Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Alien copyright works (resumed)

Previous discussion of the Auschwitz album photos, copied from Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Germany

@Pajz: I have done a little more research on the photos of the Auschwitz Album. The photos in Wikimedia Commons come from one of two sources - The United States Holocaust Museum or Yad Vashem in Israel. In both cases, the originating museum states that the photos are in the public domain, but do not qualify their statement. What licencing statements should be given to satisfy the Wikimedia Commons requirements as removing the images from Commons on account of some minor technicality when applying Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle too rigidly whould tarnish Wikimedia's credibility and along with it, that of Wikipedia as well? Martinvl (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think under old German law, they were "simple photographs". At the time, a maximum of 25 years from publication, or creation if not published. That was later extended to 50, but it would take some rather fortuitous publication timing for these to have been protected by that 50. When the EU directives happened, these are no longer simple photographs, but "works". The retroactive terms of 70 years for anonymous works, or 70pma if not anonymous, should now apply (unless somehow that 50 year term was longer, which would require even more fortuitous timing of publication). The copyright owner would seem to be the German government. They would need to be anonymous or not based on the post-directive rules on what "anonymous" means, I think. Those, I believe, include a requirement that the author themselves make the authorship public. It seems as though it is strongly suspected that the photographers were two people, and one of them said certain photos were not him, but I don't recall if they identified them as being by the other for sure. Even if they did, not sure it would change them to be 70pma by the current rules. And I don't think that author specifically identified the photos he did take, so not sure that even his could be considered to have a 70pma term. The determination of when they were "published" may also be quite difficult, and that matters for the old term and the current anonymous term. To me, most likely they have the anonymous 70 year term, as never having the human author identifying themselves. Publication is harder, as they were used in the 1960s in a trial, but they were known about well before that. They seem to have been some sort of officially sanctioned work, so they could well be consdiered published at the time. Or even never legally published. If either at the time or never, they are PD today. Any claim of current-day copyright would have to be based on particularly unusual publication timing, or being 70pma and not knowing when the author died (and never being able to find out). And the country of origin could depend on where that publication happened. As for tarnishing Commons' credibility, that more comes from situations where we claim PD, but another party claims otherwise, and are ruled correct. That then includes practical considerations -- and in this case would involve the German government trying to claim copyright over Nazi material in order to suppress it (take it off Commons or somewhere else). That is ... fantastically unlikely, which puts this discussion into highly theoretical areas because we almost certainly won't get a court case about it. It is PD in Israel, which only protected photos for 50 years from creation, and the US due to the Alien Property exception. Other countries could be a tortured case-by-case thing looking at their laws. I think it's entirely plausible to just put {{PD-anon-70}} and {{PD-US-alien property}} on it. These are about the last photos I would expect to be a practical problem to host. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid but a photo such as File:Selection on the ramp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, 1944 (Auschwitz Album) 1b.jpg certainly qualifies as a Lichtbildwerk under German copyright law (sec. 2), and not as a mere Lichtbild (sec. 72). Gnom (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of d:Q130299692 say that this photo was taken by de:Bernhard Walter (SS-Mitglied) (1911–1979). --Rosenzweig τ 11:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure and wild assumption, nothing based on evidence. Sure, it was taken by an employee of the camp, but who? We don't know, and we will never know, as all witnesses died without giving any information. So the licenses mentioned by Carl above perfectly fits the case. And about "tarnishing the reputation of Commons" mentioned somewhere, deleting images of the Auschwitz Album under spurious reasons would certainly do that. Yann (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "wild assumption". They had access to archival records from the camp and were able to determine the dates the photos were taken, sometimes precisely, sometimes within a few days, and also who was active as a photographer. They are certain that the album photos are by either Walter or Hofmann, and made the determination which of the two took specific photos based on characteristics of the photos. Like Walter's penchant to take photos from slightly elevated positions and his use of photographic composition, while Hofmann did not care about those, but characteristically often took three photographs directly in a row, only slightly moving the camera to the right after each shot. For some photos, they are not sure which one of the two is the photographer. While all that is not proof, I would certainly call it evidence. --Rosenzweig τ 14:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per @Rosenzweig: 's proposal[1], I am resuming the Auschwitz Album discussion here.

As regards the United States, the :en:United States Holocaust Memorial Museum asserts that the photos in the Auschwitz Album are in the public domain. See for example here. They do not justify how they came to that conclusion and the only way that I can see them adopting that approach is by way of the "Enemy Alien" tag.

AS regards Germany, neither Walter nor Hoffmann nor their heirs have claimed authorship, so under Section 66 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz, the works are deemed annonymous. Furthermore I noticed that some of the files from the Auschwitz Album were loaded onto Commons in January 2015, which is within a month of the expiry of 70 year window described in Section 66.

I propose that a template 'PD-Auschwitz-Album which woudl be added to all imags from the Auschwitz Album be created as follows:

= = = = = = = = = Start of proposed template = = = = = = = =

This photo is believed to be the only surviving copy that was made from the original negative (destroyed in 1945). The physical photgraph is held by Yad Vaschen in Jerusalem.

This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired and its author is anonymous.
This applies to the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public and the author never disclosed their identity.
Important: Always mention where the image comes from, as far as possible, and make sure the author never claimed authorship.

Note: In Germany and possibly other countries, certain anonymous works published before July 1, 1995 are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author. See Übergangsrecht. Please use this template only if the author never claimed authorship or their authorship never became public in any other way. If the work is anonymous or pseudonymous (e.g., published only under a corporate or organization's name), use this template for images published more than 70 years ago. For a work made available to the public in the United Kingdom, please use Template:PD-UK-unknown instead.

Neither Bernhard Walter (Auschwitz photographer), Ernst Hoffmann (Walter's assistant) or their heirs have claimed authorship of this photo, so under Section 66 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz, this photograph is deemed to be annonymous and entered the public domain within the EU on 1 January 2015.

This work is considered public domain in the United States because its copyright was owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and the copyright in the source country is or was owned by a government or instrumentality thereof. The above provision is contained in 17 U.S.C. § 104A(a)(2).

Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. This file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, in their catalogue of photographs assert that this photo is in the public domain within the United States. They do not justify their rationale.

= = = = = = = = = End of proposed template = = = = = = = =

Martinvl (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we feel the need for a template for this album, this would be my best guess. I don't think we should have a tag for the simple photo aspect of German law, as in most cases it is superseded today, and can only rarely be used. My understanding is that in older German law, most snapshot-type photos were 25 years from publication, or creation if not published. The author being known or anonymous did not matter. At some point (I think 1980s), newspaper-type documentary photographs were increased to 50 (which these would seem to be). My understanding is that things like studio portrait photographs would have always been "works". When the EU directives came in, that all changed -- these photos became "works", a new definition of "anonymous" came in, and new copyright terms were introduced, restoring works even if they had fallen into the PD. These photos are now either anonymous by the new criteria, and 70 years from publication (creation if not published), or 70pma. It does seem as though people have deduced the likely two photographers, one of which died in 1979 and the other unknown, and can make educated guesses as to which photographer took which photo. But, I think the new "anonymous" criteria demands that the photographer identify themselves, which did not happen, even if they may not have been "anonymous" under older German law. There is certainly a lot of gray area and different points can be argued, but I just don't think they really rise to significant doubts in this particular case. As for the U.S., the entire purpose of the Alien Property exception was to prevent copyright games around photos like this, and they would seem to qualify. The Alien Property Custodian conceptually owned all German/Nazi copyrights of the era (within the U.S.), even if not directly administered, and while private copyrights were returned, government rights were not (or at least prevented URAA restoration). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinvl: Why do you think that because Hofmann or Walter never "claimed authorship" for a photo they are anonymous? Please take a close look at COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works, left column called The old method, which is likely still relevant here. First, unpublished works could not be anonymous works. Second, for published works, if the author became known within 70 years after publication (not creation), 70 years pma applied. Yes, I know that photographs initially had very short terms of protection partly based on time of creation, but so much changed after the adoption of the EU directive in 1995 that we should clarify what actually applies here. This requires some deeper knowledge of case law I think. Maybe Gnom or Pajz (if they want to, not everyone may like to be involved in this matter) can shed some light on this.

