Jump to content

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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.


AI-generated video

[edit]
Trump Gaza.webm

President Donald Trump recently shared an AI-generated music video, and since I'm not familiar with Commons policies on AI-generated media, I would like to know if it's permissible to upload it here. [1] – Anwon (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just from a US copyright perspective, if that video was wholly generated by AI then yes the work is copyright free. But per the recent guidance from the US Copyright Office, there are a range of possibilities that could impact the video's eligibility for copyright. I'd think we'd need confirmation on how exactly the video was created, beyond just "AI-generated", which is clear but not specific enough. Other thoughts? 19h00s (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a music video, we'll have sound, background images and actors. That are three different sets of material to be generated by AI (or directly sourced from existing material). Currently, there's evidence that AI training amounts to copyright infringement, see these articles: https://www.heise.de/en/news/Really-bad-for-the-AI-industry-AI-company-loses-in-first-US-legal-dispute-10279136.html and https://torrentfreak.com/meta-torrented-over-81-tb-of-data-through-annas-archive-despite-few-seeders-250206/ Especially music and depictions of persons would be a liability for us, as there is not enough free (read: freely licensed) training material available. So, I'd say: not permissible for uploading by COM:PRP + COM:DW. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the video has been shared by Trump on his official account and as part of his duties as President. It is in the public domain regardless of the AI status. Bedivere (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does "sharing" constitute "work by a member of US government". Can an "AI" be considered to be a worker of the US government? Would an otherwise protected work become public domain, if it was uploaded to commons by the official wiki account of Donald Trump as part of this duties? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AI-generated works are generally in the public domain because there’s no human author to claim copyright. However, if there’s significant creative input from a human, that could change, and the work could become copyrighted. In this case, since the video was posted directly by President Trump, it’s undoubtedly an official communication tied to his duties as President. Given that context, any creative input would be considered part of his official role, which places the work in the public domain. At least that's how I understand US copyright. @Abzeronow could you please enlighten us? :-) Bedivere (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If all the creative work came from U.S. government employees, then it is in the public domain. Not true, though, if they were contractors or campaign staff. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some media outlets claim that the video long existed before Donald Trump shared it, so it would be wrong to assume it came from him or another US government employee. – Anwon (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times calls it "generated by AI" [2] with an unknown origin. "No quedó claro de inmediato el origen del video ni su autor, y Trump no añadió ningún comentario a la publicación en las redes sociales que lo compartió. En las últimas semanas, habían aparecido versiones del video en redes sociales como LinkedIn, X e Instagram. El video compartido en la cuenta de Trump parecía haber sido descargado de Rumble, una plataforma de video con sede en Florida y popular entre la derecha" ("the origin or author of the video was not immediately clear, and Trump did not add any comment to the social networks posts that shared it. In the last weeks, there were versions of the video on social networks like LinkedIn, X and Instagram. The video shared on Trump's account seemed to have been downloaded from Rumble, a Florida based video platform that is popular among the right-wingers"). Bedivere (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Trump - Long Live the King.jpg is an image of similar provenance. Whatever the consensus of this discussion, it will likely also apply to that image. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just looping back around to say there is still definitively not enough clarity for this video to be uploaded here. NBC has the details on who created the video, but their reporting is not clear on how much of the video/which elements of the work were completely AI-generated and how much was created by human authors. The co-creators of the video are also the founders of a start-up that uses AI as a video tool for commercials, but the company also uses non-AI generated content within those commercials; it's not clear to what extent this particular video used AI vs a human's work. And again, per the recent report from the US Copyright Office (whose jurisdiction this would fall under as it was created and published in the United States), the copyrightability of an AI-generated or AI-assisted work hinges on how much of the work was generated by a model and how much was created by a human. I don't philosophically agree with their guidelines per se, but that's what would govern this situation until a court weighs in. 19h00s (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@19h00s, Bedivere, Jmabel, ChrisiPK, C.Suthorn, and أنون: I just shared the file here. User:RodRabelo7 uploaded it 26 February 2025. The authors of the prompt are wiki notable, en:Solo Avital and en:Ariel Vromen. Trump plan for the Gaza Strip (Q132159574) is among the Wikipedia articles where this could go, and that article exists in several languages. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any evidence that the video was wholly AI-generated with no human-made components including musical or visual elements? I don't think it's responsible to keep it here until that is definitively known. Notability doesn't preclude copyright considerations. 19h00s (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@19h00s: This is what AI is. This video, the song, everything about it, this is AI generated. This is the kind of video which AI generates millions of times a day. I do not think it is reasonable for Commons to take a default position of skepticism when a million to 1, videos like this are entirely AI generated.
You are right to ask questions and I really appreciate your doubt. I think a deletion discussion would be helpful, but it could also be helpful to discuss more here first among people who really care about copyright policy for Commons.
What sort of check might we do to determine if such video uploads to commons contain copyrightable components? Bluerasberry (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this seems straightforwardly AI-generated and straightforwardly copyright-free - but as someone who made my way to Commons copyright discussions from the visual arts side of the IP world, straightforward is not the same as evidence. And this is where I'm stumped. I just don't know how one can prove - or disprove - that a work contains no human-generated content. I'm not even sure how the Copyright Office itself is going to enforce their own standards when they're assessing attempted copyright registrations; you basically have to rely on the word of the creator and the few limited tools that work well for spotting wholly AI-generated content (would welcome folks to chime in with examples). In this case, I think we can run a basic search of the song to be sure it didn't exist before this video. Beyond that, I really don't know how to assess this; I raise my concerns both due to the precautionary principle and because I think this merits a broader conversation about how Commons should assess or accept authorship claims when it comes to AI-generated material. Undoubtedly there will be corporations, organizations, and individuals who will claim that their work is copyrighted when it was actually just AI-generated; and there will be those on the other end of the spectrum who may try to pass off human-made content as AI-generated for any number of reasons (including to make the content ostensibly allowable on Commons). This high-profile case feels like a decent example of the grey areas that will be popping up more and more. I'd welcome folks with more AI expertise to weigh on the technical side of spotting/assessing AI-generated material, as my knowledge of that side of this issue is pretty limited. But obviously if the group and Admins think this is an overblown concern, I'll gladly let it go :) 19h00s (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@19h00s: The surest test in Commons is to nominate a file for deletion. Normally I would encourage anyone to nominate anything questionable for deletion simply to advance conversation, but in this case, it might be good to discuss a little more so that a deletion conversation starts with good arguments. Some things are already covered at Commons:AI-generated media. From my perspective, you wrote 5-10 arguments which could justify a deletion argument. All of your points are valid and I am not sure how to react.
I am enjoying this conversation and thinking about this though. It is a wild test case. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An additional element I hadn't thought about before - if the two creators did any amount of editing to the video even beyond adding music/visual components, the result of that editing and arrangement could also constitute a copyrightable work. So beyond the specific imagery/sound, we also have to consider if they spliced up the original AI-generated video or added digital filters/effects. Or possibly they combined several different short AI-generated videos together into a longer, edited video - essentially a compilation which could earn its own copyright. I don't mean to overcomplicate but technically these could all constitute actions that make the resulting work copyrightable in some way. 19h00s (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged here, but having heard this described, I have no intention of watching this. To paraphrase Mark Twain on reading Poe, I might be willing to do it on a salary. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This video, the song, everything about it, this is AI generated." - At this point, I don't think we have enough evidence that it is indeed the case, and not AI working over an elaborate screenplay with more than trivial edit work afterwards. I have considerable doubt that we can keep such stuff here with such precarious information. Darwin Ahoy! 12:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DarwIn: Is this video unusual in that respect? I feel that it is common knowledge that there are countless videos of this sort on the Internet - are we agreed on that point? Should Commons doubt all such videos, or does this video have particular characteristics which make it different from the majority of other ones? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry I don't think we can presume it was kind of spontaneously generated by IA when we have no idea of its origin before being repassed by Trump. Darwin Ahoy! 14:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DarwIn: I am asking if this video is special. In general, do we never know if AI-videos are spontaneously generated, or is this one special in some way that makes us uncertain in this case when usually we accept AI videos?
Also, in the metadata, we know the people who wrote the prompt, and the AI tool which generated the video. We have journalism telling how the video was made. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Separate from Darwin's response, I think your question is at the heart of this. How can we - or should we need to - prove that a work which is obviously at least AI-assisted contains no human-made elements, editing, or arrangement? I don't know enough about the actual look of AI-generated material to begin to answer that with any level of expertise, but it's the theoretical question at the core of this issue. The USCO's guidance has, from my vantage point, opened a gaping hole in the logical process for assessing AI-generated material, in that there are few techniques available to confirm or deny whether an individual work contains significant human-made elements or edits. From my perspective, Commons should probably go with the more dire of the two options: we must have confirmation that AI-generated material - particularly material like this which contains enough detail and material to easily have necessitated human edits - was truly generated by AI with no or few enough human edits/additions that it would not receive copyright. When dealing with visual art and copyright in the U.S., Commons has generally taken the position that we need hard evidence of a work's original publication in order to prove it is not in copyright; this is an extremely arduous task a lot of the time, which could easily be avoided by just making "assumptions" about the work's original publication that are probably true. But instead of making those assumptions, we have to dig through catalogues and newspapers to prove publication. I would argue that the situation here is analogous; we could certainly assume that this work was wholly generated by AI, but that would be an assumption without evidence. Even a work like this which looks, candidly, like unedited AI slop, could have enough human authorship or arrangement to merit copyright in the U.S. Obviously this would be a huge decision with huge implications, but I think your questions get to the heart of the matter. 19h00s (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way this is different is that usually if any human edited the AI-generated video (or other AI-generated work), that is the uploader, and if they don't want any credit for their own work, that's their issue. Once they have uploaded their edit of an AI-generated work and said it is all AI, it is almost unimaginable they could pursue someone for a copyright violation for taking them at their word. But here, it could easily be someone other that either the uploader or (almost unimaginable that he knows how to edit video) Donald Trump. They could come forward and possibly sue. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point on the uploader front - most uploaders in this kind of situation would be submitting their own work, so to speak, so they'd basically be giving up any potential copyright by saying the material was fully AI-generated. It gets sticky when we move to a situation where someone is uploading material they did not prompt themselves. 19h00s (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry Thanks a lot for the link, I didn't knew the source of the video had been established so well. Well, in this case, and with the information provided, I've not the least doubt it is under copyright. Avital and Vromen sa6y they took about 8 hours producing it with the help of AI, and they certainly consider it an original and copyrighted production of artistic merit: "“Trump has stolen our content because this was made by artists,” Vromen said. “The Gaza Strip movie is perfect, unique original content that was taken out of context and published by the president of the United States.”". I'll nominate the video for deletion.
This whole situation is also a show case on why we should never blindly accept this kind of content here. Darwin Ahoy! 17:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is, to anyone interested: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Gaza.webm. Darwin Ahoy! 17:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchinson's Story of the Nations

