Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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

---

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

---

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Hey! This is the logo of CITES in its simplest form. Does it comply with a "logo based on letters" or not exactly? Thanks. --Virum Mundi (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the country of origin of this logo? Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruslik, sorry, I didn't know you replied (you didn't mention me). Well, according to their website, all national CITES authorities have the same copyrights, so I guess it's not just one country. Their main offices are in Geneva. Actually, both English and French Wikipedias (and maybe others) use one version of the logo or another, but they are not stored in Wikipedia Commons (both use certain rules which apply only to them). My question is if this concrete logo complies with a text-based image (which I understand can be used anyway), or is it too formatted. Thanks --Virum Mundi (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the country of origin i.e. where it was first published. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legal rationale behind choosing a country of origin as far as Commons is concerned; it's primarily from a moral angle and to protect likely reusers of our works (e.g. most people who would like to make use of Commons photographs of French buildings are probably in France). However, for an international organization that came into being simultaneously in multiple countries, I see no reason to comply with any countries' copyright laws other than the US, especially given that the US is a party to the treaty. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the author of the work may be an artist living in any country and the logo itself may have been published by them before it was adopted by the organization. Ruslik (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we have no legal obligation to comply with the law of any country other than the US. Identifying the country of origin is solely a matter of fulfilling the spirit of the free content movement. It is a compromise, a recognition that if we tried to ensure that content was free in every country worldwide we'd end up with almost no content at all, so let's just pick two countries: the one that we're required to by law, and the one that makes the most sense. Here the natural person or persons who created the image is so divorced from its prevalence that we don't care where they are from, whoever they may be. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaQ2kVVt5IA and many other similar videos have been uploaded by their creator (Mr Fereidooni) on YouTube under a CC-BY license. I am interested in uploading them onto Commons; they will be extremely useful for a series of articles on Persian music theory that I have been working on for the last couple of years on fawiki. There is one issue; YouTube does not specify which version of CC-BY is used on these videos (e.g. 3.0 or 4.0) and I don't want to upload them using the wrong license. Should I just assume 3.0, which is the oldest option available in Commons' upload wizard? Huji (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube links to version 3.0. See also Template:YouTube CC-BY. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Huji: Courtesy link: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468

You may also be interested in Commons:video2commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both!

One more copyright related question. If the creator of those videos uses a portion of a well-known song to explain a musical concept by replaying that portion of the song himself, and assuming that the original song is copyright protected, does it violate CC-BY? Must it be considered fair use, or can it be free content if it is his own rendition of the portion of the song?

Essentially, you cannot teach music without replaying other people's work. Does that mean you cannot teach music in a copyright-free fashion? Huji (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the original song is copyright protected, the creator of those videos cannot publish his derivative works under a CC license without express permission of the original copyright holder. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@4nn1l2: I guess my question is more about what constitutes as "derivative work". If I rewrite a text in my own language, it is not a violation of copyright. Particularly if the second work is not competitively creative (e.g. the first is a novel, and the second is a description of its story line). That is essentially what we do in Wikipedia all day. Can we draw a parallel here for music too? If someone reproduces some sounds that were used in some music, but the product he makes is not music itself, but rather, a description of someone else's music, isn't it similar to the "paraphrased text" situation?

A concrete example would be: if someone plays the cord progression used in some song to explain it from a harmony standpoint, they are not really reproducing the song. Can they do so and make their educational content "free"? Or just because they are talking about a chord progression that was used in some copyrighted song, they are bound by copyright? Huji (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you say makes sense. But wait for the opinion of other volunteers, because I'm not very familiar with musical works. I'm more into pictures. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you rewrite a text in your own language, it may well be a violation of copyright, just like a movie may be a violation of the copyright of a book without literally reproducing anything. It seems likely that a description of a story line at the length of the original, repeating all the points of the original, would well be a copyright infringement. You can certainly talk about chord progressions.