Second, after some further reading of d:Q130299692 I found a section where the authors write that Walter did confirm his authorship of (at least) two specific photos during the Auschwitz trial in 1964. These are two very similar photos taken within a few minutes; we have one of them (in two file versions) as File:Selection on the ramp at Auschwitz II-Birkenau, 1944 (Auschwitz Album) 3a.jpg and File:Selection on the ramp at Auschwitz II-Birkenau, 1944 (Auschwitz Album) 3b.jpg. The reference the authors give is „Vernehmung Bernhard Walter, 77. Verhandlungstag, 14. 8. 1964, FBI, FAP, AP 114.“ FBI being the Fritz-Bauer-Institut in this case, FAP is the Sammlung 1. Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozess (collection first Frankfurt Auschwitz trial). So at least for those two photos, we do have a confirmation of authorship by the author. --Rosenzweig τ 11:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Why did Yad Vashem and the United States Holcaust Museum state that these photos are in the public domain? If they are in error, then maybe you should contact them first and then correct Wikimedia Commons. Martinvl (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask them if you want to know that. I won't contact them (why should I if you want to know this?), but my guess is they didn't mean German copyright law, but US and/or Israeli law. --Rosenzweig τ 12:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: I don't think the "old method" applies because the old term for photographs did not depend on being anonymous -- the 25/50 years terms were based on publication/creation only, regardless of the author. The new EU terms would be anonymous yes, but you have to use only the new definitions that came along with it. You can't use a newer law's term but then combine it with a definition from the old law. If Walter did identify himself, that could be a complication for those. Granted that was under oath and not exactly voluntarily, but that may not matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 70 years pma term for photographic works was introduced in 1985, 10 years before the EU directive and the new rules for anonymous works. So not a "newer law's term", but co-existent with the "old method" for anonymous works. --Rosenzweig τ 15:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: But they were still the 50-year term for newsworthy photos in 1985 (if they even still had a copyright in Germany then), not based on an anonymous term. The only anonymous term they would have would be the ones from the EU directive, which has its own definition of anonymous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very tricky. The 1907 law (KUG; § 26) had a term of 10 years for photographs, from publication (Erscheinen), but 10 years pma if not yet published at the time of the author's death. Erscheinen, publication, is defined as publication initiated by a Berechtigter, a rights holder (§ 30). A 1940 law [2] extended those 10 year terms to 25 years, from publication or pma. Then came the 1965 law (in force in 1966) and changed that (for both "simple" photographs and the new photographic works) to 25 years from publication, or creation if not published within 25 years from creation. Per § 129, that also applied to works created before 1966, so the copyright for 1944 photographs did expire at the end of 1969. However, per the U-Boot-Foto case, those copyrights could have been restored to 70 years pma terms in 1995. Or, in the case of anonymous works (§ 66), to 70 years from Veröffentlichung (publication) or 70 years from creation if not published within 70 years. Veröffentlichung being defined as something happening with the consent of the Berechtigter (§ 6). So if the photos are considered to be anonymous and never rightfully veröffentlicht (published), their restored copyrights would have expired at the end of 2014. If not considered anonymous, the term would be 70 years pma. I'm not sure if there is any case law on this. Probably not, but I don't know. At least the two photos for which Walter confirmed his authorship can hardly be considered anonymous I think. --Rosenzweig τ 10:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, there are two fidtinctly different issues:

Do we know who took which photo?
Are the photos still under copyright?

It is possible that the photographs are not under copyright for reasons not known to us, but which are known to Yad Vashem and the United States Holocaust Museum. Are we justified in taking their word for it? They have the paper trail to show the providence of the photos. If one of Walters' or Hoffmann's heir claims copyright, then Commons can refer them to Yad Vashem or the American Holocaust Museum, citing the German law of handling stolen goods in good faith. Martinvl (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is much more likely that they simply don't consider German copyright (as I wrote above), simply because they're based in the US and Israel, not Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 16:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book The Auschwitz Album - Hellman, Peter - Random House, was published in 1981 in the United Stats (ISBN 10: 0394519329 / ISBN 13: 9780394519326) without, believe ,copyright notices regarding the photographs. Wikimedia Commons states "Anything published in or after 1978 but before March 1, 1989 with no copyright notice is in the public domain unless the work's copyright was registered within 5 years of the work's initial publication.". Thus any photos that appeared in Hellman's book are in the public domain in the US. The appropriate tag would be PD-US-1978-89 with a qualifier noting Hellman's book and the absence of copyright notices in respect of the photographs.

This work is in the public domain because it was 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.
Unless its author has been dead for several years, it is copyrighted in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 pma), Mainland China (50 pma, not Hong Kong or Macau), Germany (70 pma), Mexico (100 pma), Switzerland (70 pma), and other countries with individual treaties. See this page for further explanation.

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

This image appeared without a copyright notice in the book The Auschwitz Album' Hellman, Peter - Random House (NY), published in 1981. (ISBN 10: 0394519329 / ISBN 13: 9780394519326)

Martinvl (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a copyright notice on the book as a whole, that would cover anything inside, technically. If that was the first publication (with permission of the copyright owner), then technically the U.S. is the country of origin. That seems unlikely though. Don't think that is the right path to go down. They are not under copyright in either Israel or the United States, which would be the law those two institutions would care about. Copyright expiration is always a country-by-country thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: If there was a copyright notice on the book as a whole, that would cover anything inside, technically... I totally disagree. It only covers those part of the book that the person named in the copyright created - in the case of Hellman's book, the text that accompanies the photographs and not the photographs themselves. Hellman could not assign copyright of any particular photo to one or other of Walter or Hoffmann because he did not know who took which photograph. In law therefore, the copyright associateed with each photograph rmaioned dormant until claimed by the relevant photographer (or their heirs). This never happened and since more than five years have passed, the photographs have passed into the public domain. Martinvl (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinvl: From 17 USC 404(a): a single notice applicable to the collective work as a whole is sufficient to invoke the provisions of section 401(d) or 402(d), as applicable with respect to the separate contributions it contains (not including advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the owner of copyright in the collective work), regardless of the ownership of copyright in the contributions and whether or not they have been previously published. So, a single copyright notice in a newspaper or magazine or the like (collective work of photographs and literary works) is sufficient to preserve copyright in all the contained works (other than advertisements), even if it's the wrong name as copyright owner in the notice. That is the law. Something physically separate and not necessarily distributed with the original work like a dust jacket, then no. This is U.S. law specifically, but you were talking about notices. The owner of the copyright was irrelevant to the term in the U.S. -- only the publication date mattered (and then notice, and lack of renewal, etc.) But if they were published without permission of the copyright owner (the German government in this case), then that does not count as publication. Anonymous works get copyright protection just like any others do. Odds are high they would be considered published by U.S. law back in the 1940s though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: If you look at this image, you will see that its source is here (United Stats Holocaust Memorial Museum) and the USHMM states that it is in the Public Domain. On the other hand, USHMM states that it owns the copyright to photo. In view of the assertion of the USHMM that the photos from the Auschwitz Album are in the public domain, what template should be placed in the Licensing section to satisfy the United States part of the licence? Should there be a new template stating that we are taking the word of a named reputable organisation that the image is in the public domain? Martinvl (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since making thr above post, I discovered that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is listed here (Problematic sources). This suggests to me that a new tag should be created for the USHMM stating that they assert that a particular image is in the public domain then that statement applies to the United States only, but that Commons required a further tag from the country where the photograph was taken (usually Germany). This tag will of course only be applied to images that the USHMM assert are in the public domain. Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The USHMM would only care about U.S. copyright, not copyright elsewhere. It is our best guess that they were published without notice (or at least no renewal), and that the URAA did not restore the copyright due to the Alien Property exception. And yes, the USHMM seems to reflexively put a copyright notice on lots of stuff they do not own (or at best are claiming copyright on the digital scans, which is not likely to exist at all). We don't rely on the USHMM at all for that determination, so {{PD-US-alien property}} is the tag there. There is no need for a USHMM tag, since that's not a license. We need to determine otherwise if a photo there is both PD in the US and the country of origin. In this particular case, the only issue is the country of origin, and even then only for a couple of photos, and in a situation where the likelihood of any copyright problem is approaching zero given their nature. This is well outside the bounds of "normal" private copyrights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: I do not think it fair to say that "the USHMM seems to reflexively put a copyright notice on lots of stuff they do not own" - they might well have acquired the copyright (by purchase or by donation). I have done a little more research and come across Category:Custom_PD_license_tags_related_to_the_United_States which would be the natural home for a USHMM PD tag. Finally, the real reason for a "licencing tag" is to demonstrate that the image in in the public domain and that therefore no licence is needed. In the unlikely event that somebody comes knocking on Common's door demanding money, they can be referred to the USHMM. Martinvl (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them put their copyright notice on obviously PD-USGov items. The only reason we would have a tag for them specifically would be for works that they did actually own the copyright to (possibly by donation as you say), and then placed in the public domain themselves (which I have never seen). Otherwise, works are public domain by other reasons, which we most likely already have tags for, and we have to figure out that reason. If they are claiming copyright and it may still exist, then there is no license, and we can't upload them. Anyways, we are pretty confident in why these photos are public domain in the US already. The USHMM does not speak (at all) to the copyright situation in Germany, the presumed country of origin, so that is the only license tag left to discuss. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this tag should be appropriate for images that the United States Holocuast Memorial Museum assert are in the public domain. In this way we do not need to worry why they are in the public domain, which is especially useful where there are circumstances of which we are not aware:

The United States Holocuast Memorial Museum has asserted this image is in the public domain<mandatory ref here>. While this assertion is sufficient for works that originate in the United States, this assertion might not be suffcient for images that originate outside the United States and such images also require verification in respect of the country where the image originated.

Any Comments? (Colours need tidying up!) Martinvl (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carl Lindberg in that I don't yet see any need for such a template. Also, what do you mean by sufficient? Sufficient for what or whom? --Rosenzweig τ 22:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the template as shown below:

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has asserted this image is in the public domain<mandatory ref here>. While this assertion is sufficient to denote that this image is free of copyright restrictions within the United States, it is not sufficient for images that originate outside the United States; and such images also require verification in respect of the country of origin.

