maybe a template linking to this site could be useful to cite the original requests. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I emailed the Open Data Portal and they replied me that they use the following licenses: Creative Commons Attribution; Cc-Zero; ODbL and PDDL. While this might not make a new template necessary, would be interesting to at least link this info (or this discussion, after it goes to archive) at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil? Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erick Soares3: Please have them send that directly via VRT, or at least quote it in an email via VRT that you carbon copy to them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea Media

Hello, everyone! I want to upload photo of the new North Korean MBT, but this photo was made by Korean Central News Agency. Is it possible to upload file or not? Maybe, I need a permission from it? Thanks! Stoffel Vandorn (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Commons, all media is assumed to be protected by copyright unless there's a reason for it not to be (e.g. it is 500 years old, the creator released it under a free license, et cetera). Hope this helps. Bremps... 06:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility of Magellan's Cross Pavilion mural

Hello. Is the local enwiki file w:en:File:Magellan's Cross inside night view (P. Burgos, Cebu City; 01-23-2024).jpg eligible here on Commons? It may be dismissed as focusing on the cross, but I have some concern that it may not be eligible here because of the non-incidental presence of the ceiling mural. Per this site, the cited authors were painters Jess Roa and Serry M. Josol (the painters' names were signed on the artwork). The site further claims that it is not known when the painting was made but a 1965 photo implies it was already existing on the pavilion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Public domain status of European harmonised standards

Following a lawsuit by Carl Malamud against the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled today in case C‑588/21 (press release) that «a harmonised standard, adopted on the basis of a directive [...] forms part of EU law». It follows that such harmonised standards are in the public domain and we can host them on Wikimedia Commons.

To have a transparent discussion about this, I've also uploaded one such standard and I've opened a discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EN 301 549 V3.2.1 (2021-03).pdf. Please participate. Nemo 13:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the lawyers' press release. Nemo 06:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the CEN/CENELEC press release which is in complete denial. Nemo 12:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the ruling said they were public domain, exactly, just that they form part of EU law. It may be like the difference between a public record and public domain -- the copyright protection does not mean that access can be refused. That latter press release tried to throw doubt on the standards even being reproduced by third parties, but that seems unlikely to be barred. However, also not sure there is an automatic derivative right in these. I.e. some other body can't take the standard and make changes. Is there an explicit copyright status for EU law specified anywhere? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain status of EU law across the EU follows from various national and EU rulings, but there may not have been an explicit CJEU ruling on the matter because it was never questioned. There was some information in the speeches by the judges during the hearing and in the Advocate General opinion. If DIN/CEN/CENELEC keep pushing the copyrightability in lower courts, we can expect the issue to be deferred to the CJEU again by some judge in Germany, but it's hardly controversial. Nemo 16:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I gathered in the press reports about this decision, the CJEU ruled that the European Commission must publish these standards so that they can be accessed free of charge. Several reactions also emphasise that the standards now should be accessible free of charge. I haven't read any reaction claiming that they are in the public domain. In fact the German standards body DIN welcomed that the court did not question the copyright protection of harmonised norms in general. --Rosenzweig τ 16:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely that EN harmonized standards will become accessible without cost, while CEN/CENELC/ETSI retain other rights (eg modification and merging into derivativw works), so they won't be public domain. SV1XV (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course you wouldn't expect the entity which sued Carl Malamud for copyright infringement to celebrate the public domain status of the standards. Nemo 12:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That they're not "celebrating" does not automatically mean they're wrong. --Rosenzweig τ 13:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't those standards automatically copyrighted per the Berne Convention?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the question is if there is something like {{PD-EdictGov}} for the EU which would change that status. The decision may be somewhere in between, which allows no-cost access and reproduction but no derivative works (and possibly not allowing reprinting for profit). If so, it would be the vague equivalent of CC-BY-NC-ND. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S Passport not protected by copyright... right?