Part of it may be complex between Wikimedia and the outside world. You can do fair use in Creative Commons works, but Wikimedia Commons may not accept them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not quite true: Wikipedia uses fair use all the time, so he can absolutely publish the derivative work under a CC license. It's just not a CC license that Commons will accept, because it only applies to 99% of the work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay if it ends up on Wikipedia (as opposed to Commons). I just want to get the licensing part right. Can you show me an example of a CC license file on Wikipedia which also contains fair use material? Huji (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikimedia projects, unfortunately there is no concept of "partially free" media as you might find on Youtube; a file is either free or non-free. On Wikipedia, articles are allowed to be partially free (i.e. mostly free text with some copyrighted quotes and images mixed in), but there is no such thing for media. If you want to use a CC video from Youtube that makes fair use of a copyrighted work, I would recommend muting the audio on the offending section and then uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the offending part is the part of most educational value.

Think of a video teaching you about en:death metal. Any examples provided will be copyrighted (after all, the genre originated in 1980s). If that video is (wrongfully) shared on YouTube with a CC license, can I still upload it (or portions of it) on Wikipedia with a fair use license? Huji (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of Wikipedia is, you are not allowed to use copyrighted audio of a broad musical genre to illustrate that genre. It is not true that any examples provided will be non-free, because someone can create their own death metal music and release it under a free license. In fact, anime also originated around that time and many of our anime articles (e.g. Dojikko) are illustrated with lovely illustrations provided by members of the community such as Niabot. What you can do is insert non-free media on the articles of specific anime series and specific death metal songs, so long as there is critical commentary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Huji: Maybe I'm a little a bit late, but here is the answer as per above. If these videos indeed contain copyrighted music items (I specify because not all well-known melodies are copyrighted) and the items in question were not properly licensed by the writer(s) (copyright holder(s)), there is practically no way a free CC license would be appropriate for your upload. Regarding your 'own rendition' & 'chord progression' question, it is important to note that besides a master copyright (technically covering the recording of this song) a published song has also a composition copyright (covering the music sheet of this work). Reproducing song's tune as it appears in the composition, in whole or in part, in any way (playing a musical instrument, singing, otherwise) of course counts, and 'explanatory manner' does not make an exemption. Another question is whether a chord progression is identifiable as a part of a copyrighted composition, but since you recognized this song yourself, we will assume that in this case it is. Given the above, the only solution I see here is either taking those explanatory videos that do not contain copyrighted compositions or uploading in accordance with non-free content criteria if they are met. Juliette Han (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think my main questions have been answered here. Huji (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Speravir 03:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

On Commons, there are categories of images that may be well-suited to being usable as desktop backgrounds. For example, there is the category Computer wallpaper and its subcategories. This brings up the following question: would there be a licensing issue if a user downloads an image that is licensed under CC BY or CC BY-SA for their personal use as a desktop background? Ideally, a Creative Commons BY or BY-SA license would treat copying and adaptation of a work that happens as personal and private use differently from public distribution or public display or public performance/broadcast transmission of the same work.

As an example, in looking at the CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic License legal code, section 3(a) mentions the rights "to reproduce the [CC licensed] Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works;" and section 3b mentions the right "to create and reproduce Derivative Works;". Section 4 mentions restrictions that apply to the rights granted in section 3. Section 4(a) starts with "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the [CC licensed] Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform." This statement for the most part mentions activities that involve other parties. The statement also uses the term "distribute"; however, that term brings to mind making copies of a work available to multiple outside parties as opposed to copying a work for personal use. Section 4(b) mentions restrictions that apply if the licensee is to "distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work" and section 4(c) mentions restrictions that apply if the licensee is to "distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the [CC licensed] Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works". From this, it may be that private copying and adaptation of the work is not restricted at least under the CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic License.

For the CC BY-SA 4.0 International License legal code, section 1(i) defines "Licensed Rights" as "the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license." Section 1(k) defines the term "Share" to mean, for the purposes of the license, "to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.", which seems to refer to activities where one or more copies of the work are made available to outside parties. Section 2(a)(1) mentions the license granting the rights to "reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part" and to "produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material." Hopefully, this would allow the licensee to "reproduce" the work even if they do not "Share" the work. Section 3 talks about restrictions that apply to exercising the rights granted under the license. Section 3(a)(1) mentions conditions that apply "[i]f you Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form)". The use of the term "Share" in the statement may indicate that the restrictions are not intended to apply to copying of the work that does not involve copies being made available to other parties. Section 3(b) mentions restrictions that apply when "[y]ou Share Adapted Material You produce", which may similarly mean that the restrictions are not intended to apply to adapting the work in the course of personal use.

