Commons:Village pump/Copyright

I have only just realised that:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iraq and Afghanistan Memorial unveiling - 02.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iraq and Afghanistan Memorial unveiling - 03.jpg

were closed - in 2017, by User:JuTa - as delete, with a closing summary of "Source site states crown copyright != OGL."

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. As I noted in the discussions:

The source states "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". "Crown copyright" does not negate that, since it is a statement of the copyright owner, not its licence (note that "crown copyright" is also stated alongside the OGL release).

The fact that an image is "Crown copyright" no more precludes its release under OGL, or some other open licence, than does my saying my uploads to commons are "Copyright Andy Mabbett, released under CC by-sa" (or indeed, the boilerpate "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license..."). Commons has thousands of other images which are OGL-licensed and at the same time "Crown copyright".

Both images should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These images have been never released under OGL. Ruslik (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How have they not been released under OGL? The source says at the bottom: "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". And "Crown copyright" in the caption does not count as "otherwise stated"; if you follow the "© Crown copyright" link at the bottom right, it clearly states that "The default licence for most Crown copyright and Crown database right information is the Open Government Licence", showing that the government does not believe that being under Crown Copyright precludes it from being OGL. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah agreed, the caption "Crown Copyright" does not mean "otherwise stated", as that is not a license. But, I think that was the rationale on the DR. This should probably be at COM:UDR and not here, but they seem to be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was "otherwise stated" as Fæ said here. Ruslik (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, a work must be "Crown copyright" before it can be OGL (and doesn't stop being Crown Copyright once it is). If they credit something other than "Crown copyright", then there would be a problem. So I would disagree with that stance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems like that why both deleted files are matching their "otherwise stated", as the deletion admin @JuTa: could you please explain that for which kind of exemptions from OGL lead your deletion results? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember being involved in the OGL nonsense back then, the reality is that when Fae was incharge of Wikimedia UK, he was told a few times by a few editors to have a talk with the someone from the UK Govt who are incharge of this OGL issue but it never got fixed, the sad reality is that these images are actually OK but because once the images are released, they either forget to or refuse to update the image 'exif data' after a certain timeframe and since a majority of these images were released under the crown licence by the UK MOD (Ministry of Defence), they tend to release such images under their "News" licence, which unfortunately is not free as it specifically says and i quote "It may not be used, reproduced or transmitted for any other purpose" which means its crown copyright but at the same time non-derivative and since we are not a 'news' site, we cannot even use it, there are only one or 2 workarounds for this for example if the same image was released by the original photographer for his military purview such as say the Royalnavy, then it doesn't go through the Crown-News licencing bullshit (pardon my french) and thus can be added to commons under OGL and Crown. Its actually the main reason why we have never added any images from the UK Govt's own flickr feed as one would assume it is OGL as in "OPEN GOVERNMENT" and it is, but because their licencing is so poorly done, its not really worth the risk or time to add images from 'number10gov' to commons cause to date WikimediaUK have not been able to discuss the OGL issue with the UKGovt. The other workaround actually applies to these images specifically, even if these images are owned by the UK MOD (you can see it in the exif of these images if you download them), but because they were added to the UK's gov.uk website, they now fall in their purview of OGL (as you can see at the bottom of the page where the images were taken from) and thus should be allowed usage on commons...--Stemoc 12:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"released under the crown licence " There is no "crown licence". Crown copyright is a statement that the copyright is owned by the crown (i.e. the state); it is not a licence, nor is it an all-rights-reserved notice. A Crown copyright work can be all-rights-reserved, or licensed under the OGL or any other licence. There are even works labelled Crown copyright which are PD, just as there are books labelled as copyright which are PD, because no-one bothers to recall all the copies and erase the copyrights statements in them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the above from the archive, as the matter is unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: What action are you expecting to resolve the issue? If you are trying to restore the images, start a discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expecting for consensus to show that being "crown copyright" does not preclude any image - including these - from being under OGL, or any other open licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Magog the Ogre: as the user who wrote that template as well as Template:PD-Spain-photo/doc.

Template:PD-Spain-photo/doc#Public domain in the United States says Because the United States has had copyright relations with Spain since 1929, this means the URAA does not apply. Use the Hirtle chart to determine copyright status, but ignore sections on the URAA. In effect this means: [...] If it was first published between 1929 and 1977, it is not public domain.

How so? This is about en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights. We also have our own help page, Commons:Subsisting copyright, outlining the requirements for works to be protected in various cases. Spain has had a Bilateral copyright treaty with the United States since 1895. Pre-1929 US copyrights have expired by now, so every Spanish work after 1928 could be protected by a subsisting copyright in the US, but as I see it, the requirements listed at Commons:Subsisting copyright still would have to be met: either a) a US-compliant copyright notice plus renewal registration if published before 1964, or b) being unpublished before the URAA date for Spain (1996-01-01) and not meeting the requirements of {{PD-US-unpublished}} (either: author is known and died at least 70 years ago, or else the work was created over 120 years ago).