Martinvl (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do not do tags like this -- we choose a tag giving a specific legal reason for PD status. The USHMM itself is not a public domain reason, as they are not known to place copyrighted works they own into the public domain. Particularly given their listing at problematic sources, we need to determine the underlying reason for PD status. In this case, that reason is the Alien Property URAA exception, so we use that tag. We only create license tags for actual specific reasons for a work passing into the public domain. We do have source tags for institutions which we get a large number of images from, such as {{LOC-image}} or {{NARA-image}} (particularly if a simple parameter like a photo ID can be turned into a URL in the tag); if we want to make one for the USHMM that may make more sense. See Category:Source templates related to the United States. But a definite

Oppose to creating an actual license tag like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we getting that the copyright for these works was owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian? As far as I can see, the APC had sweeping authority to seize the US property interests of foreign nationals, but it did not automatically receive all such property. Seizures were implemented through vesting orders that covered specific property. For example, Vesting Order 263 seized the copyright of the film Urlaub auf Ehrenwort. Is there some vesting order that covers the photographs in question? Toohool (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure all copyrights (inside the US) were voided, and at least conceptually owned by the U.S. (and thus the APC).[3] Certainly these works were never directly administered (the vesting orders would be needed to do that) but you can argue that they were at least owned. The entire point of the URAA exception was to prevent suppression through copyright games of photos exactly like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having a hard time squaring that with what the law says:

Section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, from which the APC derived its powers of seizing property: "The President may ... direct and compel ... any acquisition of ... any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest ... with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Seems to give the agency great power to seize foreign-owned property, but doesn't suggest an automatic change of ownership of such property, until the President directs it.
Executive Order 9193, which empowered the APC during WWII, Section 2(d): The APC is authorized to "direct, manage, supervise, control or vest, with respect to ... any ... copyright ... in which any foreign country or national thereof has any interest." Note this section on copyrights applies to any foreign country, not just enemy countries, as some other sections regarding other categories of property did.

So if we believe the URAA alien property exception applies to any copyright that the APC could have seized, it would cover the works of every non-US government created from 1923 through the end of WWII (or whenever the APC's powers were curtailed). Seems unlikely that the exception was meant to be so broad. Toohool (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The APC could seize any works owned by nationals from an enemy state, yes (only during periods of war, so their authority ended once the war was over, at least for seizing anything new). The URAA exception is limited to works which would today be owned by a government -- all private copyrights were returned and not subject to the exception. So, mainly targeted at Nazi/Japanese/Italian war government works (and Vichy France). This is only for the copyright within the US, of course. The UK did something similar -- they "extinguished" all copyrights from enemy nations, and later only restored private copyrights (and I've seen a scholar paper which claimed that the EU copyright restorations only applied to expired works there, not extinguished works.). There is always gray area in stuff like this, and don't think there have been any court cases over this to go over the precise details (that would require a foreign government bringing a lawsuit which I'm not sure has happened for any reason let alone stuff like this). The exception though does say owned or administered so there must be some distinction between the two. Copyrights with a vesting order were definitely administered. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm just not seeing anything that limits that power to enemy states, or supports the notion that works without a vesting order were owned by the APC. Toohool (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That limitation is part of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, I do believe, which is the authority under which those actions occur (and activated by Executive Order 9095 for World War II, which also delegated all such ownership to the Alien Property Custodian). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More fundamentally, I'm not sure URAA is even relevant to these works. Was there ever an authorized publication of these photos? Publication doesn't count unless it's authorized by the copyright holder. If there was never a publication or a registration of copyright, then there were no formalities required, copyright was never lost, and URAA restoration is not in play. If these are unpublished anonymous or work-for-hire works, then the US copyright lasts 120 years from creation. Toohool (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publication is another tortured concept which could be different by country with lots of theoretical arguments. The U.S. can consider giving a print to a friend (outside the family) as publication. The copyright owner in this case would be the German government, and lots of things may have been done with their permission, including usage in a court case (though there was no German copyright on them for a long time as it expired after 25 years, not until the EU restorations did the copyright resurface there, so probably no permission was requested for some things as none was needed). The U.S. government may still consider itself the copyright owner inside the U.S., and maybe even place that in the public domain for this kind of thing regardless of publication. They have been circulated since the 1960s and were known before that, and actions during the war could have easily been considered publication. Maybe they were technically first published in Poland, too. Or others, depending on simultaneous publication and what act you determine publication to be. There are all sorts of technical copyright arguments you can make on this material, but in practical terms the world has treated them as public domain pretty much forever, and it's basically unthinkable that a potential copyright owner (i.e. either government) would try to suppress them. Trying to suppress/delete them here seems beyond edgy, frankly, and can give Commons a deletionist reputation, even if a theoretical copyright may exist. The only argument which gets in the area of a significant doubt to me is a restored German copyright on photos the photographer admitted taking (and thus 70pma), but given the very particular circumstances with these I don't think it's even worth deleting those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: You wrote "Trying to suppress/delete them here seems beyond edgy, frankly, and can give Commons a deletionist reputation, even if a theoretical copyright may exist." Commons policy appear to sometimes be over-protectionst so we have a problem. The solution that I propose is based on the premise that if USHMM says that an image in its library is in the public domain, then we can take their word for it especially if they appear to be over-zealous in putting their own copyright mark on images in their library. The way in which we do this is to use the template that I proposed earlier. Martinvl (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such a declaration always helps, but really we need the main legal reason for public domain status. We can be more confident that the most likely tag is in fact correct, and it may weigh heavily in whether any doubts are "significant" (leaning towards deletion) or merely theoretical. But their declaration in and of itself is not a public domain reason. Many here have had to learn about all kinds of copyright technicalities, and therefore apply that knowledge to lots of different situations. And indeed, there are many court cases with private copyrights where those technicalities have in fact mattered, so with many copyrights much of that is prudent. When it comes to government-owned copyrights, there are all sorts of new gray areas with very little court case precedent, so we are more often guessing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there's effectively zero chance of the copyright owner enforcing their rights here, and I wouldn't push for deletion. Generally I would just advocate for being transparent and intellectually honest about why a file is acceptable on Commons and if there are any doubts about its copyright status, so re-users can make an informed decision about the risk (or lack of risk) they're taking on by using a file. Saying "It's PD because USHMM says so" isn't really right when we have reasons to doubt their reliability. Using {{PD-US-alien property}} isn't right without evidence that the copyright was under APC ownership/administration and that the copyright was lost due to noncompliance with formalities. In fact, that template is defective on its face, since it suggests that the APC exception in 17 USC 104A is itself a basis for PD status, when it's actually just a reason that URAA restoration doesn't apply to a work that was already in the public domain. It should be required to be used in conjunction with another template like {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}). Toohool (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less what I have been advocating for a long time. Copyright is very often not a black and white situation, and there are a lot of gray areas. For this reason, I have proposed this addition to our policies. I'd like it to be extended to cases like the ones discussed here, and implemented more systematically. Yann (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toohool: Why do we doubt the USHMM reliability? This USHMM page deals with donations. The section enttled "What is the donation process?" deals with copyright issues ands tells me that in most cases, donors will donate the copyright of their photos along with the physical photo. In practice, most people who have one or two photos that are relevant ot the USHMM will be willing to donate the copyright as well as the physical medium. I raised this question at Commons_talk:Problematic_sources#United_States_Holocaust_Memorial_Museum nearly two weeks ago, but so far have not had a reply. Martinvl (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about USHMM, just echoing concerns that others have stated above. As far as these works in particular, it just seems implausible that USHMM has wrangled with the copyright issues we're talking about here and came to a conclusion. More likely they're just reporting what Yad Vashem says about the photos' status; and Yad Vashem, as an Israeli organization, probably did not try to evaluate the copyright status under US law. As for the donation policy, donors can only donate what they own; as I understand it, the person who donated the album found it as basically abandoned property, which may give them a claim to ownership of the physical copy, but not to ownership of the copyright. Toohool (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-US-alien property}}, much like {{PD-1996}}, comes with the implication that a foreign work either did not have a copyright notice or was not renewed, which (outside of books) was virtually always true. Lack of publication is usually just a theoretical doubt -- if there is some evidence which points to a work not being published for a long time that could change, and of course if you can find a copyright renewal record that definitely would change things, but COM:PRP is for significant doubts. The formality of specifying the {{PD-US}} template alongside seems like overkill. There are virtually always some doubts. No problem being honest -- but if you don't believe in the license tag given, then don't use the file. If you're not going to push for deletion, and you don't like the tag currently there, which tag do you propose? The alien property rationale is the main reason we would keep it -- the tag represents our best guess. The "ownership" question is in a gray area certainly, but it's also arguable, and the most sensible explanation for public domain status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-1996}} is a good point of contrast; it says explicitly that the work was published without copyright notice or not renewed. That language should be added to {{PD-US-alien property}} IMO, because nobody beyond a handful of copyright geeks probably understands that implication otherwise. I think that template should also call for specific information to show that the work was under APC ownership, such as a reference to a vesting order. Otherwise it will keep getting used on files that don't seem to qualify.

As far the tag to use on these files, I don't really have a suggestion. There's no tag to say "We don't really have a basis to say this is PD, but the likely copyright owner has never asserted their rights and probably never will." Maybe {{PD-because}}. Toohool (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix: You posted this request about a month and a half ago. There have been many discussions spanning at least four sections on three different talk pages regarding the correct tags to use in this circumstance, but I notice that you, as originator of the discussion do not appeared to have partaken in these discussions. The only consensus that appears to have been reached is that the photo that you identified and all others in the en:Auschwitz Collection are of historic importance and unless there is good reason, should not be removed from Commons. Due to the unusual history of the photos, little or no consensus has been reached as to which tags are the "correct" tags for the photos in the Auschwitz Collection. Do you have any comments or observations before we allow the discussion to stagnate, be archived and the status quo retained? Martinvl (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I haven't participated in the discussions much, I have been reading carefully. At the end of the day, I'm just a guy, I don't have much legal expertise (certainly not in German law!). I think after discussion letting the status quo retain is a good idea. The copyright status seems to be highly theoretical and in a grey area, but the clear consensus here is to just let the images retain here. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 07:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image in Norwegian book

There's an photograph I've found in Nikoline Harbitz, 1841-1898 : familiebakgrunn, liv og forfatterskap that I want to upload. I cannot find any provenance for this photograph except the sitter who lived from 1841–1898, so I'm not sure if it would come under {{PD-old-assumed}}. However as it's from a book published in 1982 in Norway, would the date of creation be counted as 1982, and if so would it be uploadable? Spiderpig662 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess, but I think this depends on whether the photo was published and within the public domain prior to the 1982 book's publication according to the copyright laws of Norway, assuming that's the country of first publication. The 5th, 6th and 7th bullet points of COM:Norway#General rules might be relevant here, and the 6th case could mean the photo is still protected if its first publication was in 1982 because the photo would've still been protected as of Norway's URAA restoration date (January 1, 1996). -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Spiderpig662 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

60s-70s pin badges

Reposting since it was archived without any answers.

