Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

CC licensing "with an active link required"

Commons has a hundred images which say in their description something like, from File:Bitcoin (38461156880).jpg:

Credit www.quotecatalog.com with an active link required.

Is it within COM:LICENSING to add a requirement like this to a CC licence? It sounds like I wouldn't be able to print such a photo in a book or include it in a TV show because there wouldn't be an "active link". Belbury (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No, that's clearly an impermissible condition on reuse. Do you want to create the deletion nomination or shall I? Omphalographer (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get it. Belbury (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

In fact, that would preclude use in print. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. Request now open at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "with an active link required". Belbury (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You are supposed to have an active link if possible, or in a book print the URL, I think, with the CC licenses. I guess the question is if that statement is an addition to the CC-BY requirements, or an alternative license. It's pretty close to a free license but it does leave some questions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The only URI that a Creative Commons license should require is to the source of the work, if possible (per the CC wiki), and there's no requirement that it be an "active link". The links required by these file descriptions aren't sources; they look more like attempts to promote web sites. Omphalographer (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A URI to the license itself is also required if you don't include the entire text -- If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: [...] C. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.[1]. If a link was given, and that link goes stale later on, and the condition of "active link" becomes void at that point, meaning the license terminates at that point, then it would be a problem I think. But if it's just a requirement to have a link to the source, it's OK, and versions of the CC licenses before 4.0 allowed the author to specify the URI they wanted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia requiring the same? Enhancing999 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Any condition provided for outside of the license is not part of the license and does not constitute an additional restriction. This is explicitly provided for in the license text: "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In the original upload on Flickr, there's one license (CC-BY 2.0) in the metadata and another completely different and incompatible license ("Image is free for usage on editorial websites if you credit <some web site> with an active link") in the description. I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation of the author's intent which would allow us to ignore the license outlined in the description - they clearly meant that text to have some effect on how their photo could be used. Omphalographer (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As I read it, that would grant a second, distinct license. That is, they are granting (a) CC-BY 2.0 and (b) use on an editorial web site with that particular link provided. Reuser would be free to choose. - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there not any precautionary room for the expectation that the Flickr user believed they were creating a single, handcrafted licence by ticking CC-BY and, in the same form submission to the Flickr servers, writing additional clauses that they wanted applied to that licence?

We had a lot of "CC-BY but you can't upload this image to Facebook" custom templates here on Commons a while ago, and so far as I can see the outcome of that was that people were asked to relicence or remove those images, rather than Commons flatly considering the content to be dual-licenced and marking the files up with "ignore the Facebook bit if you want, your choice" {{Multi-license}} templates (where the secondary template was not a Commons-compatible one). Belbury (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not what happened with the NoFacebook templates. First, the templates themselves were not actually supposing to add a restriction to the CC license, but instead arguing that the CC licenses were incompatible with the Facebook terms; the templates were removed because this isn't actually true. Second, nobody was asked to relicense or remove anything. The only thing removed was the misleading "no-FB" template. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, seems I've misunderstood the Facebook outcome, the surviving templates that I'd seen had read more like restrictions.

So should there be any caution exercised in a case where a Flickr or Commons or Instagram user seems to have believed that they were creating a complex custom (and Commons-invalid) licence by adding additional statements in the description, even if they were technically multi-licensing? In both good and bad faith: a "CC-BY but this footage cannot be used by Evil News" or a "CC-BY and by using this image you agree to pay me $500". Belbury (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The reasonable interpretation is to follow the actual text of the CC license, which was written specifically to clarify that any restricted offer made outside of the license is not a condition of the CC license, and instead constitues a separate license. There is also no restriction which prevents a person from offering some item under two separate licenses with different terms. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup of "CC but also" files

As a related case on this, a user was recently found to have uploaded hundreds of files with a disclaimer permission template saying things like For printed publication, you must contact the author via email for approval and YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO UPLOAD THIS FILE TO ALL SOCIAL NETWORKS. They gave no response to talk page concerns or an ANU thread before it went stale (with some suggestion to just delete the images if there was no response), so that needs a next step.

Based on the above discussion, do we thank the user for their submissions and update the files with two license templates (one a regular CC-BY, one a custom "CC-BY but contact for printed publication, no social network use, must use highest resolution") and make it clear with a {{Multi-license}} header that the Commons user can pick either one? --Belbury (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In this situation, given that the user uploaded these images directly on Commons, not another web site, and that they explicitly acknowledge that the images are CC licensed, I think we're on firmer ground treating their "disclaimer" as a set of (unenforceable) requests, not as an custom or alternative license. Omphalographer (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

With what outcome - do we step in and alter the User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer template to remove or rephrase the requests that it's making? Belbury (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There are even more such templates, and mass-changing them is likely too intrusive - Gabuxae (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gabuxae @Belbury @Omphalographer It is not too intrusive to remove the NoFacebook portions of these templates, and, in fact, it's appropriate, given the consensus at the DR (and the WMF legal advice) on NoFacebook templates. These templates are making inaccurate claims about what the CC licenses allow; that's why they have been removed. These other conditions are clearly not part of the CC license. Any request that the re-user contact if there is use in print, use the highest resolution, etc., is a mere request, not a license condition. Also, while claiming that FB sharing is against the CC terms is clearly not allowed, I suppose it's potentially OK to merely request that users not re-post to Facebook, although I think this goes against the entire spirit of Commons and arguably should be disallowed (though not for being misleading). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Do not alter terms of licenses of contributors other than yourself.

Not sure if Facebook is really in the spirit of Commons, but everybody is entitled to their own view on that. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Belbury@D. Benjamin Miller@Enhancing999@Gabuxae@Omphalographer see also both meta:Talk:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media and Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates, the latter resulted to the deletions of all remaining NoFacebook templates custom-made by users, yet not wkthout an intense backlash from several of those users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The legal answer is clear. No CC license prohibits posting on Facebook.

