Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Hi, Does a film restoration create a new copyright? And how much restoration does create a new copyright? The Immigrant (1917) and One A.M. (1916), two Chaplin's films were restored by Fondazione Cineteca, Italy, which claims a copyright. The original films are in the public domain in USA, where they were first published. We already have File:The Immigrant (1917).webm and File:One A.M. (1916).webm (this last one seems a restored version). Yann (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the amount of creative work in the restoration and whether or not the restoration may qualify as a cinematic work on its own merit, as is for example the case of the restoration of the colour version of Méliès' Voyage dans la lune where colors were created (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Le Voyage dans la lune (1902).webm). — Racconish ^💬 17:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In practical terms, the restoration of The Immigrant involved the scanning at L'Immagine Ritrovata laboratory of a nitrate safety negative, with no indication of digital interpolation, and the "reconstruction" of intertitles similar to the original ones. The copyright is held by Blackhawk Films Inc. and covers the "new restoration and special contents". IMO it is ok to upload on Commons a copy stripped of the additional music, the introduction and the end credits. — Racconish ^💬 05:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the Center for the Study of the Public domain puts it, "If a film has been restored or reconstructed, only original and creative additions are eligible for copyright; if a restoration faithfully mimics the preexisting film, it does not contain newly copyrightable material. (Putting skill, labor, and money into a project is not enough to qualify it for copyright. The Supreme Court has made clear that 'the sine qua non of copyright is originality.')

Generally I would say that restoring the image and sound quality won't involve enough creativity to pass the threshold of originality. Acts such as adding a soundtrack to a silent film, colorizing a film, or reassembling a "lost film" from raw footage probably do involve enough creativity.

On Commons, we also have to consider the country of origin. Those two restorations by an Italian organization presumably were first published in Italy, so would have to be public domain under Italian copyright law. The EU requires that a work must represent "the author's own intellectual creation" to qualify for copyright, which seems to lead to a similar conclusion as US law. Toohool (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this detailed analysis. Yann (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: File:The Immigrant (1917) by Charlie Chaplin.webm. Yann (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So with this thread, does this mean for example the Ben Solovey restoration of Manos: Hands of Fate could be uploaded to Commons? See examples here and here (oh hey this vid is with CC). Hyperba21 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There would not be a separate valid copyright in a new cleaned scan of the film. In order for there to be one, the new version would have to have more the modicum of creativity — enough for the new material to be a work of authorship in itself. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US government works are not under copyright. And Google and HathiTrust believe that this document is Public Domain: File:The 'Gang of Four' Sabotaged the Campaign to Learn From Tachai in Agriculture in a Vain Attempt to Restore Capitalism.pdf. But I'm wondering if there's a copyright issue either with Taning CCP Committee or with Taiyuan Shansi Provincial Service for this article, since this document was apparently authored and broadcast in Mandarin, and it seems unlikely that the FBIS received authorization to create a translation. Note that the US government translation includes omitted words where there were words not heard properly, etc. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translations are usually considered derivative works and have their own copyright protection separate from the underlying work. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the translation is free, but the original is quite possibly under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the translation was written, there were no copyright relations between the US and PRC. However, the underlying work probably later received a US copyright under the URAA. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been inconsistencies in the deletion requests concerning the said Greek bridge. Some resulted to deletions, citing lack of COM:FOP Greece. Others, resulted to being kept, on the grounds that bridges cannot be considered architecture and that there is no protection for bridges under the Greek law, similar to U.S. law's treatment on U.S. bridges.

sample deletion requests:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rio-Antirrio Bridge.jpg – deleted
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg – deleted
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gefyra.jpg – kept
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rio Antirrio - panoramio (27).jpg - kept

To complicate things further, there is a censored image of the bridge, used as a protest image by Greek users during the 2015 discourse on the FoP at the EU Parliament.

There should be a discussion to determine the finality of the community consensus for Greek bridges, before either (a) conducting more deletion requests on the bridge, or (b) requesting undeletion of the deleted images (as well as deleting the censored image because it is misleading, as the bridge is not protected by copyright).