Are U.S. passport photos protected by copyright? I would've thought so, as the photographer has no room for creativity. However, this Wikipedia discussion and this Wikimedia Commons question ("Using passport photo.") both did not reach a conclusion. Does anyone have a definitive answer? The files in question are this and this. Bremps... 01:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to this one, but it's a Swedish passport. Bremps... 02:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We discuss it a bit here: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/02#"Booth_Pictures"_and_U._S._Threshold_of_Originality. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which way would we err if it's not settled law? Bremps... 06:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would try to err on the cautious side, but it could also be case by case. I would tend to agree that a passport photo setup where someone takes a perfunctory photo may not have a copyright, but it's also possible to take your own photo (or crop an existing one) at which point, who knows. That threshold can differ by country, so you almost have to start all over again looking at that country's precedents. There's no principle which would apply to all countries. For Sweden, that may need to conform to {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, as photos below their normal copyrightable threshold still get a term of protection. Maybe there are exceptions there for a perfunctory photo taken by someone else (no idea, but seems odd that their employer could exercise copyright control on such photos), but if supplied by the person for their own passport, it probably has their "simple photo" protection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bremps: IRL, you can take your chances if the source country has no term of protection below TOO. Here on Commons, we follow pcp.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would PCP mean the 2Pac photos need to be deleted? Bremps... 17:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least IMO it would depend on who took the photograph and the jurisdiction of where it was taken. If it was taken at home by person getting the passport or a private business then it would be copyrighted. Otherwise it would be PD if taken in a state where government works are free of copyright, for instance California. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are all images on Government of India-owned websites subject to the Government Open Data License (GODL)

About the picture I included and found on a Government of India website, depicting Santi Sudha Ghosh, does the Government Open Data License apply to this specific image? Also, does the permission for using this image follow the general rules for using pictures on Government of India websites? Or are there special rules just for this image? CharlieMehta (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On en:File:Santi Sudha Ghosh.jpg, you have given a direct link to the image at https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/Santi-sudha-Ghosh-US-1.jpg. Can you provide a link to the page where you found the image? The page may have useful context for us to answer your question. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore I found this image at this link https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/unsung-heroes-detail.htm?4320. CharlieMehta (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specific to that image, there's nothing on the page to indicate the source of the image. The GODL refers to data generated by public funds, meaning the photographer of that image would need to be acting for the Indian government with the copyright belonging to the government. That site was created by the Ministry of Culture (indiaculture.gov.in) which has a less than open copyright page.[1] Ravensfire (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few years back, I requested some Indian people involved in Wikimedia projects to get a legal opinion from a lawyer. This never came, so I wonder now where and when the GODL is valid. Yann (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most arguments I have seen is that is only valid where explicitly stated. Which is mainly just the data.in.gov website only, as far as I have seen, and then usually not for photos (if ever). However, some of their government websites have a license which could be construed to be free (such as this one). Without a statement like that, I would not upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg Here's the Terms of Service document at https://www.nic.in/terms-of-use/, contains lot of ambiguity. But does this also apply to its subdomain sites? CharlieMehta (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think it does not. The subdomain has its own privacy policy page, and apparently login system. I don't see any terms of use though at a quick glance. I would tend to think that content is separate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a common phrase in many of the notices on Indian government pages of "Material featured on this Portal may be reproduced free of charge after taking proper permission by sending a mail to us. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. " There was a template I had created for Goa government images that was deleted due to having that phrase. (see User_talk:Ravensfire#User:Ravensfire/Goa-Govt). Pinging @Jameslwoodward
Is that phrasing (which I find in most ToU pages for India were the GODL is used) enough to block using here? There's contradictory information on that and if it's truly not valid, there's multiple template and a fair number of images that need to be deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire: I think that phrasing is enough to block using such content here, as denying certain DWs.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main source of my conflict here is there was a deletion discussion in 2019 that was in part around that phrasing Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Indian_Army. It's confusing for me, and worse for some of the more casual editors. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that phrasing is OK, per that discussion you reference (I participated in that), as the restrictions seem aligned to moral rights, which exist regardless of any copyright license. That wording still tends to get argued over every time it comes up, though. But without that phrasing being obviously tied to the website a photo was obtained from, I don't think we should host it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add more confusion to this, some months ago there was a discussion User_talk:Túrelio#Need_to_take_some_action around images uploaded from India.gov.in for members of Parliament and if they were covered by the GODL. That data is really pulled from sansad.in/ls, which has a privacy policy page with no mention of the GODL and explicitly claims copyright over the contents.[2] So what is the extent of the GODL? Does it extend only to data.gov.in or other sites that explicitly mention it? Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the simple solution for that image specifically is that the person died in 1966, that was 58 years ago at the age of 73. Now she doesn't look 73 in that image which means it was taken sometime around 1920-30, so lets assume 1925, which means 99 years old, India's PD rule is 60 years from when they were published and under that basic requirement, one does assume that image is PD-India so we don't need to waste time trying to find if it qualifies under GODL.... Stemoc 06:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All pictures taken in India before 1942 are in the public domain as per {{PD-India}} and in the USA (PD-1996). Yann (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pat Ast and Shelley Duvall.jpg nominated for deletion