The entire argument is based on the notion that the Facebook terms require anyone who posts on Facebook to grant a license to Facebook for all posted materials, including for content for which the poster isn't the copyright holder. It is obvious, though, that his can only apply insofar as much as the Facebook uploader has the ability to grant such licenses. Even if we reject that interpretation, though, any re-user who provides attribution in an accepted form would not violate the CC license — only the terms and conditions of Facebook.

If this template was intended as a statement of a restriction the CC license imposes, it is wrong. (The social media profiles for CC itself, which post CC content, clearly illustrate that the license was not designed this way.) If it is intended as a warning about Facebook's terms of use, it's also wrong. As @JWilz12345 mentions, the question of altering these templates to remove this misinformation has already been addressed.

The question is not whether Facebook is in the spirit of Commons. You can have any opinion you want about Facebook. The question is whether or not a purported restriction, or even a request, that content not be reposted on Facebook is compatible with the principles of Wikimedia Commons. I think the answer is a clear "no."

One of the core principles of Commons is that files are free content. Part of what makes items free is that they can be used by anyone for any purpose. A "no Facebook posting" restriction or request goes against that very principle.

Putting things as a mere request for content not to be posted on Facebook, without purporting to restrict it, doesn't violate the licensing rules (since it doesn't impact the license at all). But I see it as akin to "Please don't use my file in any page written in French," or "Please don't use my content outside of Wikimedia sites." It is not part of the license, but it is an anti-free content request in spirit.

Is seems clear, indeed, that many users who so vociferously opposed the removal of NoFacebook were motivated not by a sincere interpretation of the CC licenses, but by a dislike of Facebook (for various reasons). That feeling may be justified, but it's irrelevant. Free licenses are not weapons against what is, at worst, sloppy verbiage in Facebook's terms of service. Of course, this drafting ambiguity is not what anti-Facebook people dislike about Facebook, which only highlights the absurdity of the position; someone started from the position of disliking Facebook and searched for some any possible justification to misportray the licenses as an anti-Facebook tool. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The claim in User:Altair Netraphim/Disclaimer is specifically that This file uses a license that is not compatible with licensing terms of all social networks - which is factually untrue. This isn't a request; it's an inaccurate statement about the terms of the Creative Commons license, and it's entirely appropriate for us to correct that. Omphalographer (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious, what the uploader intended and their view is probably consistent with Commons' view when they wrote it. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It was wrong then. It's still wrong now. Any past prevalence of incorrect information doesn't change the need to correct it now. And this discussion was already had. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

To make matters even more complicated, some user templates include other license-like clauses. This example (specifically, last sentence) may even be legal and enforceable: CC includes a right for the licensor to remove his name. But the situation as whole is weird: does it allow me to violate attribution by changing a single pixel and publishing with no names attached? - Gabuxae (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Warren Laity

Warren R. Laity was an American photographer of the early 20th century. He died in 1936, and thus copyright has now expired on all of his works.

His grandson, Colin Talcroft, owns some of Laity's original work — in fact, for some of these, they may be the only remaining copies. Mr. Talcroft scanned these in, digitally restored them, and posted them on his own website. So far, so good.

Then I found them and uploaded them to Commons, because their copyright has expired and because Warren R. Laity was a skilled artistic photographer and also some of his stuff has historic value.

Mr. Talcroft recently discovered this, and is intent on asserting that he still holds the copyright to these images, because he restored them.

Is he right? DS (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he died in 1936 does not mean that copyright has now expired on all his works. COM:US is far more complex than that, and anything first published 1929-2002 may still be in copyright.

Restoration is a complex subject; it's unlikely to create a new copyright, but if whole parts of the photograph needed it replacement or something, it could.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If they were on public display (in , e.g., galleries or competitions), that would count as being published, yes? DS (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That again depends on the circumstances. US courts ruled at the time that if precautionary measures had been taken to avoid copying by patrons, then mere exhibition to the public does not count as publication. This is explained in some detail at Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Felix QW (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

One image now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Capitol in the rain (Laity).jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

2D works on buses in Russia

It is ok to upload file like this to Commons? Russian law doesn't grant FOP for 2D works. Personally I thinks ok because the law allows accidental use of such works. P.S. Depicted 2D works are actually painted buildings which are itself in public domain. Юрий Д.К 08:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would say yes, if the picture doesn't focus only on the artwork, as we have Category:Pokémon Jet. Yann (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Hi and thanks for your answer. I have a photos of a whole bus on my computer but not of focused 2D artwork Юрий Д.К 09:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Little Esther Jones with dog

Can we import en:File:Little Esther Jones with dog-1930.jpg? It is used on en.Wikipedia as "fair use", but the description notes "Published in The Afro-American, Baltimore, Maryland (US), Sunday August 16, 1930, page 8. Publication does not bear a copyright notice and may be PD.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Should be fine for Commons at least as {{PD-US-not-renewed}}; The UPenn database entry confirms that regardless of copyright notice, the Afro-American did not renew contributions to its paper until a decade later. Felix QW (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Now at File:Little Esther Jones with dog-1930.jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Artikeldestages.tiff

File:Artikeldestages.tiff looks like a mess after I added all licenses of the icons and photos in the screenshot, but from what I understand it seems like that's needed? Anyway, the Geschichte icon in this file has been replaced "to solve problems with copyright". So this would mean that we can't use it in this screenshot? Should we just remove the icon from it or just delete the screenshot? // Kakan spelar (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I would think it is de minimis here, but could certainly be covered with a Gaussian blur if anyone thinks it's really a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point, didn't think about that. // Kakan spelar (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Color photograph and advertisement

There's an image here of a photo promo of a band, and a cropped version of the photo was included in an advertisement here that doesn't have a copyright notice. Could the full version of the color photo be uploaded? reppop^talk 00:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If that black and white cropped version had been the only one published, probably not. However, as noted on the site which has the color photo, it is a promotional card for the band. Unless there was a copyright notice on the back, the distribution of that card itself put the full color photo in the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Behind the Door (1919)

I had gotten a request to upload a copy of the 1919 U.S. film Behind the Door since video2commons couldn't process it at full resolution. I haven't done so because in 2019 a copy was uploaded at File:Behind the Door (1919).webm and deleted after a request from the creator/distributor of the restoration at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Behind the Door (1919).webm. They stated that the restoration "contains new, protected, derivative elements consisting of editing, film speed correction, tinting schemes, and most importantly, new music." This year, another copy was uploaded to File:Behind the Door.webm and kept after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Behind the Door.webm.