Back in the 60s-70s, the American shop chain 7-Eleven released a set of pin badges, an example of which is pictured here. Say I took a picture of one of these pins and wanted to upload it to Commons - would that be allowed under copyright? Does it fall under threshold of originality? Suntooooth (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear answer to this question. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pins should be public domain as long as they were released prior to 1978 (exclusive) and contained no copyright notice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no copyright notice and all sources I've seen about these pins say they're from the late 60s or early 70s, so seems like it should be fine - thank you :] Suntooooth (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suntooooth: Are you able to check the underside of the pin badges for a copyright notice? There could be one there much in the same way copyright notices were often added to the back of photos taken during that time period. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there's nothing on the back. Suntooooth (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any pins from before March 1989 should be fine in that case, if they are from the U.S. (Though, ones from 1978 to 1989 could have retained copyright if they filed an explicit registration within 5 years among other requirements, so we would probably shy away from anything which did get a copyright registration. Ones from before 1978 are fine if no notice.) Pins from other countries would be entirely different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they didn't file for copyright notice on this. Not really a concern for them. After March '89 they get it by default, but I bet if it required anything from them they would not bother. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright inquiry

Hello,

Would anyone happen to know whether or not I can upload this? The site states that it's under copyright, but it also states that it was uploaded 1920–1929. Before you assume that it was taken sometime after January 1, 1929, most of the depictions of this guy are from 1926, and the same notice is present under those images as well. The initial publication also does not include a notice of its copyright status.

Thanks. Solo4701 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use {{PD-1923}} tag if the picture was published before 1 January 1929. Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik: that's kind of an outdated, redirected template name. Use {{PD-US-expired}}. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sure it was from before 1929, you can use {{PD-US-expired}}. Since it looks to be a U.S. publication, then even if later than that, you can use {{PD-US-no notice}} instead (or both if you really like). The artist is Category:Carl Bohnen, who died in 1951, so it would also qualify for {{PD-old-70}} -- though that is not a U.S. license tag, it can be added too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, {{PD-old-auto-expired}} tag with deathyear=1951 is best; it's auto-calculating and fully compact.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosfilaes: where did you get 1951 from? I don't immediately see any indication of who was the photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This version is signed Carl Bohnen, who died in 1951. Felix QW (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this source seems to pinpoint 1928 as the publication year of the pamphlet. Felix QW (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: The post I was replying to?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosfilaes: sorry, I missed that, didn't see than information about the specific case had been added beyond the initial question. - Jmabel ! talk 07:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of useable Copyright licenses for each language version?

Do we have a list of what copyrighted material is admissable for use in each wikipedia language version by license? Like "Fair-use" is mostly english Wiki only, and so on for all the CC versions. The articles about licenses on the different Wikipedias do not really mention licenses on Wikipedias. Alexpl (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Wikimedia movement's image policy is cc-by-sa or less restrictive, with most wikis (commons, meta, and foundation are exceptions) being able to allow copyrighted images under fair use doctrine. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The german wikipedia does not - that is why I asked. Alexpl (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it’s the same as commons, because I don’t think de-wiki hosts files locally. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 23:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alachuckthebuck: that's not quite right. de-wiki hosts media files that are out of copyright in Germany/Austria/Switzerland (all of which are p.m.a.+70 countries, and all of which have a high threshold of originality) but still copyrighted in the U.S. Also, I may be mistaken, but I think de-wiki bans the use of Commons files that are still in copyright in Germany/Austria/Switzerland, and they may severely limit the use of certain Nazi-related materials for non-copyright reasons. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction @Jmabel, looks like I need to read up on de-wiki copyright. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So everything ever hosted on commons is fully useable by all Wikipedia language versions? Alexpl (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Thats why we exist, and why we have the licensing requirements we do, it allows anyone to use our media for any purpose, anywhere, as long as the follow the 1 or 2 conditions specified in the license. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 19:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are (or should be) public domain in the country of origin, and the US. Or licensed with CC-BY etc (and those should always be fine). Depending on the policy of a particular Wikipedia, they may not be OK. For example, a work which passed into the public domain in the US for lack of notice may be protected for the full 70pma in Germany (and Austria), even if the US is the country of origin. The English Wikipedia uses U.S. law only, so in theory anything here can be used there. Each Wikipedia may have its own policy of which law (or laws) they use, and would need to decide based on that which tags they would require or allow or which ones need more examination. In most cases they should be fine, since the Wikipedia project an image is most likely to be used would also be related to the country of origin, but that can depend on the project. Columbia for example is 80pma with no rule of the shorter term, so even some PD-old-70 images can't be used there -- but doubt that matters for the Spanish Wikipedia, given the wide range of countries that project covers. So, each project may need to look a bit carefully to see if an image complies with their policy (and, of course per Commons:General disclaimer, third-party users must look to see if they are comfortable using in their country with the information given). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So there is no website where all these restrictions can be found and I would have to poke around in every project, hoping to unearth the relevant information - or find a knowledgeable user. Alexpl (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do if a collage's images have more than one copyright licensing?

As in if the images are not united by a uniform licensing. Abdullah raji (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "collage" is often a collective or composite work, i.e. one that selects and arranges other works. In that case, the copyright on the collage is on the specific selection and arrangement, and the contained works have their own copyright. The "share-alike" provisions of CC-BY-SA and the like only apply to derivative works, where someone else's expression is used and adapted in a new work, but not collective ones, so you can mix copyrights in a collective work (you just need to have the right to use the contained work in the first place). Some collages may cross the line though -- I can't find the reference right now, but one collage which combined areas of other images with blurred / merged areas was ruled a derivative work. One case is discussed here but I'm not sure that's the one I was thinking of -- but that does go over the distinction. Most collective works are things like newspapers, which arrange separate articles and photographs which may each have their own copyright, with the individual works being easy to identify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are stained-glass windows covered by COM:FOP in the Netherlands?

I'm specifically wondering this about stained-glass windows that aren't yet old enough to fall into the public domain, that are located in places of worship. There was a discussion earlier this year about whether churches in the Netherlands are considered "public spaces" that would be covered by freedom of panorama laws (the discussion can be found here). The consensus was basically yes, though the law doesn't specifically say anything about churches or other places of worship, so this is based on interpretation of what it does say. There is also the question of whether these windows are considered artworks in their own right, or pieces of architecture, because the former might be protected by copyright law while the latter is not.

For reference, here is the relevant Freedom of Panorama law: COM:FOP Netherlands ReneeWrites (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern" stained-glass windows in the Netherlands seem to be covered by Freedom of Panorama, if inclusion in databases from archives and state agencies with free licenses is an indication. See these examples: at Noord-Hollands Archief and at Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed. The last agency, RCE, holds hundreds of photos of modern stained-glass windows in its database. Vysotsky (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ReneeWrites: , thx for bringing this up. Just for the record, according to my knowledge works of architecture are also protected by copyright In the Netherlands, in Europe and World Wide. Pictures of the exterior of buildings can be used freely in the Netherlands because of the national FOP regulation. Yet, images of the inside of buildings are not covered by FOP if they are not public buildings. Futhermore I endorse Vysotsky's comment. -- Mdd (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So a stained windows in for instance a railway station entrance can be freely photographed and published. About churches there has been a discussion, see here. @User:Arnoud Engelfriet would think it acceptable if a church is open to the public (as most roman catholic churces are), but this was not accepted by others in the discusion. Imho Engelfriet is expert on Dutch (web) copyright law. Ellywa (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote Romaine's comment which does makes sense to me, as they actually interacted with a Dutch government body. The comment (with emphases added by me): "Even while the input from Arnoud Engelfriet is very clear in this matter, I decided to call the government and the law office to get their input in this matter. I described to them that we have Freedom of Panorama in the Netherlands, which applies to the public space. The question I asked is them what we should see as this public space, and more precisely where the divide is between public and private, and how we should see this with churches. As reply I got from them that the general rule is that if places can be freely entered by anyone from the public, this is considered to be a public place, otherwise it is a private place. Specifically churches, if a church has opening hours and anyone can freely access and walk inside, it is a public place, if a church is only open with services then it is not. They said it does not matter if the place is owned by the government or a private organisation, openbare ruimte applies to what is accessible to the public." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are IDF press releases copyrighted?