[edit]

Hi, We have many illustrations from this book, especially about India. Some of these illustrations are credited to Category:Harry Marriott Burton (1882-1979), but he seems to be only the publisher. The chapter about India seems to be written by James Meston (1865-1943). Also there is no publication date at the source. Duplicate category says 1915, which looks plausible. Are these illustrations OK for Commons? If yes, with which license? Yann (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When searching, I see publication dates from 1913 to 1932, mostly 1924 and before. There were likely multiple editions. The introduction in your source link references a battle from 1918, so that edition was obviously later than that. Many illustrations seem to be credited. The U.S. copyright is fine for any editions before 1930; the UK copyright would depend on each arists. Anonymous ones are fine. I'm sure most are OK, though a few may not be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carl Lindberg: Thanks. I worried that the first edition would be after 1930. But later editions do not create a new copyright, so PD-UK-unknown + PD-US-expired would be fine then? Yann (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, only new material in the later editions would have a longer copyright. That is probably the most reasonable license though many paintings did seem to be credited. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carl Lindberg: I found that some drawings are signed, i.e. lower right p.188. I can read "H. M. Burton", so these are not in the public domain yet. Yann (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I have searched for more signatures. In some cases, I don't see one, so are these OK, or should we consider that they are all by the same artist (the style seems the same, but that seems to be a requirement from the publisher: p.342, lower left, signed Stanley L. Wood, died 1928)? Yann (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say any not signed or credited would be anonymous. But when I was looking, quite a few were credited in the caption in the book. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ResolvedAll files have been fixed or deleted. Yann (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review of COM:FOP Malawi

[edit]

I suggest we review again our interpretation of Malawian FoP as per COM:FOP Malawi (latest version of the law as per WIPO Lex is from 2016). Based on my understanding, there is partial FoP only for buildings, and the non-commercial restriction only applies to "works of art":

Reproduction and making available to the public by photography, cinematography, drawing or similar means of depiction of an artistic work is permitted when the work is
(a) included in the picture or recording by way of background or as incidental, to the essential matters represented;
(b) a work of architecture in the form of a building; or
(c) a work of art permanently located in a place outdoors where it can be viewed by the public:
Provided that pictures or recordings in which the work of art clearly is the principal motif, shall not be commercially exploited without the consent of the author.

My reading of the clause: it is allowed to create images (like photos and videos) of artistic works in the three cases mentioned above, as long as images of works of art cannot be used commercially if those are the main subjects. Note that the non-commercial restriction applies to "works of art" that is applicable to the third case (for "works of art" permanently located in public places). The second case is specifically for the buildings, and I don't think the NC restriction applies to the buildings. If the buildings were to be included in this restriction, the term that should have been used is the same term as used in the first part of the clause: "artistic works".

