Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


"Fair Use" photo[edit]

I'd like to upload a photo to wikimedia commons to use in wikipedia. The photo is owned by the Oklahoma Historical Society and available on their website as part of their digital collections. They mark it as "Fair Use", and I contacted them and they explicitly gave me permission to upload it here and link on wikipedia as long as I cite them.

The photo was taken in 1981 and published in a local newspaper.

Best way to proceed? Not sure how to mark this when uploading, as we have explicit permission but they haven't signified a specific CC license.

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible. The photo is not theirs in the first place, but of that local newspaper. You should contact them and ask them to follow the steps at COM:VRT. That way, the file can be uploaded. Bedivere (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks for the quick reply! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipedian-in-Waiting: Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type per COM:FAIR; so, if you try to upload the image under such a claim, it will almost certainly and perhaps quite quickly end up being tagged for speedy deletion. The only way that Commons will be able to host such an image is either (1) the copyright holder agrees to give their COM:CONSENT (i.e. agree to to release the image under a free license acceptable to Commons or (2) the image is, for some reason, now considered to be within the public domain (i.e. it either never was or no longer is eligible for copyright protection).
For reference, generally the person taking a photo is considered to be the copyright holder of said photo, and only they can release their work under an acceptable free license. In some cases, a photographer/journalist working for a newspaper might've entered into a en:work-for-hire agreement with their employer which transferred the copyright of any works they created while working for their employer either totally or partially to their employer. Many photographers working for newspapers did (still do?) are sort of freelanchers in the sense that they're paid for providing photos, but they retain all or some of the rights; moreover, many newspapers also get photos from other third-parties (local residents, wire services, photo agnecies, etc.) with which they've entered into some form of contractual agreement allowing them to use the photos. So, if you're able to track down the en:provenance of this photo, you should look for any type of attribution that might help determine who took the photo. If by chance you're unable to find out any more about the photo's provenance, then under US copyright law even photo with and unknown author are still eligible for copyright protection. How long they're eligible depends upon when they were first published or how may years have passed since they were created. An photo taken by an unknown author first published in 2012 would be eligible for copyright protection for 95 years after the date of first publication or 120 years after its creation, whichever is shorter as explained in COM:HIRTLE.
Finally, even though Commons doesn't host fair use content, some of the local Wikipedia projects (e.g. English Wikipedia) do. These project, however, have their own policies and guidelines with respect to such content. Some of these projects have policies in place which are much more restrictive than fair use by design; so, before trying to upload any files to these projects, ou should first determine whether they host such content and then figure out what their policies regarding it are if they do. Information about English Wikipedia's policy can be found here and here, and questions can be asked about it here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and links so I can understand this better when considering other images! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is one chance the image might be in the public domain, if it was published without notice before 1 March 1989. If you can find an actual issue of the newspaper using the photograph, and it was published without notice, then it can be safely uploaded. Bedivere (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "without notice"?
The library that owns the image says the photographer is unknown. It was published in a newspaper named Daily Oklahoman, on November 29, 1981. The library did note the caption that ran under the photo, and this seems to be the article, but as you can see the newspaper did not retain the photo with it, with the move online.
Actually one of the last lines of that article, I just notice, gives a Staff Photographer's name even though the photo itself is not there.
That newspaper is still in business. I don't know how the library system came about owning the photos, but they have thousands of them from that newspaper, from the 1880s to 1999. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: I just googled the staff photographer's name thinking I could just ask him. It seems he died in 2022. (But I think the library was holding the photo during his lifetime, not a recent acquisition.) Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By publishing without notice means that the newspaper issue that included the photograph did not include a copyright notice saying for example © 2024 Bedivere. All rights reserved. Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, that's good to know! I went down a few rabbit holes looking at newspaper archives to see if that might work in this case, and couldn't find it explicitly. But I'm keeping that in mind for future - thank you! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: It's a moot point now perhaps given what was posted below, but I believe copyright notices were only required for print publications published prior to 1978. Registration within five years of publication was required for works published from January 1, 1978, to February 28, 1989, but not a notice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely correct @Marchjuly, I stand corrected. Bedivere (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the law, but in practice the delayed registration thing for works with no notice was rare, maybe vanishingly rare. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: You still needed notices between 1978 and 1989, but there were ways to recover the copyright if you forgot, one step of which was registering within five years (there were other steps too, but that is the easiest to verify). If there was a copyright notice, there was no need to register. You did get further benefits if you did, but you would not lose copyright if not registered. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Clindberg for clarying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked, and this issue includes a copyright notice. You would need permission from the named copyright holder (which is the newspaper; this is almost certainly a work for hire). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media created by Fars News Agency[edit]

Recently, Fars News Agency had redesigned their site, and they removed the older CC-BY-SA 4.0 notice from their site, and replaced it with "© 1401 Fars, Inc.". The earliest instance of the new design was on Feb 17th according to Wayback Machine.

