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
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.


Composers for silent films

[edit]

For silent films without synchronized sound, are composers ever considered co-authors in the EU? The Copyright Duration Directive (Article 2) includes "the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work", which I've usually seen interpreted on Commons as applicable only when that music is part of the upload.

This question impacts several videos and images related to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (e.g. 1, 2, 3), but I imagine there are other silent films that are in a similar situation. hinnk (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I understand it, the Copyright Duration Directive sets the same copyright term to the entire film, even if you don't use the soundtrack. However, I didn't realise that this was a silent film. I don't know if music for a silent film is counted as a part of the cinematographic work under the EU directive. I assume that the orchestra at the cinema theatre was meant to play the music when the film was shown. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the problem here is the term 'work', which is what is protected under copyright law. The copyright applies to the work as a whole, and so the copyright of the entire work expires at the same time. Therefore, it is necessary to know what the 'work' is. This can be compared to free licences which normally apply to a 'work' - a few years ago, there was a long discussion when someone asked what a 'work' was in terms of resized photographs.
Article 1.1 of Directive 2006/116/EC states that the copyright to a work expires 70 years after the death of the author. However, if it is a joint work, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last author, and this applies to the work as a whole, so the heirs of the author who died first benefit from this by holding copyright until 70 years after the one who died last.
Films were notoriously complex in EU countries with differing interpretations of who the author is and what the work is, so Article 2.2 seeks to address the copyright term problem by setting a common copyright term.
Under old (pre-1996) Swedish law, the cinematographic work seems to have been the plot as a manuscript in text form, whereas other aspects of the film such as music, decors, dresses and animation frames were separate works, each of them with separate authors and separate 50 years p.m.a. copyright terms. I don't know how other EU countries handled this, but it is my understanding that it varied from country to country. If you leave Europe and go to the United States, you will find that a film which was registered for copyright was registered as a whole, i.e. the script, music, decors, animation frames (if it's an animated film) etc. were not separately registered for copyright, and there may have been EU countries who under the old law regarded the film in its entirety as a single work instead of treating the film as many separate works. It is my understanding that other EU countries may have either more or fewer film authors in their old copyright laws. For example, is the cameraman an author?
Article 2.2 fixes this by deciding that the film as a whole is a single work and so the copyright to the entire film expires at the same time, 70 years after the longest living of the listed people, even if you only use a part of the film which might not contain any contributions by some of those listed in the directive.
Article 10.1 then unfixes this by stating that for pre-1995 films, the directive doesn't shorten the copyright term. This means that you first need to wait for the expiration of the work (i.e. the film as a whole) under the EU copyright term, and after that you need to check what the definition of a work and an author was in the source country before July 1995 and determine if the copyright term also has expired under the old copyright law (i.e. you might need to verify that additional people have been dead for 50 or 70 years before you can use either the entire film or a part of the film).
The people in Article 2.2 are not necessarily authors of the film, and Article 2.1 only touches on the topic of authors. The director is one of the authors of post-1995 films, but there may be co-authors which are defined in national law, and for pre-1995 films the directive says nothing about who the author is. The copyright holder of a work would normally be the original author, but to avoid problems, I assume that companies producing films normally arrange to have the copyright transferred to the companies so that they won't risk having hundreds of rightsholders who own the rights to specific parts of the film and who therefore have the right to prohibit distribution of he film.
The question of what constitutes the work in the case of a silent film is an interesting question, as I don't know if the music can be argued to be part of the film or if it is treated as a separate work which is separately copyrighted for 70 years from the death of the composer. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gnom or Pajz: Do you want to comment something about this question? --Rosenzweig τ 17:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. The award of coauthorship to film contributors varies considerably within the EU. See P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2016) 145 ("Another difficulty of film protection lies in the determination of the list of co-authors of the film. The problem with audiovisual works is that there are very different requirements among jurisdictions concerning the nature of the contributions to a joint work, which results in disparities in the list of potential coauthors."). The legislative intent is, however, fairly clear in countries like France, where the law lists various contributors as presumed film coauthors, including "the author of musical compositions with or without words specially created for the work" (L. 113-7 CPI). That seems squarely applicable to somebody who, say, composes and arranges music accompanying a silent film. The same is not true in countries like Germany, where there is no statuatory presumption and coauthorship always requires that "several persons have jointly created a work without it being possible to separately exploit their individual shares in the work" (Section 8(1) UrhG). Of course, just because a composition may have been made specifically for a film shouldn't prevent it from being separately exploitable; therefore, the general view in Germany is that composers of film scores are not coauthors of the film (see eg D Thum, "§ 8" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 32). On the other hand, the Federal Supreme Court has held that the Tonmeister of a film may qualify as its coauthor (BGH GRUR 2002, 961 – Mischtonmeister), so even in Germany the "sound portion" of a film is not entirely irrelevant when it comes to film coauthorship. // As Stefan2 notes, the coauthorship question in conceptually independent of the individuals named in Article 2(2) of the Term Directive. Across the EU, in a post-1 July 1995 film the term of protection ends pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Term Directive, no matter if the people named there are coauthors or not. Who the coauthor is would only matter when we have, say, a release under a free license because that would have to come from the coauthors (or their licensees). Germany takes the same approach for pre-1 July 1995 works with the caveat that if there is a coauthor not named in Article 2(2) who lived longer than the people named there, then protection would expire 70 years following their death (Section 137f(1) UrhG). I'm pretty sure other EU countries follow a similar approach. // I would also point out that when you talk about "images" (as in: single frames) of the film, then at least in Germany, the general view is that using those does not infringe the copyright in the film, so it doesn't matter who the coauthors of the film or the Article 2(2) individuals are. The relevant rights in these cases are solely the photographer's copyright in the image (or their related right in the simple photograph if the originality threshold is not reached), typically acquired by the cameraperson (BGH GRUR 2014, 363 [20] – Peter Fechter), and the related right of the film producer (Section 94 UrhG; Article 2(d) Infosoc Directive) (BGH GRUR 2018, 400 [19] – Konferenz der Tiere). — Pajz (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pajz: Thanks. Follow-up question: You write “Germany takes the same approach for pre-1 July 1995 works with the caveat that if there is a coauthor not named in Article 2(2) who lived longer than the people named there, then protection would expire 70 years following their death (Section 137f(1) UrhG).” So would a film like de:Der letzte Mann (1924) still be protected in Germany because the film's cameraman de:Karl Freund (Kameramann) (1890–1969) died less than 70 years ago? Also, the film's composer (music for a silent film) de:Giuseppe Becce (1877–1973) is apparently not considered a co-author in Germany (if I correctly understood what you wrote above) and therefore not relevant for the term duration (in Germany) because it's a film from before July 1995? --Rosenzweig τ 10:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig, first point: Yes. Second point: No, I guess the idea is that if the film was still protected on 1 July 1995, then the new Article 2(2) scheme becomes applicable (but can never lead to a shortening of the protection term). So, in your example, because the cameraman died in 1969 and is a coauthor, the film was still protected on 1 July 1995. Therefore, the term of protection is now the "old term" (longest-living coauthor + 70 years) or the "new term" (longest-living individual named in Article 2(2) + 70 years), whichever expires later. As a result, ignoring all other contributors, the Term Directive would have led to an extension of the copyright term of that film. I just verified and indeed Dreier (T Dreier, "§ 65" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 7) essentially gives this exact example (new rules led to an extension of the term "wenn einer der vier Genannten im konkreten Fall entweder keinen schöpferischen Beitrag geleistet hat und er von keinem anderen Miturheber des Filmwerkes überlebt wird, oder sofern er nicht als Miturheber des Filmwerkes angesehen wird (wie nach der hM der Drehbuchautor, der Verfasser von Dialogen und der Komponist der Filmmusik)"; internal references omitted, underlining added). — Pajz (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Swedish films, I have always assumed, possibly wrongly, that a cameraman is a photographer and so you apply the copyright term for photographs, which in the German situation probably also means the pre-1995 threshold for differing between photographic works of art and simple photos. In the same way, I have assumed, again possibly wrongly, that you should not use the death year of a child actor but instead the much shorter copyright term for performances. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2, hm, in Germany, the cameraperson would be a photographer of thousands of photos (photographic works or simple photographs) as well as, at least potentially, a coauthor of the film. I say "potentially" because as always, a coauthor still has to actually make an original contribution to the film. If the director leaves no room for the cameraperson's creativity, they cannot be a coauthor. (They also won't win an Oscar.) It's definitely possible for this to happen: Think of routine sequences in a documentary, or of some assistant camera operator in a movie who has no creative influence of their own. But I would say it's fairly obvious that a cinematographer responsible for a fiction film as in Rosenzweig's example would pass the bar under German law. Back to the initial point: If, say, you play the film in a cinema, you communicate to the public both the film and the thousands of photos it is made from, even though they are not perceived individually by viewers of the film (BGH GRUR 2014, 363 [21] – Peter Fechter). If you take one frame from the film and put in on Wikimedia Commons, it would not be a communication to the public of the film (because the elements justifying the film copyright are not present in a single screenshot) but the cameraperson's rights in the individual photograph would still be infringed. So the cameraperson is definitely a photographer in Germany as well, just not only a photographer. Again, the situation seems heterogeneous within the EU. For instance the cinematographer is not among the presumed coauthors in French law and, according to Kamina, French courts seem reluctant to treat camerapersons as coauthors (even though they've done so); on the other hand, again according to Kamina, the (principal) cameraman is specifically listed as a presumed coauthor in at least Croatia, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland (P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2016) 174f). // As for the actors, they should typically not play a role for the copyright in the film (in their capacity as actors); I would be surprised if there is a EU country where this is different. — Pajz (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pajz (talk · contribs) Thanks again. So basically, to determine the year in which German films from before July 1995 (and probably similarly in other EU countries) are free we have to a) calculate the term accd. to the EU Directive (last person with one of the four named functions to die + 70 years pma) b) calculate the old term (last co-author to die + 70 years pma) and then c) take the longer of those terms.