Ping users who participated in the deletion requests mentioned here. @Εὐθυμένης, IronGargoyle, Jameslwoodward, Ellywa, Veggies, Fastily, and Denniss: . Ping also the photographer as well as the censor of the image @KPFC: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rio–Antirrio Bridge has a section saying Photography by both professional and amateur photographers or cinematographers is allowed and encouraged by the bridge management without the need for a permit... Yann (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann seems a good starting point for free shooting. But it doesn't address the issue if it can be a work of architecture falling under restrictive Greek copyright law (not allowing commercial uses) or just an ordinary structure that can be freely used even without bridge designer's permission. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While that is certainly a good idea, at least a bad Google translate job of the source given in the article doesn't seem to support the sentence. It merely describes a specific photo contest and associated festivities. Felix QW (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also ping Greek user @Geraki: (who commented about Greek antiquities issue at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Greece). Perhaps Greek users may be knowledgeable on the matter, if Greek bridges like Rio–Antirrio can be considered works of architecture or just structures that are not protected and can be reproduced even for commercial purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If counted as architecture it needs to show somehing unique eligible as work of art to be protected. The bridge shows nothing apart from commonly known structures so nothing eligible for protection. The deleted files should be reviewed and possibly undeleted. --Denniss (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imho we should stay away from framing this bridge as not being a work of art or architecture. It surely is designed by a team of architects and structural designers. COM:Greece is not clear, that is the issue I think. Ellywa (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann sounds like something Wikimedia France should encourage builders to promote there as well. Agree that it solves the issue for this bridge. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999 easier said than done with regards to French cases. The management of Millau Viaduct, in their website, asserts they guard Architect Norman Foster's exclusive rights over visual appearances of the bridge, and does not allow commercial uses of the bridge without prior authorization from them. This is on top of French-based ADAGP's continued opposition to Wikipedia and the FoP movement, unless Wikipedia finally chooses to accept using CC-BY-NC-ND licensing (ADAGP treats both Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a single community under the helm of WMF). The bridge management tolerates non-commercial/personal uses, as well as images that only show the viaduct in the background, thus not making it the intended focus of the images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, old story. Obviously, they wont all promote this. Also, maybe Commons needs to do some changes for architectural photography. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which will end up in another, heated debate on FoP policy of Commons (perhaps you are aware of the discussions that I got involved early this year). The current policy is already stable enough. Not OK to mandate U.S. FoP-only policy on Commons, as several Wikimedia chapters, user groups, and affiliates outside Europe are trying their best to have FoP introduced in their countries (FoP that includes public sculptures too), like those of South Africa and the Philippines. FoP was discussed in the most recent forum held by East Asia-Southeast Asia-Pacific (ESEAP) Wikimedia region last month, in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, and ESEAP groups agreed to consider initiatives in FoP lobbying. Also, Wiki Commons shouldn't ignore the opposition from ADAGP, Cavada and other French anti-Wikipedia individuals and groups. ADAGP once sent a graffiti artist's cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia France to take down an image of an illegal graffito; for sure, upon learning that Commons shifted to only respect U.S. architectural FoP and not French laws, ADAGP and their fellow peers will certainly protest by persistently demanding take downs of undeleted images of Millau Viaduct, European Parliament building, Grande Arche et cetera. In a nutshell, the current FoP policy mainly anchored on the law of the work's country of physical origin must remain. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these issues all need to be combined. With the changes Commons needs to do, I was thinking of how architects could go about to authorize photography. Currently, this doesn't really seem obvious. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999 or better still, how about making Greek architects (and architects from many countries, except France obviously) Wikimedia community's partners in FoP movement/s? This should be considered by meta:Wikimedia Community User Group Greece. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To host two pics of a building in France (or Greece), maybe there are easier solutions. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, France is the only country where bridges have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there statute or case law where French copyright of bridges is shown? IronGargoyle (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only inconsistency here in the Greek cases is that no one previously pointed out for the deleted images that we have no evidence from statute or case law that bridges are protected objects. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Law 4412/2016 defines 27 categories of engineering design activities. This law is related to expertise of engineers for design of Public Works and not to copyright issues, but may be used as guidance. Of interest in our case are categories 06, 07, 08 and 10:

• 6. Architectural design of buildings
• 7. Special architectural design (external spaces, places, parks/gardens, monuments, traditional buildings etc)
• 8. Structural design (of buldings and large or special bridges/viaducts) The jargon phrase "τεχνικό έργο" (lit. technical project) is used by Greek transportation engineers to refer to bridges and related structures and is used in Law 4412.
• 10. Transportation design (roads, railways, small bridges and culverts)

Therefore the design of Rio-Antirrio bridge, if it was procured as a traditional public work, would be contracted to a structural engineering office and not to an architect's office. If it has any effect to copyright, it's up to the courts to decide. SV1XV (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sv1xv pending a court case, can we host images of the bridge as a mere non-copyrightable structure? ({{PD-structure}}) However, some users may insist that it goes against the spirit of both COM:PRP and the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" principle formulated by freedomdefined.org. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we can keep them. However there are copyright extremists on Commons who may disagree. BTW maybe a coincidence, but the Rio-Antirrio bridge is the only modern structure in Greece which features on modern postcards issued after the introduction of the current draconian copyright legislation. All postcards of modern buildings (Athens Hilton Hotel, Telecom Tower of Thessaloniki etc), quite common in 1965-1985, have disappeared. SV1XV (talk)

@Sv1xv: was the bridge project procured as a public work? Greek Wikimedians may need to seek information (and if ever, licensing clearance) from the holder of the design through email (COM:VRTS?). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sv1xv: Why do you use terms like "copyright extremists" and "draconian copyright legislation" (of Greece?). On Commons we respect the copyright law in various countries, including the right of makers/designers/artist to earn a living with their work. If you on second thought think these words do not help to find a solution, please remove these from your contribution.

Meanwhile, it is a good idea to try and obtain permission through the design company. I am willing to try, if somebody can find a point of contact. Ellywa (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone check Steve Uwimana (talk · contribs)'s uploads? See Special:ListFiles/Steve Uwimana. His uploads appear to be works of art and crafts as part of submissions to the Burundian edition of 2024 Wiki Loves Africa, but Burundi does not have a usable Freedom of Panorama exception (only for cinematography and TV broadcasts, not photographs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly relevant statement regarding licensing issues during Wiki Loves events from an archive entry, which can be found in the section "Massive image deletion requests by user A1Cafel":

Organisers speak directly with the government etc and if permission is granted then you can upload images from that country providing it's within a specific month and that the WLM template has to be applied and that FOP is not applicable to WLM images (because special permission has been granted)

The comment that was posted in response to the above statement is also interesting. Basically, they say that there are special exceptions to the usual copyright rules during such events.