If those requirements are not met, there would be no subsisting copyright, and the URAA would (only) apply for any Spanish work still protected by Spanish copyright on the URAA restoration date, 1996-01-01. So I don't think the claim from Template:PD-Spain-photo/doc – Because the United States has had copyright relations with Spain since 1929, this means the URAA does not apply. – is correct. How do others see this? --Rosenzweig τ 14:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That statement makes little sense to me either. The URAA had nothing to do with pre-existing copyright relations; it had to do with new obligations the United States had pursuant to joining the Berne Convention -- they were then obligated to protect foreign works for a minimum duration regardless of registrations and renewals. That would include Spanish works still protected in Spain on January 1, 1996. The U.S. used about every aspect of the Berne Convention it could to avoid restoring works (including the concept of the rule of the shorter term, and the 30-day window of simultaneous publication in the U.S. to avoid it being considered a foreign work), but anything else was restored, if it had fallen into the public domain due to lack of registration/renewal. Other works would have needed to have a copyright notice (and be renewed for pre-1964). The old copyright relations only gave Spanish authors protection if they followed the U.S. formalities.

On the other hand, not sure how those simple photos were treated under older Spanish copyright law. The 25-year simple photo provision appeared in their 1987 law. Unsure if those photos were simply below the threshold of originality in the law before that, or if they were 80pma. Spain did not enact the EU directive until later in 1996, so after the URAA date, but their terms were already longer so that did not make much of a difference. The 1987 law was non-retroactive, except for works which failed the registration requirements of the 1879 law (not sure how long those requirements were in effect following the 1886 Berne Convention). So... if simple photos were below the threshold of originality before 1987, than pretty much any pre-1987 photo would seem to be OK in Spain. But anything after would have been copyrighted in Spain in 1996, and thus restored by the URAA, and not OK here. The URAA complication though is that below-threshold works which were above the U.S. threshold did get restored in the U.S. by the URAA, which might mean that simple photos always got restored to the 95-year U.S. terms. If such photos were copyrighted by the older law, but had their term shortened in 1987, then we could only host photos from before 1971 (since those would have expired in 1996, and not be subject to the URAA). Or similar, if the "term" of simple photos was considered as set by the 1987 law. It is possible it is that uncertainty which drove the template documentation to try to restrict to photos which are beyond the 95-year U.S. term. But, those would only have protection via the URAA; any work published without notice before 1989 was PD in the U.S. before that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template 6 years ago after a similar discussion (link). I do not even remember creating this template. I'm guessing I read the treaty and/or the article on subsisting copyrights to mean that the US did not require formalities for Spanish works. I would recommend taking a close look at the treaty before updating the language. Sorry that's the best I can do. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote above that there was a bilateral copyright treaty between Spain and the US. Looking further, I see that this might be the wrong term. Accd. to the 2020 edition of the US State Department's list of Treaties in Force (PDF, page 416) this is more of a "copyright agreement" consisting of an "exchange of notes at Washington July 6 and 15, 1895" which "entered into force July 10, 1895" by presidential proclamation (Grover Cleveland) which you can find in the en:United States Statutes at Large, vol. 29, p. 871. Are such notes published/easily accessible, or is the presidential proclamation all that is published in this case? --Rosenzweig τ 21:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A similar agreement between the US and Germany, from 1892, is at s:de:Übereinkommen zwischen dem Reich und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika über den gegenseitigen Schutz der Urheberrechte. --Rosenzweig τ 21:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The presidential proclamation triggered a clause in U.S. copyright law (today it is in 17 USC 104, though something similar has existed since the late 1800s) which gave bilateral copyright relations; i.e. the U.S. would protect works from that country the same way it protected its own works, provided the foreign country protected U.S. works to the same extent the foreign country protected its own. Until the Universal Copyright Convention was formed, it usually took agreements of that nature to get copyright relations with the U.S. Well, the U.S. joined the Buenos Aires Convention (where "all rights reserved" came from) in 1911, so they had relations with many South American countries that way. It sounds like the agreement with Spain was renewed in 1902; I'm guessing the Spanish-American War interrupted the relations for a while. The German agreement is still in force; I think a case there ruled that it means U.S. authors still get the full 70pma protection in Germany, even though they use the rule of the shorter term for other (non-European) Berne members. So yes, copyright relations certainly existed, so Spanish authors have since had the right to add copyright notices and renew their works in the U.S. That does not preclude the URAA from also taking effect, that's all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a part of Spanish copyright law, and has been since 1987. And having some actual court rulings on it give a much more concrete way of interpreting it, since each EU country can be quite a bit different in those matters. So, it's certainly a valid tag for Spain. The main question is the interaction with the URAA, which I mentioned in that old discussion but got the year wrong -- certainly anything still under protection in 1996 got restored in the U.S., so nothing since 1987 should be allowed on Commons. It gets a bit more interesting though for pre-1987 photos; I can't quite tell if existing simple photos got the protection or not. If so, then their term was 25 years and 1971 would be the line. If not, would they be considered public domain in Spain "through expiration of term of protection", or would they simply be considered below the threshold of originality? If the latter, they were likely all restored given the wording of the URAA (which restored all works "not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection"). It's an odd situation, since that type of work had started to be protected in Spain, and had a term of protection from 1987 on. But works of that type had always been eligible for U.S. protection, with most probably falling into the public domain via lack of notice etc. If they all got restored by the URAA, then the 95 year term would be the right one (so 1927 now, advancing each year). If on the other hand the new clause in the law could be used to create a "term of protection", precluding pre-1987 works from gaining protection, and 1987 is the line. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 1987 law has some transitional provisions. The first of those is Las modificaciones introducidas por esta Ley, que perjudiquen derechos adquiridos según la legislación anterior, no tendrán efecto retroactivo, salvo lo que se establece en las siguientes disposiciones. which Google translates as The modifications introduced by this Law, which harm rights acquired under previous legislation, will not have retroactive effect, except as established in the following provisions.