This is based on my reading/interpretation. However, I won't make any changes for COM:FOP Malawi unless there's a consensus to do so. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I was the one who decided the entire Malawian FoP as NOT OK, but if more users agree that the non-commercial restriction only applies to "works of art" as opposed to "artistic works" (and therefore we can host modern Malawian buildings), we can change FoP-Malawi as partially OK in the similar manner as Denmark, Taiwan, Russia, and Japan (partial FoP countries). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, while the "P" in "provided" in the NC restriction is capitalized, it is preceded by a colon (:) that is found at the end of the third case (c). This means the third case is connected to the NC restriction, and the restriction is for the third case (works of art) only, not including buildings. Perhaps, Malawi is yes-FoP only for buildings, but no commercial FoP for works of art, similar to Denmark, Japan, Russia, Finland, and Norway.
Ping @Clindberg and Aymatth2: for comments/perspectives. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree. Clause (b) is about a "work of architecture", and clause (c) distinguishes those from a "work of art", and the non-commercial clause references "the work of art" specifically, so I think that clause refers to part (c) alone. It can't apply to all three since applying it to part (a) is nonsensical. So yes, I think this is building-only FoP (well, building-only commercial FoP). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised COM:FOP Malawi accordingly. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agrees that Malawi's Commons-acceptable FOP cover building. Thanks for clarification. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand differently the law excerpt that was provided by JWilz. It first says the depiction of "an artistic work" is permitted when the work ("an artistic work") is... and goes to enumerate such artistic works. "Works of architecture" are then, by definition, "artistic works" and conversely "works of art". Although it's not the exact wording, it is very evident to me that "an artistic work" is "a work of art" Bedivere (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere have you noticed the colon punctuation mark at the end of (c)? It denotes that it is accompanied by the NC condition sub-clause. Note that since the "work of art" has been mentioned by (c), the article "the" is used in the next mention of "work of art" in the said sub-clause. The FoP clause made specific distinction between artistic works that are "buildings" and artistic works that are "works of art". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may be right after all. Didn't see the ":". Then went and had a look at the law as published in the official gazette and it is very likely they meant that condition only for c). Or the lawmakers meant the condition for all artistic works. Remember, it's Malawi, they could have inadvertently messed up. We could just assume they meant that only as a condition for c, but I'd be calmer if there was access to the legislative discussion so we could know their intentions
Just for the record, the act defines: ""artistic work”, irrespective of artistic quality, includes__(a) etchings paintings, drawings, sketches, lither crafts, woodcrafts, engravings, etching, products of photographs andprints;(b) photographs;(c) maps, plans, charts or diagrams;(d) sculptures;(e) work of architecture in the form of buildings or models;and(f) work of applied art, whether handicraft or produced on anindustrial scale". Bedivere (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are "lither crafts"? You also mentioned etching(s) twice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, lithographs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took that from the act itself Bedivere (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading goes: a "work of art" is an "artistic work". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the other uses of the colon (":") in that law, it is clear to me that it is a subpoint of c) and only applies to that paragraph. That is, the non-commercial restriction only applies to works of art which are not buildings, or other types of works of art appearing incidentally or in the background. Darwin Ahoy! 12:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DarwIn I have already modified the guideline at COM:MALAWI. Are there any corrections or none so far? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also suspect that the freedom only applies to "buildings". This means, the architectural elements that aren't buildings like gargoyles and statues don't benefit from this exception (unlike the lenient American FoP). Also, the definition part of the law mentions "(e) work of architecture in the form of buildings or models", yet the unrestricted use only applies to "a work of architecture in the form of a building", excluding models. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 I agree with your interpretation as well, only buildings seem to be covered by FOP. Also, apparently works of art in general seem to have considerably more freedom under the Malawian Law there than what we use to France or Dubai, as they seem to be allowed (even if they are very visible there) as long as they are not the main subject of the photo. Darwin Ahoy! 15:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catastrophe de Thumeries du 17-02-1948 (Article VDN 21-02-2022).jpg

[edit]

Recent upload met at Commons:Photo challenge/2025 - March- Newspapers. Is this content free or derivative? Source: French Newspaper La Voix du Nord. Date: February 2022. Ping @Pierre André Leclercq: are you the author of the print? What about the text? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin  Thank you. thank you for your comment. To avoid any confusion I downloaded the article from the Nord-Eclair newspaper dated February 18, 1948, replacing the one written on February 21, 2022 in memory of the Béghinettes by La Voix du Nord. This tragic accident, supported by press articles, was explained to our group of hikers by a retired professor. Best regards Pierre André (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the photomontage. Now it is a completely different image than the one I was talking about. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin I restored the first version published in Voix du Nord, and I downloaded a new version published in Nord-Eclair on February 18, 1948. Which removes any ambiguity about the legitimacy of the photo. Best regards Pierre André (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pierre André Leclercq, for the notification. I see the new file uploaded here, which I think, is fine. Then I will nominate the other one for deletion. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC) updated comment per Yann's remark below, and in French here. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin  Thank you. Thank you, I understand, have a nice day, best regards --Pierre André (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This file may be OK, at least regarding French law, but we still need an author and a valid license. There is a mention below the picture. Is it the photographer's name? Yann (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Yann is right. As the picture is not public domain. Retouched template added. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Can anyone help me find the source for this image? The provided link is dead and wayback machine only has 1 snapshot from 2024 (also dead) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Spaarnestad Photo, according to the URL. Over 30.000 photos were donated to Commons in the past years. -- Spinal83 (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the link? When I try to input what's listed in the image description, nothing comes up Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a different archive (World War 2 related). This would be the proper link, but I can't find it there either. -- Spinal83 (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I try emailing nationaalarchief? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linnea Quinley - Source image was deleted

[edit]

In File:Linnea Quigley (2007).jpg there is a note stating “The source image was deleted for reasons that do not affect this image”. However, in the deletion request the reason given was “Sent by fans is not a valid source.” Doesn't that mean the release was invalid and the derivative work must also be deleted? --Karrenberger (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, deleted now Bedivere (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long-standing problem with the {{Extracted from}} template, which automatically inserts {{Extracted from deleted}} (making the "... for reasons that do not affect this image" claim) if the source file has been deleted. This really shouldn't be automatic; someone should have to manually allow it. Omphalographer (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Yes, it seems like complete nonsense that this just happens automatically. I mean, it's certainly helpful if there's an automatic notification that the original photo has been deleted, but why claim out of the blue it doesn't affect the derivative work. This part of the notice should get deleted.
There's a lot like this:
And so on. Maybe it would be better a bot message would notify the admin about derivative works after deletion. Karrenberger (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually restored Donnieyen and Secretary Gutierrez as these seemingly are okay. Bedivere (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. --Karrenberger (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.