Neither upload here included the copyrighted soundtrack, which was in the YouTube sources as well one of the two available Internet Archive sources ([2] but not [3]). Are there copyright issues with creating and uploading a (silent) version from one of the IA copies? Should I just do an undeletion request on that first upload to make sure there's agreement around having a copy of this film? The last deletion request only got one reply, so I wanna be appropriately cautious before taking action on this. hinnk (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to see how film speed correction (presumably returning the material closer to the version released in 1919) could warrant a claim of copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hinnk: Even without the soundtrack, it sounds like this specific restoration does indeed have new copyrightable elements: "No single, complete, copy of the film is known to survive. This restoration is based [on] an incomplete 35mm print and a separate small roll of shots preserved at the Library of Congress National Audio-Visual Conservation Center, and a 35mm copy of a Russian version, based on an export negative preserved at Gosfilmofond of Russia. In two sequences, still images have been inserted to bridge gaps where motion picture material was not available. Shot continuity and text for re-created intertitles and bridging stills are based on director Irvin Willat's original script and continuity. Color tinting and toning have [been] reproduced based on the laboratory notations in the leaders of the Library of Congress print." It may, however, be possible to host clips of the movie that do not include bridging sections or recreated intertitles (which seem to be labelled with "2016" in the restoration). I'm not sure if the tinting would be creative enough to attract new copyright. Nosferattus (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've renominated File:Behind the Door.webm for deletion. It would be best if further discussion happened there. Nosferattus (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What license to use

The commons help desk suggested I post here. I've found an image here [4] I wish to upload, it says it can be used, shared, copied and distributed free of charge, for credit. It was taken in 1886/1887 in Bergen but the photographer is unknown. I'm not sure 100 percent sure what license to use. Here's my original thread at the help desk. Spiderpig662 (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

A photograph taken in the 1880s by an unknown author can be tagged as {{PD-old-assumed}}. There are other more specific PD templates which can be used if more information about the photographer is available, e.g. {{PD-old-100}} if they are known to have died at least 100 years ago. Omphalographer (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! --Spiderpig662 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not necessarily that simple, and I had already discussed this at length with Spiderpig662 at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&oldid=915498602#What_license_to_use, and told them that when bringing the matter to VP/C, "make sure either to copy-paste my analysis or to use a permalink and link this thread as the start of your discussion," which they did not do. They apparently have no knowledge of the publication history of this image, and while {{PD-old-assumed}} is fine for Norway (and, as I told them, {{PD-anon-70}} is better) there are at least two possible cases where it would still be copyrighted in the U.S.:

• If the image was first published (anywhere) 1929 - 28 February 1989 and conformed to U.S. formalities, that would give it 95 years in the U.S. from publication date.
• If the image was first published (anywhere) 1 March 1989 through 2002, that would give it 95 years in the U.S. from publication date without even raising the issue of U.S. formalities.

We know nothing about the photographer, who could have been an amateur and might never have published. The linked site says nothing about provenance, or about its own date of posting. If, for example, the photo sat in some family collection and went unpublished for a little over a century, and was first posted to the web in 2000, it would be in copyright in the U.S. through 2095. - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to come from a collection of professional theatrical portraits at the University of Bergen [5], so it seems likely also to be a professional portrait "in costume". In the small chance that it is a family image, it is probably still {{PD-US-unpublished}} since publication needs the agreement of the copyright holder. In fact, if Norway has such a thing as publication right, I suspect that is the most likely right to exist on it. However, as Norway is not in the EU, I have been unable to find out whether Norway does have such a concept. Felix QW (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Felix QW: Åndsverkloven, § 13.​ is the Norwegian implementation of Directive 2006/116/EC, Article 4. --Geohakkeri (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I thought I had used a permalink correctly after following en:Help:Permalink, I'm sorry I did that wrong. I had assumed Omphalographer had seen the thread I linked when they suggested using {{PD-old-assumed}} which is my fault for assuming. I uploaded it under that license at File:Rolfine Absalonsen.png. Whilst uploading I thought I'd cropped the image correctly but after upload it seems to be too wide. I've tried to activate the CropTool to fix this but when I tried to load it says there is a "curl error". I've never uploaded to commons before and I'm so sorry if my inexperience has caused undue hassle.

Just to clarify, should I change the license to {{PD-US-unpublished}}? --Spiderpig662 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Spiderpig662: My sincere apology! I skimmed too fast and didn't notice that there was a valid permalink there (you did it very differently than I would have, but in a perfectly OK way). - Jmabel ! talk

@Felix QW: thanks! There had been no mention of that thing about theatrical portraits and, yes, that makes it a pretty safe bet that it was published more or less contemporaneously, so we should be fine in the U.S. I don't think it's that crucial to have the absolutely optimal choice of PD tag as long as we are confident that the image is in the public domain in both Norway & the U.S. Probably we should permalink this discussion from the file talk page in case any of this comes up again for that photo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Doubtful the uploader actually owns this file or that this is actually licensed under a free license.

I did a reverse search on File:Hacker PNG3.png and found this perfect match from 4 years earlier here. I already put the {{Disputed}} template on the file awhile back but now I'm starting to gravely doubt that Teamp0ison89 owns any copyright to the picture or that it is freely-licensed. Upon further examination, I'm also able to confirm that Kaspersky is not a freely-licensed website which makes me even more suspicious about the picture's origin and license. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Right, deleted. Yann (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Files from Texas Army ROTC Flickr stream

About 13K photos have been uploaded from the Texas Army ROTC Flickr stream and have been tagged as {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. It appears to be a school, not actually US army so I doubt the people taking the photos are actually employed by the US federal government. Opinions? Multichill (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The Army ROTC is part of the US Army. It is a program for college students run by the US Army. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "run by," but I don't think we can always presume that ROTC photos are taken by federal employees. In particular, I don't believe ROTC cadets are considered federal employees, though the instructors are. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

New warning template for copyrighted interior architecture?