There's an IDF press release with photos of Israeli commandos in lebanon, which would be good for the wikipedia page on Israel's invasion of lebanon. I can't find online if the IDF copyrights photos. Does anyone know? Milkisverytasty (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Israeli copyright law has a 50 year copyright term for government works, and I couldn't find anything saying that the IDF is an exception. So, it is probably not going to be uploadable here. Felix QW (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit has released some images into public domain. See {{Wikimedia Israel/IDF Spokesperson's Unit}}. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss FoP and Maman sculpture

We have a category of the Maman sculpture that was exhibited in Zürich between June 10 and August 2, 2011, so not meant to be permanent. Though COM:FOP Switzerland states legal commentators on Swiss copyright law seem to dispute with each other whether works that were meant for exhibition for a few weeks or months are eligible for the panorama exception right as prescribed by Article 27 of the Swiss copyright act: "A work permanently situated in a place accessible to the public may be depicted; the depiction may be offered, transferred, broadcast or otherwise distributed. The depiction may not be three-dimensional and it may not serve the same purpose as the original." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping recent participants (since 2022) from Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Switzerland for attention. @Paradise Chronicle, RayZuo, and AFBorchert: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks or months is not permanent in my opinion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some commentator mentions as criterion whether it's in transit or not.

The uploaders consider them covered. Let's not second guess them.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit COM:GRAFFITI on recent US case

The previous discussions forming the basis of com:Graffiti are from 2011 (en) and 2012 (fr). Relevant US case law has since appeared around the : notably Canilao v. City Commercial Investments, LLC 613 F. Supp. 3d 1236 (2022), which apparently refined Cohen, et al v. G&M Realty L.P. (2013).

"[T]he Court concludes that § 113(d)(1) of VARA implies a requirement that an artist obtain the consent of a building owner for VARA’s protections to apply to a nonremovable artwork installed on a building."

The issue is that Cohen said that VARA protections apply to graffiti artists, but made note that it was in the condition that the graffiti was applied with permission of the building owner. Canilao apparently affirms this as a necessary condition for VARA protections, such that without permission, the artist does not have VARA protection (and thus presumably, but I suppose not certainly IANAL, no copyright as an artist under US law).

There are more things that may or may not be worth mentioning: since 2012, several copyright disputes with street artists resulted in out-of-court settlements, following social media backlash, that apparently were seen to be in the artists' favor: H&M v. REVOK (2018), Aholsniffsglue v. American Eagle (2014), and Stanton v. DKNY (2013). SamuelRiv (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there is anything which directly challenges the policy. VARA creates specific additional rights for artists; the cases have shown that the illegality of the installation can indeed affect those rights. So maybe they could affect normal copyright (that is the hope of the policy, anyways). Of the other cases you mention, the second was around a legal mural ("street art" is not the same thing as "graffiti" which implies it was painted illegally/without permission), and the third was straight-up violating photographic copyrights, nothing to do with graffiti. The first one I'm not sure -- the company made the "illegal" argument but I'm not sure it was, and they may have re-used a general motif which had also appeared legally, not simply used a picture depicting the actual graffiti. They settled out of court so not sure that any precedents were set. But yes, it's an area that always bears watching. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, first second third of what? There's only one case we're talking about that has relevance afaik, here and now, which is Canilao 2022. The rest is just background on the subject that I included for completeness. Canilao doesn't say "illegality of the installation can indeed affect those rights" -- it says that the lack of permission does affect those rights. And if VARA was the only means of copyright protection for the street artist in the US, then the opinion implies they have no rights. The precedent is set. The law is set. The question I'm asking is what does this mean for how Commons handles US images, and how it should append com:Graffiti to reflect this. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You listed three court cases at the end -- I was responding to those. You gave a good summary of the Canilao case, which confirms an earlier case about VARA rights, but does not directly address copyright or our policy. They rule that an illegally installed artwork which could not be removed without destroying it imposed too much of a burden on the property owner, so the VARA rights did not exist in that case. You say "without permission", but that is pretty much exactly what makes it illegal -- same as graffiti. If an artist gets permission from a property owner to paint a wall, it's a legal mural. But the court did balance that ruling some, saying if it was not difficult to remove an illegal work without destroying it, then VARA rights still exist. That is applying a bit of common law to an ambiguous situation (they do note that an earlier state law in California explicitly required permission in order to gain the rights, but that is mostly preempted by VARA). That does not speak directly on regular copyright itself, but may suggest that courts could also find a middle ground there, in that some rights are lost but not all for illegal paintings. Maybe photos of the graffiti itself in its (illegal) context are OK, but re-using the artwork directly in derivative works (like the REVOK case) may not be. Obviously, before 1989 or at least 1978, graffiti without a copyright notice would have been immediately public domain. That's not the case anymore, and it does remain to be seen where courts draw the line. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to upload a photo used on Edinburgh News to be added to a wikipedia article

I would like to include the image found on this article in the Spartans F.C wikipedia page, but am unsure about how to/if it is allowable to upload. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks! https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/spartans-bow-out-of-premier-sports-cup-as-aberdeen-progress-to-last-four-4792223 ILoveFinance (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not allowable. Works on Commons must be "free", which means either they are licensed by the copyright owner very liberally for re-use by others (professional photographers would rarely do that), or be old enough for copyright to expire, which usually takes 100-120 years. See Commons:Licensing. That photo is by a Mark Brown, so the copyright would last his entire lifetime, plus 70 more years. Some projects may allow use under a "fair use" rationale, but photos like that would usually not qualify for even that. Making a "free" encyclopedia is often harder than a regular one, for reasons like this :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it is indeed true that "professional photographers would rarely do that", there are exceptions. Mark Brown describes himself on Instagram as "Freelance Photographer. Spartans FC Twitter Guy.", so he may see value in having a good image on the Spartans article. He also has images on Flickr, so it would be easy for him to change the licence on one. It's always worth contacting a photographer and asking; you can point them to en:WP:IfSM. Only one of us should make contact; ILoveFinance, would you like to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the responses, everyone (@Marchjuly too from the other comment)!

We are good, I got permission from Mark Brown and the team's manager and they provided the original uncompressed photo. Thanks! ILoveFinance (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, actually I guess that is as easy as that. Any ideas how to progress from here? Thank you all for the help! ILoveFinance (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ILoveFinance. This type of image would almost certainly not be allowed to be uploaded and used locally on English Wikipedia because it's doubtful any such use would meet English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, in particular non-free content use criterion #1 simply because a picture of in-game play could be taken by anyone (including yourself) attending a Spartans F.C. match/game, and the photographer could then upload it to Commons under an acceptable free license or publish it somewhere else under an acceptable free license. So, there is pretty much no way to justify the non-free use of this or any other similar non-free photo, unless the photo itself is somehow the subject of sourced critical commentary. FWIW, there might be a such a photo that could be uploaded to Commons floating around somewhere online (e.g. on someone's Flickr page), but you're probably going to have to do some digging (e.g. COM:FLICKR#Searching Flickr) to find one. Perhaps the team has an official website/social media page or an official fan forum type of site, and someone posted such a photo there. You could try asking for the copyright holder's COM:CONSENT as explained in Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change or en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. There's no guarantee it will work, but some users have had success asking for images this way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I got consent from Mark and the team manager. But I don't know how to document the upload with the consent -- any guidance would be appreciated, thank you! ILoveFinance (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveFinance: That's great! Please ask him to either follow the process at Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?, or change the licence on Flickr. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveFinance: I believe the "him" Andy Mabett is referring to above is Mark Brown; I don't think the permission of the team manager matters in this case. Just to make sure Mark's completely on board with this, though, you might want to ask him to take a look at COM:LRV, COM:REUSE, COM:LJ and COM:ENFORCE. Since he appears to be an established photographer, he might understand this kind of copyright realted stuff already. It's important, however, for you and him to understand that there's no way to limit the use of his photo to "Wikipedia use only", "educational use only", "non-commercial use only" or in other similar ways because such things are too restrictive for Commons purposes. It's Mark's photo so, of course, he can license it as he wants, but Commons can't host anything that's too restrictive. So, Mark should be sure this is what he wants to do before giving his consent because it can be really hard to undo after the fact. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal credit line in image reuse by pastchronicle

I'm looking at this archaeology article at pastchronicle.com, which credits Wikimedia on seven images with the caption, 'Source: Wikimedia'. There is no link, and no credit to the uploader or copyright holder. (I didn't find extra info hidden in the Html, either, but maybe I missed it.) How do I find out whether they are providing adequate attribution, if I can't find the cc image page, because there isn't enough info at the website to identify where it came from? If they happen to be under cc-by-sa, then per Commons:Credit line#CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses it is insufficient. But perhaps the licensing is different; how can I find out? Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot the source you cited is not alone. Several Philippine news websites fail to attribute the authors of Wikimedia Commons images properly (although some of the images used may be under PD-type licenses). For example:

Philippine Star article: "Wikimedia Commons, File"
Another Philippine Star article: "Wikimedia"
Manila Bulletin article: "photo credit: wikimedia commons" (embedded image is broken though)
Rappler article: "Wikimedia Commons" (apparently File:Tomas Morato Avenue.jpg)
PTV News article: "Photos courtesy of Wikimedia Commons" (for two images on top)
Philippine Daily Inquirer online article: "PHOTO FROM WIKIMEDIA COMMONS"
Philippine News Agency article: "(Map of Caloocan City from Wikipedia)"

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons image sources can be found for instance by searching for the image link from pastchronicle.com on Google Lens. For instance, the first two are File:Zaña des de dalt el turó18.jpg and File:Archaeological excavations.jpg, both offered under a CC-BY-SA license. Felix QW (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it somewhat bizarre that their picture of a buried human skeleton, File:The King In The Car Park - Page 15 - Figure 12.png, is actually a photograph of the body of Richard III in Leicester. Felix QW (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW perhaps the more an image is widely use in most-visited Wikipedias (like enwiki, dewiki etc.), chances are it is among the images that may first appear while searching on Google. That's just my hunch, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very helpful, thank you, all. My question has a two-pronged reason: one is, that I would like to use some of the images in en:La Otra Banda, and didn't know how to find them in Commons. I should've thought about Google Lens, but that memory cell was buried under the "where I left my keys" neurons, and was inaccessible at the time, so forgive me for that. The other reason, was about ensuring that reusers of our resources comply with our licensing requirements, and I really didn't/still don't know where to turn to find out what to do about that. Is there some group, legal maybe? that follows up and contacts websites requesting them to provide a link, and the copyright holder's name or id? Should I be contacting a different group about this? Mathglot (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, enforcement of the licensing provisions is left entirely to the copyright holders themselves. The only thing I can think of is to notify the copyright holders (e.g. per talk-page message if they are Commons users) and see if they have any appetite for doing anything about it. Felix QW (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wikivoyage:en:File:Wreck beach sign.jpg