Which, in my interpretation, means that any more favorable conditions (favorable to copyright holders, like longer terms etc.) granted by the old (1879) law would not be shortened or abolished by the 1987 law, but any conditions more favorable in the 1987 law (new or longer terms) would apply. So the new protection for simple photographs would also apply for simple photographs made before the 1987 law came into force. If those simple photographs were made in 1962 or later, the 25 year term of protection would still run, if they were from 1961 or earlier, it was expired. That's just my interpretation though, but in absence of any case law etc., it might be as valid as anyone else's. --Rosenzweig τ 17:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my attempt at rewriting Template:PD-Spain-photo/doc:

== Public domain in the United States ==
In order for Commons to host an image, it must be public domain in its host country and in the United States. Use the [[Commons:Hirtle chart|Hirtle chart]] to determine copyright status. In effect this means:
* If the work was created before {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}, it is in the public domain in the US.
* If it was created between {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} and 1961, it was in the public domain in Spain on the URAA date. It is debatable if its Spanish copyright had expired on that date or if such a copyright had never existed. In the latter case, the URAA ''might'' have restored its copyright in the US.
* If it was created from 1962 to 1970, its Spanish copyright had expired on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created after 1970, the URAA restored its copyright in the US.

Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 19:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good catch on the transitional provisions -- I had missed the non-retroactive parts were only those which prejudiced existing rights. That seems to imply that anything else *was* retroactive. OK, I can then see presuming that all simple photos retroactively came under that term in 1987. Anything older than 1962 were still public domain (presuming they were simply below the threshold before), but then continued to expire each year. So, anything created before 1971 would have expired by (or on) January 1, 1996, and would then not be subject to the URAA. Do remember that U.S. terms are based on publication, so you would have to also be able to apply {{PD-US-expired}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}, or {{PD-US-unpublished}}. So... your bullet list is basically right, except that it does not get into publication. A simple photo created in 1910 but not published until 1990 would still have U.S. copyright, regardless of Spanish law or the URAA. If we presume that the protection was retroactive, then I think the rule is basically photos created before 1971 (to avoid the URAA) and published (presumably without notice) before 1989 are OK. If we do not presume retroactive effect on earlier photos, not so sure we can use the 1962 year -- it may apply to works created 1987 or later. If 1962 works came under that protection, then I think earlier works also did as well, but were then considered expired per those terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Man, this is tricky. My attempt at adding US copyright status based on publication to the text:

== Public domain in the United States ==
In order for Commons to host an image, it must be in the public domain in its host country and in the United States. Use the [[Commons:Hirtle chart|Hirtle chart]] to determine copyright status.

In effect this means for the [[Commons:URAA-restored copyrights|URAA status]]:

* If the image was created no later than 1961, it was in the public domain in Spain on the URAA date. It is debatable if its Spanish copyright had expired on that date or if such a copyright had never existed. In the latter case, the URAA ''might'' have restored its copyright in the US. Wikimedia Commons will assume its Spanish copyright had '''expired''' on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created from 1962 to 1970, its Spanish copyright had expired on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created after 1970, the URAA restored its copyright in the US.