In many (most) countries where a Commons-compatible form of freedom of panorama for copyrighted architecture exists, it applies only to exterior views. So, it's for example perfectly fine to upload exterior views of Elbphilharmonie, but we can't host images of the interior such as the concert hall, see Commons:Deletion requests/Interior of Elbphilharmonie. In the case of Elbphilharmonie, a warning was placed manually at the top of the category page. But as this is a recurring issue that applies to all sorts of modern churches, concert halls etc. in countries such as Germany or Switzerland, I wounder whether a dedicated template would be useful, to be placed in the categories for these buildings, something like {{NoFoP-interior-category}}? There's {{NoFoP-category}} but this is for buildings / artistic work in countries that have no Commons-compatible FoP whatsoever (so, also not for exterior views). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I remember seeing that restriction on most countries with FoP, but it's there for a few for sure. So yeah I could see a template for such cases -- even if just a few countries, that could be many building categories. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Definitely Germany & I believe Austria & Switzerland. That would be enough to merit a template. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also the following: Türkiye, Spain, Poland, Venezuela, El Salvador, Colombia, Panama, Paraguay, and Chile.

However, is {{NoFoP-interior-category}} encompassing interior architecture only, or only interior public art? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Most countries that don't have freedom of panorama for interiors don't have them for any kind of copyrighted work in interior spaces - that includes architecture as well as other artistic work (sculptures, paintings...). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg: The Europe map at COM:FOP has only four countries with FoP for public interiors (dark green): Portugal, Ireland, the UK, and Austria. Additionally in light yellow-green (how do you call that color?) the Netherlands, Algeria, and Tunisia (not in Europe but still on that map) for "some public interiors"; all other countries on the map have either no FoP at all (red), "buildings only" (but not public interiors; yellow), or FoP, but not for interiors (light green, such as Germany etc.) Gestumblindi (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

̼@Gestumblindi: I'm not sure that is what the distinction on the map means, exactly. The UK has FoP for other works (say statues) permanently placed inside buildings, if those buildings are open to the public -- I think that is what is more meant by "interiors", if the interior of a building can be considered a public place. The interior architecture itself, is far less clear -- the interior is part of the same architectural work as the exterior. Germany certainly has explicit language that only the exterior is part of FoP, and also language about where the photographer is located, but that type of wording is rare in laws. It may well be that any part of the architectural work is fine to photograph (and use commercially), including the interior, but any other works inside are not. It's always possible case law could create such a distinction, but not sure there have been many (or any) test cases on that. For countries where building interiors are not public places, photos focusing on works other than the architecture would violate FoP in the first place, and shouldn't be allowed here in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I have to agree that things are more complicated than the map(s) suggest. "Public interiors" can mean different things in different countries, and the definition of a "permanent public display" is also varying - what exactly means "permanent"? What are the boundaries of a "public display"? From where may you take the photograph? And so on... So, the Europe FoP map and the world map are certainly only an approximation, though a valiant attempt and still helpful, I think. - I don't know the status of FoP for interior architecture in the UK. But as you say, e.g. for Germany it's clear, and there are other countries like Switzerland where we know that such photographs don't fall under FoP, so I think such a template - to be applied where we are fairly sure - still would make sense. Just don't apply it to UK photos, for example, until we know more. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to think of Template:NoFoP-category. Isn't the solution for these to upload photos to Wikipedia instead (at least for France/fr.wikipedia) but not mentioned there?

A similar looking template on categories that should actually have uploads seems like a terrible idea. Will recent US buildings have that too? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against adding something along the lines of "If your images are intended for use in another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia, and your local project allows for fair use, you might consider uploading the pictures there instead, if allowed as per that project's regulations", what do you think? - Regarding, US buildings, COM:FOP US says that FoP for architecture in the US applies to "interior public spaces" as well, so I think I would rather not use the new template for US photos (photos of non-public interior spaces would still not be allowed, but I think that's too specific for a template). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the note for France should be more specific than that. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

French Wikipedia has a "fair use" policy? For, of course, as France doesn't have freedom of panorama at all, you can't upload images there invoking the Lex loci protectionis (which is something German Wikipedia does for exterior views from countries without FoP - it doesn't have a fair use policy, as copyright law in German-speaking countries doesn't allow for "fair use", but it argues that you can show those images as FoP for a German-language target audience). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Reminds me of some user who planted Template:FoP-Switzerland on every street category. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

COM:FRANCE

I've proposed a change to COM:FRANCE that editors familiar with French copyright law or the URAA may want to review, the topic is at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/France#Start date of 70-year term. (tl;dr COM:FRANCE has incomplete information about when the copyright term was increased.) hinnk (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

In short, the old duration was 58 years (50 + 8 years for war extension). So documents which were in the public domain with that duration are not affected by URAA: either if the author died before 1937, or if they were published anonymously before that date. Could a native English speaker please write a synthesis? Yann (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

licence

Bonjour une photo heritée d un oncle décédé et sans notation particulière est elle autorisée a la publication sur sa page ou il n y a pas de photo de lui ,MERCI Bemann (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bemann: Bonjour, Il nous faut connaître la date de la photo, et si possible le nom du photographe. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status of reproduction photographs of copyright ineligible works

w:Die shots are commonly used as illustrations in Wikipedia articles about specific microchips. These are generally as-exact-as-possible reproductions of the microchip's 2D surface.

There are two legal questions when making and distributing die shots:

1. Are you even allowed to publish die shots? I.e. is the reproduced object subject to copyright?
   
   This can be answered fairly clearly for almost all cases with a clear no, because die "artwork" is functional in nature. For this reason separate w:integrated circuit layout design protection was incorporated into the law. This is entirely separate legal protection. These layout protections only protect the means to reproduce the actual chip, which a die shot is decidedly unfit to achieve.
   