(But don't ask me whether these statements are applicable here.) Nakonana (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the response says, that was about cases where permission was obtained from the owners of the copyright of the artworks. It does not mean that their permission was not needed. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakonana WLM template alone does not signify an artist has gave his/her permission to the uploader or the organizers to have their images of his/her work disseminated here under commercial licensing. Hundreds of images of Ukrainian monuments have been deleted even if those were submitted through Wiki Loves Monuments, because those images lacked tangible evidence of permissions from the sculptors or their heirs / estate. Either a visible tag indicating correspondence of licensing authorization (COM:VRTS) or an organizer's repository of letters of permissions from copyright holders (like what Wikimedia Italy maintains) are the only valid forms of permission/authorization that Wikimedia can accept. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 has requested a change to the protected template {{PD-Australia/en}} on the template's talk page:

• "Please remove the statement "When using this template, please provide information of where the image was first published and who created it." Publication date is not relevant to Australian images." - Hawkeye7

As a template editor but not a license expert, I wanted to run this proposal by VPC before considering completing the request. It appears at odds with other information I see on that template about publication date, and frankly odd that publication date could really be irrelevant to determining PD status. Any ideas? Josh (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In countries using p.m.a. + 70 publication date is irrelevant if there is a known author. Is it really irrelevant in Australia if there is not a known author? - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. Yes, it's still very relevant for anonymous works. It's still relevant in edge conditions sometimes even when the author is known. It also can be relevant for users in other countries even if not important for the Australian term, so it's always good info to provide if known. But it is true that it will be used less often going forward in Australia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to upload this ship portrait, clearly signed by Everhardus Koster (1817-1892), of the clipper "Grecian". But at the foot of that page is a note "Use of this Item is not restricted by copyright and/or related rights, but the holding organization is contractually obligated to limit use. For more information, please contact the contributing organization. However, watermarked Maine Memory Network images may be used for educational purposes." The MHS Catalogue has a large-size watermark, while the others have a nano-version top centre. Although I don't comprehend what the "contractual obligations" are, I supposed that the image is off-limits, even for the watermarked image due to the educational purposes limitation.

However, I see this with the watermark, and this with it cropped out. So I wondered whether it might be all right after all? - Davidships (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The artist Everhardus Koster died in 1892 so its PD. This is a bit dark, and you would have to crop off the frame. I have a clean full copy, but its only 47.5kb big. The dark one comes in at 27kb. Their just useable. There might be something here here, but I dont have access. Broichmore (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you are confirming that the unexplained "contractual obligations" can be ignored, then I'll upload the 217kb frameless version that I extracted, which should look OK. - Davidships (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They could be something like donor restrictions. Nobody else is limited by those agreements, just the entity which signed the contract. If we do something which gets the institution in trouble, that could make it less likely for people to donate and/or the library to make things available. But, they don't really give any indication of what the restrictions really are. Either way, if they make something available, then it should be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - now here - Davidships (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the issue at the file's talk page on en:wiki 4 months ago, but there was no input, so I'm copying said talk entry of mine here, in hopes that someone could offer some guidance:

This image [mentioned in the header] was published in the "Japanese pictorial magazine about the Sino-Japanese War Asahi-ban Shina-jihen Gaho published on Jan. 27, 1938." according to the information provided in the information box. The page w:en:Talk:Nanjing Massacre denial/Disputed material has further images from that source and those other images have been uploaded to Wiki Commons. So, I'm a bit surprised to see the current license warning for this image. Is the source information for this image incorrect? Is it ok to transfer it to Commons? Or were the other images from this source uploaded to Wiki Commons despite not being in the public domain?

Just to add a list:

• This file from the same source is tagged as eligible for upload to Commons: w:en:File:Nanking19371227.jpg
• This file is from a somewhat different but seemingly similar source, and it has been uploaded to Commons: File:Nanking19371220b.jpg

Nakonana (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the photo should be fine. If first published in Japan, it could be uploaded here as {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. If for some reason or other its first publication turns out to have been in China, then {{PD-PRC}} will also ensure that it is in the public domain in both the source country and the US. Felix QW (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a copyright-related concern, but we can't take the file description at face value and may need a disclaimer on Commons. We don't want to inadvertently repeat Japanese-nationalist revisionist propaganda. Bremps... 02:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas el escudo del Estado Zulia creado en 1917 está en el Dominio Público tanto Venezuela como EEUU?? (https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escudo_de_armas_del_estado_Zulia) AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debería estarlo, por su antigüedad en EEUU y por las leyes de Venezuela. Bedivere (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siehe hier: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wappen_Wirttembergia_1856.jpg Meiner Meinung nach (schon wieder) eine fragwürdige Behaltensentscheidung von user:Billinghurst mit seltsamer Begründung. Ob die Zeichnung eigenhändig erstellt wurde oder ob die Zeichnung einer anderen Person abfotografiert (oder gescannt) wurde, ist weiter ungeklärt. Der LD-Entscheider meint wohl, man müsse Copyright-Bedenken beweisen? Ich dachte immer, umgekehrt wird ein Schuh draus? Was ist mit com:PCP? GerritR (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GerritR: Gibt es denn irgendwelche Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass diese Zeichnung kein eigenes Werk des Benutzers User:Mattatja ist? Ist die Zeichnung, bevor sie als Datei hier hochgeladen wurde, schon anderswo gedruckt oder im Internet veröffentlicht worden? --Rosenzweig τ 14:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nein, nicht dass ich wüsste. Trotzdem habe ich Zweifel, ob Zeichner und Hochlader die gleiche Person sind. Das Bild könnte zum Beispiel in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt sein.--GerritR (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Hochlader User:Mattatja hat übrigens auch historische Fotos, die eindeutig nicht von ihm sein können, als "eigenes Werk´" hochgeladen. Dies spricht nicht gerade für urheberrechtliche Sorgfalt bei der Zeichnung.--GerritR (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