Since US copyright terms are based on publication, '''additionally''' one of the tags {{tl|PD-US-expired}}, {{tl|PD-US-no notice}}, {{tl|PD-US-not renewed}}, {{tl|PD-US-1978-89}} or {{tl|PD-US-unpublished}} also needs to be applicable to the image for it to be in the public domain in the US.

The following list applies to images created no later than 1970 (so the URAA did '''not''' restore its copyright in the US):

* If the image was published before {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}, it is in the public domain in the US.
* If it was published no later than {{date|1989|02|28}} without a copyright notice, it is in the public domain in the US.
* If it was published after {{date|1989|02|28}}, it is protected by copyright in the US, '''unless''' it
** a) has an author with a known year of death who died before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 70 }}, OR
** b) '''either''' the death date of its author is not known '''or''' it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, '''and''' it was created before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 120 }}.

Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 12:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: That seems accurate, just trying to think if there are any ways to simplify it. I think in most cases, we assume publication was without copyright notice in other countries, particularly for photos. So, maybe just use {{PD-US-expired}} if published before 1927, otherwise {{PD-URAA}} if published before 1989 and created before 1971, otherwise it would have to qualify for {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next attempt (substituting {{PD-1996}} for {{PD-URAA}}):

== Public domain in the United States ==
In order for Commons to host an image, it must be in the public domain in its host country and in the United States. Use the [[Commons:Hirtle chart|Hirtle chart]] to determine copyright status.

In effect this means for the [[Commons:URAA-restored copyrights|URAA status]]:

* If the image was created no later than 1961, it was in the public domain in Spain on the URAA date. It is debatable if its Spanish copyright had expired on that date or if such a copyright had never existed. In the latter case, the URAA ''might'' have restored its copyright in the US. Wikimedia Commons will assume its Spanish copyright had '''expired''' on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created from 1962 to 1970, its Spanish copyright had expired on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created after 1970, the URAA restored its copyright in the US.

Since US copyright terms are based on publication, '''additionally''' one of the tags {{tl|PD-US-expired}}, {{tl|PD-1996}} or {{tl|PD-US-unpublished}} also needs to be applicable to the image for it to be in the public domain in the US.

The following list applies to images created no later than 1970 (so the URAA did '''not''' restore its copyright in the US):

* If the image was published before {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}, it is in the public domain in the US. Use {{tl|PD-US-expired}} (or a combined tag that includes PD-US-expired).
* If it was published no later than {{date|1989|02|28}} without a copyright notice, it is in the public domain in the US. Use {{tl|PD-1996}}.
* If it was published after {{date|1989|02|28}} and before {{date|2003|01|01}}, it is protected by copyright in the US until at least {{date|2047|12|31}}.
* If it was published after {{date|2002|12|31}} , it is protected by copyright in the US '''unless''' it
** a) has an author with a known year of death who died before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 70 }}, OR
** b) '''either''' the death date of its author is not known '''or''' it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, '''and''' it was created before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 120 }}.
** Use {{tl|PD-US-unpublished}} in these cases.

For {{PD-US-unpublished}}, works have to be (first) published after 2002, so I tried to specify the status for works published from March 1, 1989 to the end of 2002 as well. Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 18:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a non native English speaker, I think it is better to say "before" rather than "no later". Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a non-native English speaker ;-) I can change "no later than 1970" to "before 1971", but I'd like to keep the precise date 1989-02-28 in the text, and I can't do that with "before". --Rosenzweig τ 13:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd agree with Yann -- use "before 1962", "before March 1, 1989", etc. And maybe "published January 1, 2003 or later" when following the "before January 1, 2003" so as to use the same date as the correlating clause. But overall I think this is good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to keep the original dates etc. because I think they are more precise, so I moved them to parentheses. This thing is so complicated anyway that anyone reading it will have to think quite a bit. Next attempt:

== Public domain in the United States ==
In order for Commons to host an image, it must be in the public domain in its host country and in the United States. Use the [[Commons:Hirtle chart|Hirtle chart]] to determine copyright status.

In effect this means for the [[Commons:URAA-restored copyrights|URAA status]]:

* If the image was created before 1962 (no later than 1961), it was in the public domain in Spain on the URAA date. It is debatable if its Spanish copyright had expired on that date or if such a copyright had never existed. In the latter case, the URAA ''might'' have restored its copyright in the US. Wikimedia Commons will assume its Spanish copyright had '''expired''' on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created from 1962 to 1970, its Spanish copyright had expired on the URAA date, and no copyright was restored in the US.
* If it was created after 1970, the URAA restored its copyright in the US.

Since US copyright terms are based on publication, '''additionally''' one of the tags {{tl|PD-US-expired}}, {{tl|PD-1996}} or {{tl|PD-US-unpublished}} also needs to be applicable to the image for it to be in the public domain in the US.

