Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


São Tomé and Príncipe FOP revisited[edit]

The relevant page states that FOP there is not OK as it only mentions use and not reproduction. I actually revisited their copyright law and read Article 75(p). The clause states (using the translation at the right):

"p) The use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be kept permanently in public places."

IMO, the term "use" encompasses exploitations (like depictions or representations), which IMO may be "OK". There are no restrictions like "for occasion of current reporting purposes", "for personal use", "for non-profit use" or any other restrictions on FOP. Thus IMO, São Tomé and Príncipe FOP is "OK" for Commons.

However, I may need other users' opinions regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Pinging for some inputs @Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, Clindberg:. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I would tend to agree. Most of the time that "reproduction" is used, it means a straight copy of the work. Freedom of panorama provisions can never allow straight copies of the work (per the Berne Convention). Sure sounds like a pretty open FoP section to me. @Aymatth2: ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 September 2021‎ (UTC)[]
I agree, but there's a question. Under American rules of construction, "The use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture" is limited to architecture and sculpture. In order for it to apply to "works" generally, it would have to read "...such as, without limitation, works of architecture or sculpture". However, the rules of construction may well be different under other law, so the question is, is FoP OK for only architecture and sculpture or is it OK for all works? Carl, what do youthink about that? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jameslwoodward:, Clindberg the country is apparently a former Portuguese colony. Browsing to COM:FOP Portugal gives a near-identical provision. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
However, because the provision is default and not accompanied by reliable legal literatures or casefiles (unlike Portugal's), we may safely say that outdoors is OK and public indoors, unknown (equivalent to grey cell at COM:Freedom of panorama/table?). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I would assume that the law in São Tomé and Príncipe has the same meaning as in Portugal. However, I see that my question above about construction applies also to Portugal. I note the word "editor" at COM:FOP Portugal which suggests that works other than architecture and sculpture (neither of which have editors) are permitted..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jameslwoodward: If it was strictly limited to architecture and sculpture, they would not use the words "such as". But, it could be limited to works along those lines (say applied art too), and not purely any work. In either event, the wording was inherited from Portuguese law, so I would follow whatever {{FoP-Portugal}} says and any legal cases / precedents there, as they would likely be the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree -- we should copy {{FoP-Portugal}} for {{FoP-São Tomé and Príncipe}} with a few changes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

[edit]

This is the Open Government Licence symbol. We ought to be able to use the logo itself under the OGL.

It is subject to UK Crown copyright according to this deletion discussion. It is also subject to the Open Government Licence version 3.0 according to the National Archives website. I suspect that there might have been some confusion in the mind of the public information officer contacted in 2013 with regard to the then-relatively-new OGL—but the website is clear that the excluded logos are "the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos". The OGL symbol is not the logo of a department or agency, or of the Crown. The OGL v. 3.0 text itself states this in another way: "This licence does not cover [...] departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset". This supports the proposition that it is not a covered logo. The UK Government Licensing Framework (the most comprehensive document explaining the intent) similarly provides that the OGL does not cover "departmental logos, crests, military insignia and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset" (see §7.2), but equally recommends that the OGL symbol be placed on works that are themselves under the OGL, so that the works may be reused (see §6.1). If it were not the case that the symbol itself could be reused along with the content, the objectives of the Framework would be frustrated by its own text—which is either unlikely or pathetic.

So if it is the case that the OGL logo is available under the OGL, User:2A00:23C6:9908:CD00:808D:5F84:377E:5684's suggestion at Template talk:OGL3#Insignia seems reasonable: shall we use the OGL logo on the Template:OGL, Template:OGL2, Template:OGL3 and related templates, and import it from wikipedia:en:File:UKOpenGovernmentLicence.svg or directly from the National Archives website? (User:Nthep, User:Fry1989, User:Amitie_10g and User:Stefan4 might be interested, as they discussed it in 2015.) TheFeds 06:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Rather than anything unilateral why not check again with the national archives to see if the 2013 position regarding the logo has changed? Nthep (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
User:Nthep, would you be interested in resuming contact (as it appears you had contacted them before, and it looks like you can monitor the commons:CONSENT/VRT queue)? I think if their attention is drawn to §6.1 of the Licensing Framework document, they will be happy to accede. ("The National Archives has also developed...the OGL symbol as a simple way of identifying when information can be used and re-used. The OGL symbol shows users, at a glance, that information is covered by the OGL. Public sector bodies are therefore encouraged to use the symbol on their websites and in publications wherever possible." [emphasis added]) TheFeds 05:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

