Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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

---

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

---

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Singapore National Anthem Transcription

I have made a transcription of the Singapore National Anthem as shown in the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules, the exact copy I have not been able to find anywhere else online. Is my transcription is legible to be posted here and what is the status of its copyright? Dafatskin (talk)

@Dafatskin: Unfortunately, the lyrics are copyrighted in Singapore. The author (Zubir Said) died on 1987. According to {{PD-SG-lifetimepub}}, the lyrics will enter local public domain 70 years later, i.e. 2057. Besides, even if the lyrics are in public domain, Wikimedia Commons are not the right place to post the lyrics: please consider sites like English Wikisource, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Actions will also be taken with regard to File:Majulah Singapura.ogg.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I will upload it directly to wikisource then. I presume it falls under US government edict? Dafatskin (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Kantei.go.jp

Do all photos and videos on the official web site of the Prime Minister of Japan qualify as {{GJSTU-2.0}}? (Which is equivalent to Creative Commons 4.0, apparently.) Specifically this image featuring w:Hitomi Soga. Muzilon (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Muzilon: Yes. Their website stated that information on the website are licensed under {{GJSTU-2.0}}. While the English version licensed their works under {{GJSTU1}} (dated 2014), I think the 2016 version superseded the 2014 one, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: Thanks. How about the video on this page? I was thinking of extracting a screenshot, but it seems to have a © copyright symbol watermark. Muzilon (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Muzilon: Licensing a work under a CC license or other free license don't affect the right to declare copyright on the page, so it's fine for the Japanese government to add the copyright symbol in their video.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: What I'm really trying to figure out is: may I extract a screenshot of Hitomi Soga from that video and upload the screenshot to Commons? The video is watermarked ©内閣広幸室 (my Japanese is minimal so I can't understand those kanji), and I'm trying to avoid the risk of finding out that the embedded video is actually copyrighted by a third party and is not covered by the {{GJSTU-2.0}} license. Section 2(a) of their copyright notice seems to suggest that might be a possibility. Muzilon (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

PS. There is another copy of that video on the Japanese Government Internet TV website, if that helps any Japanese-speaking Wikipedians to clarify the copyright. Muzilon (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Muzilon: I'm not Japanese-speaking, but I do understand some Japanese hanji character (due to my Chinese background). The watermark attributes to something like "Cabinet Public Relations Office", which I'll think it should be some subordinate departments of the Japanese Cabinet Office.

Unfortunately after some closer examination, the original source of the Public Relations Office assumes all rights reserved by that office instead of licensing their work under GJSTU-2.0. I'll consider this discrepancy as a violation of COM:PCP, and will advice against uploading the screenshot.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

So the still photos on Kantei.go.jp are {{GJSTU-2.0}}, but the videos are copyrighted? Too bad. This issue has come up because of a COPYVIO discussion about the press-agency photo currently being used to illustrate w:Hitomi Soga, and I was looking around for a freely-licensed alternative. There are other stills featuring Soga on Kantei.go.jp, but extracting a "headshot" produces poor results due to the low resolution of the images. Tagging User:Joi here, as Joi apparently photographed Soga's husband and may be able to suggest something. Muzilon (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I photographed Charles Robert Jenkins at a private meeting and don't really have much context that would be helpful here. --Joi (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you manage to photograph his widow one day, that would be great. :) Muzilon (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ancient inscription – public domain or not?