The following list applies to images created before 1971 (no later than 1970, because then the URAA did '''not''' restore its copyright in the US):

* If the image was published before {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}, it is in the public domain in the US. Use {{tl|PD-US-expired}} (or a combined tag that includes PD-US-expired).
* If it was published before {{date|1989|03|01}} (no later than {{date|1989|02|28}}) without a copyright notice, it is in the public domain in the US. Use {{tl|PD-1996}}.
* If it was published after {{date|1989|02|28}} and before {{date|2003|01|01}}, it is protected by copyright in the US until at least {{date|2047|12|31}}.
* If it was published after {{date|2002|12|31}} , it is protected by copyright in the US '''unless''' it
** a) has an author with a known year of death who died before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 70 }}, OR
** b) '''either''' the death date of its author is not known '''or''' it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, '''and''' it was created before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 120 }}.
** Use {{tl|PD-US-unpublished}} in these cases.

Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 15:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I find "before March 1, 1989" just as precise as "no later than February 28, 1989", but... OK :-) It's unfortunate that last section is so complicated, because it's by far the least likely to actually happen (created well before 1971 but never published until 2003 or later). We could just point to the Hirtle chart or mention the conditions on {{PD-US-unpublished}}. But, it's accurate. Not sure it's worth quibbling much more; it can be edited later if people find more clear ways of saying it. So I'd go ahead with it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed the paragraph Public domain in the United States of Template:PD-Spain-photo/doc accordingly, inserting the last version shown above. I think this section is resolved. --Rosenzweig τ 14:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image at English Wikipedia (along with other images used in the article 15.ai) is derivative of the animated series My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, specifically this scene 25 seconds into S1E1, and tracing is evident overlaying the images onto each other. According to Commons:Derivative works, "tracing is a copy without new creative content", but aside from the lines there are creative modifications; has this modified the original to the extent that copyright is not applicable? 93 (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A derivative work potentially has two copyrights: that of the creator of the original work and that of the creator of the derivative work. A slavish copy of an original work does not give the copy maker a copyright, and the copyright of the original applies to the copy. If the person who made the copy made a significant creative changes then they will have a copyright, but this will does not override the original copyright, both copyrights must be respected. A derivative work based on a non-free original cannot have a valid free license. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: a derivative work based on a non-free original could have a valid free license if a rule such as de minimis or freedom of panorama applied, but these do no apply to the file in question. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before they abruptly left Commons a prolific uploader to Commons contributed around 1.5 millon scanned books (mostly from Internet Archive) Category:Books uploaded by Fæ and Commons:IA books

It would be greatly appreciated if Commons contributors could undertake a systemic copyright audit of these uploads, so as to identify those that are due to the nature of the mass upload badly or incompatibly licensed for distribution on Commons.

Amongst the issues identified are:

• "in copyright" works wrongly tagged with a PD license. ( Such as PD-US Gov or PD-old) due to metatdata issues.
• Items that are tagged as being under a PD US Gov license, despite being works by Non-federal third parties.
• Perodicials with the date of the start of the series used as in the date field as opposed to the actual publication/copyright date.

1.5 millon works is significantly more works than a single contributor can audit, This needs a systemic effort, and if it was another uploader I would lareayd have asked for a CCI style process to be instigated. 07:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an intial petscan query - https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=18122064 that can assist in finding some of these.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that our processes are overloaded already. If people who are active doing something else stop doing that and turn to auditing these bulk uploads, backlogs elsewhere will grow. So anyone auditing these would need to a) have knowledge in copyright matters and b) be inactive or nearly inactive until now. Good luck in finding these people :-/ An alternative solution could be to summarily delete those huge file dump uploads and only restore those that were thoroughly checked in the Internet Archive before (or were already kept in a deletion request or reviewed otherwise). One would need some bot-prepared list concordance of Commons and IA URLs for such a purpose. This is counter to our usual procedures, but dumping 1.5 million files here without thoroughly checking them first is so irresponsible that only drastic measures will achieve anything meaningful. --Rosenzweig τ 17:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had already filed mass DR's for some portions of this, but they were rejected as 'unmanageable'. If you want to file a DR for the whole of the relevant tracking category you are more than welcome to , bearing in mind that some of the files were already kept ( Category:IA_mirror_related_deletion_requests/kept) reviewed (Category:Books uploaded by Fæ/reviewed ) were in use on Wikisources... etc... There are also some works which whilst not outright in a reviewed category were liek the following, Category:Catalogs_of_Copyright_Entries which are clearly acceptbale for commons.