[edit]

I'm not sure File:2003 NBA Finals logo.png and File:Nba all star logo55.png are OK for Commons. Although there do seem to be some non-copyrightable elements in each file, the main element is the the silhouette player imagery and I'm not sure we can claim that as being too simple for copyright protection per COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi, Indeed, they are much too complex for PD-textlogo. Files tagged. Thanks for asking, Yann (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Definitely copyrightable. There's a decent chance it was published without notice -- for example, down this page are some 1977 shoe advertisements which used the logo. That was a third party advertisement though -- unsure if that would matter. Also unsure if the logo was registered for copyright; it was created in 1969. It's obviously as thoroughly trademarked as a trademark can be, but copyright might be another story. We'd probably want to have several examples of publication, and go through the registration volumes to make sure it was never registered for copyright though, before declaring that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Yann, Clindberg: It seems a bit unlikely that the NBA wouldn’t have registered its main choice of branding for copyright protection, but I guess anything is possible. Although the NBA in 1969 wasn’t even close to global brand that it is today, most of the owners weren’t novice business people who probably would’ve realized the benefit of copyright protection. Anything is possible though and the fact that the logo itself is claimed to be a derivative work might be a factor in all this. What about the four Sky Sport logos and photo of sandals in Category:National Basketball Association logos? Could those files be OK as licensed or should they be treated as derivative works too? — Marchjuly (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You not only had to register it, you had to publish with a copyright notice at least most of the time. I'm guessing virtually all sports logos from that era (before 1989) lost their copyright. The trademark is the part that makes money there, anyways. The NBA has had very few registrations total since 1978, doing a search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I changed the license to {{PD-US-no notice}} following Carl's comment above. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Clindberg, Yann: If we consider those two particular file's to be {{PD-US-no notice}}, then that would seem to make the primary logo en:File:National Basketball Association logo.svg itself as well as possibly any other any other files using it (assuming these other files have no separate copyrightable elements) also PD for the same reason. That's quite a big assumption to make. I get the distinction Clindberg is making about trademark and copyright, and the primary logo certainly seems to be trademarked per this; however, the NBA also seems to have copyrighted other works incorporating versions of the silhouette logo (i.e. the "logoman logo") in recent years per this. For example, Silhouette Logoman in Star with Maple Leaf Design appears to be this. I guess it's possible that the combination of the maple leaf and the logoman was deemed complex enough for copyright protection even if the individual elements aren't copyrightable on their own, but not sure. I'm also not sure when it comes to even apparently simple NBA logos based upon this and this. In one case, a team logo consisting of a standard shaped basketball is apparently not copyrightable, but in another cases (which might be something like this) it apparently is. Another interesting example of a different sort is en:File:San Antonio Spurs.svg and File:San Antonio Spurs Wordmark Logo 2017-current.png, which seem to be essentially the same logo with some color differences. English Wikipedia is treating the former as non-free while Commons is treating the latter as PD. I'm not saying Wikipedia is always correct when it comes to file licensing, but things can get really confusing when there are discrepancies with Commons when it comes to certain files. So, if the rationale for converting the logoman logo to PD given above is sound, then it should also apply to all versions of essentially the same logo uploaded as non-free locally on all of the various Wikipedia projects, shouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Copyrighting a new work which incorporates the old one, only covers the new work. So the maple leaf stuff would have to be copyrightable on its own, regardless if the logoman was there or not (and the copyright office thought was, obviously). If the logo became PD in the 1970s, it stays that way -- it just becomes a non-copyrightable element that can be combined with other things, and as long as the other things are copyrightable on their own, they can do that. And even an original registration would not matter, if they subsequently published it without notice. However, I'm somewhat agreed that I'd rather not put PD-US-no_notice on there without more evidence than what I gave above. That declaration would apply to the main logo, although if the vectorization was copied from an NBA publication, there could be a separate copyright on that even though the result looks the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Clindberg: Thank you for the additional information. The reason I brought up maple leaf logo and other subsequent logos is because I'm wondering whether there's a way through them to determine the copyright status of the original logoman logo. I'm not familiar with the process of filing a copyright application. Is there some part of the application process which assesses the copyright status of the individual elements that make up a logo such as this? For example, suppose I want to create a logo incorporating various elements created by others at some other point in time. Do I have to provide some sort of statement related to the copyright status of each of these individual elements as part of my application? Is there anything for copyright registration purposes that is similar to a en:title search that is done when purchasing real estate? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You are supposed to point out all the previously-existing works that yours uses, either works of others (i.e. yours is a derivative work), or your own stuff that you have previously registered. If the Copyright Office was unaware of part of a work being previously registered (or authored by someone else), they might mistakenly decide on that basis -- but that becomes grounds for overturning in court. Otherwise, the Office just decides yes or no based on the whole thing -- if all the elements are uncopyrightable, but the arrangement is complex enough, they can register on that basis. The letter that the copyright owner gets back might have more detail, but from outside we can only say there was at least one aspect which was copyrightable, and which was new compared to previous registrations. If the Copyright Office knows that a portion has lost its copyright due to lack of notice, they should ignore that and decide on the copyright ability of the rest. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Clindberg: Thanks for clarifying that. The "Claim Description" for the Maple Leaf logo registration says "Pre-existing Material 2-D artwork, NBA Logo 2-D Artwork", but there's no way to infer the copyright status of either just from that, right? I guess if it stated "Pre-existing Material 2-D artwork, Copyrighted NBA Logo 2-D Artwork", then that might be an indication, but not sure. Would there be any benefit in emailing the "Rights and permission" holder (their email address is listed on the registration page) and asking for clarification or would this just be pointless for Commons purposes? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Right, any "Pre-existing Material" would not be part of the copyright claim for that item. Whether the earlier work was registered or not is pretty much immaterial -- the logo would be copyrightable, for sure. The only question is whether it lost copyright by being published without notice. So, we'd need some examples of that (ones published by the NBA directly would be best). That could advertisements in magazines, or just about anything. Well, I guess if there was a registration, that could make publications without notice a bit more gray from 1978 to 1989. So best would be examples pre-1978. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