Link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pat Ast and Shelley Duvall.jpg. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City Center Building in Homs, Syria

While we are probably aware that Syria has no suitable Freedom of Panorama, I stumbled upon these images of a suspected modern building in Homs. Is the building acceptable here? I cannot immediately find any information online, other than claims that it was once a modernist building but since the start of the civil war there all its windows have been blown out. It may be OK here if the architect has been dead since 1973 (if he is known) or if the building was completed before 1974 (if the architect is unknown). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the European Commission Audiovisual Service licence template

Link: Template talk:EC-Audiovisual Center#March 2024 update Joofjoof (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion at File:Fani Willis 2023.jpg

Hey all, thought to ask some of the more experienced people here whether a simple "yes" to "may you release this image into the public domain for Wikipedia" (or some similar phrasing) implies that the copyright holder understands the concept of public domain. The copyright holder is a politician who is trying to walk back her releasing the image into the public domain after seeing news media use the image in a way she does not like. The relevant deletion discussion is here. Bremps... 06:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now and Then single cover

Hello there! I have been thinking the cover for the Beatles' Now and Then single may be too simple to be copyrighted. [3] The cover comprises the letters "Now and Then" with some shading under a line below each word, and the background is not really creative. It was released worldwide in the same day, so I'm not sure if COM:TOO UK applies, or COM:TOO US. The artist who drew the cover is from the US. Bedivere (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded the file here in high resolution. I'm open for discussion and will even nominate it for deletion myself since I am not convinced it is in the public domain. Bedivere (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images suddenly becoming free?

Having come across the non-free image problem several times, I have tried to "protect" a few non-free files in en-wiki from being replaced by illegally uploaded versions at Commons. One such image is the w:File:Flag of ASEAN.svg. Then I suddenly find that it has been moved to Commons under a claimed free licence as being published and distributed by the Government of Republic of Indonesia. I found that a bit odd, so I took a look at the history of the editor uploading it to Commons, and then I see that they have got lots of warnings and at one point being blocked for copyright violations. Looking closer at their recent contributions, I see that they also have uploaded a lot of other files in the same way, among those logos for Olympic games that are similarly marked as non-free in en-wiki. Some are claimed to be free as they do not meet the threshold of originality, (i.e. 1984, 1976 and more), which imho is doubtful for many of them. Others are claimed to be free because they were published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929, which seems to be nonsense for logos for i.e. 1956 and 1952 Olympics. Is this a massive copyvio attack, or is it just me who does not understand the copyright rules at Commons? TU-nor (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: Surely, it's the former.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I upload this image?