I wouldn't be opposed to a wholesale deletion of items that are not in use (and don't have derived images) though, as auditing 1.5 millon files would be time consuming.. Are you willing to do this?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the project initially was to mirror public domain works from IA holdings in case IA had problems. I don't have a problem with that, however there's no auditing going on at Commons which is a shame. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this with regular DRs would overload our processes only further. There would need to be some kind of vote and the support of enough people behind such a proposal (summarily deleting the files) that would be counter to our usual processes. So unless a sizable number of users express their support for something like this, nothing will happen. --Rosenzweig τ 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

these were some DR's that should ideally have been closed as Delete but were considered unmanageable. -

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1926
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1927
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1928
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1929
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1930
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1931
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1932
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1933
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1934
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1935
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1936
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1937
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1938
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Books in the Library of Congress/unchecked/1939
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with incategory:FEDLINK - United States Federal Collection insource:/navalpostgraduateschoollibrary/ insource:/publication date = 2018/
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with incategory:FEDLINK - United States Federal Collection insource:/navalpostgraduateschoollibrary/ insource:/publication date = 2019/

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked randomly a book [1] in one of those DRs and the "Rights & Access" section at the Library of Congress website states "The books in this collection are in the public domain and are free to use and reuse." And LoC makes them fully available online. For all book copies that are from that public domain LoC collection, can't we just trust the LoC? (I'm not speaking of other material that is not from that collection.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to undertake some review of works in the relevant category? which is basically using the Catalog Of Copyright Entries (i think Stanford had a search tool) to check for 'active' renewals? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I would agree wholeheartededly that the LoC IS a trustable source, there have been instances in respect of uploads from other GLAM entites where works with active renewals appeared in collections that where nominally otherwise of non-renewed or expired works. Commons may be over cautious. but it's better for the benefit of re-users, to be sure there are not active renewals. None of the remaining LoC/unchecked files have been deleted as far as i can tell. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are always going to be some mistakes made, but if the vast majority are fine, then lack of checking is no reason to mass delete all of them. We don't check all of the own-work claims either, but when we find issues, we nominate those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with some of the files isn't that they aren't compatible with Commons, indeed a vast majority of them are, it's the upload process wasn;t robust enough in some situations the IA metadata was lacking or inaccurate. For a very small proportion of these, I had updated the meta-data based on the works themselves. 18:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The LoC (and other US institutions like NARA) might be trustworthy, but only as far as US copyright is concerned. I don't think they care about UK, Canadian, German or French or essentially any non-US copyright laws. So anything they say regarding works that were not (only) published in the US should be viewed with caution. --Rosenzweig τ 19:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=22472855 These are items flagged as being in LoC collections with a {[tl|PD-USGov}} here on commons. This may be due to the upload process, although I suspect many of these are actually US GOV documents anyway. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had started to go through these against the CCE volumes the Penn online books page link, but I'd appreciate not having to do it single handedly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For book renewals, the Stanford book renewal database would be much faster to search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CCE check is still needed for atwork. PG has transcriptions for all of those upto 1964?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also [2]. --Rosenzweig τ 16:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment In the ideal world we had no copyvios on Commons. But as we all know we do not live in the ideal world. Since this is copys of books allready online and marked as PD by IA then I do not think this is high risk case. Fæ knew there would be some bad files among the uploads and he was open about it. And many of us supperted the upload anyway.

So my suggestion is that we do not spend much time checking 1,5 million files. Instead we could have a bot add a special template warning reusers that there is a tiny risk, that the file is actually not PD (and perhaps include a link to the Stanford book renewal database. And if someone find a book that is NOT pd they could nominate that book for deletion. If someone check a book and verify that it is pd they could remove the warning template. --MGA73 (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem areas do seem to be specfic categories , such as categories containing works sourced from libraries held by Federal Agencies.

Most of those are below Category: FEDLINK and as indicated above I already ran a PETSCAN to cover one of those.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case only add template to those and focus on those if anyone would like to spend time check the files. --MGA73 (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll will consider that. The other task that is needed is to add categorisation to the uploads. That's already started to happen, but if anyone want to do categorisation whilst also doing status auditing I certainly won't object. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ShakespeareFan00: I have gone through some of these files, usually in response to deletion requests. I think it would be conducive to focus review on specific categories of files known to be problematic, and go by year for such files. The Stanford renewals database is helpful for books, but not for periodicals, which requires searches through the CCE. I just made such an effort while looking at some other files here, but I do not have the resources to nominate all of the listed files for deletion. It is much easier to mark the files as free of copyright than to nominate them for deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes focusing on specifc categories of content can reduce the numbers of files to search through.

  However,others have said that current processes are backlogged, and as you say it's beyond the resources of a single contributor to check more than a few hundred or so files (and for the admins that have to evaluate the DR.). This is not a sustainable model.