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amman Citadel Inscription.jpg. What is the originality threshold for modern images of ancient inscriptions? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The question may be what is the threshold of originality for a photograph of a three-dimensional object. In general, Commons assumes that photographs of three-dimensional objects are above the threshold. The fact that there is or not an ancient inscription on the object does not make a difference for that aspect. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually the question is more what is a three-dimensional object. A piece of paper or parchment is technically three dimensional, but we don’t treat it as such. The ancients didn’t use paper, so should a modern image of the flat face of a slab get treated differently to a modern image of a manuscript? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That would probably seem the approach consistent with the usual practice of Commons. A close example are coins, which are considered three-dimensional objects by well-established policy and practice on Commons (see for example the policy section Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet and the large number of deletions in relation to this aspect, also the classic discussions about photographs of cave wall paintings). Not suggesting that it is a universal truth, but it's the policy. Still, I suppose one might try to make the case that some inscribed piece of rock may look flatter than a coin, but I suspect such attempt may get bogged down in literally byzantine discussions. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The appearance of inscriptions or coins in a photo is highly dependent on the lighting and the viewing angle, unlike an image formed in pigment on shaped or textured surfaces, which always maintains its contrast to the substrate. So while not perhaps passing a high TOO, especially in jurisdictions that make a distinction between “artistic” and “ordinary” photographs, choices requiring at least “skill and judgement” are involved. One photo of a mural, or a page in a bound book, can in principle be colour- and perspective-adjusted to approximately match any other, but photos of relief-only subjects are not similarly fungible, showing edges, highlights & shadows that move or appear & disappear with every change in setup.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479, Asclepias, Onceinawhile, and Clindberg: What is our position on uploading photos or scans of own work rubbings from nearly flat objects like inscriptions, bas relief friezes, engravings, medallions, coins, grave markers, etc. rubbed in jurisdictions or pay-to-enter museums where 3D FOP does not apply? The rubbings are generally done with charcoal on white paper.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know about “our position”, but my take is that the photos or scans would have no independent copyright. The rubbings themselves would be at best DW of the reliefs, but with very low originality—if any. I would apply a similar test here: if a given rubbing is largely the same as one anyone else would make with the same materials, then it’s not copyrightable. (In the rare event someone was in effect painting with the charcoal, making a creative selection of rubbed and blank areas, it would be a shared-copyright DW.) That said, I might be underestimating the scope of creative expression in this medium. AFAIK most FoP laws mention things like painting & photography but not other methods of copying, so I’m dubious they’d be applicable in any case. No idea what a court would say … Bottom line, IMO the first consideration for moulds, rubbings, contact-prints &c. should still be the copyright status of the relief itself. Museum ToU or laws against handling antiquities may affect the rubbing-maker, but are none of our concern copyright-wise.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: I have been reflecting on your comment and the one from two days ago. We both agree that a head-on photograph of an inscribed slab has a very low originality; I do not believe it clears our hurdle of copyrightability. Being head on to the 2D face it is certainly "largely the same as one anyone else would make with the same materials". I have taken many similar photographs of inscriptions (see a good example here) and can tell you that I have absolutely no photographic skill at all. I just hold the phone over the middle of the artifact and press the button. Incidentally, I once tried to take a photograph of the Mona Lisa – I found that much, much more difficult.

I would like to test wide consensus on this topic, given that it was almost 15 years ago since it was last formally opined on with the similar example of the old coin referenced above. Our confidence around the legal interpretation of this should have grown, given the various other copyright interpretation successes that the foundation has had over the intervening years. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Italian museum right

Yesterday, I made this revert, and the user today asked for a reference to the consensus. I am pretty sure we have discussed Italian museum right, and the consensus was to ignore it (otherwise all art from Italian museums can be speedy deleted), but I do not remember where it was. Could someone help me with the link?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

There is the template worded more clearly at Template:Soprintendenza. A user modified it earlier this year to suggest using Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer instead but did not provide a rationale for that suggestion. It might have something to do with Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Despite what that page says, it looks to me that {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} effectively makes the images CC-NC-SA, and thus amenable for speedy deletion. This change at least should have been discussed. Note that we are talking about an image of a piece of art produced in the 14th century.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Liuxinyu970226. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The restrictions are Commons:non-copyright restrictions, thus they do not affect the licensing status here. However they may be pertinent for re-users in Italy, which is all the template is there to document. Nothing needs to be deleted with the template on the page, or when it's not there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I second Carl said. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I admittedly am no expert on copyright law. It would seem that if an agreement was made between Wikipedia and the Ministry of Culture, then that should be honored. As I understand it, the MiBAC template is simply a warning that there may be other restrictions for commercial use. If people choose to ignore it and the relevant Italian museum wishes to contest the commercial usage of the image, at least the warning was placed and Wikipedia is covered. In my experience, most museums are primarily interested in making sure that there is proper attribution. On a personal note, it is of relevance to users in Italy. I would like to keep a good working relationship with the various institutions here in Venice, which generally means following their rules ... if possible.Venicescapes