To do that we would need to know who can be co-author of a film (in Germany). The composer is not a co-author per the above. Director, screen writer and dialogue writer (all also mentioned in the EU Directive) would most likely be co-authors, as would the cameramen/-people and probably also sound engineers (Tonmeister) as mentioned above. Who else can be a co-author? Producers? Film editors? Makeup people? Production designers? There is quite a list of people who could be co-authors. --Rosenzweig τ 13:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This diverges enough from Article 2(2) that, whatever the answer is, we'll probably want to add a summary to COM:GERMANY and review all the PD-US-expired works in Category:Films of Germany by year. Cinematographers alone mean films by Fritz Arno Wagner, Karl Freund, Helmar Lerski, or anyone with an unknown death year would need to be deleted/transferred from Commons. hinnk (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid so, yes. Composers of music to accompany silent films like de:Willy Schmidt-Gentner (1894–1964) or de:Giuseppe Becce (1877–1973) are another group of people to be considered. --Rosenzweig τ 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So probably everyone who made a contribution to the film which exceeds COM:TOO Germany needs to have been dead for at least 70 years before the full German film can be uploaded to Commons, whereas other rules apply for single screenshots? For Swedish films, I think that the corresponding rule is that all of the four EU people must have been dead for at least 70 years and that anyone else who made a contribution exceeding COM:TOO Sweden must have been dead for at least 50 years.
I didn't think that there would be any creativity in the cameraman's works. Maybe you are right about that. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig, I agree with your summary of the procedure. As for potential coauthors, the Federal Supreme Court remarked a few years ago, non-exhaustively, that "often, in addition to the director, the cameraman and the film editor may qualify as authors of the film work" (BGH GRUR 2011, 714 [58] – Der Frosch mit der Maske). I haven't done any in-depth research into this, but maybe this is a starting point just based on two or three legal commentaries:
(+) director (This is the only one that is de facto a given, as confirmed by the CJEU in C-277/10 – Luksan v. van der Let.)
(+) director of photography/cinematographer/(head) camera operator (If they had room for an original contribution. Some commentators say this is "usually the case" in a film work [JB Nordemann, "§ 89" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 21], others emphasise that this is usually the case in cinematic productions, but less likely in daytime dramas or documentaries [U Dobberstein, M Schwarz, and G Hansen, "Die Inhaber des Urheberrechts am Filmwerk" in M Schwarz (ed), Handbuch Filmrecht (6th edn. Beck 2021) paras 10ff].)
(+) film editor (If they had room for an original contribution. Nordemann [op. cit., para 22] writes that this is "usually" the case, according to Dobberstein et al. [op. cit., para 15] "many times".)
(+) sound designer/sound engineer/Tonmeister (If they had room for an original contribution. This seems to be treated by commentators as less frequently the case. The Supreme Court held that the Tonmeister can in principle be a coauthor [BGH GRUR 2002, 961, 962 – Mischtonmeister]. Nordemann [op. cit., para 23] writes that the individual has to "create a distinctive sound world" for the film, which is more likely the case in cinematic films, less so in daytime dramas. Dobberstein et al. [op. cit., para 23] write that coauthorship can arise "on a case-by-case basis".
(+) special effects supervisor/visual effects supervisor (If they had room for an original contribution.)
(+/-) costume designer/make-up designer (usually not but possible in certain cases when the costumes/make-up have a particular impact on the atmosphere of the film)
(-) assistant directors, assistant DOPs, assistant film editors, assistant sound designers/engineers/Tonmeister (not enough room for original expression)
(-) actors
(-) producer
(-) set designer (separately exploitable work, hence no coauthorship. Note of course that if, say, an architectural work is created for a film and the clip/screenshot/... on Wikimedia Commons shows that work, that would infringe the set designer's copyright in that particular work. Same goes, mutatis mutandis, for composers and screenwriters.)
(-) composer (separately exploitable work; see note above)
(-) screenwriter (separately exploitable work; see note above)
So my personal take-away from this would be that, in practical terms, the most relevant coauthors are (1) the director (whose year of death needs to be considered anyway for the Article 2(2) test), (2) the DOP/cinematographer/(head) camera operator and (3) the film editor. Others seem to be more of a case-by-case consideration and I have no idea how that could realistically be done on Wikimedia Commons as part of routine checks. I guess if, say, a sound person received an important award for their contribution, they perhaps should be considered. — Pajz (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several of those roles only apply to photographic films with actors, but there are also animated films where some of the roles are different. For example, there are no actors, the 'cameraman' only does the simple task of taking photos of animation frames created by others and there are animators producing art. There is also computer animation, but not a lot before 1995 and all of those will remain protected for many more decades anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to editing COM:GERMANY to mention this, we should probably edit COM:EU and mention both Article 2.2 and Article 10.1 because Article 10.1 probably messes up the copyright term for films in several other EU countries too and the laws of all EU countries would need to be investigated so that we can find out where there is a problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I managed to access the 2002 edition of Kamina's book and took a quick look at it. On pp. 17-18, it is suggested that the 1901 copyright law for literary works didn't provide any protection for films at all and that films therefore only were protected as photographs under the 1876 law. The copyright to photographs expired five years after publication and there were copyright formalities. Does this mean, for German films, that we can ignore the old law if the film is very old (created before some change to the law)? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really say, but will remark that the 1907 law de:Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie did protect photographs for 10 years, and in 1940, the Gesetz zur Verlängerung der Schutzfristen für das Urheberrecht an Lichtbildern extended the protection to 25 years (per de:Bildrechte). The 1965 law, de:Urheberrechtsgesetz (Deutschland), finally had specific rules for films. In the official Begründung (rationale, justification ...) for the law (see here, II.8 Besondere Bestimmungen für Filme it says that accd. to the previous laws, co-authors of the film are all persons which made a creative contribution to the film. So at some point in time the co-authorship rules must have come into play. --Rosenzweig τ 18:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further into Kamina's book, it seems that protection of films was added to the 1908 revision of the Berne Convention. Probably something changed at that point.
The link you provided states that Wer zu diesem Personenkreis gehört, ist streitig. Sounds like problems in deletion requests as we won't know if we are looking for the correct people's death years. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Old rules
Ein Filmspiel in 6 Akten von Carl Mayer und Hans Janowitz: Not authors of the film, authors of a separate work. Full film: need to be dead for at least 70 years as the separate work is used in the film. Single screenshot: maybe need to be dead for 70 years (if the screenshot shows something creative from the script that they wrote). Died 1954 and 1944, so OK.
Hergestellt von der Decla-Film-Gesellschaft Berlin: A company is not an author, so OK.
Regie: Robert Wiene: Author of the film. Full film: needs to be dead for at least 70 years. Single screenshot: no creative contribution, death year does not matter. Died in 1938, so OK.
Dekorative Ausstattung: Hermann Warm // Walter Reimann // Walter Röhrig: Not authors of the film, authors of separate works. Full film: need to be dead for at least 70 years as the separate works are used in the film. Single screenshot: depends on what the screenshot shows. What if you don't know who did what decorations in the film? Warm died in 1976, Reimann 1936, Röhrig 1945. Reimann and Röhrig are OK, Warm is  Not OK.
Die Hauptrollen: many names: Not authors. They may have held rights as performers, but those rights expired many decades ago. OK
Photographie: Willy Hameister: Author of the film. Also created thousands of separately copyrighted photographs. Full film, film authorship: needs to be dead for at least 70 years due to being an author of the film. Single screenshot, film authorship: not relevant as the film is not used. Full film, single photographs: the copyright term expired 10 years after the film was made or published and you probably only use the old law here? Single screenshots, single photographs: Here you probably use the new law which says that the cameraman needs to be dead for at least 70 years? He died in 1938, so OK.
Giuseppe Becce, who made the music, isn't credited in the film. Not an author of the film, author of a separate work. Full film: only relevant if the music is included. Single screenshot: not relevant. He died in 1973, so  Not OK if the music is included.
EU rules
The cinematographic work enters the public domain 70 years after the death of the last to die of Mayer, Janowitz, Wiene and Becce.
Full film, with sound:  Not OK as Becce hasn't been dead for at least 70 years.
Full film, without sound: still  Not OK due to Becce even though his contributions haven't been included?
Question
The EU copyright term applies to the EU cinematographic work. What is the EU cinematographic work? Is it the same as the cinematographic work under the old law? In other words, are the separate works under the old law part of the EU cinematographic work or not? I don't see a definition in the directive of what a cinematographic work is. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting discussion. It does look likely that Nosferatu, after all, will become public domain in Germany only in 2029. FYI, I posted a pointer / attempt at summary in German-language Wikipedia's copyright forum at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Nosferatu_reloaded,_oder:_Altes_Urheberrecht_für_Stummfilme. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Der letzte Mann (1924) based on this discussion. @Yann and Reneradelsilver: FYI as uploaders. --Rosenzweig τ 15:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose that we add something to COM:EU about the problems with films. Does the below proposal sound fine?