However, another editor pointed out that some other pages like the photos page(archive) still retain the older CC-BY-SA 4.0 in the footer. Is that redundant, or does it still apply to newer photos? I have updated Template:Fars/en in the meantime. أنون (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page you link to has a CC-BY 4.0, not a CC-BY-SA 4.0 in the footer. Besides that, tread lightly. I'd tend to assume they meant to remove it from the whole site. Someone could communicate with them and ask them to clarify.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until they change that "Fars Media Corporation is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License" footer, I'd assume it's safe to upload these /photos page. Bedivere (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

file:2010 Apple Bowl Winners.jpg[edit]

This photo was uploaded in 2010 by user JoelleJay, and credits "Joelle Smart"—presumably the same person—as author. It was shortly thereafter added to a Wikipedia page about a high-school competition called KYVE Apple Bowl (also created by JoelleJay), the caption noting "captain Joelle Smart (holding trophy)". Much as the technical capability exists for JoelleJay to have taken a photograph of herself and her high-school coterie using some sort of camera with timer, it seems more likely that someone else took the photograph and she later uploaded it when creating the page about the high-school competition she participated in. Given this, is the image appropriately licensed? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this happened when I was a teenager, my dad took the picture and used my Wikipedia account to upload it... Not sure what that means for licensing, but the proper owner of the copyright definitely released it to Commons. JoelleJay (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Kosovar Law on Copyright and Related Rights[edit]

Page that may need updating: COM:CRT/Kosovo.

There appears to be an updated copyright law of Kosovo: the Law No. 8 L-205 on Copyright and Related Rights. It is a major overhaul of their copyright law, aligning their provisions with EU standards.

The terms remain at 70 years (since the law before the implementation of EU standards was already at 70 years p.m.a.).

A promising revision is the Freedom of Panorama. Now found at Article 49(1.12), it bears striking similarity to the EU FoP clause at the EU Copyright Directive (this is also the identical wording of the Portuguese FoP which is also aligned with the EU standards). I found no trace of non-commercial restriction, so far.

But I don't want to celebrate prematurely; someone should confirm if this is indeed the official law now for Kosovo. Can anyone verify by accessing the Albanian text of the 2023 law?

Ping all participants of the CRT/Kosovo talk page: @Bes-ART, Clindberg, Aymatth2, and Arianit: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info here is what I consider the official version (in Albanian): [1]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the English version linked, it does look good -- the non-commercial restriction on FoP in their previous law seems to no longer be there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg I have now updated most of the CRT page (specifically the sections pertaining to the governing law, general rules, not protected, and FoP). I will withdraw three Kosovar DRs that I made yesterday. Kudos to the Kosovar government at introducing FoP that's friendly for new media and I.T. age! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The open question now, is if the FoP provision covers murals (and other 2D flat arts) or not. It bears identical resemblance to both COM:FOP Portugal and COM:FOP Moldova, which are patterned after the European Union FoP model, but it appears there is difference in the interpretation with regards to the inclusion of 2D flat arts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English translation published in the official gazzette is fine as refrence. Albanian version has the exactely same content.
Law is already in force. So this is good as well.
Regarding 2D arts: The article speaks about "works" in general. Article 2 doesn't offer a definition of work. So we can only refer to article 1. 1.1 just speaks about "literary, scientific and artistic works" in general. And 1.2 says: "This Law is in full compliance with the following EU Directives." I don't think that the law makes a difference between flat and three-dimensional work, but I don't know all there EU directives. Albinfo (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Albinfo the Kosovar FoP bears striking similarity to Moldovan FoP. Both anyway patterned their laws upon EU standards. Portugese FoP has identical FoP word construction, too. However, the Portuguese FoP commentators do not speak of restrictions to uses of 2D works. However, the current interpretation of the Moldovan FoP is that 2D works are excluded, at least as per longtime admin @Jameslwoodward: (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#FOP Moldova seems to not limit 2D works). Further clarity on the Kosovar FoP treatment on 2D works is needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2D works eligibility should be clarified as soon as possible. I thought w:en:File:Bill Clinton Boulevard2.jpg (which I requested for undeletion) refers to the statue of Bill Clinton, but it turned out to be an outdoor poster (or mural as the uploader claimed). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Albinfo: The EU directive says nothing on 2D vs 3D works. That is up to each country. The phrase used, "such as", is a bit ambiguous in English. The presence of the comma before "such as" most likely means it was not meant to be restrictive and part of the definition, but merely explanatory of common types of works that may apply. Without the comma, it can more easily be read as only applying to those types of works (though even then, it's not definite). James Woodward, in the previous discussion, thought that any ambiguity argued for only allowing that type of work or similar. I did and still do disagree, but it's an understandable argument. I don't know if the Albanian is any more clear on that matter; reading such a technicality into a English translation is a bit nervous. (Even if 2D works are allowed, you can't make a virtual copy of a public 2D work via a photo -- that would prejudice the original work. It would just be showing the original work in its public context.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg perhaps leave 2D works as "unsure" for the meantime, and "buildings and sculptures" as OK. Anyway, I have requested undeletions of several images, on COM:UNDEL. Perhaps the Kosovar buildings and public sculptures may be the uncontroversial ones to be restored, I'll ping @Yann: who frequents the UNDEL page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partula otaheitana[edit]