   Therefore the reproduced work is ineligible for copyright and can be freely reproduced.
2. Are the die shots / reproduction photographs themselves protected by copyright?
   
   This is a bit harder to answer. Photographs depicting dies are of course protected if they are not a pure reproduction (e.g. something like File:ADC84KG-12 die.jpg). However, typical die shots like File:Intel-pentium-ii-dixon-die-shot-high-resolution-stitched.jpg, which attempt to be accurate reproductions, are probably not protected by copyright for the same reasons why reproductions of public domain art aren't.

I think this means that most die shots are actually public domain, at least in the US and all the EU states which implemented the DSM directive. Phiarc (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Third-party images published by the National Weather Service

I've now reviewed 1,000 images uploaded under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template and requested deletion of several.

The arguments for deletion, and to keep, are now following repetitive, predictable patterns and it would greatly help all involved if we could centralise discussion and obtain some wider community input.

Therefore, I have opened an RfC to gather opinions. Apologies in advance: it's long and detailed, but is frankly nothing compared to the words and time expended by all parties up to this point. Probably the most crucial issue revolves around how we interpret a general disclaimer published at weather.gov (Q.1 in the RfC).

Your advice is greatly appreciated! --Rlandmann (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the reasonable use of the {{No permission since}} template

I see someone skipped the DR process and just tagged this file with {{No permission since}}. If user don't know enough about the {{No permission since}} template and tagged every file without discussion, it would probably be misused by an inexperienced user. So, I wonder in which situations would it be "reasonable" for us to use the {{No permission since}} template? Can we really skip the DR process? Also, if this edit is unreasonable or inappropriate, then it need to be discussed in the particular at COM:DR.--125.230.85.122 13:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Solomon203 as tagger.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

{{No permission since}} seems very unclear here. Are they questioning the claim of own work? If not, the template is just plain wrong. If so, they ought to be explicit about why they question it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add: this file has been on Commons over a decade. -- Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Uploader has no other uploads, so almost certainly will not weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like a video screenshot. But for a picture uploaded more than 10 years ago, a regular DR is much better. Yann (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll turn this into a DR. - Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Distribution Statements

Certain modern military manuals have "distribution statements" on their title page. For example, the 29 March 2002 edition of the AH-64 operator's manual, TM 1-1520-251-10, states:

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D - Distribution authorized to Department of Defense and DoD contractors only due to critical technology. This determination was made on 26 June 2000. Other requests for this document shall be referred to Commander, US Army Aviation and Missile Command, ATTN: SFAE - AV - AAH - ATH, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 - 5000.

and the C-17A flight manual, TO 1C-17A-1, reads:

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT - Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only for administrative and operational use, 16 November 1987. Other requests shall be referred to ASC/YC (AV/FS), Wright Patterson AFB OH 45433-7142.

I suspect that these statements may be an attempt to reserve copyright protection by government contractors, since all U.S. federal government produced documents are public domain, but a private work for hire can, in theory, be published in or as a government document and still be copyrighted. However, I am not sufficiently familiar with distribution statements to say for certain. For example, the phrase "due to critical technology" could indicate it is more for secrecy reasons than copyright.

As background, older manuals include statements such as "published under authority of the Secretary of the Air Force" or "published by Douglas Aircraft Co. with approval of Chief, Engineering Division, Materiel Center" on the title page. I have never seen the public domain status of these examples questioned. However, this may be because even if they weren't considered government produced, they would still be public domain as they were published before 1978 without a copyright notice.

If the distribution statement does constitute a copyright claim, it would seem that the claim would be invalidated by the somewhat recent decision in Georgia v. Public.Resource.org, Inc. that certain works created by contractors in association with the government are uncopyrightable. In addition, a federal court ruled in favor of a lawsuit by AM General against Activision regarding use of the "Humvee" name in video games. However, as this involved a trademark, not copyright, it may not be applicable here.

To sum up, the question is: Are military manuals with distribution statements public domain and can therefore be uploaded? –Noha307 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

These distribution statements have nothing to do with copyright. They have to do with status (current or former) of restricted military information. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you seem to be familiar with the subject, is there any chance you know where I could find more information about it? I don't doubt your explanation, I just have a distinct personal interested in the subject and would like to read the minutiae. Also, it would be useful to have something to reference should I need to explain it elsewhere. –Noha307 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I should have just searched it. It's covered by DOD Instruction 5230.24. There's also a chart laying out distribution statements and their corresponding reasons for use. Of the reasons, the only one that looks like it could involve copyright is for "proprietary information" (aka "proprietary business information" in DoDI 5230.24), which is used to "[t]o protect information not owned by the U.S. Government and marked with a statement of a legal property right". However, this only applies to distribution statements B, E and F, so it shouldn't affect my purposes. –Noha307 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Copyrighted picture

File:K.T. Oslin performing "Do Ya" at the Grand Ole Opry House through a CBS two-hour "Country Music Association" 30th Anniversary Special on Jan. 7, 1988.webp is sourced to an article in The Tennessean and credited to the photographer. I sincerely doubt HereIGoAgain (talk · contribs) is the photographer, so this is very likely a copyright violation. TenPoundHammer (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Are images extracted from non-free PDF files from Japan always unuploadable?

For example, extract the political party logo from this press release (I think this is copyrighted), and upload it to Commons is not accepted? The logo itself is the same as File:Logo of Democratic Party For the People.svg and is considered the public domain in Commons. Article 20 (1) of the Japanese Copyright Act stipulated the Right to Integrity. I think extracting the logo from this non-free press release and uploading it violates this right. So, even if the logo itself can be considered the public domain, if the PDF file is unuploadable, the extracted logo is also unuploadable, and I think the PDF file must also be uploadable, what do you think about this? Momiji-Penguin (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No, public domain items that happen to be included in a copyrighted work are not unuploadable when separated from the copyrighted work.