Cinematographic and audiovisual works

Article 2.1 of Directive 2006/116/EC states that the copyright to a cinematographic or audiovisual work expires 70 years after the last person to survive out of the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work.

Article 10.1 of the directive states that the directive does not have the effect of shortening the term of a work which was created before 1 July 1995. The old laws of some EU countries required that other people, in addition to those listed in Article 2.1, had been dead for a certain number of years, usually 50 or 70 years. In order to determine the copyright status of a cinematographic or audiovisual work, it is therefore necessary to also consult the old law of the source country.

Note that Article 2.1 does not define what a cinematographic or audiovisual work is, or what constitutes a separate work with a separately running copyright term. Furthermore, this doesn't seem to have been standardised in the former copyright laws of EU countries, which could lead to interpretation problems.

Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes, but we should add something like “some EU countries (like Germany and ...)” as an example. Germany because we have discussed the situation there extensively (above). Maybe other countries if we know more about the situation there. --Rosenzweig τ 15:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other types of works where the second paragraph would be relevant, or are audiovisual works the only form of media where we expect to have this kind of issue around changes to joint authorship? If we're not worried about other types of media, I'd support adding the first two paragraphs. The third paragraph doesn't provide any solid guidance, so at this point, I'd suggest omitting it. hinnk (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean Article 10.1, there are a few other cases where the old law had a longer copyright term:
  • The main copyright term is 70 years p.m.a., but it's 80 years p.m.a. in the old Spanish law.
  • The UK (which has left the EU but has kept this part of law), certain works get a minimum copyright term of 50 years from publication, which is longer than 70 years p.m.a. if the work was first published more than 20 years after the death of the author. This rule is as far as I know only relevant until 2040 or similar as the UK fixed this at some point.
  • As I understand it, while you use the rule of the shorter term for foreign works with regard to the standard 70 years p.m.a. term, you can't use it for the previous UK term of 50 years p.m.a.
  • The copyright to an anonymous work expires 70 years after publication if published within 70 years from creation, or otherwise 70 years from creation. However, the old Swedish law says that the copyright expires 50 years publication if it was published during the lifetime of the anonymous author, otherwise 50 years after the death of the anonymous author. I think that there was also a modification of the definition of anonymous, so maybe someone could be anonymous under the new term but not under the old term. I think that Germany also has complex rules for anonymous works which sometimes results in a longer copyright term than the standard EU term.
There are probably also other examples of this, some of them possibly very uncommon. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a PD-signature file

[edit]

There seems to be no problem with the licensing of File:Angelyne signature.png per se, but I'm wondering about the file's description. Can this be claimed as "own work" if the uploader isn't en:Angelyne? Does there also need to be a source provided to establish this is really en:Angelyne and not a "forgery" or "tracing"? FWIW, this signature seems to be the same as the one shown here, and that signature can be downloaded as file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I created regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo ITA Airways inspired by Alitalia

[edit]