For categorizing works in the Computer wallpaper category and subcategories, it might be useful to consider the licensing for a work. Ideally, the license for such a work would allow, at minimum, users to download, copy, and adapt the work for personal use. --Gazebo (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, do not understand what your problem is? Can you describe it in a language more amenable to interpretation? Ruslik (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems here. CC licences do include personal use without adaptations, otherwise they would be non-free by definition. See also the licence deed for "4.0": You are free to Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format ..." Note the word "copy" which includes copying a work to your desktop as a wallpaper. The same wording is used for previous versions and the share-alike licences. De728631 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend on who has access to view your computer screen. Let's assume it's only you and you don't display it publicly. Then, the analysis and conclusion of your second paragraph sound okay: "private copying and adaptation of the work is not restricted under the CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic License". I guess the analysis of your third paragraph sounds okay also. Where section 2a1 of the v. 4.0 allows to "reproduce and Share", to "produce, reproduce, and Share", it would seem reasonable to interpret the word "and" as meaning "and/or", so that the licensee is not forced to share. Besides, the copyright laws of many countries may directly allow such personal use. Section 8a of v. 4.0 seems to overrule the introductory sentence of the license and confirm that such direct legal right can be exercised without triggering the license. I don't understand your comment about the categorization on Commnons. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is all very well for Commons to have a category for images that are well-suited to being used as a computer desktop background. However, it would seem useful for images in that category (and subcategories) to either be uncopyrighted or licensed in a manner that allows users to download and copy and adapt the image for personal use, without having to worry about things like attribution or including a license URL or even a copy of the license. If all versions of the Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses (or at least versions 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0) allow such personal use, then that is great. Indeed, it would make sense for "free content" licenses to allow personal use without subjecting personal use to all of the same requirements that apply to public distribution of a work. However, I was not sure as to exactly how the Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses handle personal downloading and copying when it comes to attribution and specifying the license URL and information, not to mention licenses like the GFDL, LGPL, and GPL. --Gazebo (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as your private copy of a CC-BY-SA- or CC-BY-licensed file remains private, you are free to use it without attribution. You can hang it on your walls in your private home or use it as screen background. You should just remember this point before you are going to use such media as background in your Youtube studio, or on your notebook in a public presentation, or when publishing screenshots. And as we accept free media only per COM:L, all media conforming to COM:L at Commons qualify for private wallpaper use from a legal perspective. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am working on an image review for a Featured Article candidate at English Wikipedia. One of the images I am reviewing, w:en:File:French battleship Bouvet NH 64442.jpg, has a claim of PD from Naval History and Heritage Command. The source website has no details of the image's copyright status, author or creation date but the Wikipedia PD tag says, "Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description)."[1] What would Commons view be on the validity of that PD tag and do we have an equivalent one here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like {{NHHC}} and {{PD-USGov-Navy}} would fit...--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They would be saying "public domain" from a U.S. perspective. It would only be PD-USGov-Military-Navy if the Navy sent someone over to Europe to take a photograph of it, which is possible, but most likely was someone else's photo made available to them so would at the very least be PD-US-expired. I don't see a photographer's mark on it, so would probably be PD-anon-70-EU for the country of origin, if it was a French photograph to begin with which seems more likely. Navypedia.org dates the photo as 1898, which would make the most sense. Most photos on that site are indeed US Navy photos, and it's possible the PD-USGov-Military-Navy tag applies, but perhaps {{PD-anon-expired}} would be more prudent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I made the transfer to Commons but I now see that {{NHHC}} can't stand on its own. Unfortunately the source country is unknown so I can't apply another licence to it and publication is also unknown. I have seen other images taken by British photographers when the ship has visited UK ports, so the assumption of French origin is unsafe. I'll set a speedy delete tag on the imported file and leave the original at Wikipedia. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's anonymous, it should be fine anywhere. {{PD-anon-expired}} covers the EU. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that one won't work either as it assumes the work was published before 1925. We can prove the image was taken before the ship sank in 1915 but it could have sat in an archive until the NHHC published it on their website. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy has a print, which means someone else took a photo and gave the Navy a print, meaning it was published as of then. The only way it is unpublished is if the Navy itself took it, which would make it PD-USGov. Also, the "unpublished" stuff is rarely indefinite these days -- for Europe, if not published within 70 years of being taken it passes into the public domain at that point. The anonymous term is 70 years from "making available to the public" (which is not as stringent as "publication"), and only then if made available in the 70 years after creation. But the Navy already had a print probably 120 years ago. So yes, I think PD-anon-expired is safe. It's only significant doubts which are subject COM:PRP, not any possible theoretical doubt. The odds of this being unpublished are extremely small. Up to you though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found some candidate images for use on Commons on the photo website Pexels. However, I hesitated as I cannot find any clear guidance on Commons about the licence.