Copied from (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Can_I_upload_this_image?)

I want to upload one of the insignias from the right hand side of this page (https://web.archive.org/web/20130716085150/http://www.bro.gov.in/indexab.asp?projectid=9&lang=1) for the wikipedia article Project Shivalik. I believe it is allowed to be used under GODL-India. Can anyone guide me if it is allowed? Leoneix (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's alright. Bedivere (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere The organisation also has a free usage policy (https://www.bro.gov.in/index2.asp?slid=3746&sublinkid=28&lang=1). I have uploaded it. Thanks for your help. Leoneix (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:5pknf4bvj7o31.jpg nominated for deletion

Is there anything in this image that could be above the TOO? It's a simple list of tracks. I don't know how Germany deals with this, however. Lugamo94 (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Edit: I forgot the link. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:5pknf4bvj7o31.jpg[reply]

Is a NASA image of an astronaut PD-USGov if it includes an "identifiable person"

The template PD-USGov-NASA states that images from NASA are public domain unless noted, and links to the NASA Usage Guidelines, which have restrictions for commercial use and identifiable persons, of which both are applicable.

The specific image I want to use is images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-01pp1278, for the enwiki page James F. Reilly. Is it acceptable to upload the image to Commons? BhamBoi (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BhamBoi: Yes, that image is fine to upload. What those usage guidelines are referring to are Commons:Personality rights. You can add the {{Personality rights}} template below the Information template on the image's description page. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Carpet of Baroda

I am comfortable that this image File:Pearl Carpet of Baroda.jpg of a jewel-embroidered and beaded carpet commissioned in 1865 should qualify as 2 dimensional for purposes of Template:PD-Art, the same way tapestries do. But I'd like to know if anyone feels like a jeweled object isn't really 2D for our purposes. PKM (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might get more replies to your question at another venue such as the help desk. Here people come to answer questions on copyright. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a question on copyright; the question is whether the carpet in question qualifies for PD-Art. I'm not sure; it's certainly pushing the bounds.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Menotomy Hunter Cyrus Dallin.jpg

I was Googling myself, as one does, when I came across this image on Wikimedia Commons. It's credited to @AndrewTJay as "own work" but, as you can see from the metadata at the bottom of the page, I took this picture. I originally uploaded it to a project website of mine, Icons of Arlington, at a page called Menotomy Indian Hunter (Andrew seems to have cropped it). I am fine with the image remaining on Wikipedia, but I would strongly prefer that it be listed with the correct credit. How does that work -- do I just edit the page to change the credit? Rmhbernoff (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rmhbernoff: A mention that you license your license your photograph under Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike on Icons of Arlington would be helpful here as this was previously published and there's nothing on your website that supports the license given. And your photograph can be changed so it is properly credited. @Jmabel: Abzeronow (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewTJay: assuming Rmhbernoff is telling the truth (and I would think he is: the metadata on the photo you uploaded supports his claim) this looks like straight-out plagiarism on your part. Do you have any explanation for this? This sort of thing calls into question every single one of your uploads that is not simply a faithful reproduction of 2-dimensional public domain work. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmhbernoff: I'm sorry this happened, and thank you for offering to let us keep the photo. I have changed the credit, but we do still need to clarify the licensing because you previously published without offering the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. You can either (1, recommended) edit https://iconsofarlington.com/2019/08/12/menotomy-indian-hunter/ to clarify that you are licensing the photo under CC-BY-SA 4.0, or (2, also possible) go through the process described at COM:VRT to indicate that you are the rights-holder and are granting this license. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jmabel! Not a big deal -- I'm only really bothered when for-profits use my photos without permissions/license. I will take a look at those two options soon and do one of them. Rmhbernoff (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bosphorus Bridge - Istanbul.jpg

Is this image appropriate for Commons? I'm seeing "©www.fpsagency.com" in metadata? Bogazicili (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as copyvio / flickrwashing. Bedivere (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A common way of depicting aircraft for identification is a three-view drawing showing it from the top, front and side and many manufacturers include these in their manuals. (e.g. a Cessna 172 drawing from a 1956 owners manual) Any of these published in the United States after 1989 are automatically copyrighted and therefore obviously ineligible to uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without permission. (There's more nuance to copyright notice, but it is simplified here for the sake of argument.)