I have uploaded two images [2] and [3] that I have now realized do not have any listed copyright (see [4]). How do I remove them? 0x16w (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me at first glance, since the observation itself and the parent dataset carry CC0 marks - is there any particular reason you think the images are excluded from the public domain dedication? Felix QW (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It specifically says on the website that "Be aware that licences applied to images may differ from those applied to occurrence records" (you can confirm this by going to [5] and seeing the small print that says this) 0x16w (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems — you can request deletion of your own uploads within 7 days of uploading by adding {{CSD|G7}} to the top of the page. An administrator can then delete the image.
I am not sure the exemption for the photographs is intentional on the part of the University, so I think it would certainly be worth an email to them if you think the images could be valuable for the project. Felix QW (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Films of Romania[edit]

Hi, Does anyone what is the copyright term for films of Romania? Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania doesn't mention films. This concerns File:Manasse (1925) by Jean Mihail.webm. It is in the public domain is USA, but may be not in Romania. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The EU directive is pretty specific and hard for countries to vary; it's 70pma from the latest death of specific contributors. The modern Romanian law (article 66 or 67 depending on version) says: The authors of an audiovisual work, as provided in Article 5 of this Law, are the director or maker, the author of the adaptation, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue, the author of the musical score specially composed for the audiovisual work and the author of the graphic material of animated works or animated sequences, where these represent a substantial part of the work. However, their 1996 law was non-retroactive, and I think Romania got away without making it retroactive when they later joined the EU. The older terms were pretty much 50 pma, but their older law did have: Cinematographic or radio studios and mechanical recording organizations have copyright over the collective works they create. And, the term for a copyright owned by a legal entity was 50 years: the duration of the author's patrimonial right is limited to 50 years from the appearance of the work, if this right belongs to a legal entity (the only exceptions were some specific shorter terms for compilation and photographic copyrights). So, it may hinge on if this was done for a studio, or if it was primarily Jean Mihail himself. If done for a studio, it may have expired by their old law in 1976, and was never restored. If considered a private copyright of Jean Mihail, it may still be under copyright in Romania until 2034. I have no idea what was the norm in Romania film in the 1920s. I can't find many details about the film -- it was a derivative work of an earlier play, but those copyrights would seem to be expired, and Mihail may be the primary contributor. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube video with two licenses[edit]

I noticed while rewriting an article that two images that I uploaded back in 2021 (File:Ei Wada.png and File:ELECTRONICOS FANTASTICOS! Roppongi Art Night 2019.png) that both had the Creative Commons Attribution license from YouTube, but also had the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 in the videos' descriptions. Does the YouTube CC license trump the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, or should it be counted as a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 video? reppoptalk 23:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any time there is more than one license, a reuser can choose a license. So this means that commercial users are stuck with a CC-SA 2.0 license, but non-commercial users can opt for CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Our page should probably mention both. - Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Films of Japan[edit]

Hi, According to PD-Japan-film, Japanese film copyright expired for all films produced in Japan prior to 1953. But until which date these are in the public domain in USA? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No source but PD-old?[edit]