siehe https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mattatja --GerritR (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GerritR Wer würde denn bei einem vermeintlichen Werk aus dem Jahre 1856 das Copyright haben? Laut Wappenrecht scheint es beim Heraldiker zu liegen, der das Wappen entworfen hat, aber dieser ist bei einem Wappen aus dem Jahre 1856 doch sicherlich schon lange tot, wodurch das Wappen wohl gemeinfrei wäre. Nakonana (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Wappen an sich schon, nicht aber eine eigenhändige Zeichnung eines Wappens.--GerritR (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Da wäre zum einen COM:Assume good faith zu nennen. Es gibt keinen Grund, anzunehmen, dass dieses Wappen keine eigenhändige Zeichnung ist. Das Wappen hat keine sonderlich schwierigen Elemente, besteht zum Teil aus geometrischen (Teil-)Figuren und man braucht entsprechend kein großes künstlerisches Talent, um es selbst nachzuzeichnen. Es gibt also zahlreiche Leute, die so eine Nachzeichnung, wie man sie hier sieht, problemlos anfertigen könnten. Wenn du annimmst, dass das Bild in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt wird, so bedeutet dies, dass Mattatja scheinbar Zugang zu besagten Archiven hat oder besagtes Mitglied sein müsste; denn anders käme man an keine Kopie des Bildes. Du könntest die Verbindung also bei Bedarf kontaktieren und auf diese potentielle Urheberrechtsverletzung aufmerksam machen. Aber, wenn du mich fragst, ist das Wappen wirklich nicht schwierig nachzuzeichnen, also sehe ich da keinen Grund zur Annahme einer Urheberrechtsverletzung, es sei denn, es gibt konkrete Hinweise dafür. Nakonana (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ich sehe mich keineswegs in der Pflicht, hier irgendwelche Nachforschungen zu betreiben. Hab ich etwa die Beweislast? Was die Annahme, die Zeichnung sei eigenhändig, absolut nicht stützt, ist die Hochladehistorie des Benutzers. Dem unterstelle ich übrigens keinen schlechten Willen (COM:Assume good faith), sondern nur Unachtsamkeit bzw. Bedenkenlosigkeit beim Copyright. Und hier gilt nach wie vor com:pcp.--GerritR (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ich würde das Copyright bei der Zeichnung aber in diesem Fall trotzdem nicht anzweifeln, weil dieses Wappen wirklich nicht schwer ist nachzuzeichnen. Ich habe es mal mit dem Kugelschreiber (also ohne Möglichkeit Fehler auszuradieren) ausprobiert und habe in knapp 5 Minuten folgendes Ergebnis zustande bekommen: File:Wappen Wirttembergia 1856 by Nakonana on 20240623 191803.jpg. Mein allererstes eigenhändig gezeichnetes Wappen. Wenn du also Zweifel an dem anderen hast, können wir stattdessen meine Kreation verwenden, die, denke ich, eindeutig und zweifelsfrei als mein Werk identifizierbar ist :) Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Du argumentierst nicht zum Thema "einenes Werk", sondern zum Thema Com:too. Eine Handzeichnung eines Werks ohne eigene Schöpfungshöhe ist aber wie das Foto eines Grashalms: Irgendjemand muss es machen.--GerritR (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Und selbst wenn es jemand macht, wenn es unter COM:TOO fällt, wäre die Urheberrechtsfrage unbedeutend, weil es bei dem Werk gemäß COM:TOO nichts urheberrechtlich zu schützen gäbe.

Es gibt bei dem Wappen einfach keinen Grund, die Eigenständigkeit des Werkes anzuzweifeln, weil es selbst einem ungeübten Menschen mit Leichtigkeit gelingt, eine passable Nachzeichnung anzufertigen. Nakonana (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bloss weil es vermutlich recht simpel ist, das Wappen nachzumalen, heißt das noch lange nicht, dass der Hochlader sich auch tatsächlich selbst die Mühe gemacht hat. und was die sonstigen Beiträge des Hochladers anbelangt, siehe oben. GerritR (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The job of the administrator to determine consensus is to review the evidence provided. You provided the shortest of context and no evidence. No indications of anything else. On the basis of the evidence provided there was not a consensus to delete. PCP says "significant doubt" and the case presented did not reach that standard. Quick Google Lens and TinEye searches presented nothing. It was "in use" so personal artwork isn't ours to determine, and there are so many COA on site, and this is one with an old date. Kept.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GerritR: Letztlich war der Löschantrag ja ziemlich wortkarg, ein bisschen mehr solltest du den schon begründen. Was hier übrig bleibt, ist, dass du die Angabe "eigenes Werk" anzweifelst, weil derselbe Benutzer auch andere Dateien als "eigene Werke" hochgeladen har, obwohl sie offensichtlich keine sind. Das ist durchaus ein nachvollziehbarer Gedankengang, und der sollte auch im Löschantrag stehen und nicht erst in einer späteren Diskussion. Ohne weitere Anhaltspunkte, dass es sich tatsächlich so verhält, kann der abarbeitende Admin aber durchaus entscheiden, dass er die Angabe "eigenes Werk" akzeptiert, weil er eben keinen erheblichen Zweifel (Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle/de) hat. So wie in diesem Fall. --Rosenzweig τ 07:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn noch jemand diese meine Zweifel an der Autorenschaft für nicht ganz abwegig hält, dann könnte man ja über eine Erneuerung des LA nachdenken, mit Verweis auf diese Diskussion. Ich selbst lass es lieber. GerritR (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked in a previous thread if the version of "Manos: The Hands of Fate" that Ben Solovey restored is also PD, I ended up doing some digging about this topic and I found such an interesting set of details about "Manos" and its Copyright.

First of all I watched three versions of the movie to determine if the changes made in the restoration were "Substantial and creative" to gain new Copyright, the one in Commons, the Restoration and the MST3K version and basically the only differences I could find aside from the improved quality of Audio and Video of the Restoration, is that both MST3K and the Restored version has two additional minutes in the Intro that the Commons version doesn't have, the only other thing that I notice is a bit of small (but not too substantial) editing fixes, such as the removal the frame that had the Clapperboard in the kissing scene (around the 6 minute mark in Commons, 7 in Restored and 29 in MST3K).