[edit]

Hi, We probably need a template to explain this case. Yann (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.}}
Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but according to my understanding the ruling says that the photographer has created a copyrightable photograph of a bottle, even though the design of the bottle is not copyrightable. If this is the case, I fail to see why we would need to create a template as these photographs are copyrighted and therefore not suitable for Commons. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this concerns pictures with a free license but with some complex design. The ruling says that if the objective is a picture of the whole bottle, then it is OK. Please see [3] and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-02#File:Fanta Fruit Punch_(37211095091).jpg for earlier discussion. Yann (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure we should name a template after the case. It's more a parallel to {{De minimis}}, which could be used as it's mostly the same situation but a little different reasoning (and can apply to a prominent item), but if you want to call it "incidental" I guess I could see that. There is a French court case which ended up with a similar result, and another US case which said pretty much the same though the core ruling ended up being via the contract wording. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we shouldn't name the template after the case. I'm not even sure we even need a template instead of just changing the wording on COM:PACKAGING to make it clear that photographs which show the entire object should be okay, even if the label might be copyrightable. It is similar to COM:DM and we don't have a template for that either. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of the Lehi movement.svg

[edit]

File:Logo of the Lehi movement.svg, File:Flag of the Lehi movement (white on blue).svg and File:Flag of the Lehi movement (blue on white).svg seems unlikely to be the uploader's COM:Own work, but I'm wondering if there's some way to relicense it per COM:Israel. The en:Lehi (militant group) was found in 1940, and anonymous works under Israeli copyright law apparently are only eligible for copyright protection for 70 years after creation. The two flags as essentially nothing but the logo on a plain background, and the logo seems pretty complex; perhaps too complex to be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO US but Israel's TOO is unclear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text logo copyright

[edit]

Hello!

I've recently uploaded this logo of the TV show Severance by autotracing a PNG logo.

However, I recently found better, more professional vectorizations by Sean Grady from Valency Graphics.

I wanted to upload this, but I saw the following notice on the page:

These assets are not for redistribution or for commercial use and are owned by Red Hour Productions and Apple Video Programming LLC. All of these logos and graphics are unofficial and are not affiliated with the show. These are re-creations by myself from the show and subsidiary materials. Severance® and all of the subsidiary designs mentioned in the program are registered trademarks of Red Hour Productions © 2025 and Apple Video Programming LLC © 2025. All rights reserved. All other copyrights and trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Since this is a text logo from the US, and he, as far as I can tell, is also American, can he just bar people from redistributing it and from using it for commercial purposes? Because the logo itself is under the American TOO.

I am aware that the code of the files is under a seperate copyright than the graphics, but I cut out a part of the EPS file and converted it to SVG.

Thanks, QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 14:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably legally in the wrong, but I can't see any reason we should push it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuickQuokka: I think the copyright status of svg/vector files can be murky depending upon which side of the fence you fall on per COM:SVG#Copyright. My guess is that in this case the logo is probably PD, and probably could be kept. However, there's probably no encyclopedic need to do so given that the statement you posted above says "All of these logos and graphics are unofficial and are not affiliated with the show". Unofficial user-created logos of TV shows are of very little value to Wikipedia's readers regardless of how the creator has licensed them. A screenshot of the title logo might be just as good if not better than any fan-art possibly COM:LL svg if it's simple enough to be uploaded to Commons without any other coprightable elements. Anyway, the version you replaced came from File:Severance typography.png that you uploaded. Is a better vector version really needed anyway? Can't a better vector version be created from that? Maybe try asking at COM:GL/I if you're not sure you can do so yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I wanted to upload this specific version because it’s a very high-quality professional vectorization of the logo, in contrast to the autotrace I made. I even reached out to CHIPS, the original logo designers, to request the vector files, but they politely declined.
In my opinion, a vector version (like this logo) is almost always preferable to a raster image (such as a screenshot of the title card).
Please note that the SVG code I want to upload isn’t entirely Valency’s work, because I had to edit and convert it from EPS to SVG. I also worry that if I ask GLI, I might receive another vector autotrace. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question, still learning

[edit]

I am still trying to figure out how to upload a picture. Last time I tried to upload a picture of w:George Koskotas but because he is still alive, I had to remove it; it is difficult to be approved on fair use grounds, obviously the photo was a copyrighted. This time before I try to upload, I would be grateful your thoughts. Specifically, it is for another Greek politician, w:Pavlos Bakoyannis, he died in 1989. Now I have found a picture/portrait see here. At the figure caption, it says "Public domain." Does this mean that the picture can be uploaded here without issues? If so which exact licence should I use? Thank you in advance. A.Cython (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Cython: some of this sounds like you are confused about some things, so let me try to address them one by one:
  • "Last time I tried to upload a picture of w:George Koskotas but because he is still alive, I had to remove it." You have no deleted images on this site (Wikimedia Commons). Is this about en:File:Koskotas.jpg on the English-language Wikipedia (en-wiki)? If so, you'd have to take this up there, not here.
  • Commons never allows images on a "fair use" basis. Dead or alive has nothing to do with it.
  • Offhand, I have no idea why greekreporter.com considers that image to be in the public domain. They may simply be lying. Normally copyright in Greece lasts for the author’s life plus 70 years after his death. I cannot see how any Greek photo from the 1980s can be in the public domain, and it cannot be older than that based on his apparent age in the photo. I do not see how this image can be uploaded to Commons.
  • In the absence of a free image, en-wiki allows one non-free image of someone who is no longer alive. However, it is also necessary to indicate who owns the copyright. Since greekreporter.com don't seem to give a trustable description of the source of that photo, we probably fall between two stools in this case.
  • However, surely there is a copyrighted image of the late Mr. Bakoyannis where we know who took it (and hence can appropriately indicate an author) and where en-wiki will therefore allow non-free use. Note, however, that approach does not involve Wikimedia Commons at all. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: You are correct, and I apologize for not being exact regarding the description of the previous events. Your answer also addresses my question of whether the photo of Bakogiannis is copyrighted or not. My only suspicion, maybe hope, was that this may have been taken as part of his duties in the Greek Parliament. Perhaps that's why the Greek Reporter says it is in the public domain. This was a speculation of mine, but I have no idea how to confirm this nor do I have experience. As I said, I am slowly learning. However, from your answer, I understand that the figure caption "public domain" is insufficient without identifying the actual source. Again, thank you.A.Cython (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Cython: Commons is, admittedly, uncommonly strict about claims of public domain, in that we always want to see the specific rationale. There are a few authorities where we'll take their word if they asserted that an image they used is PD (see Category:PD per authority), but it's not really clear who greekreporter.com even is (at least not to me) and whether they should be trusted. Outside of that, we need the rationale: e.g. photo taken by such-and-such person who died more that 70 years ago (so public domain in its home country, Greece) and published before 1930 (so public domain in the U.S.).
In Greece most government photographs are not in the public domain. Note the very narrow wording of Template:PD-GreekGov: it only covers texts. - Jmabel ! talk
@Jmabel: Got it. That's why I asked to make sure before going through the process of uploading and then being rejected. Thank you. A.Cython (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About Template:PD-KosovoGov

[edit]

I don't think this template is valid anymore. The current (2023) law of Kosovo does not include works of government (that are not of textual/documentary nature) as works that don't enjoy copyright protection, unlike the repealed 2011 law.