My question is: What is the status of a self-created, separately-derived, but functionally-identical-to-an-in-copyright drawing? For example, if I were to go up to an actual aircraft, measure all of the dimensions, and then draw an accurate depiction myself, this would seem to be my own work. However, it could still result in a functionally identical illustration as if it was simply copy-pasted from a manual. There was no "creativity" in the creation of the work, so it could be considered a "mere" reproduction. However, unlike Bridgeman v. Corel, the image is not produced from the same source and, to borrow from the second of the four fair use factors, the nature of the work is factual rather than fictional. In addition, it would seem the general dimensions could be considered public or commonly known information that could not be copyrighted. (Note, this would only apply to general depictions of the entire airframe and presumably not most production drawings, as they would 1) be significantly more detailed and 2) depict parts of the aircraft not normally visible (e.g. inside of a wing) or commonly considered by the general public.)

Alternatively, assume that, instead of measuring the dimensions myself, I would have access to a complete, textual list of all of the necessary dimensions from the owners manual and I used that to make the drawing. Would that change the copyright determination in any way? –Noha307 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this purely hypothetical or do you have a specific case in mind? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I don't have a specific case in mind. However, there are various situations where I have come across illustrations (not necessarily of aircraft) that were essentially made this way and would like to know if they could be uploaded. –Noha307 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it may not be a perfect example, but here's one I've been considering. If I were to take the dimensions of a 20 x 72 mmRB cartridge from a page and use them to create my own black and white illustration, would that be a copyright violation? –Noha307 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classic clean room engineering says that you can't copy what you haven't seen. That's the best case scenario; don't look at these documents, and any similarity must be due to uncopyrightable facts. Looking at a diagram like that cartridge one and then making your own illustration is always problematic, in part since you end up using the exact same measurements, not selecting your own things to measure or illustrate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the hypothetical situation that two authors independently arrive at the same work, they are independent copyrights. In the U.S., copyright infringement is often the combination of "substantial similarity", along with access to the original. If something was previously published you had access to it, even if you haven't actually seen it, so that part can be hard to prove even if true. If you can prove you had no access to the original, then it was impossible to copy the expression in the first place. That said, there are often elements which are scènes à faire, i.e. elements which are common to a genre and do not themselves have copyright. For something like plane diagrams, the fact that someone has outlines drawn with those angles does not mean they are the only ones who can make a diagram like that -- those are expected. Since a plane or ship outline is duplicating an existing design (of a utilitarian object), there really isn't a copyright in the basic outline, probably. In cases like that, the copyright is in all of the small details, of which there are usually many. Or like a map -- the basic country outlines are not copyrightable, so they will often look generally similar, but all the other details in the map are what creates the copyright, so copying those small details is where infringement would come.
In your other example, the photograph has a copyright -- but the photographer does not have a copyright over the photographed object (bullet); they are just showing a utilitarian object. The copyright in a photograph is more the angle, lighting, framing, and elements under control of the photographer. If you make your own outline using that photo, then no it is not derivative since you are not copying those aspects. If a photo has a particular angle or cropping of a scene, and a drawing duplicates that aspect, it becomes more possible to be derivative. But not for something like that. If someone else makes a tracing of the same photo, their result would be similar, but a copyright (if any) would be in the details you add after that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyranny of the majority example.png & File:עריצות הרוב מתורגם.png

Could someone here please verify that the PD license is valid? I always feel a bit vary when the source is making somewhat vague statements Trade (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page says "you may repost it without restriction", but I think that falls short of an actual copyright statement or license. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no restrictions on usage at all then that would by definition by public domain, right?--Trade (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But "repost without restriction" doesn't include "make derivatives." All the text says is that we can make identical copies.
A discussion appears to have started at Commons:Deletion requests/RedPanels comics. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False licensing?