This file in English Wikivoyage is currently tagged as non-free because of possible FoP issue. Subject is a sign of Wreck Beach in Canada. COM:FOP Canada indeed doesn't cover texts, but is the text of the sign copyrightable? It seems not and may be {{PD-text}}. I don't see any literary effort made by the sign maker, and the sign doesn't contain elaborate designs. COM:TOO Canada explicitly claims that courts have veered the Canadian threshold of originality closer to the high-bar U.S. standard as opposed to the traditional "sweat-of-the-brow" standard that was once prevalent in most of the Commonwealth realm. Still, I want third opinions before doing the file transfer to here. Ping also two of active Wikivoyage users there @Ikan Kekek and SHB2000: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be copyrightable either, but I am no copyright expert. SHB2000 (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would be nice to hear from some Commons admins. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text looks way too simple to copyright. Imagine them trying to sue a different jurisdiction for having a sign with the same wording! - Jmabel ! talk 07:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel {{PD-text}} is the appropriate derivative work tag in this case, right? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, common sense dictates the text is too simple and the sign maker will certainly lose – 100% – should he try to file "copyright" complaint against another sign maker in another country for the identical wording. Transferred now to Commons and tagged with {{PD-text}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for taking care of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of a template (National Museum of Art of Romania)

I've written a draft of a non-copyright restriction template at User:Jmabel/MNAR reuse. I'd be very grateful to anyone who could:

suggest if any of this needs to be reworded differently
review my Romanian
format this appropriately as a non-copyright restriction template and move it to Template space

I'll then start adding it to the appropriate files.

I understand that Commons will not pay fees like this, and I support that, but I think reusers need to be warned that these fees are stated by the museum, and that (depending, in particular, on where in the world they are and what exactly they do with the photo) they could be subject to these fees. - Jmabel ! talk 07:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs some kind of note that "requires" is their wishful thinking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Mabbett do you have a particular wording you would suggest? Certainly "wishful thinking" is not appropriate for a template. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: You could also mention that 50 RON was about USD$11 and 500 RON was about USD$110 at the time of writing (I just checked with Google). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: sure, harmless at worst. I think it's unnecessary in the Romanian, though, I can't imagine anyone who reads Romanian not knowing the value of the leu. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:File:The Fish Bucket.jpeg

This was tagged for a move to Commons. Is this still copyrighted since the artist hasn't been dead for 70 years? APK (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@APK: there are countries where that would be an issue, but Commons policy cares only about the U.S. and the country of origin (in this case, also the U.S.), so this is fine. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you. APK (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for guidance over photo collection website...

Hey everyone!

A couple months ago, a photo archive was made available to all via the Lewis County Historical Society and Museum in Chehalis, Washington - LCHSM Photo Collection

Most of the photos are pre-1929 and those that aren't, a supermajority are covered under the 4.0 license. Since semi-rural to rural Lewis County is a big interest of mine, I can tell you that properly licensed or available photos, like any rural area in the USA, is, well, not easy to come by, and I'd love to use this resource...but I want to make sure I can and to do so properly!

As I understand it, any photo in the United States published before 1929 is fair and free use...and as long as we properly give attribution, 4.0 can be used as well...?

My request for guidance is this -

1. Does the LCHSM collection mean they own these photos and its best not to use them?

2. If it's okay, is that only pre-1929 pics?

3. If we can use them all (4.0 licensed anyways), is a website link back to the LCHSM page enough or should I go into more detail at the upload page?

Thanks for all your help in advance!

Shortiefourten (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe dollar (ZWL) copyright question (revived)

Should we update the copyright warning to reflect that Zimbabwe demonetized more banknotes in April of 2024? They replaced the ZWL Zimdollar with the ZWG Zimbabwe Gold (ZiG). So, since all ZWL bills have been demonetized, wouldn’t that make all ZWL banknotes PD? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question is Category:Banknotes of Zimbabwe. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relavant law here is the Zimbabwe Copyright Act, section 50. Which says that “the term of such copyright shall be the period from the date on which such bank notes or coin are issued until such bank notes or coin are demonetized in terms of the said Act.”; the link to this is http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/zw/zw001en.pdf Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further information: the ZiG was first announced on April 5, 2024; on that day, the Zimdollar started to be withdrawn from circulation; and from the ZiG’s introduction, people were given 21 days to convert their ZWL bills to ZiG. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue with the new banknotes might be their US copyright, whose term may last the full length of COM:Hirtle regardless of local copyright terms. Felix QW (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case; then why does it say 2019 on the current warning? Surely U.S. copyright law hasn’t changed that much in the last 5 years. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. Maybe someone with a deeper understanding of the interaction between special copyright terms such as this one and American copyright law can weigh in, too. See for instance this discussion on enwiki, which seems to have operated under the assumption that Zimbabwean copyright must have expired before 1996 for the banknotes to be in the public domain in the US. Felix QW (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I think of. And this is just an opinion; I’m no expert. But usually when a government entity declares a copyright to be expired (on their stuff); it *usually* applies worldwide. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resetting bot clock. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring discussion that was erroneously archived. My question still hasn’t been adequately answered. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think US law would recognize the Zimbabwean government as the employer of the person(s) who actually designed the banknotes, and therefore the copyright holder of the banknote design. Thus, a release by the Zimbabwean government would be considered binding on US law, just as if we received a CC release from a Zimbabwean photographer via VRTS. (Contrast this to, say, if Zimbabwean law were to change the copyright term of general works to 20 years pma - the heirs of the author would still be able to enforce their copyrights in the US.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We again are talking specifically about demonetized banknotes. I have a link to the copyright law of Zimbabwe which specifically says that the copyright on the notes goes away whenever they are demonetized. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it was officially demonetized (referring to the RTGS dollar ZWL) on 31 August 2024. Does that mean the copyright warning (which currently says 11 November 2019) should be updated to say 31 August 2024? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same image used in two works, only one is copyrighted

I've come across two baseball cards of Jeff Innis published in 1988 which use different crops of the same photo on the obverse (see Card 1 and Card 2). Card 1 (like all other cards in that set of cards) was published without a copyright notice but Card 2 (like all other cards in that set of cards) was published with a copyright notice on the reverse. Now if the producers of Card 2 were the authors of the photo they used in that work, that copyright notice would be valid and enforceable. If the producers of Card 1 were the authors of that photo, it's my understanding that photo would be in the public domain because it doesn't appear to have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office (I tried a few different searches here, here and here which I think would satisfy the criteria of Template:PD-US-1978-89).

So the question is whether the producer of Card 1 was the author of the image. I think so. If you look at all the photos in Card 2's set, you'll see only Jeff Innis is wearing a different uniform, suggesting that photograph was taken at a different time by someone else. By comparison, Card 1 fits in perfectly in its set as part of a single photoshoot. The only thing that gives me pause is that Card 1 is a tighter crop, so Card 2 must have been working from the original photo, suggesting it wasn't simply a scan/copy of the public domain card but a licensed use of an underlying, copyrighted, original photograph. Any input would be appreciated (on this admittedly not very important question). Denniscabrams (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The case where only some copies of a work bear a copyright notice is often a grey area. @Clindberg: Would you be able to offer any insights here? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to U.S. Copyright Section 2203.4, "The omission of a notice on a work published between January 1, 1978, and February 28, 1989, with the authority of the copyright owner does not invalidate the copyright, provided that one of the following conditions has been met: • The notice was omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public." So we have a case where some copies of the card/photo have a notice while others do not. It would likely still be protected under copyright law as long as the number of copies without the notice is relatively small compared to the total distribution. The presence of the notice on some copies suggests to me that the copyright owner may not have intended to abandon their rights. The notice could have been forgotten or misprinted on some copies, or it might have been added later in subsequent printings that year. In a situation like this, it does not necessarily or automatically invalidate the copyright, and to argue that the work has entered the Public Domain, you would need to show that a significant number of copies lacked a notice. PascalHD (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notices were required on all copies. The "relative small number", in court cases, has I believe been about 1% to 2% of the total distribution, for cases ruled that copyright was not lost. Much more than that, copyright could be lost. I have a hard time believing that an entire run of playing cards would be that small a percentage. If the two photos were different crops, and a wider crop had a notice, we can't use that crop though. Just the expression distributed without notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two different licenses

Sorry if this problem is well known and already discussed. There is a series of photographs originally published on Flickr and recently uploaded by SecretName101, like File:Casey Mayes 004(001) (52888702728).jpg, for example. At Flickr they were really placed under CC BY 2.0. However, in the EXIF they have Creative Commons.BY.NC.SA which is incompatible with Commons rules. Should these images stay or go? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Андрей Романенко, licensing policy states, Non-permitted licenses may only be used on Commons if the work is multi-licensed under at least one permitted license. So, I think it's fine to have these on Commons. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Ratekreel here, assuming the rest of the EXIF matches. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 00:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexandre Tarsaidze.jpg

Would someone mind taking a look at the licensing of File:Alexandre Tarsaidze.jpg? I don't think the {{PD-US}} licensing is a good fit for several reasons: en:Aleksandre Tarsaidze was born in 1901 and would've been only 27 or 28 years old on January 1, 1929, and this picture seems to have been taken at a much later date than the claimed August 1920. Given the Aleksandre Tarsaidze emigrated to the US in 1923, it's possible this is either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but that's just a guess. If this is OK for Commons, then there's no need for en:File:Alexandre Tarsaidze.jpg locally to English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the uploader, User:GeorgaOnMy Mind, can help, and provide the extact URL where it was found? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello colleagues. The photo is taken from the free open website of the Parliamentary Library of Georgia. Here is the link: http://www.nplg.gov.ge/emigrants/ka/00001062/ 178.134.6.20 06:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated media and copyright tags

Hi all! While investigating how to improve the flow in UploadWizard regarding AI-generated media, it seems that the current approach to licensing such media might be improved, but we wanted to double check our impression with you before proceeding.