File:Wawelberg.JPG was uploaded back in 2007 under a {{PD-old}} license but there's no information provided about the image's en:provenance at all so it's not clear how it meets the terms of the license. The uploader hasn't made any edits on Commons since 2009 and last edited Russian Wikipedia in 2012; so, I don't think any additional information is going to come from them. I did a Google image search and did find this uncropped version of image, but no other information about it. Given the subject of the photo en:Hipolit Wawelberg died in 1901, it seems like {{PD-old-assumed}} might be a slightly better choice of a license, but still there's no real source. Would the website I found be sufficient enough of a source for the image even though it comes from a blog which might possibly have been published after (perhaps several years after) the file was uploaded to Commons? Finally, even though the "PD-old" license states a US PD copyright license is also needed for the file, none is provided. What would be an acceptable US PD license if this file is OK for Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The portrait seems formal enough to me to be a portrait published soon after creation, so I would be alright with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Felix QW (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of rules and tags were not around then. A photo of someone who died in 1901 means it was taken a long time ago. Particularly if that was from Poland, since {{PD-Poland}} may well also apply. It probably wasn't worth worrying about. PD-old-assumed is probably the best license these days. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URAA Restoration of Turkish works[edit]

A recent DR brought to my attention that while COM:Turkey mentions an extension of copyright terms from 50 to 70 years in 1995, it does not mention whether that was retroactive. Does anyone here have any insight on that? It would make a difference for all anonymous works published between 1929 and 1944, as well as works published during that time whose author also died in this interval. Felix QW (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question. The law after it was updated in 1995 is here. The law actually implementing the 1995 change is here (in Turkish).
The "Provisional Article 1", which was inherited unchanged from earlier laws, seems to indicate it was retroactive:
Provisional Article 1. Unless otherwise determined in the articles below, the provisions of this article are also applied to the works presented to the public or registered within the country prior to enforcement. The inclusion or non-inclusion of the work or product within the provisions of the Copyright Law dated 8 May 1326 does not change the situation.
The protection periods concerning the works publicized prior to the enforcement of this law are calculated according to this law. The terms copyright, rights of possession, literal possession, possession of fine arts and similar mean the rights and authorities granted by this law in similar cases.
In case the rights pertaining to a work or the use of such rights have been handed over to someone else in whole or in part prior to the enforcement of this law, the new and wider rights granted to the owner of the work by this law are not considered to be transferred, as well. The same provision applies to a longer protection period when compared to the older one or the works and products not protected under the former law.
But "Supplementary Article 2" which was added by the 1995 law, states:
The protection periods in this law apply to the works, adaptations and products that become publicized after the enforcement of the Law, with respect to neighbouring rights, cinema works, computer programs and data bases. The provisions of this law related with the ownership of cinema works apply to the cinema works started to be produced after the enforcement of this Law.
That may be limited to newly-created neighboring rights, cinematic works, computer programs, and databases, which may have not had protection before -- but that seems to say that the new longer terms would only apply to works first published after 1995, not even works not previously expired. That is the opposite of retroactive. I do not see any parts of the law which deal with revived rights, which is common in retroactive laws, to protect existing exploitations of a public domain work. But if those were not protected at all before, then they did not have a term which expired, which was required to avoid the URAA.
Subsequent laws changed those sections -- I think a 2001 amendment may have made it more clearly retroactive. That has a clause which gives owners of newly-infringing copies six months to sell them.
Overall... not sure I'd want to claim that was non-retroactive. Any ambiguity did not last long, but of course the URAA date was in that period. There is just no language (other than foreign works for the rule of the shorter term) which limits the terms of the new law based on expiry of a copyright term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the detailed analysis! It seems to me the most parsimonious interpretation that those concepts that have been completely newly regulated, such as neighbouring rights, cinema works, computer programs and data bases, were only applied to newly created works, while the mere extension of terms was retroactive. Felix QW (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but even those (neighbouring rights, cinema works, computer programs and data bases) were probably made retroactive in 2001 or a little later (that "Supplementary Article 2" has been removed from their law by now). And works which did not have foreign protection, but did in the U.S., were still subject to the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated FoP in Mongolia[edit]

Ping also @Chinneeb: who nominated the no-FoP template I made.

As per COM:FOP Mongolia, the recent law somehow introduced the alleged FoP in Mongolia. However, I need further discussion here, because we need to be sure if it complies with COM:Licensing requirements. The new FoP of Mongolia reads:

  • To display them to public by making a duplication of the works of architecture, fine arts and statues located in public places permanently, and by painting, filming or photographing them. This shall not grant a right to reproduce an identical structure, statue or architectural creation directly or indirect way for commercial purposes.

There is a non-commercial restriction but we need more clarification here. It may mean that it is not allowed to reproduce an identical (exact) reproduction of buildings and monuments of that country for any commercial use; this is reasonable since 3D models of such works are certainly harmful to the normal exploitation rights of the landmarks' designers or artists. However, if the interpretation is that even images of such works are not OK for commercial use (like uses by postcard makers, T-shirt prints, application developers, or web developers), then the new Mongolian FoP is unacceptable for Commons and {{FoP-Mongolia}} is invalid.