Buenas se puede publicar el logo de ITA Airways inspired by Alitalia como este (https://cdn.businesstraveller.com/wp-content/uploads/fly-images/1552675/Logo-e1727677642949-916x516.png) ,si es logo simple se puede publicar?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22: No se puede acceder al enlace. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel:Aquí está (https://www.ita-airways.com/en_en) en la parte arriba aparece ITA Airways inspired by Alitalia. AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Los logos de ITA y de Alitalia me parecen demasiado simples para haber derechos de autor, pero el mini-logo "Skyteam" puede ser un problema. - Jmabel ! talk 07:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel:Te refieres a este (File:Skyteam Logo 001.svg) dice claramente {{PD-textlogo}}. AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Me sorpresa. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to English here, because this is for a more general audience. Do people think it is correct that this logo is considered below TOO? - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Pinging @Abzeronow @Yann @Bastique@Bedivere@Taivo@Glrx:any opinion?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Italy has a relatively high ToO. It's possible that it might be OK for Italy. But SkyTeam is headquartered in the Netherlands and I have doubts about that being below the ToO in the Netherlands. @Ellywa: Abzeronow (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:TOO Netherlands the work has to "bear the personal mark of the maker" to be eligible for copyright. IANAL but I am an amateur in drawing and painting, therefore I usually appreciate the design effort and creativity of logo's and other seemingly simple designs. Try for yourself. This logo is not simple at all imho.. it is very subtle... so it cannot be kept without permission. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Abzeronow that Skyteam logo would meet TOO in the Netherlands. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 22:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this is complex logo, it does not consist of simple geometrical figures. Taivo (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So nominate SkyTeam logos for deletion? Or ask SkyTeam to seek for a free license? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226:My opinion yes ,commencing a DR please. AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Filed at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Skyteam_Logo_001.svg. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info @Bastique@Abzeronow:look in enwiki (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So if we are deleting it, we should move it to en-wiki as a non-free logo, or possibly as below U.S. TOO if they don't care about the Netherlands' status. - Jmabel ! talk 02:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia has a template {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} that they use (We have one as well but ours is automatic deletion) - Bastique ☎ let's talk! 04:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are similar issues in quite a few other languages. - Jmabel ! talk 02:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow@Bastique:I've created this logo (File:Logo "ITA Airways inspired by Alitalia" (2024).png) whitout a logo of SkyTeam (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi, I wonder about the CC-0 license for images from the National Portrait Gallery, i.e. File:Louis Armstrong in Color (restored).jpg, currently nominate at FPC. While it is quite possible that this image and other with the same license claim are in the public domain due to lack of copyright notice or renewal, there is no publication information at the source. The source says gift of Elsie M. Warnecke, who is probably the heirs of Harry Warnecke, but nothing else. I also wonder who is Gus Schoenbaechler, and what was his role. It is quite unusual to have two photographers for one image. Opinions? Yann (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does CC-zero mean that the National Portrait Gallery owns the copyright and that they decided to license the image? Or is CC-zero for the restoration work?
I'm unsure how a photo could have multiple authors. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I am wondering. Yann (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a collaboration or one may have taken the photograph and the other made the Cabro print. Glrx (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if a photo was published attributed to a studio, rather than to an individual at that studio, it is a collective work for copyright purposes. This has been part of the ongoing mess we are trying to sort out about Studio Harcourt. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them have even 3 authors: File:Mildred Didrikson Zaharias, NPG 97 211.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Studio Harcourt is a French studio, but this is presumably not a French work. It is probably either a British work, as it is sourced to a British institution, or an American work, as the subject lived in the United States. If French law states that works attributed to a studio are collective works, this does not mean that British or American law does the same. It sounds like an odd rule; I've never heard of something like this before.
For example, Article 1 of the Swedish copyright law says that the copyright belongs to the one who creates the work. Article 7 states that the one who is credited as author is to be treated as being the author unless otherwise proven. If several people are listed as photographers of a photograph, it should be quite easy to prove that the credit is incorrect as a photo can't have multiple photographers. Probably it would then count as anonymous authorship.
Another thing about studios: I've seen lots of files on Wikipedia which are credited to Bassano Ltd, and w:Bassano Ltd redirects to an article about a person who died in 1913, but many of the photos were created after 1913. Do we have any information on who the photographers might be or if we can treat this as anonymous authorship? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the photographer if there are several people making adjustments to framing and camera settings? It also seems possible that there were multiple photographs merged or manual editing to the photos; some of Ansel Adams' pictures are composites of multiple photographs, and some degree of manual "photoshopping" went on since the first days of photographs. It could be a boss demanding to be credited alongside an underling, but there seems to be many options with reasons to credit multiple people for a photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2: These are purely US works, taken in USA by US photographers, and offered in a US institution. I don't see what Harcourt has to do with these, and it is a completely different situation. Yann (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read National Portrait Gallery as the National Portrait Gallery, whereas in this case it seems to be the National Portrait Gallery. How confusing! --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found one with 4 credited people: File:Jackie Robinson, NPG 97 135.jpg. I could understand credit for 2 people: one assistant for lighting, etc., but 4? Yann (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you list unreasonably many people, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes treated as an anonymous work at some point. Let's say that someone would list everyone in the entire world as a co-author.
@Stefan2: Well, that is what the source says. Yann (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Algorithms-NetFlow2.png

[edit]

This file was first uploaded to en.wikibooks back in 2004 as {{PD-chart}}, but was uploaded to Commons in 2016 as CC BY-SA 4.0, and the new uploader claimed to be the copyright holder, even though they are a different user than the one who uploaded it to en.wikibooks 12 years prior. Is the new uploader's CC BY-SA claim valid? JJPMaster (she/they) 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This new uploader (NatasaVuksanovic123) did this with many files from b:Algorithms. See the first eleven files here. JJPMaster (she/they) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The license on the files should be corrected to PD-chart and the Wikibooks image as the source. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 04:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JJPMaster: I warned them for that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benito Mussolini portrait

[edit]

With all the recent fuss with the Donald Trump official portrait, it has come to my mind this portrait of Benito Mussolini. Is it in the public domain? Photographer is G. Caminada (apparently Gianni Caminada, I could not find death date). It was published pre-1930 (see for example this one in the Spanish periodical press). Does {{PD-Italy}} applies as "simple photograph"? I do not know how high is the threshold in Italy with regard to photographs and so. Strakhov (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly not a "simple photograph"; it's a pretty deliberate portrait. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Strakhov PD-Italy do apply to simple photographs, and as Jmabel said, this is not the case. There are 3 options.
  1. it's a work for the Italian Government, thus its Template:PD-ItalyGov (20 years after publication)
  2. it's a work for hire for Mussolini, then the rights belong to his heirs 70 years after death (1943)
  3. it's a work for Gianni Caminada, then it's like above: PD 70 years after his death
All of them are possible, because Mussolini was prime minister in 1922, and Gianni Caminada was active in the 1920s. I am leaning more toward the second option: Mussolini was also a well known journalist and it's possible that the portrait was commissioned by him. Ruthven (msg) 09:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 (commissioned photographs) exists or did exist similarly in other countries, and it usually means the rights are with the person who commissioned the photo. But is the term duration really 70 years after the death of the person who commissioned the photo? Or rather the usual 70 years after the death of the author, even if the copyright is owned by someone else? In which part of Italian copyright/authorship law can this be found? --Rosenzweig τ 17:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Directive 2006/116/EC seems rather clear that the copyright term depends on the author, i.e. the photographer, not on the one who commissioned the photo. If the former Italian law states that you should use the death year of the one who commissioned the photo, then I think that it becomes 70 years after the photographer or 50 years after the death of the one who commissioned the photo+war extensions, whichever is longer, per Article 10.1 of the directive. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Antola, Alessandra (2013) "Photographing Mussolini" in Stephen Gundle, Christopher Duggan, Giuliana Pieri , ed. The Cult of the Duce: Mussolini and the Italians, Manchester University Press, pp. 182−183 the photograph was taken in 1921 and "later reproduced as a postcard". At the very least, if no info on Caminada's death is found, it could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in 2042 as per {{PD-old-assumed}}. Strakhov (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo off of social media