There is no agreement between "Wikipedia" and the MiBAC. And there is no agreement between Commons and the MiBAC. And there is no agreement between Wikimedia and the MiBAC. There is an agreement between Wikimedia Italia and the MiBAC. If Wikimedia Italia imagine that they rule Commons, they are mistaken. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: Sorry to have to ping you again, but it seems you missed why I pinged you the first time. As mentioned above, I was hoping you could explain exactly why you recently took the initiative to decorate the template Soprintendenza with a tag "deprecated". That template conveys very well the situation so that the readers can understand it. In other words, it conveys what "Carl said". That is something the template Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer does not and it is likely to confuse most readers. A template such as Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer, the actual meaning of which can be understood only by a handful of hyperexperienced Commons users, but is likely to systematically be misunderstood and mislead everybody else, is not a good template. If both templates remain in their present form, then IMHO for clarity the use of Soprintendenza should be preferred to Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer. If the MiBAC insists on the very precise wording of Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer, and assuming that the objective of Commons is to make the bosses of the MiBAC happy, then one solution is to include the text of Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer as quoted text into a more understandable explanatory text which explains the context and limitations of that statement, similarly to what the template Soprintendenza does. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Per Carl, Liuxinyu, and previous discussion, is there any issue with Venicescapes adding back the disclaimer to the image in question, since it is only an informational banner about a non-copyright restriction? Whether {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} is merged into {{Soprintendenza}} would seem to need separate resolution, based on its larger scope. czar 18:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I am sorry but I am still having difficulties seeing how the text "A further authorization by the Italian Ministry of Heritage and Culture is required for reproduction for any other purpose, and particularly for commercial use" is a non-copyright restriction.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  ISTM the essential distinction between copyright restrictions and non-~ is that the former derive specifically from the IP rights of authors (and their beneficiaries &c.) WRT their creative output. Although the law might be premised on the notion that the Italian state is heir to the ancient artists and architects who created the works—while simultaneously making their copyrights perpetual—that does not sit well with conventional or ‘common-sense’ concepts of authors’ rights. I think of this type of restriction on cultural-heritage material as somewhat like trademark protection, but for a nation’s ‘brand’ rather than a commercial one.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Again, I'm no expert. But it would seem that the "further authorization ... for any other purpose" is already a part of the 2012 agreement. It's tacit. All that remains is the question of commercial exploitation, for which it may be necessary to ask additional authorization. As I understand it, you're free to use a photo of Michelangelo's "David" for educational purposes. But if you want to print it and sell it or use it to advertise membership in your gym, then you should ask.Venicescapes (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  This is possible, but doesn't this mean that the license is effectively CC-NC?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The word "license" pre-supposes that there exists a copyright. Then the copyright holder can issue licenses. However there is no copyright here. All those works are in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

No -- the given license is a copyright license. The other restrictions are rights given by other laws, so if those also need permission, then so be it. Those laws apply only inside Italy; they are not subject to any kind of international agreement like copyright is. The definition of "commercial use" can also be very different in a context outside of copyright. For example, we have the {{Personality rights}} template as well. If you take a photo of someone, you own the copyright, but any commercial use of the photo (in that sense, more in using the image of the person to promote a product or something like that) requires further permission from the pictured person. Copyright is not an automatic right to do anything you want, but it's the only right that the concept of "free" is based on, so that is the right which must be given. Trademark (which is subject to international treaties) likewise does not change the "free" status despite many uses being restricted by that (and likewise, the term "commercial use" in that context means something entirely different than "commercial use" in regards to copyright). The template seems to indicate that trademark-like commercial use is more of the issue for this type of work (use in advertising, and logos). Personality publicity rights, trademark rights, and cultural protection laws like these can still apply in full, despite the work being "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be clarified that {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} only applies to re-users within the legal jurisdiction of Italy. Nosferattus (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Great, thanks everybody for the explanations. I see that this is not a copyright limitation, however, it is still not clear to me (and apparently not only to me) that the wording of {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} that the restriction mainly (or exclusively) applies to reusers in Italy and most likely does not affect anybody else. Can we somehow merge it with Template:Soprintendenza, which currently explains this aspect?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  It seems that the template was created back in 2012 and may be connected to all of the legal back and forth that led to the agreement. It may be that certain jargon has to be in there. Not sure. Christian Cantoro it.wiki user page, talk page, who created the template, may know something.Venicescapes (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Kenya

These photographs can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, as Kenya's freedom of panorama law says that "copyright in artistic works "does not include the right to control the reproduction and distribution of copies, or the inclusion in a film or broadcast, of an artistic work situated in a place where it can be seen by the public" [Cap 130 Rev 2014 Section 26(1b)] Note that the definition of artistic works under Kenyan law includes paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs and architecture. Moreover, unlike exemptions from freedom of panorama in some other countries, in Kenya it is not limited only to works permanently located in a public place, and may include works in private places if they can be seen by the public. "So, could I post these images to Wikimedia Commons (1)(2)(3)(4)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSeb05 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@JSeb05: unsure if it includes public indoors. Our map claims Kenyan FOP is only applicable for outdoor works. But, ping @Clindberg and Aymatth2: for some inputs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