• The official Pexels Licence is written in nice simplified language, but doesn't look very legally robust to me. It seems to resemble CC0 but is not explicitly so.
• The only guidance I could find on Commons was a vague note at the top of Category:Files from Pexels which says "Creative Commons Zero (CC0) until 4 July 2018,later publications do not fulfil Commons license requirement." I think I would find a bit more detail helpful.

Whether Pexels is a good source or a bad source, I would appreciate it if a knowledgeable editor could add some guidance, as appropriate, to:

• Commons:Licensing
• Commons:Free media resources
• Commons:Bad sources

...or perhaps create a Commons:Pexels page if it merits deeper explanation. Can anyone help?

Thanks, Cnbrb (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the restrictions at the bottom of the licence page you linked to. They apply some levels of commercial restrictions (NC) so are ineligible for use on Commons. Also, "Don't redistribute or sell the photos and videos on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms" fails our redistributable test. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have updated Commons:Bad sources myself to reflect this. Cnbrb (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to explain how the UK Government works are protected by "crown copyright" in logos, documents and other uses which placed under "de minimis". --122.2.105.103 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? Telling us that you have an action to perform is interesting but doesn't explain what you need from us. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all -- I was checking the copyright status of some Commons images of journalist Nellie Bly, and I've found a few photos that I'd like to ask for a second opinion on. These four images ([2] [3] [4] [5]) are all tagged as Public Domain due to age, but the provided source links back to Corbis Images (now Getty Images), where these exact images are currently for sale and labeled as "not released". Since it doesn't make sense for a corporation to be selling licensing rights for free photos, I'm wondering if the images were perhaps not originally published/made public anywhere, and therefore are not actually in the public domain? I tried looking this up, but I'm finding the rules a bit unclear. Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of action by stock photo agencies is not unheard of; see w:copyfraud. However, it does mean that we should scrutinize the PD rationale more carefully and delete if we cannot definitely prove that all the conditions for PD are met. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately some uploaders neglect to provide convincing evidence for public domain rationale, assuming (incorrectly) that "old must mean PD", or spuriously invoke {{PD-US-unpublished}} in hopes no one will double check. --Animalparty (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes all the sense in the world to sell free photos -- they make money off them. You are paying for the service; one-stop access to a wide range of subjects. They have loads of public domain works that they sell copies of. It's your choice whether to pay or not. Once public domain, there is nothing stopping them from selling it, basically. For one example, see this court case, about them selling photographs that a photographer had placed into the public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... Okay, so I guess it's not cut-and-dry either way then. Any suggestions for how to try to confirm copyright status, other than directly contacting Getty Images? Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to find original publications, in old prints, newspapers or books. (For example, at Nellie Bly sketch.jpg, I added a note about an image in a 1890 publication, which likely inspired this derived image, but if you can find an old publication of the derivative itself, that would be better.) I doubt you would get help from Getty to document public domain status if they make money by licensing the images. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true. ;-) I'll see what I can do in terms of my own research. Thanks! Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Filipino artist, Pablo Amorsolo, died in 1945. According to Filipino copyright law, his work is to be copyrighted for 50 years after his death. The counting begins on Jan. 1 of the next year, so in this case the paintings are copyrighted until Jan. 1, 1946 + 50 years. The question is whether this copyright expires after Dec. 31, 1995 (i.e. it's free on Jan. 1, 1996) or expires after Jan. 1, 1996 (i.e. it's free on Jan. 2, 1996). This is important, because the Filipino URAA restoration date is Jan. 1, 1996, so if the paintings were in the PD on that date, they are in the PD in the US as well, otherwise not. This was already discussed on Wikipedia here (with limited participation). I based my opinion on US copyright law, where it would enter the PD after Dec. 31 of its final year of protection, but according to one user: "It's true for the US, but civil law in the Philippines is codified and strongly influenced by Roman law, where a general rule is: 'The term, which is calculated in years, expires only in the last year of the term in the same month by name and on the same day in accordance with the day by which its starting point is determined.'" Is this true? And if so, does it also work that way w.r.t. copyright? --MrClog (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most laws extend copyright to the end of the calendar year. So, copyright would expire at the first instant of the January 1, meaning that on January 1 itself, the copyright was expired in the Philippines. In other words, the 50 years goes from the first instant of January 1, 1946 through the last instant of December 31, 1995. The first instant of January 1, 1996 is beyond 50 years from the first instant of January 1, 1946, so it was public domain that day. So there should be no URAA restoration for that author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe this is a controversial case with regards to how terms are calculated specifically in the source country and how they are calculated usually, especially given that restoration counted from the first instant of January 1, 1996. Since I understand what previous comment refers to, I'll abstain from forcing my opinion. Juliette Han (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it's controversial -- the URAA restores works under copyright on Jan 1 1996, and at no point of Jan 1 1996 was that author's works copyrighted. The last second of December 31, 1995 was the last moment of their valid copyright. The 50 year clock starts at midnight of Jan 1, 1946, and the 50 year period ends after the last second of Dec 31, 1995 -- the same way that a 10 year period starting on Jan 1 2010 ends at midnight of dec 31 2019; no part of 2020 is part of the decade of the 2010s. Extending through Jan 1 1996 would be 50 years and an additional day, which is not what their law says. They got copyright for the year of 1946, and 49 more years, but any part of 1996 is beyond that term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading more carefully the Wikipedia page, I think I understand more -- there is a general principle where if a contract was for 10 days and the contract was negotiated on a particular day, the 10-day period does not start until the next day. Applying that to copyright law, if the expiration was based on 50 years from the actual date of death of the author, you could make the case that the 50 year term does not start until the next day. However copyright law has stipulated that the 50 year period doesn't even start during that calendar year, so it's already removed the "partial day" problem that wording was trying to make clear. Since the author died in 1945, you are correct that no part of 1945 counts towards that 50 years, but the 50 years started on the first instant of 1946 and continued through the last instant of 1995. There is a reason that en:Public Domain Day is January 1, not January 2 ;-). Nepal is the only country I can think of which uses a calendar other than the Gregorian to determine their copyright term end dates. Philippine copyright law is very similar to U.S. copyright law anyways, since that is what it started from. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: I asked my Philippine acquaintance and he said that it's indeed not the case. What also confused me was this Spanish tradition 'years shall be calculated from date to date', and for some reason I didn't want to believe that January 1 will be nevertheless excluded. Silly me! Maybe subconsciously I wished these works were still copyrighted :) Juliette Han (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "date to date" thing is for monthly terms, in dealing with the different numbers of days in months -- so a two-month contract starting on June 30 (presumably signed June 29 or before ;-) ) would end before the first instant of August 30, not August 31, since it started on the 30th of June. In other words, the day a monthly term ends is based on the day of the month which it started from. But that's moot in the year terms for copyrights (that end on year boundaries). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the files in Category:IGM-Chile (except one of them). They are disponible in pages like Islas Picton Nueva y Lennox 5567 : carta preliminar "material cartográfico" : Instituto Geográfico Militar de Chile. und under "Términos de uso y reproducción" they stated that:

Acceso en línea (dominio público) sin restricción de reproducción.

and the last line says:

Biblioteca Nacional de Chile. Algunos derechos reservados.