[edit]

Hello people of Wikipedia, I am quite new to editing Wikipedia articles and I have a question. I would like to upload a photograph of someone onto a Wikipedia page, it is taken directly from the individuals twitter and I am not familiar enough with the rules that apply to freely licensed or public domain content to know if I should upload this image or not. Advice would be appreciated, thank you. Djsnaggletoof (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A photo uploaded to social media like Twitter or Facebook cannot be assumed to be freely licensed. Do not upload this photo to Commons unless you have specifically confirmed that the author (who may not be the user posting it!) has released it under a free license. Omphalographer (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rule of thumb: over 95% of images on the Internet are neither in the public domain nor free-licensed. If you don't have a specific reason to believe a particular image falls into one of those two categories, it is very unlikely that it does. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello! I'm asking if this following logo can be fall to PD-textlogo? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] Thank you. Royiswariii Talk! 10:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Royiswariii: You don't say what country. Threshold of originality differs by country. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the Phillipines. Bedivere (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel It's from Philippines. Royiswariii Talk! 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive copyrighted books- with public domain images.

[edit]

Some searchable copyrighted books in the Internet Archive only have access to a limited number of pages, due to their copyright. Some books contain "public domain" photographs. For example, there are World War II photographs, reproduced within some books, that have attribution or credit to various U.S. Government agencies. So, can I take a screenshot of these Public Domain photos and upload them to the Commons with links to the Internet Archive photo source page as well as a link to the photo credit page? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: Absolutely. Just make sure to give the correct PD tag. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just wanted to check. Thanks, Jmabel -- Ooligan (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of Originality query - Ellsworth Kelly

[edit]

This is somewhat of a philosophical question, so I apologize in advance. Was wondering how to assess some modern/contemporary works of art by a recently deceased American artist, Ellsworth Kelly. Kelly's estate and foundation (the owners of his intellectual property) and commercial gallery generally claim copyright on all works the artist produced in his lifetime. But there seem to be some strong questions about his work in regards to the threshold of originality requirement in U.S. copyright law. Specifically, many of Kelly's works comprise monochromatic or multi-color paintings, sculptures, drawings, and prints comprising simple geometric forms with uniform, flatly applied color and no visible creative/hand-made flourishes. Obviously we can't make any sort of blanket statement about the totality of his work, but I wanted to ask about a few examples (from the collections of the US National Gallery, Museum of Modern Art, and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art) to get a sense of what might be allowable on Commons. Listed from most likely below the threshold to most questionable. The works toward the beginning of the list seem straightforwardly below the threshold of originality, as they are nothing more than simple geometric lines or shapes with uniformly applied color and no visible elements of creative authorship. Further down, I have to think there's a possibility of copyright based on the arrangement of PD elements, as many of his multi-form works comprise several monochromatic geometric forms as opposed to just one. Thank you in advance to anyone who can offer some analysis, I'm just hoping to figure out which of Kelly's bodies of work would be allowable in images here.

19h00s (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's work is frankly a pain in the butt in that respect. I think how I'd handle it would not be driven by law. I would not upload these to Commons as Kelly's work until such time as we could if they exceeded the threshold of originality. On the other hand, if someone were to upload a similar image—possibly even for most of these an identical image—in a context unrelated to Kelly, I would never say "that's a copyright violation, copying Ellsworth Kelly's work." - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg

[edit]

Hello,

this image, File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg, is declared as being in the public domain. But it does contain a derivative of a CC-by-SA 3.0 licensed work, File:中華民國第12、13任總統馬英九先生官方肖像照.jpg. I do not think that this mix-up is legally possible. Am I mistaken, or what kind of action is to be taken? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube license verification assistance

[edit]

I'm unable to find any mention of a CC license on the YouTube source provided for File:Jakefuture27.png. The uploader says they used filtered searching to find the video on YouTube, and I can replicate that; however, I still can't find any mention of a CC license. So, perhaps some others can take a look at this just in case I'm missing something. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube shorts doesnt show the license. You need to go on the regular video view in this caseː https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1NLQKEpbZ8, open the description and scroll down to the end of the description and it is there
JavaScript to go to go from shorts to regular video, you can save it as bookmarkː 
javascript:(function() { window.location.href = window.location.href.replace('shorts/', 'watch?v=') })();
 REAL 💬 ⬆   12:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaining Wikipedia written permission for photos.

[edit]

I have incorporated 52 pictures from Wikipedia Commons into my history book of people and events from the 1600's to 1865. My publisher would like either a written permission, or something similar, from Wikipedia for them to use the pictures. How can I get such permission. Raymond A. Kreps (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymond A. Kreps: Please see COM:REUSE, and notice the "m" in Wikimedia.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that almost any image created before 1865 is likely to be in the public domain, so permission is not necessary (you can just tell your publisher that the photos are in the public domain and therefore free of copyright restrictions). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo de DP en Venezuela

[edit]

Buenas, se puede publicar el logo de DP venezuela como este (https://http2.mlstatic.com/D_NQ_NP_689093-MLV75599031079_042024-O.webp) si el logo es simple se puede publicar con PD-textlogo? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sí, es simple. Después de subir tantos logos, debe ser bastante claro. ¿Intentas preguntar explicatamente cada vez? - Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Would any of these violate any copyright rules on Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia? I ask this mainly due to branding and logos etc and anything else in the images I may have missed.

Helper201 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Why do you want to upload the first 2? These come from an account advertising the use of drugs, so I don't see how this could be in scope here. The third one is OK for me. Yann (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yann we have quite a limited number of images of cannabis edibles on Wikimedia Commons, especially when it comes to food products or food additives that aren't sugar, fat or desert based, like cookies, gummies and cakes. So, I want to help add more cannabis edible images, especially ones of greater variety to what we have already. Unfortunately, I can't find much to this end, so I'd like to know if commit any violations before uploading. Helper201 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second one could be problematic for the photos in the background. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian rifle photographs

[edit]

Hello, I recently came across these photos on the Smithsonian website ([6] and [7]) and was thinking about uploading them on commons but they are marked as "Usage Conditions Apply". I also found that "When the work is original to a Smithsonian employee, that work irrevocably exists in the public domain" according to Template talk:PD-USGov-SI. After checking the metadata of the photos, they seem to have been taken by Robin Schaefer, the same author who, for example, took these photos which are marked as public domain.