Also at the end of Restored it shows that Solovey didn't put a Copyright to the film itself, but only the additional contents. (SPECIAL CONTENTS OF THIS EDITION COPYRIGHT 2013, MOTH INC.) The blu-ray cover also doesn't assign copyright to the film itself (Copyrights of the "Program Content" and the Cover) See here

Solovey himself in 2017 in a Kickstarter post would declare he's championing for the movie to keep it's PD status. ("Joe Warren has attempted, without success,...incorrectly claiming “copyright infringement” on this public domain work"). So I find it weird that inexplicably the Playboy article from 2015 mentions that Solovey "was successful in copyrighting the restoration" it could be just a legal threat to Warren state or misinterpretation by the article's writer mixing the words "Copyright" and "Trademark".

I also found this blog post that details more than the Playboy article did but also does a really great job explaining the Copyright legalities not only of this film but other examples such as "Raging Bull". It's a long read and it concludes that the original screenplay written by Warren under the title "Fingers of Fate" is definitely under Copyright, but it also concludes that the PD status of the film itself is safe and since neither the Warren Trust or Solovey has taken this into court matter or set a precedent "Manos" the film is still PD.

TLDR: Since the thread above has stated that a Restored film wouldn't gain new Copyright if the changes are not substantial, the Warren state hasn't seeked legal action since 2015, the Manos Trademark has been abandoned in 2018 and it's safe to assume Solovey would be happy to see the PD film distributed everywhere clearly showing that he didn't put any Copyright notice on the restoration. While the only thing that couldn't be uploaded is the original screenplay "Fingers of Fate", which again we wouldn't obtain since the Warren state doesn't want to release it publicly. I think it's safe to upload the restored version of "Manos" into Commons.

If anyone has any insight, comments or more info about this I'll hear about it. Hyperba21 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would File:10 rue de la Chaussée d’Antin.jpg fll under the provisions of COM:FOP France? It's a picture of a window display, and the store itself is located in France. Does this file have licesnig problems because (1) it shows a building and (2) its show a flower display (work of art)? In addition, the same uploader also uploaded File:Lachaume Iconic Door Handles.jpg, which might be the door handles of the store shown in the first photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I searched for advice, it seemed to differ depending on the country and whether the painting had been publicly displayed, which left me confused.

I am in the US, the painter was in the US, and the people who have uploaded a photograph are in the US. There is a photo here: https://fineartsouth.com/pages/art-inventory/artdetail/115/1386

The painting was in an exhibit in New Orleans a few years ago.[1] I don't know if it was ever publicly shown before that.

Every page on the site hosting the photo has "©2024 Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom which for sure applies to all their text and design work, but is the photo in the public domain? Rjjiii (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer but based on Commons:Hirtle chart, if the artist died in 1853 and the work was not published before 2003, then it passed into the public domain on January 1, 2003 on the basis that the author had been dead over 70 years. (This change in status was due to a change in U.S. copyright law effective on that date.) There is no way that copyright could be regained; faithful reproduction of the work does not create a new copyright; it is almost impossible to imagine what intellectual property right Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc. is claiming, or how they think they came by that right. Perhaps they are over two decades out of date in their knowledge of copyright law; perhaps they are just bluffing. Your guess is as good a mine. - Jmabel ! talk 06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The painting predates US copyright protection for paintings anyway (it came in 1897 I believe) so I think it's fine, Hirtle chart or not. Bremps... 01:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, How is it possible that FlickreviewR reviews a file with a bogus license? If FlickreviewR is not reliable, we have a serious problem. Yann (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FlickrreviewR just confirms what the Flickr page says. It has no way to know whether someone might be committing copyfraud on Flickr. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: No, that's not the issue here. The license on Flickr is {{PDMark-owner}}, but the license successfully reviewed by the bot is {{PD-US}}. PD-US doesn't exist on Flickr, and it is not valid here. Yann (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, at least up to a point. We don't have an equivalent of PD-Mark, so there is only so much the bot can do. Yes, the uploader (now blocked) used the wrong PD tag. We require a PR rationale, Flickr doesn't, so I'm guessing that all the bot can do with "PD-Mark" is to see whether some sort of PD tag is on the file. User:Zhuyifei1999 is listed as operating that bot, but their user page says they are no longer active, so I have absolutely no idea who to ask about the bot. Is it just running as a zombie? - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems far preferable to flag pages with the PD-Mark for human review rather than to attempt to verify them. Even {{PDMark-owner}} is not valid if the Flickr user is not clearly the copyright owner, so there is no on-size-fits-all tag for images with Flickr PD-Mark. The situation is much more akin to a non-Flickr-upload than to a reviewed Flickr upload with license. Felix QW (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if the listed bot operator "retired" in March 2020 (by putting the retired-box on his userpage), with sporadic contributions until May 2023 afterwards. Apparently Stemoc rebooted it when it got stuck in February. I found a recent talk page discussion regarding the bot's treatment of PD-Mark files, but I am not sure that it became clear what the current behaviour is exactly. Of course, it doesn't help if such discussions are on a talk page of an inactive user with 1-day archiving in place. Felix QW (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would a copyright notice placed on an album's inner sleeve or record apply to the album cover? I would assume not, since a cover is not permanently attached to an inner sleeve or record, just like how a book is not permanently attached to its dust jacket, but the reasoning given in this deletion request and the uploader of this file saying that he checked the LP record for a notice seem to suggest otherwise. Prospectprospekt (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that each separate piece of paper in a packaged LP or in a CD jewel box needs a copyright notice. Certainly every page of an (unstapled) newspaper does not. So the dust jacket analogy may not apply. - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the merits of either argument but it's assumed that the dust jack will be included with the record and visa versa. So I don't see why they would need (or even have) separate copyright notices. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: by "the dust jacket analogy" I meant the analogy to the dust jacket of a hardcover book (which did need a separate notice under the old U.S. copyright law); we (or at least I) wouldn't normally refer to the "dust jacket" of a vinyl record; I'd call it the "record jacket", "jacket", or just "cover". For CDs as packaged in that era (the "jewel box") it is even more complicated, because the back cover is usually attached to the box in a way that would require disassembly to remove it; the front piece is easier to remove but usually not routinely removed; and other pieces may be inserted loose. Plus, back then, there was often a separate larger box the height of an LP jacket but only half the width, which pretty much everybody except some collectors threw away. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During the period from 1978-1989, works published without a notice could be registered within 5 years of publication to not lose copyright. The cover art was registered for copyright protection along with the music: https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/12815893. PascalHD (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was published in 1971 and there doesn't appear to be a copyright notice, am I right in thinking the photo in it can be uploaded with a PD-US-no notice tag? Shapeyness (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That extract seems to start on page 44. What publication was that extracted from and was there a notice on it? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the 1971 issue, but the 1974 issue has a copyright notice [2]. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes more sense, I just wasn't paying enough attention! Thanks for checking. Shapeyness (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Я пишу статті про загиблих військовослужбовців свого підрозділу. Відповідно, що беру фотографію, яку зробили їх побратими під час служби. На жаль не всі багато фотографій і доводиться використовувати наявні. Часто є лише одна фотографія, яку також використовують в медіа виданнях. І я дуже сумніваюсь, що вони мають хоч якісь права на дані публікації, утім зі статей такі фотографії регулярно видаляють посилаючись на авторське право. Як такі фотографії публікувати? Mykhailo Zinenko MLT (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mykhailo Zinenko MLT: Будь ласка, попросіть фотографів або спадкоємців надіслати вам дозвіл через VRT/uk із копіями, щоб ви були в курсі.