File:Interior of Crocus Theater.jpg is listed as public domain in the United States. I'm a bit suspicious of this, as it usually applies to works published before the 1930s. Can an admin take a look at it and possibly delete it? It's protected, so I cannot nominate it for deletion. Bremps... 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone marked it as missing permission. The US license is definitely wrong; there would need to be a license or PD statement given at the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Video source: https://t.me/vorobiev_live/6175 Timecode: 00:50
Not sure if the Telegram channel of Russia's official (governor of Moscow Oblast Andrei Vorobyov (Q502185)) equals Russia's official source. Nyuhn (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Official source or not, we would need a license stated. Russian government works are not automatically public domain (same as most countries; the U.S. is relatively unusual in making their works public domain). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can i use these pictures in de-wikipedia?

I'm not sure if i can upload two pictures for an article in the german wikipedia. Both pics are from 1931 or 1932. Pic #1 was sold as postcard (showing a woman, Maria Einsfeld who lived and worked 12 yrs as a man with her "family, her girlfriend Helene and her two children) from Maria herseld after her unmasking. She started with that after unmasking August 1931 so this picture is from 1931 or 1932. A lot of websites use this picture with copyright information Bildquelle Stadtarchiv Mainz where this postcard is in stock. Pic #2 shows Maria in the courtroom with defense lawyer and psychologist and audience in the background. So, imho it's a official press photo in public from ? (no copyright information) and i found it in some press articles from 1932 without the name of a photograph.

Both pics can be seen here: https://www.faz.net/aktuell/rhein-main/region-und-hessen/wie-maria-zu-joseph-einsmann-wurde-17531662/truegerische-familienidylle-17531657.html (picture #1 and #3)

I'm not very experienced, i normally use my own pictures or very old pics from older books so i appreciate any help. Martin Bahmann (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a particular photographer named on either, it would depend on how long they lived. If not (i.e. the author is anonymous), then the German term would be 70 years from making available to the public, which has expired. However the U.S. copyright would have been restored by the URAA and be 95 years from publication, which would still technically exist, and not allow upload to Commons until 2027 or 2028. If de-wiki only uses German/Austrian/Swiss law, they should be fine to upload there if they are anonymous, though it would be best to wait to move to Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: The German wikipedia does not accept anonymous files after 70 years. They do accept files which are at least 100 years old if, after a thorough search, no author can be found or no date of death for a known author can be found. See de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist. --Rosenzweig τ 21:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, was not aware of that (or had forgotten). If the human author had named themselves within 70 years somewhere, the term would revert to their lifetime plus 70 years. I guess that would preclude using them on the German Wikipedia until 2032 or 2033, though they could be uploaded to Commons a bit earlier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK understood. Thanks for your help. Martin Bahmann (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text logos below ToO

I'm pretty sure these logos (both American) fall below the threshold of originality, but I'd like to confirm here before uploading:

BhamBoi (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They look like PD text logos to me. Glrx (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, {{PD-textlogo}}. --Rosenzweig τ 11:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand this. I requested a split of File:Parrot mlt.png , here. After the split, when verifying copyright information, on both the initial and on the splitted image the copyright says "public domain by its author, Ricnun; 2006-07-31 18:53 Ricnun ". However, the uploaders are User:4throck and User:Liftarn. That does not look right to me.

Technically, it is not a big deal, because the image of the parrot is in the public domain, and I guess (but I'm uncertain) that all other modifications do not satisfy the threshold of originality. However, I would still prefer if more meaningful copyright information was displayed. Can someone please elucidate this issue to me? Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=863211694"