50 years old prison mug shot in UK[edit]

Hi, Any chance that File:JoeMcCannMugshot.jpg might in the public domain? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

For {{PD-UKGov}}, it needs to be Crown Copyright and published before 1971. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It is certainly made before 1971. Can we assume it was published when it was made? It was certainly made by the British police. OK? Yann (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Use of Photo for Which I Have Been Assigned Copyright and Permission[edit]

I have created an article on a musician who passed away in 2008. There are a number of publicity photographs of this musician which were taken in 1996 by a professional photographer. I have contacted the photographer and he has assigned ownership of copyright of these photographs to me in a signed document. I would now like to post at least one of the photographs as part the musician's Wikipedia article. I would like to publish it under CC BY-SA 4.0. (I wish to let others share, copy and distrtibute the work, but want to make sure that the photographer is given credit if the photograph is used by others.)

My question is: How should I list the Source and Author of the work in the "Summary" on the Commons page? I assume I am the "Source" and that the photographer is the "Author." (Note: The photographer does not have a Wikipedia User name.) I'd like to make sure that this is the correct way to identify us. Also, do I need to upload the document from the photographer assigning the copyright to me, and if so, where would I do this? And is there anything else I need to do to make sure that everything has been done correctly? I very much want to get this all right.

Many thanks for your help. Scribia4178 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

When uploading, please select "not own work" and put {{subst:OP}} in the "source" field, and forward a scan of the copyright transfer agreement to COM:VRT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks very much. That's what I'll do.Scribia4178 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Addy Raj in 2020.jpg[edit]

Hello. Could anyone check this file. It is the only upload of its uploader, yet I can't bother to question its status, since it has strange metadata. There are no results in reverse Google Images and TinEye searches. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Who hosts the copyright on images in an US government document?[edit]

Specifically, this one and the map on p.25. I am not sure whether the whole report is commissioned by the US government and thus falls under PD-USGov, or whether they are reprinting a private association's document and thus the copyright belongs to the private association and/or its members. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The copyright belongs to the authors of each contribution included in this report. I do not see any reason why they should fall under PD-USGov. Ruslik (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

File:K d jadhav.jpg[edit]

Could someone please check the copyright status of this file?