COM:FOP Kenya seems similar to COM:FOP UK, but says "artistic work" rather than "works of artistic craftsmanship", so appears to allow 2D reproduction of 2D works. It may be restricted to places with free admission, which is usually the case. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: So I can't upload these images? I don't quite understand this copyright rule.-JSeb05 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

If people have to pay to enter, which seems to be the case here, I am not sure. Exhibiting or publishing pictures of the works somewhere else may commercial harm. Also, the Flickr " Some rights reserved" would not normally be acceptable. Maybe someone else can chime in. The law does not say what "can be seen by the public" means. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this under the threshold of originality?

https://www.google.com/search?q=protocol.com&client=ms-android-xiaomi-rvo3&prmd=vnix&sxsrf=AOaemvLNXeR52KvgXZtP9nAvdXmOTew2HQ:1633960662000&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu_tbmwcLzAhUyDWMBHX51ClYQ_AUoA3oECAIQAw&biw=393&bih=720&dpr=2.75#imgrc=Kbju7JcFQNURhM

Thank you!! Fewasser ;-)Tell me!!

Yes, the logo is under the threshold of originality in the United States. FreeMediaKid$ 14:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

De minimum or need to be blurred out?

This image on Flickr [1] is licensed CC-BY-SA 2.0 but has clearly identifiably copyrighted artwork on the various screens. The image's purpose is to compare the sizes of the top two devices (two different models of the Switch) but even given that purpose, I fear one can't argue de minimus here for the artwork shown. Can I still use that image if I blurred the screens and made note of that in the image description? --Masem (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: in my opinion you can blur or blacken the copyrighted parts. Please also remove the watermark, its not appreciated on Commons. Elly (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Doubtful Australian PD

The PD status of this image seems to be based on the unlikely claim that it is of Australian origin. The photo cannot have been taken in Australia as AFAIK the ship never went there. However, a colour postcard published in England after July 1952 appears to be the origin of this B&W version, somewhat lacking the detail seen in the colour original - it was published by "J Salmon Ltd, Sevenoaks, Eng", card no.5552 with a copyright mark - see here and here. I have not found any evidence for this photo being published in the USA, so it seems likely that it has a UK copyright. As an anonymous photo, would that be 70 years from creation/publication? Davidships (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:StateLibQld 1 169487 United States (ship).jpg. @Davidships: Would "J Salmon" of Sevenoaks, England be presumed to be the photographer? Also, please use internal links.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Technically, the country of origin of a photo is where it is first published -- so if an Australian traveler took a photo, then published it back home, the country of origin would be Australia. But the Australian library's declaration really only applies so far as Australian law, so if the country of origin is elsewhere, then we can't use that tag.

J Salmon Ltd was a postcard publisher founded in 1880; the original proprietor died in 1923. Seems a bit doubtful their postcard was the original version; seems more likely it was a publicity photo which fell out of US copyright, and was used. Although, the back of the postcard does have a copyright notice to the company -- that may be a default setting for their postcards, or maybe they are claiming copyright on the colorization, or maybe they did take it. Alamy has it as a public domain image; they would be more likely to follow U.S. law. It shows up in many places on the web. While the evidence isn't perfect, I'd guess it is {{PD-US}} one way or another. Most likely, it was first published in the U.S., and it would have needed a renewal if they even bothered with copyright notices. Would be nice to have an explicit example, but the Alamy page and wide, uncredited use of the photo is pretty strong circumstantial evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Have to admit, a little less sure. The widespreadness could simply be due to Wikipedia (and possibly the Alamy page as well). The UK copyright would be 70 years from publication, correct (we'd need to wait for {{PD-UK-unknown}} to apply). If it was was simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the U.S., then it would not be subject to the URAA, and would be {{PD-US}} in almost all certainty. Feels fairly likely that a postcard on a ship would have also been sold while in U.S. ports, but not a guarantee. If that is the case, the country of origin being the UK would mean we would need to wait until 2023 to undelete it (as there would be no further U.S. copyright). If U.S. copyright was restored, it would last until 2048. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the procedure (at first attempt the photo itself popped up on this page so I ran scared). Salmon were indeed a well known postcard publisher that had a wide coverage of shipping, both photographs and artwork. United States had particular interest in UK as her regular route was to Southampton and she gained the Blue Ribband. Most ocean liners to be seen there were photographed in the Solent and postcards like this were produced. Tourist shops on the Isle of Wight had racks of them in my childhood, including the rather superior ones of local publisher J Arthur Dixon, photographed by Beken of Cowes. Publisher Valentine had a similar one also. Note the low-lying background, typical of the Solent (not proof of anything of course, but suggestive).