More specifically, if an image is AI-generated then it should be public domain, and be tagged with {{PD-algorithm}} – and this is already the case. What we are more in doubt about is that uploaders are also allowed to add a CC license to it, ending up with a “double licensing” (PD-algorithm + CC license) which might be wrong.

Do you share these doubts? What would be the best way to proceed here? Should we remove the CC licensing option and leave only {{PD-algorithm}}, or do we want to continue to allow “double licensing”?

Also, in case an AI-generated media is tagged as “not own work”, what should we do? Do we automatically apply {{PD-algorithm}}, regardless of an eventual original licensing, or do we allow “double licensing” in this case?

Thanks in advance for your opinions! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A (very) few countries allow copyright claims for AI artwork, and it is certainly possible that more might in the future, so whatever we do we have to at least allow for that possibility. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We might want a new template that would wrap around {{Self}} that would indicate that a license was being granted to cover the case that the work might not in the future be considered public domain. Or this could be done with an additional optional parameter for {{Self}}. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An equivalent is {{Licensed-PD-Art}} for self-photographed 2D art by Old Masters, which contains a factual assertion that the image is PD in the US and many other countries, with a backup license from the photographer in jurisdictions where the photographer may hold copyright. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland State Archives

The bottom of most Maryland State Archives pages bare the following disclaimer:

This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Can this be interpreted as an {{Attribution only license}}? People seem to think so (cf. File:Anthony G. Brown Official State Photo.jpg and File:Thomas Perez-Maryland Secretary of DLLR-.jpg) but I want certainty before I go all out and create a template and stuff. Cheers Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that the permission fields of those files say (emphasis mine)

This information resource of the Maryland State Archives is presented here for fair use in the public domain.

So I guess it's pretty clear cut that the notice does apply before whenever it was changed (don't know when thanks to w:Internet Archive#Data breach and Denial of service attack), but the current one is still in question. Queen of Hearts (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"fair use in the public domain" is nonsense. - Jmabel ! talk 07:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of mid-20th century China photos on Commons is probably an URAA violation?

We have a ton of photos of events and people in mid-20th century China; 1947-1974 for the purposes here, which happens to fairly-neatly align with the Mao era.

Copyright in China (for works prior to 2021) expires 50 years after publication. This means works published in 1974 or before are PD in China; however due to the URAA, only works that were PD in 1996 are PD in the USA. As Commons is of course hosted in the USA, this means that Chinese PD only applies to works from 1946 or before.

The unfortunate thing here is there are absolutely massive amounts of files violating this. I searched, and I could not find a file in Category:Great Leap Forward that would actually be useable except for the CIA's 1958 documentary China Leaps Forward. (Thanks, CIA!) Generally similar situation for Category:Cultural Revolution or the categories for various important Chinese figures in the period. There are exceptions, mainly from other governments, or the rare cases where foreign photographers have released their collections into PD/CC, but these are rare. I don't know the full count, but I would expect that we have several thousand URAA violations if it was all tallied up. Generalissima (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I noticed the situation myself some time ago and decided to follow up on this at some point in the future. I think mass deletion requests will be inevitable, and they should probably be split into reasonable batches that allow for some checking by commentators. I would be happy to contribute to some preliminary sorting/tagging drive of those that are PD in the US, if that could be helpful. Felix QW (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to do a DR per year (or at least group them by year in the DR) so that the "Undelete in XXX" categories can be processed more easily in the future. Though it may be some time yet before we can undelete any. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit Industry Murals and the URAA

Yesterday I added a topic to Commons:File requests for the Detroit Industry Murals, painted by Diego Rivera for the Detroit Institute of Arts. I initially thought that the murals were in the public domain in the US because of publication without copyright notice, and thus it was okay to upload photos of them to Commons. But now I realize that they would have to be uploaded locally because Mexico is their country of origin under the Berne definition, and possibly can't be uploaded at all because they qualify for URAA restoration? Rivera was a Mexican national, and these murals were in the public domain due to a failure to follow formality requirements, so they meet the first part of criteria D and criteria C of 17 USC § 104A(h)(6), which defines "restored work". The second part of criteria D says that if a work was "published", it must have been "first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country". Since no alternate definition of publication is provided, the binding definition is that of 17 USC 101. This would mean that the Detroit Industry Murals, for the purposes of the URAA, are unpublished works whose source country is Mexico per 17 USC § 104A(h)(8), and thus their copyright was restored in 1996. Am I correct here? prospectprospekt (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Law before 1978 was that public display was publication. So these were published in the US and thus the URAA is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But neither the definition of "source country" nor the definition of "restored work" say that publication is different if done before 1978. Since the URAA was applied retroactively, I wonder if it brought the modern definition of publication over to past works as well. prospectprospekt (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source country is where it was first published, in this case, the United States. And so this wouldn't have been eligible for restoration. Abzeronow (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publication before 1978 is by the laws before 1978. That's how the Copyright Office and every case I've read treats it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Berne country is country of publication. The URAA source country is the same, other than a more common-sense tiebreaker for "simultaneously published". If they were paintings in Detroit, the US by pretty much every measure would be the country of origin. Anyways, they are likely PD in Mexico too. Their law had a registration requirement before 1948 (part of their 1928 law) -- see this case about URAA restoration of some films (most were restored but some were not, due to that, and that case was about the remainder). I don't think there is any way for us to check old Mexican registrations so it's not something we can easily do for a tag, but that was the reality. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I think that Mexico is the country of origin under the Berne definition is because the Berne convention says that "the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication", much like the Copyright Act of 1976's definition of publication. I still need to read the court case, but I wonder what the URAA means when it says "is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection". Would a failure to follow formalities be considered an "expiration of term of protection", or does the "term of protection" ignore such requirements? Also, I looked up the ruling and William Patry seems to criticize it. prospectprospekt (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The country of origin for a work of architecture is the place it is located. Exhibition of a movable piece of art is one thing, but placing it permanently on a building is quite another -- Berne may well follow it architecture logic of being permanently placed there. That would also be where it was sold. If photographs of it were published, which they virtually certainly were, that would also do it. The paintings certainly never were present in Mexico, so not sure how they could be published there. The U.S. would absolutely consider them a "United States work" and avoid the URAA that way. If there is no copyright notice on them, they lost copyright immediately. In Mexico, if it was never registered it lost copyright that way and never regained it. The "expiration of term of protection" is an interesting question in that case, as I don't think you are supposed to take formalities into account for that, but since Mexico did not have to restore its own works (and did not much like the U.S. for its own works), that remains the reality -- very few works from before 1948 would have a copyright in Mexico. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The URAA does not follow the Berne definition of country of origin. The URAA test for source country makes it clear that the work is not eligible for URAA restoration since it was first published (according to US law) in the United States. Whether or not this agrees with the Berne Convention is irrelevant. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Строители Центрального телеграфа в Москве. 4.09.1926.jpg

I would like to find out for myself how many fellow Commons users believe that a photograph from a personal archive is considered to be first published at the time of its creation. Quick1984 (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was it taken by the person who made the personal archive? Or collected from somewhere else (which would indicate availability of copies at the time, and thus publication)? The U.S. Copyright Office goes into some aspects in the Copyright Compendium; one of the examples of publication they give in there (section 1905.1) is Giving away copies of a photograph without further restriction constitutes publication of that work. So giving copies outside of your immediate family probably does constitute publication in the U.S. For a family photo album and photos taken by that family, no. But there are lots of ways something could end up published. Most works were made to be published -- deletion on that status alone, without good evidence of remaining in the family (or corporate archive at least for works they authored), would usually be a theoretical doubt to me, not rising to the "significant doubt" of COM:PRP. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who can set the license for music?

Who can set the license for music videos and audios / what is required for such files to be considered CCBY?

Is only the video or the video+audio CCBY at e.g. File:Robin Schulz - "Sugar" - Director's Cut.webm which was released on Vimeo under CCBY (that license stayed there for years) – does the set licensing also include the audio or is it just the music video?
When a track is released by a label does it allow the label to specify the copyright or can it be assumed that if the label sets a copyright the license indeed is that? This music video is set CCBY by the label that released it.

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for clarification on Nigerian copyright

I nominated File:Professor Timothy Abiodun Adebayo.png for speedy deletion as COM:NETCOPYVIO, taken from https://acu.edu.ng/acu-vc-wants-varsities-to-remain-vigilant-against-fake-degree-validation-scheme/. The file was duly deleted.