For comparison:

2011 law, Article 12

1. Legal protection of the copyright shall not include:
1.1. ideas, principles, instructions, procedures, discoveries or mathematical concept as such;
1.2. laws, sub legal acts, and other regulations;
1.3. official materials and publication of parliamentary bodies, government and other organizations which carry out public functions;
1.4. official translations of regulations and other official materials as well as of international agreements and of other instruments;
1.5. submissions and other acts in administrative and judicial proceedings;
1.6. official materials published for public information;
1.7. folkloric expressions;
1.8. headlines and different information of media of ordinary reporting nature.

2023 law, Article 6

1. Copyright protection shall not extend to official texts of a legislative, administrative and judicial nature, and the official translations of such texts.
2. Copyright protection shall not extend to:
2.1. ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such (but only to their original expressions);
2.2. expressions of folklore;
2.3. news of the day, mere facts and data as such (but only to their original presentation); different information that have the character of ordinary media reports can be reproduced only after at least twelve (12) hours have elapsed from their publication.

I suggest the template should be replaced by {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}}, in the similar ways as {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, {{PD-ROC-exempt}}, and {{PD-Philippines-exempt}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this retroactive? - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general laws are not retroactive unless they explicitly state so. I did not find that by reading the law. All materials until 12 October 2023 should be fine. Bedivere (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we would still need {{PD-KosovoGov}}, but it would only cover works from a certain period, and should be edited to say that. - Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The law doesn't appear to guarantee non-retroactivity. According to Article 144, the transitional provision part:

1. Regulation No. 20/2018 on the right to special and reprographic compensation applies until the approval of new tariffs in this area.
2. Normative acts of organizations for the collective management of rights apply even after the entry into force of this law and must be harmonized with the provisions of the same, within a period of twelve (12) months from the entry into force of this law.
3. Protection under this law as regards copyright shall also be available in respect of databases created prior to 1 January 1998 which on that date fulfill the requirements laid down in this law as regards copyright protection of databases. The protection provided for in this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any acts concluded and rights acquired before 1 January 1998.
4. Protection pursuant to the provisions of this Law as regards the right provided for in Article 78 of this law shall also be available in respect of databases the making of which was completed not more than fifteen (15) years prior to 1 January 1998 and which on that date fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 78 of this Law. The protection provided for in this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any acts concluded and rights acquired before 1 January 1998.
5. In the case of a database the making of which was completed not more than fifteen (15) years prior to 1 January 1998, the term of protection by the right provided for in Article 78 of this Law shall expire fifteen (15) years from 1 January following that date.
6. With the accession of the Republic of Kosovo to the European Union the exhaustion of right of distribution, referred to in the Article 23 sub-paragraph 1.2. of this Law, shall apply to any first sale or other transfer of ownership in an original or a copy of a work, made anywhere in the European Union or in the European Economic Area.
7. The provisions of Chapter on Multi-territorial licensing of online rights in musical works by collective management organisations shall enter into force with the accession of the Republic of Kosovo to the European Union.
8. When Marrakesh treaty is signed or when Kosovo Republic becomes member of the EU, an authorised entity established in Kosovo Republic may carry out the acts referred to under Article 49 paragraph 2. of this Law for a person with a visual impairment or reading disability or another authorised entity established in any Member State of the EU or any contracting party of Marrakech Treaty adopted on June 27th, 2013. Likewise, a person with a visual impairment or reading disability or an authorised entity established in their territory may obtain or may have access to an accessible format copy from an authorised entity established in any Member State.
9. Agreements on the exercise of copyright and related rights relevant for the acts of communication to the public of works or other protected subject matter, by wire or wireless means, and the making available to the public of works or other protected subject matter, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, occurring in the course of provision of an ancillary online service as well as for the acts of reproduction which are necessary for the provision of, the access to or the use of such online service which are in force on 7 June 2021 shall be subject to Article 29 of this Law as from 7 June 2023 if they expire after that date. Authorisations obtained for the acts of communication to the public falling under Article 28 of this law which are in force on 7 June 2021 shall be subject to Article 28 of this Law as from 7 June 2025 if they expire after that date.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro

[edit]

Montenegrin copyright law was recently updated last year (2024) as per the online article. But do not expect substantial pro-Wikimedia changes. In particular, the non-commercial FoP clause still exists, unchanged.

Djela koja se nalaze na javnim mjestima
Član 55​​

Dozvoljeno je, bez sticanja odgovarajućeg imovinskog prava i bez plaćanja naknade, koristiti djela koja su trajno izložena u parkovima, na ulicama, trgovima i drugim javnim mjestima.​​
Djela iz stava 1 ovog člana ne smiju se umnožavati u trodimenzionalnoj formi, koristiti za istu svrhu u koju se koristi izvorno djelo i koristiti radi postizanja neposredne ili posredne imovinske koristi.​​

Translated (by Google) as:

Works located in public places
Article 55​​
It is permitted, without acquiring the appropriate property right and without paying compensation, to use works that are permanently exhibited in parks, streets, squares and other public places.​​
The works referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article may not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, and used for the purpose of achieving direct or indirect material benefit.

For the law in Serbian language, see this. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this photograph of Sir John Tresidder Sheppard in public domain?

[edit]

Is this photograph of Sir John Tresidder Sheppard in public domain? ([4]) It dates to 1922 and was taken by Lady Ottoline Morrell (died 1938); 103 years ago and 87 years ago respectively. The photograph comes from a a personal collection therefore I doubt it was ever published. Am I right in thinking this would fall under public domain and therefore suitable for upload here? (Regardless of what the NPG try to argue). Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is from a print. The photograph would appear to be public domain in the UK (unpublished UK works might not fall out of copyright until 2040 though but I think since it was a print that it probably was published around 1922) and would be public domain in the US as Morrell died in 1938 and the two most likely scenerios are publication in the 1920s or unpublished until now where Morrell's death date would matter. Abzeronow (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper clippings etc.

[edit]

I came upon this bunch of uploads, mostly older newspaper clippings - but not old enough to assume public domain. They were uploaded as "own work" which we may safely assume they are not.