  Something needs to change., and that includes admins being more aggressive in responding to DR's to reduce the backlog. There should be a presumption to delete anything where an issue or DR has been raised, and I've expressed a view elsewhere that certain issue tags on files should automatically convert to CSD's, which a suitable bot could remove without the need for admins to intervene. There seems to be an entrenched (and unjustified) cultural objection to such measures.

  ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a mistake to upload so many files with uncertain copyright status, but I object any automatic solution. There are many DRs which are closed as kept for various reasons, including vandalism. The solution is more active admins. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would there be any scope for having admin "specialist" grades? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I support more people becoming admins, may be with a probation period. Yann (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yann I would not open a batch of "easily made admins" just for that. What can be done, it to nominate temporary admins (e.g. for 1 month) just for the task. Thus, if there's some serious and urgent risk in keeping Faæ, we can team up to check the DRs (if they are manageable). In this case we just need a mean to coordinate between the interested (temporary + permanent) admins. Ruthven (msg) 09:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm already engaged in "auditing" a portion of the 'Faæ' uploads, so wouldn't be in a position to apply.

  However, I would welcome the creation of temporary 'specialists' to reduce the current DR backlog however, Did you have a potential list of candidates? I would strongly suggest asking over on English Wikisource, as I think there are some admins from that project that do not necessarily have admin status here, and would be in a good position to determine, based on their contributions to that Wikisources own Copyright Discussions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mehr}} states This is a file from the Mehrnews.com website, which states in its footer, "All Content by Mehr News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." But apparently not every image by Mehr is ok, because File:Farzad Hosseinkhani.jpg was nominated for deletion (and subsequently deleted) in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Farzad Hosseinkhani.jpg with the rationale دریافتی = received, not taken by Mehr photographers.

As a result, we now have several open deletion requests from February 9, see [3], with the same rationale Received, not taken by Mehr photographer.

In these deletion requests, several users argue that It's reasonable to believe that the Mehr agency has an agreement with the photographer to be able to publish content under their own terms (like most news agencies/publishers). or similar. The nominator replies that he had thought the same, until Commons:Deletion requests/File:Farzad Hosseinkhani.jpg happened.

So what is the deal with files from the Mehr agency? When are they ok, when not? The template does not tell us more than I quoted at the beginning. Pinging @Hanooz, 4nn1l2, Maometto97, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), HeminKurdistan, and M.nelson: as the users who were involved so far. --Rosenzweig τ 17:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, I must say that I think the word "Received" here means that the photographer of this photo is not employed by Mehr News Agency, but took it and sent it exclusively for Mehr News Agency. (This trick seems to be used by photographers who live in smaller towns and cover less newsworthy events.) As a result, in my opinion, this cannot affect the copyright of Mehr News Agency and these files were licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

But another important point is that some of these images (like Farzad Hosseinkhani's case) have the photographer's name in the photo watermark, but in cases such as the recent cases, the photo simply says "Received" and I think more sensitivity should be applied to the second type. --Maometto97 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The deleted image should be restored, there was no debate. The only person responding to deletion was arguing for keeping. Generally we accept the authority of corporations to release images and text under a license, and assume they are legally sound, and have been vetted by corporate lawyers. The images, which contain the name of the photographer in the camera metadata, should be assumed to be released under the same license until proven otherwise. All my non-iPhone digital cameras have my name in the metadata, and so do any I edit in Photoshop, even when I am taking images as an employee. Should the website change their license information to exclude images, then we can delete, if the license is no longer compatible. --RAN (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• See Template:Tasnim please. These are similar and should be treated the same way. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Tasnim template has additional wording though that is not present in the Mehr template. Why? --Rosenzweig τ 22:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Tasnim was the pioneer in this regard in Iran. It was the first news agency in Iran which surprisingly started to publish its content under a free license. Here at Wikimedia Commons we only discussed Tasnim. Tasnim hold its status as the only Iranian news agency that publishes its content under a free license for a few years. This made Tasnim popular even among foreigners, especially Commons users. Some other Iranian news agencies, including Mehr and Fars followed Tasnim in this regard. However, Tasnim is still enjoying an early start and is more famous among foreigners, despite its rather low quality content compared to Fars or Mehr. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Maometto97's point. In case of Commons:Deletion requests/File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (16).jpg that Rosenzweig said, Mehr has cited Hossein Esmaili as the photographer on the page (see "حسین اسماعیلی" here). Esmaili's name appears in some Mehr watermarks ([4], [5], [6]) but I also found that at least two of the photographs on that Mehr page are taken by Hossein Velayati, a photographer for Fars News Agency (another Iranian news agency with CC-BY-4.0 license), please compare File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (21).jpg and File:Opening naval review of Velayat 97 (44).jpg; or File:آغاز رزمایش بزرگ دریایی ولایت ۹۷ (26).jpg and File:Opening naval review of Velayat 97 (58).jpg. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion requests were now closed as Keep by Ellywa. --Rosenzweig τ 15:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poor decision, alas! Many of them are not received as claimed, but taken (without consent!) 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4nn1l2: . You are saying the images are not received but taken. Can you please point out on what basis you came to this conclusion? Ellywa (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Westernland I poster.jpg is an image that I copied from this source and uploaded to Commons. The image is of a poster that was first published in Switzerland some time between 1883 (when the ship was built) and 1910 (when she was sold, renamed and scrapped). From what I understand of Swiss copyright law, the image is out of copyright.