Ping Commons users whom I known to have participated in FoP-related forums and threads: @Clindberg, Ox1997cow, Abzeronow, Adamant1, Yann, A1 Savin, Rubin16, and Brianjd: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting this here. I think I need to bring out the Mongolian original of the non-commercial restriction section (46.2), which should clarify that translation. It reads,
  • 46.2. Энэ хуулийн 46.1.1 дэх заалт нь архитектурын бүтээлийг барилга болон барилга байгууламж хэлбэрээр шууд, эсхүл шууд бусаар ашиг олох зорилгоор бүхэлд нь хуулбарлах эрхийг олгохгүй.
Which translates to:
Article 46.1.1 does not grant the right to fully reproduce (бүхэлд нь хуулбарлах) an architectural work in the form of a building or structure (барилга болон барилга байгууламж хэлбэрээр) for direct or indirect commercial purposes.
I'd argue that this would mean 2D representations (hence photos and videos) are definitely allowed, while 3D representations need more discussion. Chinneeb (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chinneeb if that's so, then its another good news for Commons. And perhaps one more high-profile country since 2016 (Belgium). Though I may need more inputs from other users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chinneeb I revised the FoP section. The architectural plans and models are clearly not OK as the use is restricted to building restoration only. Also, no indication that 2D works are covered, so copyrighted Mongolian murals, paintings, frescoes, billboards, and other 2D graphic works are still not OK on Commons. Also, the passage on digital archives and libraries has no relevance on FoP so I removed it entirely. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that needs clarification: does the "public place" in Mongolian law also extends to publicly-accessible premises indoors (like inside train stations or museums), or not (only outdoor spaces)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This shall not grant a right to reproduce an identical structure, statue or architectural creation directly or indirect way for commercial purposes. Does it says non-commercial FoP? (Like South Korea, France...) Ox1997cow (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 "Public place" (олон нийтийн газар in the original) is not defined in that law, but from a cursory glance of Mongolian government documents hosted on legalinfo.mn (if this helps), that phrase (олон нийтийн газар) seems to be used for a variety of indoor and outdoor places.
@Ox1997cow I've included the original Mongolian above, which clarifies that the non-commercial clause relates to identical reproductions in the form of building or structures only. Chinneeb (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty good to me, though limited to "structures, statues, and architectural works" per the translation here, so no 2D works. 46.2 says you can't make what amounts to copies of the work (statue of a statue, etc.) but that is normal (though even allowed for non-commercial purposes). I don't see that they define "public place" anywhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chinneeb@Clindberg@Ox1997cow I have updated both Commons:Freedom of panorama/table and my userspace page at Metawiki here. More clarification is still needed for the applicability of permanent works found in "public indoors". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I think we're generally good. Although it would help if the thing about it's applicability to permanent works found in "public indoors" was clarified but I don't think it needs to hold up allowing for FOP in Mongolia at this point either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a green light now for admins to undelete all images of Mongolian buildings and sculptures found outdoors (deleted cases are at Category:Mongolian FOP cases/deleted). Those found in public indoors can be requested for deletion later (at COM:UNDEL) if things have been clarified. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what the justification for enforcing the public indoors vs. outdoors distinction for Mongolia is? Some of the notes on Commons:Freedom of panorama/table are as basic as "Due to the Mexican law not mentioning what public means, it's supposed that it's also possible."
I'd argue that we can say indoor sculptures are OK for Mongolia as well, since the phrasing used (олон нийтийн газар) is also not defined explicitly. That said, I've found a government-issued Law handbook that has a definition of "олон нийтийн газар", which includes "дэлгүүр, зах, тээврийн хэрэгсэл" (stores, markets, transportation vehicles) (see https://nli.gov.mn/gariinavlaga/Book-tanii%20huuliin%20hutuch.pdf) - all indoor areas - in a section dealing with theft, funnily enough. Chinneeb (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chinneeb the default rule for vague FoP laws on public indoors is either "unknown" or "not OK" (again, per COM:PCP). Unless there are legal literatures (such as court case files, commentaries of lawyers/legislators, or supporting laws or implementing rules, it may be safe to consider Mongolian FoP for indoors as "unknown" (gray). I will wait for other users for their opinions if the citations you gave is applicable for public indoors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One possible thing that may occur, assuming the citations you gave are valid for FoP purpose, is that public sculptures in some indoors are OK, while others are not, similar to Dutch FoP or Mexican FoP. Perhaps sculptures inside markets may be OK but, how about inside government buildings, temples/churches/mosques, and museums? Can "transportation vehicles" extend to public transport facilities like railroad stations and bus stations? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just leave it grey. As there doesn't seem to be any way to determine what qualifies as "public indoors" and what doesn't at this point. We can't just have a blanket rule about it either, obviously. So it's best to go with nothing qualifying per COM:PCP and then extending the guideline later once the laws are clarified. I can't image it taking that much time before we get clarification on it due to someone suing under the new law. Otherwise you could just pick the usual places as "public indoors", I.E. railroad stations, churches, museums and the like, but that seems sub optimal. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I'm only undeleting the outdoors works. If it's clarified that indoor 3D artworks are covered, I can always undelete those when we get more clarity. Abzeronow (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan the Terrible (1944 film)[edit]