The uploader User:Opyquad has argued that plain photographs do not enjoy copyright protections in Nigeria, contradicting Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nigeria which states 50 years from publish. Could anyone clarify Nigerian copyright on photographs? MKFI (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MKFI Opyquad is citing an outdated copyright law, the 1990 Copyright Act. It would be interesting though if the succeeding Nigerian laws did not retroactively applied their Commons-unfriendly provisions to the images made under previous laws. For instance, the restrictive FoP provision current 2022 Copyright Act (for audio-visual and broadcasts only, not photographs) doesn't apply to images that were uploaded to Commons before March 17, 2023. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, on inspecting the alleged source of the image, it doesn't appear to be from the time the outdated law was in force. Year of the article is 2024, so the portrait is governed by the 2022 Copyright Act. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @MKF for starting this conversation and @JWilz12345 for your contribution

Unfortunately, most parts of the Copyright Act 1990 were lifted without any alteration (except changing sections) and pasted into the Copyright Act 2022. But all citations here shall be from the Copyright Act 2022.

Section 13 (2) of the Copyright Act 2022 states that a photograph shall be protected by copyright if such an image was taken from a still photograph of a TV broadcast.

The Copyright Act 2022 doesn’t govern File: Professor Timothy Abiodun Adebayo.png because it has not violated Section 13 (2).

As for the duration, which @MKFI earlier mentioned, Section 19 (1a) is clear on this. Here is the interpretation as it applies to the file, which has been erroneously deleted:

For most types of creative works (like books, music, or paintings), copyright lasts for 70 years after the person who created the work dies. However, this rule does not apply to photographs, which may have different copyright rules. In essence, the copyright rules that apply to photographs can be found in Section 13 (2).

This is why photographs of academicians and politicians do not enjoy copyright protection, IF:

They are not used to disparage the subject.

They are not used for fraud.

They are not used in a bad light.

They are not used in a demeaning context, etc.

Among the works that are eligible for copyright under Section 2 (1a-f), photographs are not specifically mentioned, UNLESS such photographs are taken from the works mentioned in this section, from a live television broadcast, or have an inscription of a photographer.

A photograph is free to use in Nigeria IF it doesn’t contravene any of the sections or subsections cited in my argument as clearly stated in Copyright Act 2022. Opyquad (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Opyquad I think Nigerian photos are governed under a different provision: section 19(1)(c) which states: "audiovisual works and photographs, 50 years after the end of the year in which the work was first made available to the public with the consent of the author or 50 years after the work was created, if not made available to the public within that time." The section you cited is not applicable as it is for broadcasts: Section 13.—(2) "The copyright in a television broadcast shall include the right to control the taking of still photographs from the broadcast." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 @MKFI Every section of Nigeria’s Copyright Act 2022 can’t be appropriately interpreted in isolation. The provision mentioned in section 19 (1)(c) refers to photographs taken from works that are eligible for copyright under Section 2 (1)(a) - (f).

Photos of public figures that are not derived from the aforementioned list are free to use. File: Professor Timothy Abiodun Adebayo.png is one such free-to-use file, which does not even require consent.

A user may, however, give credit to the source where the photo was first used. In fact, a conflict of rights arises when such a photograph does not bear the inscription or logo of the photographer.

This is the position of copyright law in Nigeria except there is another copyright law that I’m not aware of. Opyquad (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright assessment for File:Petrona Eyle.jpg

Hi! I'm a bit new to assessing copyright and would like some help. I'm currently working on the article for Petrona Eyle on Wikipedia. It currently uses this image, which is marked as being CC by-SA 4.0. However, the original source link is defunct and I cannot verify this. I don't think it's accessible via Wayback Machine either, though I obviously can't check right now. I also can't find any other versions of the image that are explicitly licensed in that way.

I do think the image is probably public domain in Argentina. Per Argentine copyright law, "photographs are protected for 20 years after creation and 25 years after publication." Assuming that the photo was taken and published during her lifetime, the latest it could have been originally published was 12 April 1945, so the latest it could have been covered was 12 April 1990. I don't know the exact date, so I'm not sure what the U.S. copyright status would be, or if that's even relevant.

Alternatively, I think the image could fall under fair use. Per en:WP:NFCCP:

She's dead, so no free equivalent could be created.
I don't think that the image is being used commercially. All of the uses I've seen are for educational purposes.
It's a single image.
It has been displayed outside of Wikipedia.
I think it meets Wikipedia content standards.
I intend to use it exclusively in the Petrona Eyle article (I might need to remove it from the "Women from Argentina" page).
It would be used to identify the subject.

Finally, I'm not sure how to change the copyright attribution of a work that has already been uploaded (or if it would be better practice to just upload a different version of the image).

Anyway, thanks! Appreciate people's input. Spookyaki (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, from both an Argentinian and US perspective. The photograph will have been made before 1945, so should certainly be out of copyright in Argentina. Barring strange edge cases such as late publication, the image should also be out of copyright in the US since it was out of copyright in Argentina in 1996. I would see issues mainly if the image were not actually taken/published in Argentina, but there is no indication in the subject's biography that she spend extended time abroad after completing her degree in Switzerland. So, I went ahead and relicensed the image accordingly. Felix QW (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text on signs

I recently encountered File:Description of the Givati Parking lot.jpg. It primarily consists of text, about 200 words long by my estimate. I would expect that the text is under copyright. The sign is displayed in a public place in Israel and the uploader has indicated that the sign and text were prepared by the Israel Antiquities Authority, but I can't find evidence that it would be copyright exempt. Is there anyone more familiar with copyright in Israel that might be able to shed light on the situation? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: This photo was taken and uploaded by me. This sign post was posted by the Israel Antiquities Authority at the archaeological site in Jerusalem's Old City, known as the "Givati Parking lot". To the best of my knowledge, as all directional/informational road signs or signs posted for the public at museums, national parks and at archaeological sites, the information contained therein is not protected by copyright, and may freely be used by visitors for public information and dissemination. However, I am no expert in this case, and leave the matter with Wikimedia Commons as arbitraters in this case.Davidbena (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, the amount of independently composed text suggests the sign to be above the threshold of originality. However, I cannot tell from COM:FOP Israel whether a textual work intended to inform can also be a "work of applied art", which would fall under freedom of panorama. Felix QW (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard vs. corporate works in the United States

I have two questions regarding standard and corporate works in the United States:

I know that standard works are protected for life + 70 years, and corporate works are protected for 95 years after publication. But how do we determine whether a work is of corporate authorship, especially in the case of a sole proprietorship? Does it depend on whether the business is registered?
If a publisher buys the rights to a photograph from an individual author, then would the copyright rules change for the photo?

Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No; only in modern cases are works protected for life+70. Any works published before 1978 has the 95 years after publication, and any works published before 2002 will have copyright at least until 2048.

If a non-employee creates something, the only way it's a corporate work is if it was work for hire. That's complex, but it always involves the company paying someone to produce something, not buying from them later.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a work for hire it gets 95 years from publication. A "work made for hire" is defined in 17 USC 101, and is 1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, or 2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. I don't think a sole proprietorship would be considered an employee in the normal sense. There's no separate legal entity there, really, who could own the copyright. As for the second question, no -- a copyright term does not change based on a sale later on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for the information! Ixfd64 (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg@Ixfd64@Prosfilaes perhaps this is still decades and generations to the future, but how about U.S. buildings made by architectural firms? An example is the building that I will show at the right side of my comment, authored by Populous firm. There's a rule of "95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter," but which of the two terms are applicable here? Decades into the future, {{FoP-US}} will give way to a future tag (perhaps a heavily-revised {{PD-US-architecture}}, because by then the fact on the PD status of pre-1990 U.S. buildings will no longer important, and changes in tags will require the determination of status based in the prevailing law, not the 1990 cutoff date). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think buildings are pretty much considered published, at least if built in a public place. Not sure it matters for us, since photos are not derivative of the photographic copyright, so it doesn't really matter what the architectural term is when it comes to photos of them. {{FoP-US}} won't change, unless the part of law where it says photos are not derivative works changes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg what I meant is something theoretical and for sometime in the future. That tag will no longer apply to this and other U.S. buildings that are copyrighted today, more than 90 or 120 years later, since these will be in public domain by that time. I am not referring to the tag for the images of the building based on the present time. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will apply. The date of completion of a building is irrelevant to that tag, even though it's mentioned. That tag applies to buildings since 1990 as much as ones before it. That tag is stating the copyright of the building is irrelevant to the copyright of the photo, and it will continue to be irrelevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could be more explicit -- most FoP clauses in laws acknowledge that a photo is a derivative work, but automatically allow that type of work. The U.S. instead explicitly defines such photos as outside the scope of the architectural copyright -- i.e. they are not derivative works in the first place. So there are no restrictions that expire when the architectural copyright does. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authority to release promotional image under CC-BY-3.0

I'm hoping to upload a frame from this video that is published under CC-BY-3.0, specifically a frame of the group photo used in the video.

The image in question is a promotional image with copyright that is, presumably, owned by en:SM Entertainment, the group's record label and original publisher of the image.

The video uploader, KNTV, is stated on SM's "Major Affiliates" page to be part of Stream Media Corporation, which according to their description: "is a TSE listed company that engages in exclusive management of SM-affiliated artists’ activities in Japan and operates the Hallyu broadcast channel KNTV", and per the company's Shared Research report, SM Entertainment owns about 77.5% of Stream Media Corporation's shares.

Is it reasonable to assume that the uploader of this video possesses the authority to release the image in question under CC-BY-3.0?

I'm looking for clarification because I know as soon as I upload it someone will sideeye it because it is a professional promo image. I'm 99% sure the answer will be "yes" but just want to make sure. RachelTensions (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]