The provided source only contains a deep link to the image. I was able to find it on this Scroll.in article, but the website says the image is a screenshot from YouTube. Although it does show up in some YouTube videos like this one, they all appear to be cropped. It's more than likely that this file is a scan of a historic photograph and not from a YouTube video. And this is where I'm hitting a dead end. I could not locate the original photo, let alone its copyright status. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • I tagged it with "no permission", let's see if the uploader gives more info. SV1XV (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I just noticed that the current image was uploaded by a different user. Pinging @Pratishkhedekar as they uploaded the more recent version. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hello. The photograph is indeed cropped. The original is in portrait orientation and shows him in full sleeve sports jacket with the word 'INDIA' on the front. The photograph was taken in 1952 at the Helsinki Olympics where he won the bronze medal. As far as copyright tag is concerned "PD-India" or "PD-India-photo-1958" should work equally fine. Pratish Khedekar 18:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like there are no copyright issues, then. :-) Ixfd64 (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ixfd64, Sv1xv, Pratishkhedekar: Taking the example of File:Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952.jpg from COM:TOO Finland at the same games, and contemplating the same tags {{PD-Finland50}} and {{PD-US-1996}}, who is the actual photographer? When and where was it first published, and when and where was it published within 30 days after that?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Clarification on Seychellois FOP[edit]

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Seychelles#Freedom of panorama, their now-repealed copyright law contained an FOP provision, but their current copyright law doesn't contain as such (seems removed). What is the proper status for Seychelles: FOP is OK for photos made in the past or no FOP at all? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@JWilz12345: In general, if a provision of a law is deleted, the provision will apply to the applicable subject before the date of deletion and will not apply thereafter. Conversely, if a provision of a law is added, the provision will not be applied to the applicable subject before the date of addition, and will be applied thereafter. For example, buildings in the United States completed before 1 December 1990 are public domain because a provision of copyright of buildings was added 1 December 1990. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ox1997cow: (edit conflict occurred) I think your understanding on US architectural FOP is wrong you used a wrong comparison. The reason why the exception doesn't apply to pre-1990 buildings is that all old buildings are PD by default (because the old US copyright law didn't protect them, similar to pre-1972 Philippine buildings). However, this is the case when Seychelles had FOP in their old copyright law, but FOP ceased to exist in their new (and current) law. And it appears all recent public artworks are copyrighted. Perhaps, like Syria's (in which FOP ceased to exist and all affected images are No FOP violations)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@JWilz12345: I think there is no freedom of panorama in Seychelles. Because FOP clause was deleted, it is no longer valid. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
For added inputs, ping @Clindberg, Jameslwoodward, Aymatth2:. Note that we still have {{FoP-Seychelles}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Seems to me there was FoP under Schedule 1 of the 1991 Act, but there is no FoP under the 2014 Act. However, as is typical, "38(2)(b) the licences or authorisation granted under the repealed Act shall continue to operate as licences or authorisation, as the case may be, for the purposes of this Act, until the expiration or revocation of such licence or authorisation;". I would say that probably means pictures of works in public places, including buildings, sculptures and other artistic works, are PD if made before 1 April 2014, but more recent pictures are not allowed. That is, copies authorized by 1991 Schedule 1 remain authorized. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@JWilz12345: By the way, How about copyright status of commissioned works in South Korea? The provision of copyright of commissioned works from South Korean Copyright Act was deleted on 31 December 1986. Prior to deletion, it is said that the person who commissioned it owns the copyright. (This question is related to the deleted copyright clause.) Related References 1, Related References 2 Ox1997cow (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Please address that in a new thread (use new section/topic). It is not connected in any way about the Seychellois FOP status. In other words, not releted. I cannot comment about COM:COMM works right now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I would like to see Carl's reading on this. Mine is that uses of photographs of copyrighted works that were covered by the old FoP while it was in force are still OK, but any uses post the effective date of the new law are not. This means that we must either delete all photos covered by {{FoP-Seychelles}} or change it to warn people that any new use of such images is invalid. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Generally, the transitional / savings clauses at the end of the law would be the place to look, if this issue was addressed. It's sort of like when you extend a copyright term -- you could leave existing works' terms alone, you could extend works which have existing copyright but leave PD works PD, or you could restore copyright to expired works. Normally for the latter, there would be provisions on existing exploitations and stuff like that, to give a bit of a grace period (or allow existing exploitations to continue indefinitely). I don't see anything like that which would address situations where existing uses of works are no longer OK. Aymatth2 found one of those transitional clauses, and his interpretation could well be the case, unless the repeal of the law counts as revocation of the license (unlikely, as a license is something different). The very next paragraph states any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act shall continue to subsist. So, that seems to further enforce his interpretation -- that the right/privilege of older photographs to not be derivative works continues to subsist. Also to note, the new law became effective on August 1, 2014. So, allowing photos taken before that date seems reasonable to me -- it could be considered a right acquired upon the taking of the photograph, which still subsists.
A couple of other notes on side topics -- the U.S. treatment of buildings completed before 1990 is that way precisely because there was a clause of that law which specified that treatment. When it comes to validity of copyright transfers (such as the South Korea situation mentioned above), virtually all of the time those transfers continue to hold (again, subject to any law clauses which address it specifically -- a law could say that any extended rights revert back to the original copyright owner). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have edited COM:CRT/Seychelles#Freedom of panorama, to the best of my understanding of this thread. @Clindberg, Jameslwoodward, Aymatth2, Ox1997cow:. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    That looks good to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I guess it's a question of whether any photo taken before August 1, 2014, remains free to upload, i.e. does it continue to have the same right/privilege that the author obtained at the time of taking the photograph, or is it more that only any existing exploitation (such as an upload here) remains OK. Making things based on upload date, rather than date of photograph, is more conservative of course and not unreasonable either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I have touched up the wording. "Public works" suggests a government building in US English and "buildings and sculptures" is too limited. The law called out "artistic works", which includes 2D works as well as architecture and sculpture, so that's what I put in. I agree with Carl that it's best to assume that only those photos uploaded before August 1, 2014 are OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@JWilz12345: It would be nice to have something similar to {{FoP-Seychelles}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Is YouTube's "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" adequate for WM Commons?[edit]