Now I know how to mark one image as possible copyvio, but I am a bit out of my depth handling a whole bunch of these. Can someone help? Thanks, --87.150.12.160 11:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VFC is a good tool for this, but I believe you may have to be logged in to use it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, it seems you do have to be logged in. Well, that leaves doing it individually I guess... --87.150.12.160 20:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting of Flickr user

[edit]

Hi!

It seems that uploads from "J.M Executive" on Flickr are falsely claimed as Public Domain (like here File:Mark Carney - November 2, 2023.jpg). Maybe this user should be blacklisted for uploading to Commons --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Converting a deletion request to speedy

[edit]

Greetings! I opened Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by User:Kingmidas911 back in December. The 19 images described in the first set (of 2 sets) are, I believe, unambiguous copyright violations. I believe I should have tagged these as speedy deletions in the first place, and would like to go back and change them. However, I did not want to mess up the existing DR process and thought I should ask first. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyrofrog: Given that there has been no comment there from anyone else, I think you can go ahead and do that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea images by Dprk48

[edit]

These are 2000s images of various locations in North Korea originally uploaded at English Wikipedia by Dprk48 (talk · contribs), and were later imported here. However, the enwiki user implied they just acquired many of the images from their acquaintances, as seen at w:en:User talk:Dprk48#North Korea pics: "I visited DPRK on 2005 and I have a strong interest on it. So I asked some of the members of my trip to mail me the images. I also look for images (as well as information) in the "official" NK media: www.kcckp.net."

Can we accept these old North Korea images, roughly 15–20 years old now, despite seemingly-questionable statuses and the statement from the uploader themself? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

foto di opere di un artista, come caricarle?

[edit]

Ciao! Ho creato una voce su un pittore e vorrei caricare delle foto di sue opere in accordo con gli eredi. Come devo fare? Grazie mille! Alice Zampa (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: @Blackcat: who can help answer this question in Italian. Abzeronow (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alice Zampa Ciao, gli eredi devono dare l'autorizzazione scritta alla pubblicazione con licenza libera. Se le foto rappresentano unicamente i quadri (senza cornice, oslo la tela), allora puoi dire agli eredi di scrivere al servizio COM:VRT, in particolare a permissions-it@wikimedia.org, elencando le opere e la licenza con la quale le vogliono pubblicare (fatti mettere in copia delle mail - una per erede e devono scrivere tutti). Sarà risposto, dopo verifica, con le istruzioni per il caricamento. Infine, una volta caricati i file, dovrai rispondere alla mail di VRT indicando il nome dei file caricati. Tutto chiaro? Ruthven (msg) 20:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao @Alice Zampa: , confermo. Aggiungo che le liberatorie sono nominative, non numeriche, quindi permettono solo l'uso dei dipinti espressamente indicati, non genericamente "tutta l'opera", quindi ti consiglio, già che ci sei, di prendere bene nota dei dipinti da liberare per evitare di dovere fare la richiesta due volte. (mi dispiace, non sono regole che abbiamo fatto noi :) ) -- Blackcat 16:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
grazie @Ruthvene @Blackcat
quindi ogni erede deve scrivere separatamente una mail o può esserne fatta una unica con tutti in copia? C'è un testo prestabilito da utilizzare per non sbagliare?
Per pubblicare una foto dell'artista la procedura è la stessa?
Nel frattempo, visto che la voce è pronta e ha superato i criteri di pubblicazione, si può procedere con l'approvazione per la messa online? Come si fa? grazie mille!!! Alice Zampa (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alice Zampa: Allora, per gli eredi credo che una copia unica possa bastare. Per la voce, qui siamo su Wikimedia Commons, non su it.wiki, quindi questo non è il posto idoneo per discuterne, però personalmente aspetterei comunque, c'è qualcosina da limare dalla voce, c'è ancora un po' di roba che in un'enciclopedia non ci va. -- Blackcat 18:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alice Zampa Una copia, ma che inoltri un file con tutte le firme, per esempio.
Per pubblicare una foto dell'artista, è il fotografo che deve scrivere, a meno che la foto non sia stata fatta su commissione. Nel secondo caso, la procedura è la stessa, perché i diritti sono passati agli eredi che devono inoltrare una prova della trasmissione dei diritti d'autore (per esempio, la ricevuta del pagamento al fotografo). Ruthven (msg) 12:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
se la foto è stata fatta dagli stessi famigliari che la vogliono pubblicare come si procede? grazie mille!
@Ruthven Alice Zampa (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Wouldn't most of these items [5] be copyrighted due to the design/artwork on the ceramics. Artistic works are life+50 in New Zealand I don't see how these wouldn't qualify as artistic works. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those may qualify under {{FoP-New Zealand}}, provided that the ceramics are permanently located in publicly-accessible premises. Those are obviously "works of artistic craftsmanship", and assuming COM:FOP New Zealand has similar/identical definition to COM:FOP UK, museum indoors qualify "premises open to the public". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photos appear to be from the museum's collection rather than an exhibition. These ceramics are not on permanent display at the museum either. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found this: [6] which makes the claim the works at the museum were purchased from a private collector by the company that originally made them, which then donated the collection to the museum. I'm not sure if this would have an any bearing on the copyright status. I'm not even sure if copyright is held by the artists or the (now defunct) company. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing used by the museum for the photos is valid. For the ceramics themselves, if you said those weren't meant to be permanent, then we have some problem. But yes, it isn't clear if the donation of the works to the museum includes stipulation of copyright transfer. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Utilitarian objects do not get a copyright, but this may be an issue, if FoP doesn't apply (I didn't check). But it seems that the copyright of this expired too. Yann (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does NZ copyright law treat utilitarian objects as unprotected works? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So crockery with artwork isn't copyrightable? I'd assume the art on them qualifies for copyright.
>if FoP doesn't apply
These objects are held in the museum's collection but aren't publicly displayed currently. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO File:Bowl, cereal (AM 1764-1).jpg and File:Dinnerset (AM 1990.168-41).jpg, or any simpler design, are not under a copyright. This is part of the ordinary design of an utilitarian item. Yann (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about ones such as this File:Jug, milk (AM 18604-5).jpg? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the illustration on the jug is copyrighted (and if FoP doesn't cover it), then that could be a problem. However, it is not obvious to me that it is. The illustration style looks like it could easily be a century old, even if the jug is of a much later date. - Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrightability of generic photographs of objects

[edit]