My question is the {{PD-Chile}} tag correct?

--Juan Villalobos (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly are the rights that they reserve? Presumably not PD if any rights are reserved (unless they are trying to reserve rights they don't actually own). - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a general sitenotice to me, i.e. the site itself is under a license similar to es:Creative Commons, but individual images on the site may have a different copyright status. An official institution claiming that files are PD strongly implies that they are indeed PD, but nonetheless we need to independently verify how it meets the conditions on Template talk:PD-Chile. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I looked at a few of the photos uploaded by User:Inotoriousandy and they were copyright violations. I tagged three of them. Likely they are all not originals. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to use some photos from Wikimedia in a music video. The video and music for the video are my own composition and recording, but photos used in the video could come from Wikimedia

I have found photos with various CC licenses, mainly: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

If I use these photos in my work, am I obliged to license my work (music and/or video) with a similar license, or can I retain ownership (possibly for commercial exploitation?

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctbayne (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the files that use BY on its own, you can release your work under any licence you want, so long as you properly attribute the source of the images and link to the licence terms.

For the files that include SA, you are bound to release your work under a licence with similar terms, in addition to the attribution of the source. The new licence doesn't have to be exactly the same but the key points must remain. For example, if you use an image with CC-BY-SA 3.0, you can release your derivative work as CC-BY-SA 4.0.

In the situation you describe above, I'd advise you to stick to the files with the BY licences. If you find any PD images though, you can use those without any attribution (though it is often a good idea to note your source anyway, in case someone claims later that they are not PD). From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: even for SA, the music (for example) does not have to be licensed compatibly, but any visuals that derive from the SA-licensed work do. This can be tricky to make clear in the credits, so SA content may not be useful.

Still: if you want to use something here, and the license is not fully compatible with what you want to do, and the person who holds the copyright is an active Commons user, you can get hold of them through their user talk page or through the "send mail" feature, and many (though not all) are likely to be willing to accommodate your needs, as long as they are credited in some manner. - Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Thanks - that's very clear now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctbayne (talk • contribs) 09:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The license for File:TV licence (3714001810).png is given as CC BY 2.0 Generic. However, it is not clear that the depicted document is out of copyright, or, for that matter, that the TV license document was licensed as CC BY 2.0 Generic. (From what I understand, the country of origin for the document may be the United Kingdom, so there may be the question as to whether the document is out of copyright or freely licensed in the US and in the UK.) --Gazebo (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be in public domain as {{PD-EdictGov}} in USA. Ruslik (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is not a government organisation, so {{PD-EdictGov}} is invalid. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quasi-tax. Ruslik (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was considering uploading screenshots from some videos of this Youtube channel here: Wildlife Protection Solutions.

Some of its content is listed under a creative commons licence. However, the video descriptions also include disclaimers like "all rights reserved" (see this for example).

So which one takes precedence?

Thank you in advance. Mariomassone (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they were officially uploaded to YouTube under a free licence, this license will prevail. Ruslik (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"All rights reserved" is not a contradiction to a CC license -- you have to reserve the rights in order to license them (or once did anyways). The phrase was basically the same thing as a copyright notice under the en:Buenos Aires Convention so it was frequently used in conjunction with the c-in-a-circle notice to gain protection in more countries -- and the habit still persists today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I made a post at Commons_talk:Threshold_of_originality#Buildings about TOO for buildings. If anyone would like to Commons I would be happy. For countries that do not have freedom of panorama there could be problems with buildings. But my understanding is that not all buildings are eligible for copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to crop the horse out of the picture. The location where the photo occurred was Burbank, California. I don't know how much I should crop out, but I must comply with COM:FOP US as the US law doesn't give FOP for two- and three-dimensional artworks. --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better off blurring the horse a little rather than cropping. I don't think it's a problem if the blurred result is still recognizable as a horse, just that the copyrightable details are no longer there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetically, I think cropping just immediately to the right of the horse works best. We don't really need the left side, one of the red columns is still visible even after the crop, and it's still an OK composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does look good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a problem with the copyright notice from Disney film Peter Pan. The improper copyright notice with the words "ight", ommitting "Copyr-". But some RKO Radio Pictures posters that are improperly or not renewed copyright in the public domain.