Please have the photographers or heirs send permission via VRT with carbon copies to you to keep you in the loop.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

village photo chungchang hi uplod hi media ah a lang kim thei lo, engvang nge ni ang Lalchhanhima hmar Zote (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lalchhanhima hmar Zote: Hi, leh kan lo lawm e. I ngaihtuahna chu i watermark chu a lang kim lo tih a nih chuan COM:WATERMARK angin paih chhuah hi ngaihtuah la.

Hi, and welcome. If your concern is that your watermark is not fully visible, please consider omitting it per COM:WATERMARK.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an image - an eye posted by Hercules_hippo - which apparently has been removed by Wikimedia - and am now being sued by Pixsy for $1750. The image was apparently posted on Flickr by Tom Tolkien but it ended up in Wikimedia Commons.

I run a patient supported chronic illness website and fees like this are egregious for a website like ours.

Any ideas? Pixys is willing to come down to $1550 - an amazing amount of money for a one-time use of an image I uploaded from Wikimedia Commons.

I have argued that because the image was used for educational purposes - the website does not sell anything or have paid memberships - that it should be exempt but they're discarding that. 2600:1011:B192:E6BC:4911:8FAC:8B9:A2CD 15:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May File:Eye I.jpg be the image you are talking about? Or perhaps File:Eye2thomastolkien (16599025801).jpg? Felix QW (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed a party to ongoing litigation ("[I] am now being sued by Pixsy"), which you may be conflating with a mere demand/cease and desist, it is extremely unwise to be making public comments, and potentially soliciting legal advise ("Any ideas?") You alone are responsible for your use, if any, of copyrighted works and for verifying the accuracy and limitations of purported licenses. We cannot offer you assistance. Consider retaining competent representation promptly. Эlcobbola _talk 15:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the two images pointed out by Felix QW were uploaded to Thomas Tolkien's Flickr account as CC-BY ([3] [4]). Anyone reusing these images needs to properly attribute the photographer, according to the terms of the CC-BY license. Tolkien states on his profile page that he uses Pixsy to enforce his copyrights. (Not that this automatically means you should pay what they're asking. There is a lot of information and advice out there about Pixsy.) Toohool (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't pay what they ask. US$1750 for a single use is extortion. You may have to pay something, but you should be able to negotiate a much smaller amount. Yann (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US$17.50 would be more appropriate.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single dime would be appropriate. The file was licensed as CC-BY. The problem apparently comes because the re-user did not give proper attribution, so they can ask whatever they want, but ultimately it'd be up to the judiciary... Bedivere (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered where the line is legally with someone reusing a file without attribution that's licensed as CC-BY. As attribution really kind of seems like a secondary requirement that runs counter to the nature of the thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the author didn't want attribution, they should have used a CC-0. The nature of the thing is that a CC-BY work can be used if attribution is properly given. I don't know how to communicate that better.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is convoluted. Especially for something that's suppose to simplify the licensing process. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, quite disagree. Someone making minor mistakes (misspelling the attribution, or failing to name the license overtly) may constitute a good-faith effort to conform to the free license, but use without any attribution at all when the license requires attribution is just as clear a copyright violation as if the free license had never been offered. - Jmabel ! talk 04:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of money requested is absurd, though. - Jmabel ! talk 04:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 likely a major requirement. At least as per a 2008 U.S. court ruling mentioned in this article of Encyclopædia Britannica: "In 2008 a U.S. federal appeals court ruled that, although they are commonly viewed as contracts, free licenses—which grant freedom to use copyrighted materials in exchange for adherence to certain terms of usage, distribution, and modification—are nonetheless enforceable under copyright law because they "set conditions on the use of copyrighted work." In the event that the conditions are violated, the license disappears, resulting in copyright infringement as opposed to the lesser violation of breach of contract." We might have overlooked a single court ruling that seems to legitimize free licenses as valid enforcements under copyright law. The amount of money requested may be too drastic, though. US$1550 is equivalent to more than ₱91,000 (in our currency), which is higher than the local prices of some of high-end models of appliances from Fujidenzo/Asahi/Hanabishi et cetera! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly we don't know the exact circumstances in this case, but I assume the whole "failure to allow a good faith re-user the opportunity to correct errors is against the intent of the license" thing would apply. It seems like Pixsy didn't and doesn't follow it on there end though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has Pixsy or one of their customers ever sued?