Hi. It appears that @Nutshinou: has been systematically nominating hundreds (if not thousands) of non-original photographs of statues and the like for speedy deletion due to copyright concerns. Admittedly I haven't looked into every single file, but from what I can tell most of the statues in the photographs are PD to begin with. File:Cecil Brown - 386432591a.jpg being one of many examples. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought a photographic reproduction of an otherwise PD object can't be copyrighted because it's not technically an original work. So does anyone know exactly what the policy is in instances like this? I'd hate to see hundreds of photographs of statues get deleted if they aren't actually copyrightable. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Statues are not 2D works, so we need a permission from the photographer, which is lacking here. Yann (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sucks. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: What about something like coins? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We usually require a license from the photographer. Please see Commons:Currency. Yann (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teresa Teng's first performance.png

[edit]

Previously nominated but then kept twice because URAA-based arguments were inadequate. Nonetheless, the Instagram posting of this very old (1960) photo was 2020, five years ago. I'm concerned about existence of the photo's prior publications. I've not yet re-nominated the photo. I'm bringing this up here instead. George Ho (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Could you please spell out your theory of how this is problematic, rather than just "I'm concerned about existence of the photo's prior publications"? - Jmabel ! talk 06:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll rephrase: Has this photo been published previously other than just the Instagram posting? If so, how about the 1960s? George Ho (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: So your concern, if I understand it correctly, is the case where this was not immediately published, but was later published at a date that would mean it is still in copyright? - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: My main concern is the photo's first or earliest publication, actually. George Ho (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the licence from a gbif record coming from naturgucker

[edit]

Hello, for an example, I would like to upload this image : https://www.gbif.org/fr/occurrence/5027775938 but I have a doubt concerning the Licence. In the Gbif page, it says that it is a CC-BY Licence, but it also says to look at the licence on the original record on naturgucker, however, when going to the naturgucker link, I don't find any extra info about a theorical other licence, but in that case, why would GBIF label it at CC-BY ? Is it indeed CC-BY and okay to upload or am I missing something ? TyranCometh (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The license conditions appear to be listed at https://nabu-naturgucker.de/nutzungsbedingungen/#g0d36be5c5937 in section 10 "Von Ihnen gewährte Lizenz für Inhalte". It sort of sounds like a license that would allow doing anything with the media as long as it's attributed to the author, however, it might need some detailed reading whether it allows anyone to do all those things or whether it only permits "NABU" / "naturgucker" to do all those things. Nakonana (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOP - permanent collection vs. permanently installed

[edit]

Hi all, this question might be better suited for the Freedom of Panorama talk page, but I figured folks here might have some broader insights. I was hoping to get clarity on how we judge works for inclusion on Commons via Freedom of Panorama copyright exceptions. I've seen quite a few conversations where other editors have used the rationale that if a work is in a museum's permanent collection, it's acceptable for an FoP-rationalized image. But I was under the impression that for most countries' FoP rules, a work has to be permanently installed in a publicly accessible place, not just owned by a museum that doesn't plan to deaccession it. I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting what other editors have been saying, but it seems to me as if folks are either confusing "permanent collection" with "permanently installed" (the former simply means the work is owned by a museum, not that it's permanently installed in any specific place), or we're stretching the limits of the "permanent" clauses in various FoP statutes.

Does anyone have clarity on this topic? Am I myself misinterpreting the meaning of FoP? Thanks y'all! 19h00s (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this very much depends on the individual jurisdiction; we probably cannot make an overall assessment across jurisdictions. Gnom (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lets take the example of the United Kingdom. The Copyright rules page has an explanation that reads "it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public." Here are several images of copyrighted artworks that were nominated for deletion but kept simply because they were publicly accessible in a museum:
One of these deletion request closures is just plainly logically false as it's discussing a work that was only on display for the temporary Turner Prize exhibition (clearly out of bounds of UK FoP). In addition, there are two requests that were closed because the works are owned by a museum that is accessible to the public.
There are extremely few cases where museums actually permanently install a work - site-specific works, major installations, tentpole works from a collection like the Mona Lisa - and even museum galleries labeled as "permanent collection galleries" almost universally rotate works in and out, in addition to completely rearranging or reorganizing the entire collection every decade or two. There are obviously major museums where that isn't the case - the Barnes in Philadelphia, which keeps its entire collection permanently installed in a specific layout - but the vast majority of art-holding museums do not permanently install their permanent collections. For most museums, the majority of their collection is in storage and works are constantly rotated on and off display.
So, in the case of the UK, I'm confused by the application of FoP. Does it just apply to works that are permanently installed in a public place, or does it include works that are simply owned by and/or on display at a publicly accessible museum? 19h00s (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what is written on DACS' website, "permanence excludes temporary displays or any relevant work which may be removed from time to time." And, "it is not clear that any degree of permanence is required where works are displayed in premises which are 'open to the public'; experts are divided on the point." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is super helpful, this statute language is what I needed. In DACS' statement "The sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship must be permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public", the or is clearly the source of the ambiguity. To my eye the "permanently situated" qualifier also applies to the "in premises..." section, but it sounds like that's an issue disputed by different factions of UK legal scholarship. I'd personally argue for a stricter interpretation from Commons out of precaution, but that's obviously a bigger discussion. This is super helpful in getting to the heart of the matter though. 19h00s (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yeah, you're right regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:London - Tate Britain Turner Prize 2016 (3).jpg. The "keep" closure was plain wrong. Non-permanent arts and crafts from UK, even if located in public spaces, aren't freely reusable in photography. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading photos of 18th century portraits to Wiki Commons

[edit]

I would like to upload seven photos of 18th century portraits to Wiki Commons. These images are faithful photographic reproductions of two-dimensional, public domain works of art. The images can be found in an online version of a French magazine for art auctions. The works themselves are in the public domain, as the authors died in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

I have already seen examples of uploads from the same art auction magazine in Wiki Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_Hector_Leroux--Sappho--Hotel_Drouot_2023.jpg

However, I am unsure about the legal situation in Europe regarding the upload of such reproductions. If I understand it correctly, uploading two-dimensional works of art is definitely legal in the USA. Would someone from the United States be able to upload them? If anyone would be willing, I have prepared a list of the portraits in question.