Alamy don't say where they got their image from, but as it has exactly the same faults (dust specks and a scratch on the left) there is little doubt that it is from the same print or negative, held in Brisbane - I suspect that Alamy are just taking the Library's statement at face value. Davidships (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Look, if a Australian took a photo in the US and published it back home and vice versa, the cpoyright of the home country of the photographer takes precident. Angelgreat (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

If a photo was simultaneously published in the US and abroad, then it is considered a US work under US law, regardless of the country of the author. Now Commons may choose to follow the law of any country in addition to the US, but it is not required to. So that is something for the community to decide, rather than a hard legal requirement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but has anyone any evidence at all of this image (whether in B&W or colour) being published in the US or Australia, or indeed anywhere other than the UK. I have asked the Library whether they can throw any light on this or on who might have been the photographer.Davidships (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not for Australia. Unsure if the postcards would be marketed on the ship itself, in which case they probably were published in the U.S. as well. But, that is pretty certain evidence for UK being the country of origin. As such, probably should be deleted until 2023. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Willie Shoemaker 1965 photo

Is this photo of Willie Shoemaker (https://picclick.com/1965-Press-Photo-Kentucky-Derby-winning-jockey-Willie-304135754416.html) OK to upload? On the front, it cites AP WirePhoto, but it does not contain a copyright notice on the front or back, and was published in 1965. To my knowledge, this should be public domain, but I'm not 100% sure. JamesTheLaptop (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the print was intended to be distributed as-is, unattached to any other publication, then yes it is PD-no notice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, King of Hearts. JamesTheLaptop (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm always a bit leery about wire photos -- they were often printed internally by a news organization, and not actually distributed until much much later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

FLELMO Copyright violations

Hi all

It appears the user FLELMO, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FLELMO is uploading images they do not own the copyright for as Creative Commons 4.0.

I think it would be a good idea to delete these images.

DiamondIIIXX (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@DiamondIIIXX: Two files were uploaded by FLEMO: File:Moorabool Wind Farm logo.png and File:WCHF logo (002).png. The Moorabool Wind Farm one seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the United States per c:COM:TOO United States because it's simply a text logo on a blue background. However, the copyright status of the en:country of origin still needs to be assessed for Commons' purposes. If this is the same wind farm as shown here, then COM:TOO Australia would also seem applicable. That's the tricky part since Austrialia's copyright laws since to be more restrictive than the US's when it comes to the COM:TOO. This might a borderline case in which the only thing that is needed is for this file to be relicensed as {{PD-logo}} and some more information about its en:provenence provided. Even if this logo is not acceptable for Commons, it could be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia under a license of en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. Since this is a close case, I'm going to see what some others think before taking any furhter steps. The WCHF logo most likely belongs to en:Cattle Hill Wind Farm. It's quite complex and almost certainly is under copyright protection in the United States and Australia. This logo cannot really be kept on Commons without the copyright holder's COM:CONSENT. While it might seem unlikely that FLELMO isn't the copyright holder (or the copyright holder's representative), I guess there's always a chance that they are either one of the two. So, I'm going to tag this one with template {{Npd}} to give them a chance to try and clarify things; if they do nothing, the file will be deleted by a Commons administrator in about a week. These uploads could simply be a case of misunderstanding COM:NETCOPYVIO and COM:Own work as opposed to an intentional attempt to upload copyright violating content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I have uploaded a few logos myself to Wikipedia, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cattle_Hill_Wind_Farm_Logo.png and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stockyard_Hill_Wind_Farm_Logo.png under the fair use license. I think the problem comes as FLELMO has uploaded images under "Own Work", which, unless they have a conflict of interest undisclosed, cannot be true. I think this situation could be rectified by simply deleting the images claimed to be own work from Commons and uploaded as a fair-use logo on Wikipedia. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Editors often upload files as their “own work” even in cases when it’s not. In some cases, all that is needed is for the file’s description and file’s licensing to be changed to something more appropriate without actually deleting the file in question. That might be all that’s needed for the Moorabool Farms logo. It could be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia if it ends up deleted from Commons. In that case though, the file would be too simple for copyright protection in the US which means it can be uploaded as “PD-ineligible-USonly” instead of as non-free content. Before doing that though, better wait to see if it’s deleted from Commons first. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done One is {{PD-textlogo}}, the other is deleted. Yann (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Colorised Ambedkar.png