So can those photographs also be considered public domain despite the "Usage Conditions Apply" mark since they are taken by a Smithsonian employee? Alin2808 (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alin2808: Hi, and welcome. Where did you find that the two photos "seem to have been taken by Robin Schaefer"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says under "Authors" in the metadata of each photo. Alin2808 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also that Smithsonian rule applies to SI staffers who work directly for the federal government. SI Trust employees (not direct federal employees) would not qualify, as they don’t lose copyright for works created in the course of their jobs. And honestly half the people who work at SI actually work for the Trust, so you need to know specifically if the author of the image (whether that’s Schaefer or someone else) actually works/worked directly for the federal government. Which tbh is not always the easiest thing to ascertain, nor does it necessarily feel right to snoop on a random SI staffer because you found their name in a photo’s metadata. 19h00s (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that (read some previous discussions here), but if that's the case and the author is a Trust employee and he retains the copyright then why are those other photos (the example I gave) released in the public domain? There is virtually no difference between the rifles and their photographs that could affect their copyright: same author, belong to the same museum (National Museum of American History), and neither is on display. Alin2808 (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are theoretically any number of reasons that these specific images are further restricted by SI than the other examples you point to with possibly the same author. Some of those reasons could be negligible for Commons (e.g., an agreement made with the donors of these objects that images would not be freely published, which Commons can ignore), some of those reasons could be central to the issues we're discussing (e.g., a Trust employee made the photograph and therefore copyright was retained).
I would argue that Schaefer's name being on the metadata really doesn't prove anything. There are quite a few photographers working in an institution like this; was Schaefer actually the one who set up the shot and took the image, or was a colleague using their camera? This image was not published with a specific photographer credit line, and we cannot assume that the metadata is actually accurate, especially with an institution like SI that has a very large archival and photography staff.
Museums - including SI and other federal institutions - often embellish the degree to which images are restricted or otherwise incorrectly describe the copyright status of works in their collections. Where that can be clearly established - e.g., an American museum claiming a work of land art in the US is copyrighted, which is not legally possible - then there is well-established precedent on Commons to ignore the museum or authority making the claim of copyright. In this case, from my perspective, there is just not enough info to firmly establish a) who made this image and b) if they were an SI direct employee or SI Trust employee (and I would not be comfortable recommending you attempt to figure that out; federal workers already have it hard enough this week.) 19h00s (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or I could ask them. They appear to have an email just for discussing copyright conditions. Surely they'd agree to at least clarify why those photos are not listed as public domain. Alin2808 (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s your prerogative! But they may well be unable/unwilling to give a full explanation - speaking from experience, I can definitely imagine a reply that basically just restates the license terms as displayed on the website and doesn’t add any additional context for why it was licensed that way.
Enjoy your weekend! 19h00s (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo by Frank Muto, US Senate Democratic photographer

[edit]

I recently found an image that I would love to add to the Johnson desk article in a US Senate publication (Page 3 of S. Pub. 105-60, The Lyndon Banes Johnson Room). While I understand this publication is free to use as it was made by the US government the individual image is credited to Frank Muto, who was the US Senate Democratic photographer at the time. Can we assume that this image was taken as part of his official government duties so therefore is free to use? and advice would be great. Found5dollar (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Request with no page to post comments, just a link to multiple closed discussions.

[edit]

I want to be able to comment on this proposed mass DR, but there appears to be no page for me or anyone else to post a comment. I have never seen a missing comment page on a DR. Where should I post a comment?

This Deletion Request (DR) only has a link to multiple closed discussions. There is no specific reason given, except a generic reference to "the same issue as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream"

Please, the DR see here:

Thanks, Ooligan (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: The current DR is at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Moldova photographs taken on 2023-12-27, linked from the words "the nomination page" in the template on the file page. The other DR is just mentioned in the current one. --bjh21 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see @Bjh21. The link at the top to previous DRs was confusing. Thank you for your reply. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US licensing tag for images

[edit]

During the course of a review of the article on the en:battle of Meligalas in the English Wikipedia, a reviewer stated that two of the article's images need "a US licensing tag as well, since Wikimedia servers are in the US". The images (File:Borci na ELAS.jpg and File:BRAVOS-1940.jpg) are already uploaded with a license on the Commons. I am wondering if there is a user eager enough so that s/he could please help me navigate through the matter and find the appropriate tag for the US. Many thanks in advance, Ασμοδαίος (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how File:BRAVOS-1940.jpg could be out of copyright in the U.S. If it was still in copyright in Greece in 1996 (the URAA date) then the U.S. would give it 95 years of protection, dating from first publication. That cannot yet have expired, since the photo is less than 95 years old.
If the current licensing for File:Borci na ELAS.jpg is correct, then it is presumably {{PD-US-expired}}. May I ask which of the three bases listed in {{PD-North Macedonia}} is believed to apply here? Anyway, if it was out of copyright before January 1, 1996 in its home country, and its original publication did not involve simultaneous publication in the U.S., File:Borci na ELAS.jpg {{PD-1996}} should apply. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous Greek photo from 1940 would have expired in 1991, before the URAA date (Greece had 50pma terms at the time... well, non-retroactively increased to 70 years in 1993). That would be {{PD-1996}} if the date is correct and the photographer was not named. Unsure of the date of the other one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies, Jmabel and Carl Lindberg. I've now used {{PD-1996}} for File:BRAVOS-1940.jpg.
Re File:Borci na ELAS.jpg, the picture was taken between 1942 and 1945, the years when ELAS was active. I am not sure which of the three criteria mentioned in the licensing tag already existing applies to the file, so I made an inquiry to the file's uploader. I am also not sure I understand what Jmabel means when stating that [[:File:Borci na ELAS.jpg]] should apply in this case. Would you mind to elaborate? Thanks, Ασμοδαίος (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ασμοδαίος: I think @Jmabel meant {{PD-1996}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the other one... it will matter where it was first published (thus becoming the country of origin, and which country's laws we use). It seems it comes from an archive in North Macedonia. It could well have been PD there in 1996, so if that is the country of origin, it would also be PD-1996. If Greece is the country of origin, it would have been needed to be published in 1942 (or taken in 1942 but not published before 1993). If 1943 or later, its copyright would have been extended in Greece, and restored in the US. Do we know of any provenance from the North Macedonia archive? If that is the only known source, it may be enough to assume that it was published there -- so if PD-North Macedonia applies, it would also be PD-1996. If only published after 1971, it gets more complicated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image of newspaper page

[edit]

Can I use this image of the front page of the New York Times from July 1945? Is it eligible for Commons, or must it be fair use?

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/469049691_10162326933965917_7902521902660090642_n.png?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=0b6b33&_nc_ohc=xAdnim88SsQQ7kNvgG6C5JP&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&_nc_gid=AlNZyKOcT7S9n1GIeFD29uO&oh=00_AYD-aitK1ndXW7N2pJtjjq5cpwxYVowSk5oHU8ht8OiXzQ&oe=6799DFF7

The image is contained on this Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154365674975917&id=109589085916&set=a.10150379205590917

Other reproductions exist:

https://hallieephron.com/facts-behind-the-fiction-inspirations-for-there-was-an-old-woman/