Hi, This film was published in two parts. The second part was published in 1958. So it seems that File:1944 Иван Грозный.webm, which contains both parts, is in the public domain in Russia (the author died in 1948), but not in USA, according to PD-Russia-1996. Am I right, or did I miss something? Yann (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting authorship information for two images[edit]

Back in 2011 Adrian Basil (talk · contribs) uploaded the two files

Both are tagged with Template:own and the user as author.

Since one image depicts the artist de:Rainer Schade and one is artwork by Rainer Schade the user can’t be Rainer Schade and the photographer. I don’t know whether both files are to be deleted for unplausible source information or how to resolve this. Frupa (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While notifying the user on de-wiki I realized the photograph might have been taken with a self-timer by the Rainer Schade alias Adrian Basil himself. I still guess that copyright violation is more likely. Frupa (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GBIF[edit]

I recently uploaded some pictures of pages in herbaria taken through GBIF. Is it okay for me to keep uploading images that are claimed by the GBIF to have a Commons-compatible license? Is the copyright claim of these images recorded on GBIF reliable? NewUniverse (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes, there is a clear CC-0 license at the source. You should require a {{Licensereview}} for all images. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the template to all uploaded images. Many thanks! NewUniverse (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Corporate Authorship[edit]

I was looking at uploading some older Canadian works, however I am confused as to how copyright works for companies/corporate authorship. The copyright claimant is not a person but the company. (Ex: © Company 1952). I cannot find any clear info online when something under copyright to a company would enter the Public Domain as it is based on the life of author. Do we just use the Unknown/Anonymous copyright tag? PascalHD (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is something like corporate authorship in Canada. A corporation may well own a copyright (en:Copyright law of Canada: “Ownership of a creative work may be assigned to a corporation or other employer as part of an employment contract.”), but the author would still be a human being, with the copyright term (the duration) tied to the year of that person's death. That is the situation in the UK, and Canadian copyright law is similar to UK copyright law in many ways. I didn't do a thorough research though. --Rosenzweig τ 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is correct. The company is the "first owner" of the copyright, but the "author" is the human who made it. Canadian copyright terms are based on the lifetime of the author, though if not named (i.e. anonymous) then there are terms based on year of publication and/or creation. Canada recently non-retroactively extended their terms, so some of the older terms may apply. Do note that any copyright which still existed in Canada in 1996 got restored by the U.S. to a term of 95 years from publication. The current term for anonymous works is the earlier of 1) 75 years from publication, 2) 100 years from creation, or 3) 75 years from creation if never published. The terms before 2020 were similar 50 years from publication or 75 from creation. {{PD-Canada-anon}} has those terms now. If the employee's name was mentioned (or became known) then the term would be based on their lifetime. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When uploading such works, we'd obviously need a USA PD tag too. What would be the best way to go about that? If it had no notice, let's say a post card, would that be okay for the no notice tag? (If you can prove it was published in the USA). Or would I use the USA corporate publications terms? (95 years after publication). PascalHD (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If first published in Canada, you'd need {{PD-1996}} to qualify. If it was published in the U.S. within 30 days of first publication in Canada, then yes you can use the no-notice tag, but that can be hard to prove. If it was under copyright in Canada in 1996, then you'd need to wait for {{PD-US-expired}} to qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that correctly describes the present situation, for the essential. The situation may differ in a few particular types of cases. Corporate authorship of photographs existed in Canada. It was abolished in 2012. The corporation was the author of the photograph when it owned the original support (plate, negative, ...) of the photograph. Being the author, the corporation was also the first owner of the copyright. The duration was 50 years from the creation of the original support. Such photograps whose copyright had already expired in 2012 (i.e. photos taken before 1962) remain in the public domain. For photograps whose copyright had not yet expired in 2012 (i.e. photos taken after 1961), the 2012 law retroactively transferred their legal authorship (but not necessarily their copyright ownership) from the corporation to the photographer. What happened with the copyright ownership depends on the type of relationship between the corporation and the photographer. Large commercial corporations were the big beneficiaries of that 2012 change in the law. Because they were the employers of the photographers working for them, they could use another section of the law, which provides that the employer is by default the owner of the copyright. Such companies thus obtained huge extensions of the duration of the copyrights they owned, passing from 50 years from creation to 50 years (later extended to 70 years) from the date of death of the photographer. Losers were small nonprofit corporations who had provided the negatives and a sum of money for occasional photos, and who retroactively were stripped of their rights to those photos. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, had forgotten about that. The 50 years from creation, for photos from before 1961, was specifically for photographs not other types of work (though cinematograph works were 50 years from publication). That line would be before 1946 to avoid the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The duration of copyright does not depend on who claims the copright, but it may depend on several factors and how they combine, such as what type of work it is, if the creator is known, who created the work, when the creator died, when the work was made, what was the relationship between the entity and the photographer, what type of entity it is. There can be many different answers, depending on the facts. It's better to link to the actual work or to describe all the facts than to list all imaginable cases. A work made by an employee of a Crown corporation or entity, provincial of federal (but not municipal), such as the National Film Board, has a copyright in Canada of 50 years from publication. A photo taken before 1962, and authored by a private corporation (the corporation owned the negative) or by a municipal corporation, is in the public domain in Canada. That doesn't apply to other types of works such as texts or paintings. A photo for a corporation taken after 1961 is in copyright in Canada until 70 years after the death of the photographer. The questions seem to imply a postcard published in 1952, possibly anonymous. The type of work is not specified. Assuming a creation the same year as the publication, if the work, of any type, was anonymous and the creator remained commonly unknown, it can be in the public domain in Canada, see the template PD-Canada-anon. If it's a work, of any type, by a know creator, it can be in the public domain in Canada if the creator died before 1972, see the template PD-Canada. If it's a photograph, by a known photographer or anonymous, it can be in the public domain in Canada if the "Company" was indeed a corporation and if it can be reasonably assumed from the normal practices that the corporation was the author (owned the negative). Commons does not have a PD template for such photos, but this situation of corporate authorship is included in the template PD-Canada of en.wikipedia. Anyway, in all cases, a 1952 Canadian work is probably not in the public domain in the U.S. because of the URAA, unless it meets U.S. public domain criteria. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Asclepias & @Clindberg. I appreciate your detailed answers. This really helps to clear my confusion. PascalHD (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Songs and Amapola.jpg[edit]

File:Songs and Amapola.jpg was uploaded under a {{PD-US}} license, but that seems to be clearly incorrect because this album was not released prior to January 1, 1929, and it doesn't appear to have been first released in the US (i.e. it's not a work of US origin). The file is also a crop of a much larger image as shown here and here. I think there might actually be a copyright notice somewhere on the back cover near the bottom, but I'm unable to check for sure even by emlarging the image. I was going tagged this for speedy deletion as a {{Copyvio}}, but the company that released the album seems to be based out of the Philippines, not the US; so, I was wondering whether there might be an acceptable way to re-license this per COM:Philippines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-US is a catchall license; could also mean no-notice or not renewed. However, does not seem that matters here. I think the album in question was from 1971. If the photographer is anonymous, it may have recently become PD in the Philippines. If the photographer is named, probably not PD. Given it appears to be a Philippine work though, it would have a U.S. copyright (if it needed URAA restoration or not) which would last until 2067. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cover instrument music gebruiken[edit]

ik ben een zanger heb ik recht om een cover music te gebruiken met instrumentele versie van en wat moet ik juist doen 2A02:1812:D15:EF00:B9:3D84:D2F:EE38 14:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not lawyers, and we can't give legal advice, but by complete coincidence I'm a musician and you might want to read this. The particular article is oriented to the U.S., so your situation may be a bit different, but probably not radically so. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logos simple[edit]

Buenas, una pregunta en Wikimedia se puede aceptar Logos simples (osea texto y geométricos)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AbchyZa22. Please read Commons:Threshold of originality (there are multi-language versions) for more specific details, but the best answer I can give without seeing the logo and knowing more about it is that "It depends". -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Me at the zoo.webm[edit]