The right to integrity has nothing to do with this. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: Sure, they do. The copyrighted work is merely the conduit.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This is presumably in reference to Commons:Deletion requests/Some files in anime television series logos extracted from PDF files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear. Public domain items that happen to be included in a copyrighted work are uploadable when separated from the copyrighted content. Be careful, that you use the original published captions for the PD items, rather than those in the new work. Broichmore (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We Animals Media

The not for profit organisation We Animals Media provides photos and videos under permissive licenses. A potential user can choose a "Non-Commercial License Type" or a "Special Non-Commercial Academic and Editorial Use Only License Type".

One of the differences between the licenses is that the Special Non-Commercial license prohibits works to be "used by nonprofit or charity organisation. Work(s) may only be used by individuals, educators, or for editorial use." Which I presume precludes Wikimedia?

The license is printed in full below, but the section on copyright reads.

We Animals retains all copyright and moral rights attached to this Work(s) as well as any other rights not expressly granted to You in this agreement. Credit/Acknowledgement must be given in the format [creator name] / We Animals Media when the Work(s) is published, either with a picture credit, caption or a link/acknowledgement in the publication where the Work(s) is used.

Am I right in assuming crediting the photographer in the metadata with the uploaded file is sufficient if a license template with the information in sections 2 and 3 are included in the template and the template is used with the photo?

If the answer is no. Would the same be sufficient for upload to a specific Wikipedia?

I will paste the standard "Non-Commercial License Type" license here:

Non-Commercial Use License This is a license agreement between you and We Animals Media that explains how you can use the Work(s) that you access from our site for the purposes indicated by you upon download. In consideration of our grant of this License, you accept the terms of this agreement. Section 1 – Definitions. Work(s) means the image or video clip licensed to you by We Animals. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this License. Your has a corresponding meaning. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this License that apply to Your Specified Use of the Work(s). NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. Please be advised fundraising is considered a commercial use, and you are required to use our Commercial License for fundraising purposes. Creator means the photographer / videographer who created the work(s). Specified Usage means the intended use of the Work(s) you specify upon download. Section 2 – Scope. Subject to the terms and conditions of this NonCommercial License, the rights granted to you for use of the Work(s) by We Animals are: Worldwide. Perpetual. There is no expiration or end date on your rights to use the content. Non-exclusive. You do not have exclusive rights to use the content. Unlimited. You can use the Work(s) an unlimited number of times for the Specified Usage. Section 3 – Provisions and Restrictions. Attribution. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 4 — Copyright in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Work(s). Adaptations. You are allowed to adapt, alter, arrange, transform, or otherwise modify the Work(s) to suit your purposes for the usage stated upon download, provided the adaptation or alteration complies with the terms of Subsection 3 - Misuse, below. Misuse. Work(s) cannot be used for any purpose that promotes or advocates for any industry, initiative, person or practice that engages in animal use or mistreatment, in each case as determined in We Animals’ sole discretion. For any breach of this subsection, We Animals may immediately revoke this License and terminate this agreement. We Animals will notify you in writing of such revocation and termination. You agree to cease all use of the Work(s). Continued use of the Work(s) after revocation of this License shall constitute intellectual property infringement, and We Animals reserves all rights and remedies available at law and in equity. No endorsement. Nothing in this License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, We Animals or others designated to receive attribution. Redistribution. You cannot sell, sublicense, and/or redistribute the Work(s). Section 4 – Copyright We Animals retains all copyright and moral rights attached to this Work(s) as well as any other rights not expressly granted to You in this agreement. Credit/Acknowledgement must be given in the format [creator name] / We Animals Media when the Work(s) is published, either with a picture credit, caption or a link/acknowledgement in the publication where the Work(s) is used. Section 5 – Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability. You indemnify and holds harmless We Animals against all claims, liability, damages, costs and expenses stemming from Your breach of this agreement, the use of the Work(s), Your failure to abide by any restriction regarding the use of the Work(s), or any claim by a third party related to Your use of the Work(s). The Work(s) is provided "as is" with no warranty regarding the suitability of the Work(s) for any purpose. We Animals is not liable to You or any person or entity for damages, costs or losses stemming from any usage of this Work(s). Unless delivered to You by We Animals, no model or property release exists for the Work(s) and You use the Works at Your own risk. Section 6 – General Provisions. Equitable Relief: You acknowledge that Your breach of this Agreement may cause We Animals irreparable damages, for which an award of damages would not be adequate compensation, and agree that, in the event of such breach or threatened breach, We Animals will be entitled to seek equitable relief, including injunctive relief, specific performance, and any other relief that may be available from any court, in addition to any other remedy to which We Animals may be entitled. Such remedies are not exclusive but are in addition to all other remedies available. Severability. If any term or provision of this agreement is invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability will not affect the enforceability of any other term or provision of this agreement, or invalidate or render unenforceable such term or provision in any other jurisdiction. No assignment. You will not assign any of your rights under this agreement without our prior written consent. We Animals may freely assign or otherwise transfer any of our rights or delegate any of our obligations under this Agreement. Amendment and Modification. No amendment or modification to this agreement is effective unless it is in writing and signed by an authorized representative of We Animals. Governing law. This agreement shall for all purposes be governed, interpreted, construed, and enforced solely and exclusively in accordance with the law of Ontario, without regard to conflicts of law provisions thereof. You agree that exclusive jurisdiction and venue of any dispute with We Animals or its licensors, or any of their respective affiliates, officers, directors, employees, contractors, agents, representatives or suppliers, arising out of or in any way relating to this agreement federal and state courts serving the city of Toronto, Ontario. You expressly consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by such courts and agree that you will not object to jurisdiction of or venue in such courts on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, or otherwise.