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should report Thomas Tolkien to Flickr for violating their Community Guidelines. Flickr has a strict policy prohibiting copyleft trolling: "Failure to allow a good faith reuser the opportunity to correct errors is against the intent of the license and not in line with the values of our community, and can result in your account being removed." To report Tolkien, you can either go to https://www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-us/requests/new and select "Trust and Safety" for "What can we help you with today?" or you can just email helpflickr.com. As far as Pixsy is concerned, I would completely ignore them if it were me, but I'm not a lawyer and you shouldn't take any legal suggestions from me. Nosferattus (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Thomas Tolkien doing the trolling or is Pixsy doing the trolling, though? Maybe Tolkien wasn't actively engaged in the current demand and Pixsy is just patrolling on his behalf without informing him of each and every case. If it's the latter, Pixsy might not be aware of Flickr's site rules, but that doesn't mean that they can just ignore them. I'm just wondering whether one should go straight to getting Tolkien banned or whether one should assume good faith on Tolkien's end and lack of knowledge and Pixsy's end and therefore send a message to Pixsy to inform them they go against site rules, and also send Tolkien a message that Pixsy is acting in a way that might get him banned from Flickr. Nakonana (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Just read a little bit on it and it looks like the copyright holder is always involved in the process and that this is a systematic problem. Nakonana (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to threads at https://copyrightaid.co.uk/, one person offered Pixsy 1/10th of the original amount demanded and Pixsy accepted the offer. Another person offered half, which Pixsy did not accept, and since then has just been ignoring the demands for almost a year and still has not actually been sued (as of their most recent update a month ago). I imagine it is ultimately up to the photographer whether they accept a counter-offer or pursue actual legal action (instead of just extorting you with threats). Nosferattus (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading about someone who got a bill from them for like $500, offered them $150, and then got ghosted. So I'm kind if or to what degree they are willing to sue people who won't pay the full amount. It seems like they are more into bullying and attempting to extort people then they are actually going to court over an infringement claim. Which I guess makes sense. It probably wouldn't be a sustainable business if they took everyone who didn't immediately pay up to court over a $500 bill. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've thought about uploading to Commons this session from a 2002 session of the National Assembly of Venezuela ([5]), but I wanted to ask about the copyright first.

The logo in the upper left suggests that the author is the state television station Venezolana de Televisión, but being an official act I was wondering if this could be under the public domain per {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}. The YouTube uploader says he received the recording in a VHS from a friend, although I don't know if this is relevant. Cheers. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus;Buenas según el último párrafo de la licencia en Venezuela ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) dice claramente que fueron creados por el sector público o financiado por ellos se considerará del dominio público (osea VTV forma parte del gobierno entonces si puede publicar a Wikimedia los logos qué fueron creados por el sector público) AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation (as the person who originally asked speaks English): According to the last paragraph of the license in Venezuela (PD-VenezuelaGov), it clearly states that works created by the public sector or financed by them will be considered public domain (meaning VTV is part of the government, so it can publish to Wikimedia the logos that were created by the public sector). Bremps... 00:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently got in a row with a couple of other users over some DRs having to do with "restored" or "completed" stained glass windows, which IMO were different enough from the originals to warrant a new copyright. Although it was the opinion of other people in the deletion requests that restoration work on something or completing it (whatever that might mean) doesn't create a new copyright. I can understand that position in cases where the restoration is minor, but it seems like there should be a line there were if the artist doing the restoration takes artistic liberties in the process or otherwise alters the original to add modern elements to it that those parts of the window (or whatever) would then be copyrighted by said person. I'm wondering where the line is though or for that matter if my opinion about it is completely wrong. Adamant1 (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to vary from country to country and (within most countries) on the amount of creativity required. For example, only the few countries with "sweat of the brow" rules (which Commons usually ignores) could even possibly grant copyright for a faithful restoration of a known prior state of the work, but probably even some color decisions would be enough to get copyright in many countries, if not all. - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the U.S., the Compendium states:

The Office often receives applications to register preexisting works that have been restored to their original quality and character. Merely restoring a damaged or aged photograph to its original state without adding a sufficient amount of original, creative authorship does not warrant copyright protection.

The registration specialist will analyze on a case-by-case basis all claims in which the author used digital editing software to produce a derivative photograph or artwork. Typical technical alterations that do not warrant registration include aligning pages and columns; repairing faded print and visual content; and sharpening and balancing colors, tint, tone, and the like, even though the alterations may be highly skilled and may produce a valuable product. If an applicant asserts a claim in a restoration of or touchups to a preexisting work, the registration specialist generally will ask the applicant for details concerning the nature of changes that have been made. The specialist will refuse all claims where the author merely restored the source work to its original or previous content or quality without adding substantial new authorship that was not present in the original.

The specialist may register a claim in a restored or retouched photograph if the author added a substantial amount of new content, such as recreating missing parts of the photograph or using airbrushing techniques to change the image.