I'm concerned that YouTube's recitation of "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" is too vague to meet Wikimedia's specific standards for CC licensing. Examples are here and here, which I discuss on my talk page here as apparently being original videos. And more specifically: can screenshots (derivative works) of such videos be uploaded to Commons? Thanks. RCraig09 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@RCraig09: Yes, YouTube's Creative Commons licensing is okay for Commons. According to [1], the specific license is CC BY 3.0. We even have a template for it: {{YouTube CC-BY}}. Make sure to also tag the upload with a license review template so the license can be verified. Derivatives of such videos, like screenshots, are also okay on Commons so long as they specify the original source and use the same license or a compatible one. clpo13(talk) 15:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
But note that Category:YouTube review needed has an enormous backlog. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC) []

NPG portrait[edit]

What's the likely copyright status of this image? The National Portrait Gallery claims copyright but this claim is dubious at best. The photographer died in 1958 so we're not quite at 70 years yet. But could it be crown copyright expired? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I don't think the NPG is officially part of the government. The NPG did commission works from Stoneman, which by the rules of the time meant they probably do own the copyright on the photograph (and not just the reproduction). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Copyright status of corporate works from Canada?[edit]

As I understand, corporate works from Canada are copyrighted for 50 years from publication. However, the United States does not use the rule of the shorter term for foreign works. Does this mean that some works will still be copyrighted in the United States even after entering public domain in Canada?