-- Jabbi (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jabbi: No, that does not qualify as a free license. The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations. Wikimedia Commons doesn’t accept {{Noncommercial}}-only licenses, or restrictions against e.g. promotion of “animal use or mistreatment”. --Geohakkeri (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Geohakkeri Thank you for your answer. Do you know if it would be okay to upload with this license to a specific Wikiepdia. Say the english? -- Jabbi (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The license is either free or not. That is, all non-free licenses are basically considered as All rights reserved for the purpose of Wikimedia. It should be considered case by case whether the file complies with the non-free content policy of applicable WMF wiki. --Geohakkeri (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Creating new figure based on figures published in scientific papers

Hi all, I would like to draw some maps of what Earth looked like during geological time to illustrate the geological period pages. I can only do this by basing my new maps on figures from papers in scientific journals and/or websites. I plan to use two or three figures as the starting point and combine them into a new map. Is this allowed under copyright rules and if so how do I credit it correctly? Silica Cat (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Indicate those papers as references (see File:CAMP Magmatism in the context of Pangea.jpg for a good example of doing this correctly). Remember, information is not copyrightable, just its expression. There are probably a fair number of free-licensed maps here that you can use as starting points for your actual creation of an image. I'm not sure just what you would need, but we have things like Category:Maps of past tectonic plates and Category:Palaeomaps. - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That's really helpful :) Silica Cat (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Photographs taken for state licenses - published? copyrighted?

Recently, I've been writing on English Wikipedia about a number of American architects who were active in early-to-mid 20th century. A lot of these folks have photographs from their Washington state architectural licenses, usually dating to the 1930s/1940s. Washington isn't a state that releases its own publications into PD, but these would have fallen out of copyright unless they were registered and renewed. I'm unsure what sort of PD license these would fall under, or even if they count as "published works" for copyright purposes. An example of such a photo is in this Seattle Times article. Generalissima (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You can look at Commons:Hirtle chart. The biggest issue is figuring out if the works are registered (esp. as not all registrations have been digitized yet). And i'm not sure how those licenses came by their photographs. If they were provided by a 3rd party, the 3rd party might have the copyright, irregardless of what state document the photograph was incorporated into. The primary work/copyright is the photograph here, the (scan of the) license is the derivative copyright of that photograph. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Any US photograph that was 'published' in 1963 or earlier, and on which copyright wasn't renewed, is in the public domain.

For a license photo, the question is really whether or not the photo was published before 1989. If architectural license photos were made available to the public, then the answer should be yes. If not, the answer is probably no. I don't know what the status of those papers were at the time.

However, here is your (probably) better route. I checked the Catalog of Copyright Entries, and it seems that no copyright was renewed (or registered) for the Seattle Times before 1978. Assuming the issues had notices, that means anything first published in the Times in 1963 or earlier should be in the public domain. That would include, for instance, the photo included in the 1950 clipping included in the article you reference.

Additionally, any photo of McAdoo created by USAID during his time working for that federal agency is in the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Can other users change the license if own work is considered to be in the PD?

I noticed that the license for File:Teishi-genkai.svg (own work) has changed from CC0 to {{PD-shape}}. Certainly, this is a simple geometric shape so I think it could be considered in the PD. However, I didn't agree to this license change in advance. In such cases, can other users arbitrarily change the license? If so, can this be applied even if the previous license is more restrictive than CC0 such as CC BY 4.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0? Momiji-Penguin (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Momiji-Penguin: To issue a license, you have to hold a copyright. You can no more license a public-domain work than you can sell the Brooklyn Bridge.

Also, if you granted CC0, you gave up all rights, so I'm not sure what you have to complain about. "This thing I said I'm making absolutely no claim to got changed" is kind of an odd complaint.

That said, they should probably have indicated something in the "permissions" area of {{Information}} more like "Momiji-Penguin granted CC-zero licensing for this work, but we believe that to be redundant because it is {{PD-shape}}." - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Jason Myers image

I apologize for making a copyright infringement, however this photo has a "Some rights reserved" on it, however the photo on Flickr.com, it allows redistribution, so can someone tell me what I did wrong? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You uploaded a photo licensed under a CC-BY-NC license.

NC-licensed files are treated as non-free ones and are not suitable for Commons. The same also applies for ND-licensed files. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

NC means "non-commercial", ND means "no derivatives" AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It has a CC BY-NC 2.0 license, which you misrepresented as cc-by-2.5. COM:L, to which you've been referred thrice ([6][7][8]) not only says "Commercial use of the work must be allowed" (italics in original), but has a whole section on forbidden licenses and does not even really require literacy, as is depicted as " Not OK". Эlcobbola _talk 01:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

OK so that means that I cannot upload that file, yes? Or I just put the wrong license? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No, you can't upload the file here. The source literally shows that it's licensed under a NC license. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

OK I apologize thank you for putting up with me. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

👍 AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Recordings of live performances

Hello! I have some recordings of parts of live performances such as classical works (opera Attila, ballet of Nutcracker, etc.) and folk concerts. (30-60 seconds in length.) Am I allowed to upload them here? If so, what options do I choose for the license? - Klein Muçi (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's presumably going to vary somewhat with different countries' laws; what country? (Still, my guess is that in most cases it will be a problem, because at least some aspect of the performance will be copyrightable even if the underlying work is not.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In most countries where performances are copyrightable per se, they are sui generis copyrightable, not copyrightable as works, and the rights in the recording belong to the recording party alone (although there are sometimes requirements for splitting of royalties, where there are royalties, which there wouldn't be here). However, the main purpose of performance copyright laws is similar to 17 USC 1101 (which isn't copyright per se), mentioned by @Toohool - the performers need to have consented to the making of the recording.