Per discussion at English Wikipedia,[6] did the uploader have the right to offer File:Me at the zoo.webm to the public under the Creative Commons license? Rjjiii (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I don't really understand why the CC license would be void if the camarographer co-held rights on a video from the early Internet era, in this case Lapitsky. Even the Wikipedia page says "On Karim's camera" and was uploaded on Jawed's YT channel, it's most likely that Lapitsky informally gave permission rights to publish the video. If this was going to be the case, a lot of YT videos under CC would end up in problems because of "who is the actual owner of the footage" discussions. Hyperba21 (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the digital version of an old manuscript held by National Library Board Singapore[edit]

I would like to know whether the digital copy of the manuscript (link:https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/book-detail?cmsuuid=53de5273-f8df-4122-b808-8eb33ec61386) from National Library Board Singapore should be considered to be in public domain or not. This is because according to the page "All Rights Reserved. National Library Board Singapore 2006.", however according to the copyright rules in Singapore any works are in the public domain upon the expiry of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the author of the works died. In this case the author Munshi Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir has passed away in 1854, and if we calculate the year that the work should be in public domain is 1927. Therefore, the work should be considered to be in the public domain. However, according to the terms of use at the website held by National Library Board Singapore:

"No part or parts hereof may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, modified, republished, displayed, broadcast, hyperlinked, framed or transmitted in any manner or by any means or stored in an information retrieval system without the prior written permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY. However, you may download and print the Materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only provided you do not modify the Materials and that you retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the Materials. You also may not, without the permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY, insert a hyperlink to this website on any other website or "mirror" any Material contained on this website on any other server."

So I assume that the manuscript although was published in 1880, we still should refrain from uploading the work to Commons Wikimedia because it will be copyright infringement. Is this correct? Hakimi97 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hakimi97: A faithful copy of something in the public domain does not qualify for any copyright of its own. Some courts in common law countries have disagreed, upholding a "sweat of brow" doctrine. Commons, with the advice of WMF's lawyers, has chosen to ignore that precedent, which is certainly not valid in the U.S., where Commons is officially located. - Jmabel ! talk 14:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response! Now I have a much better picture regarding the copyright issues. Hakimi97 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amarillo Texas - AQHA - Dash for Cash.jpg[edit]

File:Amarillo Texas - AQHA - Dash for Cash.jpg was uploaded with a license for the photo, but there's no license for the statue itself. The sculptor en:Jim Reno died in 2006, but it could've been a work commisioned by the en:American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame which might have been built in 1989. The horse en:Dash for Cash depicted in the statue died in 1996, and the statue appears to have been inspired by a photograph of the horse taken at a race held in 1976. That's lots of dates for sure, but none of them really indicte when the statue was created or when it was installed. It seems that there should be some kind of license for the statue per COM:FOP United States that shows it's within the public domain or otherwise OK for Commons; for example, like is done in the case of File:Secretariat statue.jpg (assuming that licensing is correct). I tried searching "Jim Reno" in the Art Inventories Catalog of the Smithsonian American Museum of Art and got a some results, but nothing for this particular sculpture. My best guesstimate is that this statue was likely installed after January 1, 1978, but possibly prior to the above-mentioned museum opening. I also tried searching of "Reno Jim" and "American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame" at the US Copyright Office's site, but came up empty. Could {{PD-US-1989}} be OK to use here or does this file need to be deleted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An issue that I see is that according to COM:Public art and copyrights in the US public display of a statue was no longer considered publication if it occurred from 1978. Therefore, if it was not erected before 1978, it may not even count as published, let alone published without a notice. Felix QW (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs[edit]

I've just noticed an interesting thing about the uploads at Discogs, a record collecting site. These are their intellectual property rules:

Intellectual Property Rules

By uploading images to Discogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements:

  1. Image is Public Domain (expired copyright or public from inception); or
  2. You own the rights to the image and agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or
  3. Image is already made available through a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or
  4. Fair Use – any image representing a physical or digital product in the Discogs Database for the purpose of critical commentary or for the purpose of reselling a physical product under the First Sale Doctrine.
    — Discogs

Number two is particularly important in the following case. Many times, it is the artists themselves, even labels, who upload the records info and images on Discogs. Given that they explicitly accept those intellectual property rules (they are even prompted when uploading an image), and in the case they are the legitimate owners of the images, they agree to release them under a CC0 license. That means they would be eligible to upload on Commons. Of course this is to be observed case by case, but in any case, it's great news for the Commons. Bedivere (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I came across this local label, they've uploaded a couple of images (five actually). These, if in scope (I could not find an article about these artists), could be uploaded here given the label's express release onto the CC0 license. Here's another, band Zettt, which released themselves some photos of themselves and one of their releases. Another label that has published images of their own releases is Akasa Records [7]. Bedivere (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=877632455"