DonFB (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DonFB: Those other sites using the file might be OK in doing so under a claim of en:fair use (even if they aware of that being the case), but Commons doesn't allow fair use content of any type as explained in COM:FAIR. That particular issue of The NYT wouldn't be old enough to be within the public domain per COM:HIRTLE just because of its age; so, what's going to need to be figured out is whether that particular issue was clearly marked with a copyright notice (and the other en:copyright formalities were taken care of), and whether its copyright was renewed if it was under copyright protection. If that issue didn't have its copyright formalities taken care of, there's a good chance it could be treated as {{PD-US-no notice}}. If it was protected by copyright, but that copyright wasn't renewed, it could be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Another concern is whether the photo is the original work of the paper. Photos and articles appearing in newspapers at that time weren't required to have separate copyright notices and formalities (only advertisements were required to have such things), so the copyright status of the photo could depend on the copyright status of the issue as long as its an original photo taken by a staff photographer. Of course, many newspapers did (and still do) get their photos from third-parties, and this can complicate things because the paper isn't really the copyright holder of the photo in suich a case. Given that particular photo, it seems like it would've been kind of hard for some run-of-the-mill staff photographer to take; so, there's a good chance it came from somewhere else. If you can find out more about the photo's en:provenance, then perhaps it might already be within the public domain per {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-Army}} given that it's related to an accident involving a US Army aircraft if it was taken by a member of the US military or an employee of the US federal government. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Yes, I did understand that fair use is ineligible for Commons. Sources say the photographer was a NYT employee. I think I will simply upload the image to en:wp and label it as fair use. DonFB (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DonFB: Just for reference, English Wikipedia does allow certain content to be uploaded as non-free use, but English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive than fair use by design, and there are ten criteria that each use of non-free content needs to meet of it to be considered a "valid" use. Unless there's a stand-alone English Wikipedia article either about this particular photo, this particular crash or this particular issue of The NYT, it's probably going to be hard to justify the non-free use of this photo in an article which briefly mentions the photo, crash or the paper. You might want to ask at en:WP:MCQ or en:WT:NFCC about using the file as non-free content before actually uploading the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My primary interest is the image of the NYT banner and the big three-deck headline below it, not the photo on paper's front page. A similar news photo, licensed as public domain, is already in the Wikipedia article about the July 1945 crash. Accordingly, I would crop the newspaper image to exclude its photo. My purpose is to illustrate the impact (pun not intended) of the event, as shown in a hometown newspaper, which also is known as the "newspaper of record" nationally. "First copyright renewals for periodicals" (https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html) shows the NY Times having renewed its copyright for daily issues from January 1, 1930 to April 30, 1933. That would seem to indicate copyright for the 1945 issue wasn't renewed, but I don't know if that's a valid interpretation of the data, and I certainly don't have expert understanding of these matters. DonFB (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Upenn periodicals page notes at the top -- This includes all active issue renewals through 1932. It might not show all renewals past that date. UPenn does say that no newspapers outside of New York renewed issues from before 1945, but the New York Times certainly did. The U.S. does not have a typographical arrangement copyright, and short phrases (which most titles would fall under) are below the threshold of originality. There can be a "selection and arrangement" copyright as well, so a particular grouping of titles (such as showing all the article titles, minus the photo and article text) may also be a problem. Any one particular title may be OK, though a longer one gets more arguable. The NYT banner by itself is almost certainly OK. If you crop out the other titles, and just have that one, it would come down to the question is if that much text is copyrightable or not in the US. I might lean to it being OK but I could see a little bit of an argument otherwise. Each phrase in the title is not copyrightable, but the combination / ordering... slight chance. But that seems thin to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments; my thought process has been similar. I'll probably upload as non-free at English Wikipedia and see if that is accepted. DonFB (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican FoP, graffiti with copyrighted character

[edit]

Expert help requested at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kuromi.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 05:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I am new here, and having trouble with images I've uploaded. I want to respect copyrights and have asked the authors of the images to complete the release form through the release generator. But this, too, is complicated and still in the works. The owner of the rights and I have a lot to learn still :)

But here's my question: these AntiCompositeBot messages I'm getting – are they aware that we are in the process of getting this all sorted? Louisetarp (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Louisetarp: These files should have had evidence of proper licensure when they were uploaded. Please fix their file description pages before uploading more like that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, Jeff, I appreciate your quick reply. Makes sense. I have to learn that it's a slow process.. :) Louisetarp (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Louisetarp: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Louisetarp: It can help to insert the template {{subst:PP}} into the licensing section of the file page. Gnom (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ooooh great! Thank you Gnom Louisetarp (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cambio de licencia del logo de White House

[edit]

Buenas necesito saber porque el Usuario Bedivere cambio de licencia a PD-USgov (File:Logo White House - President Donald Trump (2025).png) si en el sitio web del WH aparece CC-BY-3.0? AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Podrías haberme preguntado directamente a mí. La respuesta es simple: como obra de un funcionario federal de los EE.UU., está en el dominio público. Solo los materiales de terceros en el sitio web de la Casa Blanca están bajo aquella licencia. Bedivere (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere:Gracias por la respuesta solamente pregunté por este tema.👍 AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the DeepSeek logo covered by the MIT License?

[edit]

DeepSeek has published their logo in a GitHub repository under the MIT License. However, the repo also contains a custom license that does not allow users "to make use of [DeepSeek's] trademarks, trade names, logos." So my question is: are those restrictions related to copyrights or trademarks? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the latter refers to trademarks Bedivere (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Permission to use photos-figures for publication

[edit]

Dear Madam, dear Sir, I hope this email finds you well and that all is going smoothly for you and your loved ones.

We are currently preparing an article for a Special Issue of the Geoheritage journal, which is part of a series stemming from the RIV3P8 conference we organized at our university last year. For more information, please visit https://sites.google.com/view/riv3p8.

To illustrate our paper, we would like to include photos/images of the reptile-like bird Archaeopteryx and the fossilized skeleton of a female ichthyosaur giving birth to youngs, providing evidence of ovoviviparity (eggs hatching internally as an adaptation to a fully marine lifestyle). Both fossils were discovered in Jurassic sediments in Germany. We find their inclusion is highly relevant to the topic of our article.

Would you kindly consider providing us with these images and granting permission to use them in our publication? Additionally, if possible, could you provide the correct citation reference so we can properly credit them in our bibliography?

Thank you very much in advance for your time and consideration. Should you grant us permission, we will ensure that the images are properly attributed in the article.

We remain at your attention for further information or if you wish to discuss specific conditions regarding the use of these images. We look forward to your positive response.

Best regards, Abdelmajid Noubhani

Prof. Abdelmajid Noubhani Chouaib doukkali university Faculty of sciences, Geology Department Laboratory of Geosciences and Environmental Techniques P.O. Box 20, El Jadida – Morocco [redacted] 197.253.208.187 23:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons does not own any of the images posted on our site, so we cannot grant anyone any permissions to use these.
Every image posted on Wikimedia Commons should either be in the public domain or free-licensed, so all should be usable, though many require specific attribution and/or overt mention of a specific license. In every case, information about available license and required file name should be explicit on the individual file page.
For images that are not in the public domain, if you wish to make different arrangements than the overtly offered free license, you would have to contact the copyright-owner. - Jmabel ! talk 03:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was not an email message. I redacted some of your spammier personal identifying information. In addition to what Jmabel wrote, please see COM:REUSE.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There is no FOP for 3D artworks in Japan. Fake food samples are modeled replicas of real food (typically of restaurant menu items) for display. Would they technically be considered 3D artworks that may be copyrighted by the artist who made the samples? Atomicdragon136 (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Atomicdragon136: I think so.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I can't imagine a derivative work unless one particular one was the main focus of the photo. There may also be questions on how it was made -- if someone made a cast of an actual food item, that may not be copyrightable at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such food replicas are usually used by restaurants. The replicas are placed in the windows to give potential customers an idea of what food they can get in the restaurant. Meaning that the replicas are modeled after the actual food of the restaurant. See [8]. Can they still be considered creative work by the food artist if the restaurant gives them extremely detailed descriptions for how the result has to look like? As for the restaurant chef's arrangement of the food, I think that food arrangements are not copyrightable even if they are quite artistic? Nakonana (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is pretty tricky. Since restaurants provide food sample artists a detailed visual description of dishes to then make a virtually identical replica of, there isn't really much creativity here. But now that you mention this, I'm going to lean towards derivative photos of fake food samples being okay in terms of copyright, but would like others to weigh in their thoughts on this before concluding an answer. Atomicdragon136 (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia of India