But also I found here on IMDb page. [6] --122.2.105.103 04:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with Peter Pan. Some elements are public domain, some are in copyright and some are used in the USA subject to fair use (fair use not being accepted in Commons). Great Ormond Street Hospital, who hold most of the residual copyrights, provide a good explanation of the current situation.[7]. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't see to know what "fair use" means in the US, or are using it in a different manner. It is possible to make fair use of versions of Peter Pan not in the public domain, but that doesn't seem any more likely than any other work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They use the term "fair use" correctly in one answer but probably incorrectly in another (unless they just explained themselves badly in the second answer). Regardless, their description of what is in copyright and what is public domain is a useful reference. The original work is PD; the stage play is copyrighted in the UK, US and Spain; other derivative works made outside of the UK will have copyright on the derivative elements only. The situation for derivative works made in the UK is more complicated due to Peter Pan being named specifically in UK copyright law. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And my guess is that tape took off the "Copyr-". Even if it got left off all copies, there's another copyright notice, and judges in recent times have not been as strict on old copyright notice rules. It's well beyond "we know this is PD."--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although this file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epcc_logo.jpg is not in Commons (but could be, I think), this image is not properly licensed in my opinion. How can a simple text-logo be copyright protected? I don't see, how this file meets the threshold of originality (see: {{PD-textlogo}}"; "{{PD-ineligible}}"; "{{PD-text}}". If this is the case, I think this (or an SVG version) can be transferred to Commons.

Thanks, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In USA yes, but probably not in UK. See en:File:EDGE_magazine_(logo).svg. Ruslik (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to echo what Ruskil0 said; not every country has a "threshold of originality" consideration in their copyright laws. Huji (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine in the U.S. The UK can have an extremely low threshold though as mentioned (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Threshold_of_originality), so we are often reluctant to use their logos unless it's pure text in a standard font. Carl Lindberg (talk)

I've relicensed it as w:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering uploading a photo that I took that shows the control handle for a Luxtrol light control device. The photo was taken in the US. A low-resolution version of the photo is temporarily available for download here. Around the control handle is a scale with marked increments from 0 to probably 100. In the center of the control handle is what is like a logo or nameplate or badge of sorts, with the text "LUXTROL" and "LIGHT CONTROL" and what is likely the manufacturer, "THE SUPERIOR ELECTRIC CO." The question I have is whether there would be copyright issues with uploading a high-resolution version of the photo to Commons.

(As an additional note, there is this ad on a third-party site which shows photos of a similar (or possibly the same model) Luxtrol light control device.) --Gazebo (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the design of the control device is solely utilitarian, and the logo falls short of US COM:TOO, so it should be OK to host. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone tell me why this image was deleted on here? I have cropped it and want to use it on the following Wikipedia page:

2006 ICC Awards

It's still being used on Wikipedia, so I presume I can still use mine there as well. However, I want to make sure that I'm uploading my cropped version of this file properly, so I would appreciate knowing why this particular image was deleted on Commons or the appropriate information/protocols pertaining to uploading my image. — 29cwcst (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image have never been deleted. So, please, explain what you mean. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have translated a page about Giancarlo Puecher (an Italian partisan shot in 1943) from it.wikipedia into French. I have loaded a photograph of Puecher into Commons, and I have received a message that it could be deleted as the copyright info is not available. Three questions: - how can a 1943 photograph be subject to copyright? particularly a photograph of historical subject? Probably it's a photo from his ID card... - a photograph published in Wikipedia shouldn't have already been checked upon publishing? - how can I add info about the photo in Commons? I tried, but I couldn'find a way Thank you FRIGIO55 --Frigio55 (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright can last the lifetime of the author and 70 further years in a great many cases (including the entire European Union). For the U.S., items from that era can last 95 years from publication. Sometimes, items that were not actually published until much later than they were created have different terms. So, something from the 1940s can easily still be under copyright. It can last a really, really long time. There are ways copyright can have expired too, so the details on who took the photograph (or was it originally published with no author named), and which country it was first published in, can matter greatly. If works were still under copyright in their source country in (most of the time) 1996, they could have had their U.S. copyright restored to that 95 years. If nothing is known, and no reasonable assumptions can be made, it can be impossible to determine the status. The closest we have is {{PD-old-assumed}}, which is for works with little provenance information created more than 120 years ago, as in most cases those have expired. For File:Giancarlo Puecher.jpg, you did not put a licensing tag on it at all, which means you will automatically get that notice since there is no declaration (via tag) of exactly why it is public domain.