A concern was expressed at en:Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#Request for comment on infobox image change about the copyright status of File:Colorised Ambedkar.png. This image claims copyright based on Indian law, but don't we require it to be based on Wikimedia's HQ country (U.S.) law? Also, note that it is a derivative work (colorised), which might affect things. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The image must be in public domain both in the USA and the country of its origin. Ruslik (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Ramanarayanadatta Astri

Hi, I couldn't find the dates for this artist (IA), but the artworks do not seem old. Any idea? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Best if a Hindi reader could look at the front matter of the IA volumes for dates, art credits &c. However, Gita Press say they’ve operated since 1923, for an initial t.p.q., as I guess they would have commissioned the illustrations.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. For an initial t.a.q. of publication, there’s a 1965 library stamp (which I guess to be the accession date, and from the bookplate I conjecture to be not long after publication).—23:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at the IA volumes, and there is no date. The accession date could be shortly or a long time after the publication, so it doesn't help much. BTW the translator from Sanskrit to Hindi is Ramnarayan Dutt Shastri Pandey, whose dates are also unknown. Yann (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

File:The New England Journal of Medicine logo.svg

Does this really not meet the threshold of originality? I would've thought that the orange part of the logo is original enough. Bait30 (talk) pls ping me when you reply 20:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, probably over the UK ToO, which is very low. But how old is this logo? The dates are in the 19th century. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It cannot be older than 1928 (year at six o'clock position), but I would say the seal is de-minimis given the overall proportions of the logotype. And Yann, we are talking about "New England" as in the north-eastern coast of the United States, and not a "new journal from England". De728631 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

OK for New England ;o). But if the 1928 version is just a copy from an ealier version, then no problem. Yann (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

According to this editorial, that part of the logo was first published in July 1949.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this is above US TOO. So it depends on whether it appeared without a copyright notice on a "considerable number of copies". Many logos from that period have fallen out of copyright (with their owners content to protect them with trademark alone), but for a journal it's unclear where the logo would be published or displayed publicly other than the journal itself (which probably bore a copyright notice). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If it first made its appearance in the journal in 1949, it would appear that it is PD-US-not_renewed, as per this page the first renewed issues of the New England Journal of Medicine was January 1957. You might argue the vectorization itself could be copyrightable, but the original graphic would be expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Is Template:PD-US-1978-89 inconsistent with Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US?

Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US seems to suggest that a work published in the US after 1984 will still be copyrighted even if the work fails to comply with both the 5-year registration and notice requirements. The rationale is that the 5-year period for registration would not hit 5 years until after 1989 when the rules changed. This seems inconsistent with the tag {{PD-US-1978-89}}, which implies that something published in 1989 could theoretically be in the public domain if neither registration nor notice was adhered to within 5 years. Which is it? 1984? 1989? Am I missing something? I'd appreciate any insights. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why that page states 1984. Notices were no longer required as of March 1989, but the renewal etc. requirements did not stop for works published prior to that. In 1992 the renewal requirements were dropped (thus the 1964 line on renewals) but don't think that law did anything to remove the 5-year registration requirement for works published before 1989 (to avoid loss of copyright without notice). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Source unknown PD-old

Can I get a check on my assumption that the three images numbered in sequence starting with File:Birmingham Crematorium, Perry Barr - 1903 (assumed) - 01.jpg are OK as PD-UK-anon? They were posted to a non-public Facebook group by someone who found them on another unknown (I did ask) Facebook group. They appear to be from the time of the building's 1903 opening, and from an unidentified printed source. The usual image search tools (including Google, Bing and TinEye) do not find them elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems so. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madonna, Rotterdam, 26-8-1987.jpg

Hi, This image is used more than 100 times, but the copyright issue seems real. This needs more eyes. Comments? Yann (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

1966 UK business cards: ToO?

Would we say that these business cards fall below the threshold of originality? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Could we use a reverse image search bot to fight copyright violations?

Throwing out an idea here; please let me know if it's been considered before or would need changes to work.

An extremely common occurrence here is for new users to upload images they found elsewhere on the internet and claim them as own work. We catch many of these, but some seem to fall through the cracks. Would it be possible to create a bot that goes through all uploads by new users and compiles a list of the ones that return results from a reverse image search and the URLs from those results? Patrollers could then go through that and challenge licenses as needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)