[edit]

Hi, I have noticed that some users uploaded insignia of India without information, or with {{PD-India}} without the date of the original. I don't see anything in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India which would indicate that these are in the public domain. I find that there is lack of evidence to be under these licenses:

Opinions? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yann: I think DRs are in order.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to SVGs, the question is are they derivative of another graphic work -- the age of general design is not necessarily relevant (see Commons:Coats of arms). If they were copied/traced/extracted from existing drawings, then yes they are a problem, but a new drawing of a general design is often a separate expression of the idea, not a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please check this image and tell if it is licensed properly? The original design is linked in the description. Adiiitya (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notify Soap Boy 1 at the origin of my set of SVG indian insignias. Jpgibert (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading and hosting works that are copyrighted by the URAA

[edit]

I've read all the policies, guidelines, conversations, Etc. Etc. and I'm still not sure if people are allowed to upload works to Commons that are copyrighted per the URAA. Of course there's the "URAA artist" template that says "please do not upload photographs or scans of works" by artists that are still copyrighted due to the URAA. Yet Commons:URAA-restored copyrights says "a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion" and it seems like that's all we have, mere allegations that the files are copyrighted. I've certainly been involved in and seen plenty of DRs myself where people voted for the files to be kept because due that one little sentence and admins seem to follow along, at least sometimes. But hosting said images still seem to go against the precautionary principle. So can anyone provide an definitive answer? Can users upload images that are copyrighted because of the URAA and in cases where it's already happened can they be deleted as COPYVIO or not? Adamant1 (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were many times that people claimed something was restored by the URAA, but based on today's laws and terms, and not looking up the legal history as to what the law was in 1996 (particularly some EU countries which did not enact the EU directive until after January 1, 1996, or did it non-retroactively and only made it retroactive later). There can also be questions of simultaneous publication in the US, etc. In other words, you should be able to back up the allegation by pointing out what the law was at the time, and that the work was still under copyright in its source country then (and that it's not also a US work). So, by the wording of the guideline, the onus is a little bit on the person nominating for deletion under those reasons to back it up (not the uploader, necessarily). If the result of that investigation shows significant doubt that the file is public domain in the US, then it should be deleted -- works still must be public domain in the US, and that is part of US law. There are some who dislike deleting such works which are public domain in the country of origin, so you may find some DRs closed that way. But, the "allegation" part means that if it there is some solid reason to think the work was not restored, it may be best to keep even if not completely sure, if that is the only reason to delete a file. It can be a judgement call on "significant doubt" -- theoretical doubts do not rise to the COM:PRP level. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: Thanks for the thorough answer. Going by that then, am I correct to assume it would be OK for me to upload images that might or might not violate the URAA and then leave the rest up to whomever decides to nominate the images for deletion if anyone does? Or would that go against Commons:Copyright rules? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a judgment call too -- experienced users such as yourself should know a bit better; if you are completely ignoring the URAA and that is apparent, it might be easier to mass-delete rather than take admin time to go one by one. If you are pointing out the uncertainty in each upload, then I could see that. Though if one gets deleted, others uploaded under the same rationale could follow. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I ask because I have a bunch of European postcards I scanned from the 30s and 40s that I assume aren't copyrighted but am hesitant to upload because the URAA thing is pretty convoluted. I'll have to do more research on the whole thing. Of course I wouldn't intentionally upload copyrighted images. It just seems like having to research the laws of multiple European countries and who published the postcards when, while not speaking the languages, is a high bar if its probably not something people on here care about to begin with. Its certainly more of a hassle to figure out then normal copyright. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Western Europe, the limit date is 1930 except for France, where it is 1936. Eastern Europe laws were usually shorter. Yann (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Portugal was 50 years on the URAA date. Austria's URAA line for photographs is 1932 (their retroactive law was not until later in 1996, though they were 70pma for most other works by then). Greece went to 70 years in 1993, but non-retroactively, so 1943 is their line for anonymous works. But yes, most of Western Europe was 70pma on or before the URAA date. As Stefan2 says, this assumes the photos are anonymous -- if there is an author listed, you'd have to find their death dates, and that is far less likely to be OK for the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where the retroactive restoration hadn't yet taken place in 1996, you should also check earlier copyright laws. Some countries had a copyright term of 10 pd or 10 pr for photographs during the first half of the 20th century (changed in Sweden in 1962). If photos which met that term hadn't yet been restored to a longer copyright term, photos created or published 10 years before the law changed in the mid-20th century might qualify for {{PD-1996}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This assumes that the photographer was anonymous, which I think was usually the case at that time. Also note that some countries have a high threshold of originality and instead protect photographs below the threshold of originality using w:related rights with a shorter copyright terms (see for example {{PD-Sweden-photo}} and {{PD-Italy}}). --Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. By "limit date" I mean either the date of publication or the author's death date, depending of the case. Yann (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gray area?

[edit]

File:Monopoly-board.jpg

File is a derivative of the Monopoly board, which is out of copyright, however the only copyrightable portion of the image is the logo as it has the mascot. Does this fall under de minimis or some other licensing gray area or is it substantial enough that it has to be deleted? AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the mascot is the only issue, then it would probably be ok to just blur it to be on the safe side. Nakonana (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Looking for some assistance confirming the copyright status of several sculptures by American artist David Smith. These three sculptures, all owned by the Hirshhorn in DC, were completed in 1940 and do not have copyright notices. They are from Smith's series Medals for Dishonor, which includes 15 small relief medallion sculptures. But I'm a bit confused as to how to assess them as original works vs derivatives of an earlier work. Smith drew detailed sketches for each sculpture, then created dental plaster reverse molds which were used to create a set of master casts in plaster. He completed a bronze edition of the each work in the series in 1940, exhibited them at New York's Willard Gallery, and published a catalogue of the works. They were all subsequently shown in multiple museum settings without photography/copying restrictions in place over the next 10 years. (most of this background detail comes via an article in Art Journal [JSTOR 776184]). The artist's estate claims copyright, with licenses handled via ARS. I would think the works would be public domain, but I could easily be wrong. Any insights? Thanks all! 19h00s (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the sculptures were first displayed in the United States in 1940 without a copyright notice, then they are public domain. If there were previous works done in anticipation of a grand work the grand work would not be considered derivative of those works.
I don't know what to do about the artist's estate, if they make a big stink, even if it is technically Public Domain it might be a fight. 🤷🏼 Bastique ☎ let's talk! 04:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this! And yeah, I always assume with situations like this that if the estate ever makes a big issue of it, I'd just let it go and allow deletion. Real bummer that even government museums just defer to what estates say and don't check their copyright math (but also that's a lot of labor so I can't be too mad) 19h00s (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=988770967"