Thank you in advance for your help and advice! Clemens August von Bayern (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure anything made in in the 18th century is in the public domain worldwide now but correct me if I'm wrong. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, The painting itself yes, but the contemporary photograph of the painting is possibly not in the public domain everywhere. Clemens August von Bayern (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not familiar with copyright law in Europe, but according to Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#France, it mentioned it is a case-by-case basis whether the photographs are public domain. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Louis Hector Leroux--Sappho--Hotel Drouot 2023.jpg is OK as 2D artwork. Yann (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clemens August von Bayern: Under a 2019 EU law, all reproductions (photographs) of public domain paintings are also in the public domain. Gnom (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnom Thank you! If anyone has the same question, it is Directive (UE) 2019/790, article 53. Clemens August von Bayern (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being more precise :-) --Gnom (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Gnom (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Character copyrights

[edit]

Hi, Are these edits by an IP OK? Yann (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upload after inheritance from photographer

[edit]

User:Debussy1854 has requested assistance on my Wikipedia talk page regarding three images they have uploaded. Apparently, they inherited physical photographs that were taken by their great uncle and have scanned them for Commons. The images are currently set to "own work". What's the correct procedure for this? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Thebiguglyalien To clarify, they are in my family archives. The photographer, my great Uncle has been deceased for several decades. I did not upload them directly but was directed to follow the instructions on wiki-commons where there were options, one of which mentioned own work which includes the work of others. These are photographs that are owned solely by me from a box from 1945 in my ancestral house after the death of a family member. I took photographs of the old photographs (I am the photographer of the work), have assigned that the photographers were Colonel Murali Mohan Singh Roy and A.K. Sen (both dead) and never claimed it to be my own work. It will need to be changed somehow if that is how it reads. Thank you for the help. Debussy1854 (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photographs are probably still copyrighted. Who are the phptpgrapher's heirs? We would need a release from them. (The ownership in the physical photographss is totally irrelevant, we need to look for the person(s) who inherited the copyright in them.) Gnom (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the heir - I thought I made this point clear. 155.190.19.7 14:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I thank you for looking into this, but I cannot publicly divulge, why and how here. I have inherited both the physical photo and the copyright, otherwise I would not have used them. There are many other photos, but I don't believe I have the copyright to it and so, will not use them. Debussy1854 (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://trustandwill.com/learn/who-inherits-copyright-after-death Debussy1854 (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This community is built upon trust. In my first experience, I'd noted incorrect information and a terribly presented article (which said much of nothing) that had not been flagged by any community member since 2020. However, when correct facts backed by several sources each were uploaded in addition to photographs (the copyrights and physical copies for which I have inherited through legal documentation / will) etc., I'm being subject to unfair assumptions that I do not own the copyright. I hope this makes it clear-I am in the right here. Thank you for looking into this. Debussy1854 (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Debussy1854, there are volunteer people among our community who are entrusted to deal with questions of copyrights, right transfers and so on. Please refer to Commons:Volunteer Response Team. According to your statements, with a bit of preparatory work, you should be able and very welcome to contribute your inherited works to our repository. The folks operating the response team are the most informed people about this subject, please contact them. When the needed procedure is clarified (which likely will entail an archived permission from you to be pasted on the incoming file descriptions), you're cleared to proceed. Please keep COM:SCOPE in your mind! It would be sad and pointless to upload pictures that won't really enhance our collections (and put a burden on other Wikimedians who busy themselves in curating the uploads). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Grand-Duc - The wikicommons procedure had asked to release the copyright etc. It was a lengthy process. I did NOT directly upload anything to the article and availed of this 'alternate process'. Full credit to the photographers was assigned. I have the copyright and released it. I fully understand and appreciate your statements, however I've even had a COI tag assigned to me and several experiences have not exactly instilled my confidence just yet.(@Thebiguglyalien graciously removed the COI tag after reviewing the article and all sources - constructive feedback was provided - it was mentioned that the article did not merit the COI tag.)
I believe that the 3 photographs are in support of biography and will leave it there. If you could provide me a link with next steps in this, I'd be grateful.
I recommend that Wikipedia review procedures in place for these types of situations where the editor has copyright to the photograph which was not taken by them and is uploading in support of the cited neutral article. There are clear procedural gaps here, because I see articles with historic photographs all the time where the editor may / may not have taken them.
The options in the wiki commons upload process needs a review period - not all instances have been taken into consideration. Debussy1854 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with the declaration of "own work", Debussy1854, as that is not true. You should apply the tag {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} instead of the current one, see also Commons:Transfer of copyright. If possible and acceptable for you, please write down afterwards the name of the actual photographer in the source field. Expect that somebody may require you to provide a statement for the legality of the inheritance to the Volunteer Response Team. This bit of a hassle is necessary to preserve the integrity of any licensing chain and the trust in the copyright and license claims for our files. I took a look at the three uploads, that's a kind of historical document valued here! Thank you. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Grand-Duc-absolutely happy to do that. In the upload application I had clearly mentioned the photographers. My subject headings also had mentioned this. Another editor came and removed all of it - so I've been dealing with contradictory editing philosophies - thank you for your patience. Please let me know when and where to provide that statement. Can you provide me guidance on where and how to apply the tag - let me look into this. I also wonder where you are seeing the current tag to replace. Debussy1854 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand-Duc I just tested the heir tag you sent and put it into the edit text - I dont think I saw the update, so need more guidance on this.
Please check this page - the photographer names are still there, although when I view it strictly from the wikipedia page I dont see the full text - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=bijoy+singh+roy&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image
Also, there is a statement that says I have the copyright and released it. Debussy1854 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Debussy1854, please have a look at this: Special:Diff/1008781744/1009586840. Please do the same kind of edits on your other upload that remains to get a correction:
I fixed the third one also. Kind regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated @Grand-Duc. I will just need a bit of time and fix the photographs as requested. 155.190.19.7 17:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand-Duc - Update: All the 3 photographs now have the updated correct archive of.... tag you put in for 1-2 I believe. Debussy1854 (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miffy sculptures in Amsterdam

[edit]

Were these rabbit sculptures during the 2015 exhibition meant to be permanent as per Commons:FOP Netherlands? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It was in the year 2010, a copyright law was passed in the Maldives. It was in October 2010 that the law was put into effect. According to Article 36 of the copyright law of Maldives any products such as photos published in websites before the copyright law was put into effect are not protected under the copyright law. This applies to photos copied from original sources and published in other websites too according to the law. This photo [7] was uploaded to Divehi Wikipedia on 2008 and I was wondering if I can upload this image on Common, as it was published before the law was passed in the country. You can refer to the law from here [8]. Alternatively, I would like to know if we can upload a photo from a local publication to Common, if uploaded prior to October 2010. ShappeAli (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Process question re: wrongly licensed files

[edit]

Quick question. If I happen across a file where the license info is clearly wrong, but there's an obvious compatible one that will work, is it ok to just change the license tagging, or is a better process to follow?

Example in question is this one, which was tagged as CC0 but is a derivative work that includes several images under various CC-BY/CC-BY-SA licenses. I changed the license tag to CC-BY-SA 4.0 since that's compatible with all of them...but is there a better way to go about this kind of thing?

File:Wiki_List_Tool_-_2024-05-28_snapshot_03.png

Thanks for any guidance; I appreciate it! RickScott (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to speedy delete file:Blueseal-energy-group-nigeria.png

[edit]

please I need help with the media file File:Blueseal-energy-group-nigeria.png, I mistakenly created the file as my own work and I want to speedy delete the file so I can license it under the accurate license and source. Stephen Ini (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a deletion to occur, Stephen Ini. Simply write in the correct information! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1009621219"