So, basically, if you had permission to record, it is probably OK (at the very least the audio would be - video might contain new stuff). If not, it's not OK. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! But in that case, what does one select in the uploading procedure when asked if it is completely own work or not? Is this considered my own work? Is it considered a mixed work? - Klein Muçi (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It may not technically be a copyright issue, but if you didn't get permission from the performers to make the recording, distribution in the United States (i.e. on Commons) would be forbidden by 17 USC 1101. Toohool (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel, @Toohool, just so I can give a bit more info, they're performances from Albanian singers in Albania, mostly from the w:en:National Theatre of Opera and Ballet of Albania. I noticed that the theatre's activity was almost non-existent here in media terms, be those images, videos or sound recordings, and I already had some media related to those and thought I could help a bit in that direction. - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Most countries these days have "related rights" for performers. The major right is typically one of agreeing to be recorded, without which a recording cannot be distributed, though Albania's law may go quite a bit further (it complies with many EU directives as they are negotiating to join). The current law is here; based on an English translation of a slightly earlier version, you would need to get permission to redistribute such a recording. The portions regarding related rights start at article 103 there, and the main restrictions are in article 109. It may be that the theater company (which may be the government) holds those rights. Secondly, if there is any copyrighted music or dialogue being performed, that may be a separate copyright that needs a license. You would have the copyright to the recording itself but is likely not be the only license we need. If you had permission to record, and there is no copyrighted content in the performance, it may be OK but look over that law. It may also be that commercial reproductions of the performance need royalty payments to somebody, which could also cloud things. I'm not entirely sure which rights would be assumed transferred to the theater, and which of those rights were given permission for.

1. The performers /executors have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit:

a. The registration of their performances and/or executions;

b. The reproduction of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

c. The distribution of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

ç. The rental of a phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

d. The lending of phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

dh. The import of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions, for commercial purposes in the domestic market;

e. The broadcasting of the interpretations/performances and their transmitting to the public, pursuant to the provisions of Article 29, letter ‘c’, ‘ç’, ‘d’, ‘dh’, ‘ë’ of this law, except when the interpretation/performances has been previously fixed or broadcasted. If the registration/fixation has been fixed on a phonogram or a videogram, the performer/executor has the right to a common and fair remuneration, for the other broadcastings and transmitting to the public of his/her performance/or execution. The common and fair remuneration, referred to in this section of this Article, consists of the remuneration received by the user of phonograms that belongs to the performers/executors and to the phonograms producer.

ë. Cable retransmitting of their performances and/or executions;

f. The availability in interactive way of the fixations of their performances and/or executions

Some of those are just for phonograms, but others sound like they may apply. Not exactly sure who would own those rights for the particular performance in question, or what licenses they may have given. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi: if you can get around the rights issues here, I would recommend that rather than wrestling with trying to describe this complicated case to the Upload Wizard you do one of two things:

1. If you are comfortable filling out {{Information}} yourself, skip the Upload Wizard entirely and upload with Special:Upload.
2. "Bluff" your way through the Upload Wizard (give the simple answer that it is your own work), then immediately after upload correct the file page to reflect the situation accurately.

The Wizard is simply not built for complicated cases like this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Are files licensed under this license acceptable?

The Digital Agency distributes illustrations and icons, which are licensed under this license.

The conditions of this license are that if the user has edited the file for publish, use, or redistribute, the user must cite the source and include a statement expressing that the content has been edited. This license does not require attribution unless the work is a derivative work. But not in any way that making public, using or making available edited information in a format that may be misconstrued as having been created by the Government of Japan (or its ministries and/or agencies). The file may be freely used, copied, publicly transmitted, translated or otherwise modified on condition that the user complies with the conditions, and commercial use of it is also permitted.

{{Zlib}} is acceptable to Commons, so I think that files licensed under this license are also acceptable, is this correct? Also, how should the license information be presented? Momiji-Penguin (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly fine. Much less restrictive than CC-BY, really. It should carefully note what files it pertains to... with Google Translate, the main site copyright policy seems to say that a "Public Data License 1.0" applies to content on the site unless a copyright notice is specified (which one technically is in the site footer), and does not apply to logos etc. That license also appears to be fine, and says it is compatible with CC-BY-4.0, but does appear to be different than the one you mention. It may be good to have some unofficial translations of those licenses, if possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

As stated at the beginning of the main site copyright policy, unless otherwise noted, work by the Digital Agency is licensed under the Public Data License 1.0.

And on 1.4 it states:

2. 具体的かつ合理的な根拠の説明とともに、別の利用ルールの適用を明示しているコンテンツ

This means something like "Content where other terms of use apply with rational and concrete reason" in English. I think イラストレーション・アイコン素材利用規約 falls within this exception. Momiji-Penguin (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if particular files have an explicit license just for them, that would override the site license. It all sounds fine, and we should probably have a copyright tag if we are going to copy many of those icons. The only official license text is in Japanese of course, which should be noted, but having some translation may help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I created {{DAIITU}}. Momiji-Penguin (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Would these qualify as public domain for Commons?

I've found a number of images I feel could be a good fit for articles from the old BC Ferries archive. [9][10][11][12]

From my understanding, all of these images are owned by BC Ferries, and as it was a crown corporation until 2003, these images would fall under section 12 of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) which states:

Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.

So from my understanding, all BC Ferries produced images from 1973 or earlier should be public domain. However, I don't know enough about Commons' proof of ownership standards and how it handles international copyright law to confirm they're suitable for upload. Emma0mb (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The date of the publication is important here. The images need to have been published by 1974. Ruslik (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

So assuming I can get confirmation of publication before 1974, it should be fine? Emma0mb (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"Without a copyright notice"

Per the text of one of the copyright tags, some pictures are uncopyrighted because they were, quote, published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years. In searching the loc.gov files for Ricky Van Shelton, it appears that no photos of him had their copyrights registered. From what sources, if any, could I get a picture of him that meets these qualifications and can be uploaded here? TenPoundHammer (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyrights aren't all that often at the level of individual photos. It is quite likely that he had a fair amount of press during this period, but that entire issues of a magazine or newspaper would have been copyrighted, not single photos. - Jmabel ! talk 04:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

US National Archives and Records Administration

I am wondering about the copyright status of images in Category:US National Archives series: Artworks by Negro Artists, compiled 1922 - 1967. The issue was previously discussed here. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion request for some of my images

Hi!

Back then in 2019, I didn't know about the issue of election posters (whether they are FoP or not), so I would like to mark my images with a deletion request here, to close this issue. Some may not meet the TOO, but they can be sorted out in the request. Can someone mark these images with DR for me, please? I don't know how to do that, thanks :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

What's the license for a free image that cannot be used for commercial purposes?

and Is a image like that allowed on WC if it provides infomation about the subject?
Hydrogen astatide (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)