This general guidance can change by country, along with their threshold of originality. In general, restoring something to its original state seems unlikely to generate a copyright unless maybe there is sweat of the brow (and not sure the old UK law qualifies, as something must "originate" with the author there, which is harder to argue in cases like that). Adding new elements would be based a country's threshold of originality, which is somewhat variable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per w:en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/May#Vanuatu Government Copyright, the flag was found to be claimed under Vanuatuan government's copyright. Impacts: File:Flag of Vanuatu.svg. Should the government's copyright claim is valid, then this is a death sentence for the flag and a major break to Vanuatu-related templates across Wikipedias and even Wikivoyage and all other Wikimedia platforms. Ping @Marchjuly and Matrix: who started/participated the copyright thread there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised something. Doesn't a flag count as applied art? Looking at the COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS ACT NO. 42 OF 2000, applied art is defined as "an artistic creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article". A flag clearly fits that description: it is "a usually rectangular piece of fabric of distinctive design that is used as a symbol ..., as a signaling device, or as a decoration" (MW). Flying a symbol of a nation is clearly a utilitarian function. Since applied arts only have a 25-year copyright span, that means the copyright expired in 2006, which is even before the URAA date for Vanuatu. @JWilz12345, thoughts? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix I would rather wait for Marchjuly's thoughts if they will agree to your assessment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too simple anyway to be copyrighted. Bedivere (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That maybe so, but a similar case was the Australian Aboriginal flag which was copyrighted in Australia until recently (which meant it couldn’t be uploaded to Commons). Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the SVG is the one who drew it. Whether that could be considered a derivative work of another drawing, not sure. As far as U.S. law goes, it would appear the original drawing is PD-EdictGov since it was included as part of their law. They do have an explicit copyright claim in their law, but not sure that can hold for third-party drawings like this. As an aside, a flag drawing is not utilitarian. The cloth itself may be, but the design is entirely separable. In most cases, the design is an idea, and each specific drawing of that idea is a separate expression with an independent copyright (if it's complex enough to be copyrightable in the first place). See Commons:Coats of arms. So, taking drawings of flags from other websites can be a bad idea if not licensed. If an actual drawing is included in the law, you get into PD-EdictGov territory. The main thing which is copyrightable is the drawing of the fern leaves, and that does not appear to be derivative of the drawing in the law -- that appears to be original, or maybe the vector was copied from some other PD source. The drawing of the tusk is likewise not the same copyright-wise as the drawing in the law, if the one I'm looking at is correct.[6] It's similar, but a different expression of the same idea. You can't use copyright to prevent someone from drawing something similar; you can only protect the actual expression (the very specific lines drawn). If you are trying to prevent commercial use as a symbol, that is a trademark-like restriction. While you cannot explicitly trademark national flags or seals, you can certainly make {{Insignia}} type laws, and Vanuatu definitely has done that -- but those are non-copyright restrictions. That seems to be what their government means by "commercial use", more in the trademark area. Getting into deletion of self-drawn versions of national flags is probably not a good idea. If the specific drawing was taken from another website, that is another matter, but deeming a national flag as inherently unable to be on Commons, we may need some better precedent as I'm not sure that is possible, from a copyright perspective. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland, like many European countries, does not grant regular copyright to non-artistic photography but a much more limited exclusive right valid for 50 years after creation. This term was 25 years until 2006 so at that time, such works created on or before 1980 were in the public domain in Iceland. However, because of the URAA, such works are probably only in the public domain in the US if they were already in the public domain in Iceland on 1 Januar 1996. This would mean that only non-artistic photographs created in Iceland on or before the calendar year of 1970 qualify as being in the public domain in both the US and Iceland and thus eligible to be uploaded to the Commons. This would then also mean that Template:PD-Iceland50 was only relevant up to 2020 and will probably never be relevant again because the assumed copyright protection in the US under URAA is always much longer than 50 years. This template should probably change to PD-Iceland 1970 to reflect that later works will not be in the Public Domain in the US until 2065 at the earliest. Is my thinking correct here? Bjarki S (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Majulah Singapura Orchestra.ogg is sourced to YouTube, but there's no indication its been released under an acceptable free license. Even if it was, there's nothing to indicate that YouTube channel is the copyright holder of this particular rendition of the anthem. Is there any way this can be kept per COM:Singapore? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts? UK-filmed film that was also released in US. Unclear if image originates from US or UK trailer. Movie itself almost certainly still copyrighted. Bremps... 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the trailer on the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/vm982760352 & also on Commons here. There is no notice and is credited to being published by Warner Bros; the American distributor. I would imagine it was the American film company that would have handled the distribution of the trailer and would likely have been first published there. PascalHD (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files on Commons need to be public domain in their home country and in the United States (excepting free licenses, of course, but that's not happening here). Would this be free in the UK? Or does this not count as UK-made at all? Bremps... 02:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to upload the picture of Hardeep Singh Nijjar brandishing a rifle in this article-[7]. This is a commonly circulated picture that has used by various media outlets, including the Globe and Mail. As I have zero experience in Wikimedia, I don't know what license/Creative Commons license the image falls under. I would appreciate any help in determining the copyright status of it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry to bear bad news, but probably don't upload it. If a photo is copyright-ambiguous, it is likely to be copyrighted. Then it would not be suitable for Commons (or allowed at all). Don't get discouraged, ask for more help here if it is needed. Cheers, atque supra! Bremps... 01:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to learn more about Copyright before uploading anything. Start here at COM:Licensing. The photo you linked is by default copyrighted to whomever the photographer/creator is. In order to use that photo here, the photographer would have to license the photo under a Creative Commons license themselves. Otherwise, cannot be uploaded until it becomes Public Domain due to expiry. PascalHD (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo died in 1937. Could unaltered texts authored by him be uploaded to Commons or Wikisource? Zanahary (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]