The file at it:File:Giancarlo_Puecher,_prima_medaglia_d'oro_della_resistenza,_caduto_ad_Erba.jpg (which is much higher resolution; if you are going to transfer it's best to transfer the original) uses a license of {{PD-Italy}} there. That license is also valid on Commons, which is for "simple photos". Normally, I don't think that studio portraits count as "simple photos", though if those were just quick portraits for a school directory, maybe they do. If not simple, and the photographer is anonymous, the term lasts 70 years from publication. In that case, if it was a private family photo which was never published until being included in the named source book which is I think from 1965, the 70 year clock for anonymous non-simple photos may have started from that point (as well as the U.S. 95 year clock) and would still be under copyright in both countries. If it was published the same year it was created, then it's probably PD in Italy now, and the U.S. would depend on the exact year it was published. These details unfortunately matter. If the tag on it-wiki is accurate, you can mark the photo with {{PD-Italy}}, which should allow you to remove the speedy deletion tag. If someone else thinks there is not enough evidence for that, they may nominate for deletion (which would be a discussion, and not automatic) at a later time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this editor has stated that they work for the town of w:Natick, Massachusetts. I have already cautioned them about uploading copyrighted images. I would suspect most of the recent uploads are copyright violations (the town does own a drone). Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I haven't looked into this case in detail but your choice of subject heading has me a little concerned. Unlike other Wikimedia projects, Commons actively seeks out the "COI editors" as they are the ones who usually own the copyright of files related to the subject they supposedly have a conflict of interest with. Being a COI editor on Commons is normally a positive, although there is often confusion between ownership of the physical document and ownership of the intellectual property right.

If Rames1651 is an employee of the town authorities, I expect that rather than copyright violation it is more likely an issue of either using an incorrect licensing template or lack of evidence of copyright ownership. Both issues are relatively easy to resolve in most cases. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, From Hill To Shore Please help me out here. I work for the Town of Natick. Everything I create for the Town of Natick is a public document and should be availalbe to everyone. This includes the drone photos and the town map that Magnolia677 wouldn't allow to be posted last fall. How do I attribute the uploads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rames1651 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here from COM:AN, section “Copyright review question”; cf. Special:Diff/419905788/419906031 and Special:Diff/419946194/419952274. — Speravir – 18:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bammesk, I’ve read this, but was not convinced. But I maybe not have understood it well enough. What I did not consider myself: The license claim on the Flickr page may nethertheless be unjustified. From my point of view the photo was taken in Germany, so there is no transfer of copyright possible. I will ask in dewiki for more help. — Speravir – 18:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping did not work, so now: Ping @Bammesk. — Speravir – 18:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be OK to upload this mugshot of actor Will Patton (https://southcarolina.arrests.org/Arrests/William_Patton_22815644/) under a PD license such as PD-USGov? StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, {{PD-USGov}} applies only to works of the federal government; indeed, the template itself contains "This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision." Some states--like California, Florida and Massachusetts--have elected to consider certain of their government works in the public domain, but South Carolina is not such a state. Эlcobbola _talk 18:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elcobbola: Thanks for telling me. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Even if it was PD, and even if it was on Commons, it would be in EXTREMELY poor taste to use it in an encyclopedia article, per WP:MUG and Manual of Style/Images. An actor arrested for a DUI is simply tabloid fodder, not encyclopedic. There is no mandate that one must use a crappy image just because it's the only one available: often none is better. --Animalparty (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: That's honestly what I thought. I think I should've just kept digging for a better image, and I'll just continue to do so. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]