For example, en:File:Laurasecord brand logo.svg seems to have been published in 2010. Am I correct to assume that it will enter the public domain in the U.S. in 2106 even though the copyright will expire in Canada in 2061? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Ixfd64: Yes, works in the United States can be protected long after the copyright has expired in the country of origin. This causes many headaches on Wikimedia Commons. I believe you are correctly calculating the U.S. expiration date of a corporate work published in 2010 as January 1, 2106 - copyright really will expire in the United States on that date, and not an earlier date because the U.S. does not apply the rule of the shorter term.  Mysterymanblue  20:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That's what I figured. Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

asking others to take your picture[edit]

Our policy is to not accept photos where the uploader is the subject unless there is evidence of a rights release. However, this article suggests that a person who takes a picture wouldn't have copyright if all they did was press the shutter. So my questions are:

  1. Are there any good ways to tell how much input a photographer had when they took a picture?
  2. People who ask someone to take their picture don't often exchange contact information. It's probably extremely difficult to track down the photographer in most cases. Even if the photographer doesn't mind releasing the rights, there is usually no evidence as most people don't go around carrying rights release forms. Does this mean those pictures are essentially orphan works?
  3. If the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer, then does this mean that a copyright troll could go to a popular tourist destination, offer to take pictures for people, and then sue them when they share the photo on social media?

Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Ixfd64:
  1. When you just hand your cell phone to someone and ask them to take a picture, they generally control the positioning, framing, and timing of the shot so they are probably the copyright holder. On the other hand, if you set up a tripod and direct someone to simply press the trigger, you are the only person who has contributed original authorship to the work and it was fixed under your authority, so the copyright would vest in you. The former scenario is, by far, the most common for most photos, so we should probably assume that the subject is not the copyright holder unless we have compelling reason to believe otherwise. Such "compelling reason" could just be a statement from the uploader of a work describing how they took the photograph; see, for example, File:Mark Rober 2020.jpg.
  2. Yes, most of these photos are orphan works because the copyright holder cannot be found.
  3. Yes, someone could do that and they would be the copyright holder, but they would have a hard time suing people over using the photos. As the website you linked to states, "you as the owner of the equipment and the creative author are likely to have an implied license to use the photograph for personal use". At best, they could probably ask the subject of the photograph to take the photos down. The issue is that on Commons, "the copyright holder will not bother to sue" is not a valid reason for keeping a non-free work around, so we would have to delete such an image because it would not be validly licensed, even if the copyright holder would almost certainly never sue.
 Mysterymanblue  20:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This answers my questions perfectly. Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ixfd64: A more thorough analysis of this question, which doesn't entirely agree with Mysterymanblue's answer above, can be found at meta:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership. Nosferattus (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
And please, defer to the foundation's judgement instead of mine. Wikilegal pages are written by lawyers.  Mysterymanblue  01:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Dubious claims of copyright ownership[edit]

A user has uploaded several images claiming they are the copyright holder. Claims which I find dubious. The pictures are of three separate tornadoes that struck different US cities in different states, all in the space of two hours or so on April 3, 1974. It seems highly improbably that the uploader was in all of these locations at once. I was tempted to nominate them for deletion, but I wanted to bring the discussion here. The images are:

File:Brandenburg 1974.jpg

File:Cincinnati 1974.jpg

File:Madison 1974.jpg

The Madison tornado appears to be colorized from a photo from the National Weather Service (which would be Public Domain) based on this page where I found a match. The source link provided in that article goes to a part of the NWS website that was taken down around 2013 or 2014. That portion of the website may have held the other two pictures as well, as it held many others.

A match for the Cincinnati tornado was found here and on other sites through a reverse image search. The Brandenberg tornado image also appears to be colorized based on matches from a reverse image search.

I don't know if the uploader was the one who colorized these images, but that would not be enough to constitute ownership. Again, these may have come from the NWS, which would make them public domain, but I was only able to find supporting evidence of that for the Madison tornado photo. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yeah. The Cincinnati one is credited to a Don Ohmer, of a local fire station, here. It's possible they were published without notice, but we'd need some evidence of that. The one marked "Madison" is from here, a NWS site, saying it was taken on the Purdue campus and "Photos courtesy Dr. Ernest Agee". (Archived version of the photo here.). Many NWS photo donations are explicitly put into the public domain, but I don't think those are -- that was a special article page, not a photo gallery of uploaded photos. Some people think "own work" means the work of copying it off the web and uploading it, not that they were the photographer themselves (or otherwise own the copyright). Or, as you say, maybe the colorization was theirs. These were clearly taken off the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This person is continuing to upload images under these dubious claims:

File:Guin 1974.jpg

File:Lousiville 1974.jpg

File:Monticello 1974.jpg

Reverse image search turns up matches for the Louisville tornado. But I think it's pretty clear that this person was not in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, and Alabama on the same day. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry for the trouble, i was just trying to help and i didnt think much of the sources. i did color these on https://playback.fm/colorize-photo Flopbean (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Copyright is generally owned by the photographers (or their company, if they were an employee). To upload them here, or create a derivative work, we need permission from the copyright holders (or show that copyright has expired). This is part of COM:Licensing. There were some ways which photos could have expired in the U.S., if they were published without notice, but we would need to see the actual publication from that era to see if there was no copyright notice associated with it. From 1978, that part gets harder, and from 1989 and on, it's not possible. Copyright lasts for an extremely long time (often 95 years from publication in the U.S., if published before 1978, otherwise typically 70 years after the original author dies, or 50 in some countries). So it's very rare that photos from that era are public domain.
It's not much different than Wikipedia article text, really -- you can't copy article text from elsewhere, it must be written by the editors -- and similarly, it's difficult to use someone else's photos without copyright problems (unless they are very old, as mentioned). It can be really frustrating, but them's the rules. (BTW, using that tool means you did not add any human-created authorship, so it's not really a derivative work but a copy of the original, so you really can't add your own license to it at all. Whether hand-coloring something amounts to copyrightable authorship, probably differs by country, and may not count in the U.S. Also, that site has a "terms of use" which states: You may only upload images for which you are the exclusive copyright holder. I doubt they really care, but that is protecting themselves if you use their tool for other people's images.) Either way, we need to either prove public domain status (unlikely), or obtain a free license from the copyright owner, to upload these. Otherwise, we will have to delete them, unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Flopbean: I understand the intent, but,as Carl Lindberg said, colorizing the photos (especially using an automated tool rather than doing it yourself) does not make you the owner. You do mention sources for those pictures, though. Do you happen to have the links for those? Providing your sources could help determine if the photos are public domain, which is the only circumstance that would allow them to stay. It may be unlikely, but tornado photos such as this are sometimes published by the National Weather Service, which usually involves the owner releasing them to the public domain.TornadoLGS (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Inquiring copyright holders about their photos[edit]

Through email, how do I ask a copyright holder about the idea of freely licensing a photo? I don't want to not be thorough enough or be forceful in asking. JamesTheLaptop (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@JamesTheLaptop: Please see COM:CONSENT and en:WP:ERP#Commons 1.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you very much, @Jeff G.: JamesTheLaptop (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@JamesTheLaptop: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@JamesTheLaptop: You may find Requesting copyright permission to be helpful too. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Question concering a license ...[edit]

... of File:Jugend forscht TU Berlin Gruppenbild.jpg

OK?

--BonnMath (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Question about a scanned book[edit]

Hello dear Wikimedians,

I have a question about uploading a scanned version of a book, in order to use it and transcribe it in the Greek Wikisource. The book has no official date of publication but according to the texts of the book reviews in the first pages of it, it must have been printed in 1937 or 1938. Its author Grigorios Stefanos died in 1949, so his works are in public domain in Greece. According to the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons, can this book be uploaded? If yes, what's the proper license for it? Thanks in advance, Texniths (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Otterbein University Theatre & Dance[edit]

See: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/03#Discrepancy between license and photo description on Flickr?

I posted about this issue a little over two and a half years ago, but it never got resolved. So there's a Flickr account called Otterbein University Theatre & Dance that has shared over 5,000 images under a Creative Commons license. It looks like many of them were transferred to Commons. However, some of the pictures have "Photos are for personal use - may not be published without permission of the photographer." in the description. File:Spitfire Grill (15610351164).jpg is one such example. It's not clear if the Creative Commons license could be taken as permission. I posted a comment asking if this is the case, but the Flickr account has been inactive since 2018 and never responded to me.

I decided to revisit the issue and noticed that the photos in question are credited to Karl Kuntz Photography in the metadata. There is no indication whether the photos were taken for Otterbein University as work for hire. It also looks like studio has gone out of business, so there's no way to contact them to confirm. At least I couldn't find any official website.

The most prudent solution would be to delete all the offending photos. However, there are probably several thousand that need to be checked. I'm pretty busy in real life and don't really have the time to do this. Just putting this out there if anyone else wants to investigate. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=594911786"