However, this is the first time that I have uploaded an item that is subject to Swiss copyright law, and Commons' uploading advice on what copyright tag to apply is to me as clear as mud. Hence under "Licencing" I put a link to the relevant part of the Commons page about Swiss copyright and licencing. AntiCompositeBot has detected this and listed the file for speedy deletion.

I would be very grateful if someone would advise me which is the correct copyright tag to add. I would be even more grateful if someone were to improve either Commons' description of Swiss copyright, or its uploading form, or both, so that ordinary people who are not copyright lawyers can get it right more easily.

Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite 120 years but would {{PD-old-assumed}} together with {{PD-US-expired}} be suitable? - Aa77zz (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure this is a Swiss poster for copyright purposes. Here is another copy with German addresses. Since the Red Star Line was based in Antwerp, it's probably a Belgian work. There's something printed on the right just below the actual image, but I can't read it because the image resolution is not big enough. It could be an artist attribution or just some printer's address. --Rosenzweig τ 16:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-old-assumed}} (i.e. 120 years past first publication) together with {{PD-US-expired}} will work though. I just added the templates. De728631 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per de:Westernland (Schiff, 1883), the ship was in service of the Red Star Line from 1883 to 1901 and then again briefly in 1906. Presumably the poster is from the first period, so the {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} should fit. --Rosenzweig τ 16:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This auction page dates it as 1906 (though of course the painting could have been from earlier). I've seen some versions without that unreadable credit at the bottom right though, and all other Red Star Line posters I can find with a quick search have just the printer's credit there, so I'm doubtful it's an author credit. I don't see a signature anywhere on the artwork. {{PD-anon-expired}} would work too if that is the case. The copyright law of Switzerland, while different in a couple of aspects, is likely the same as Belgium's (and other EU countries) for this work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou all for your help. A clue to the date of the original painting may be the colours on Westernland's funnel, which are red Star Line's original livery of buff with a black top and a red star. At the end of 1894 Red Star Line replaced these with the colours of the defunct Inman Line: black with a white band. Both Inman Line and Red Star Line belonged to the same parent company.

I suspect the unreadably small lettering bottom right is the name of the printer, who may well have been Belgian. The artist could be Henri Cassiers, who undertook several commissions for Red Star Line. But I cannot see his signature on the poster, so I will not add the image to Category:Henri Cassiers without a source that identifies him as the artist.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Cassiers signature on many other posters, but can find no signatures on this one. this URL is another decent resolution of a slightly different version of the poster; can't see a signature there either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a 2015 recreation featuring a typeface released in 2010, intended to demonstrate the typeface. It looks like they had access to the original ship painting, or else they simulated the look of the canvas texture very well. --Rosenzweig τ 12:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks,

After initially thinking they were perfectly in the clear this morning, I've realised a used had uploaded three copyvio photos and had requests promptly put in to delete them.

However, what remains now is that the user has uploaded all the logos of Translink (Northern Ireland)'s various brands, i.e. Ulsterbus, Metro, NI Railways, etc. See here:

File:Translinklogo.jpg
File:Metro21.png
File:Goldlinerlogo.png
File:Urby logo.png
File:Ulsterbus.png
File:NI Railways Logo 2022.png
File:NIR logo until 2022.png
File:NI Railways logo 2022.png

Now, logo copyright malarkey is well above my grade, so I need a bit of assistance here - what is the general consensus on these? I'm only asking, really, since for one, the user has tagged their logos as own works, but also because w:File:Ulsterbus logo.png seems to be okay with its "Non-free media information and use rationale".

I will say that Wikipedia does need some updated Translink NI logos, but I don't think this is the right way to do it. So help a slightly inexperienced editor out here - do the new logos stay or go?

Kind regards, Hullian111 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold of originality in the United Kingdom is extemely low (en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg is given as an example of having copyright protection on COM:TOO). The relevant standard is the expenditure of more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill in the creation of the work. If that logo can be copyrighted, then I'm not seeing anything that would stop any of those images from being under the UK copyright. They can all be safely transwiki'd to EnWiki, since they're all {{PD-Textlogo}} in the United States and they seem to be used on EnWiki. Mhawk10 (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. However, again, I'm not entirely comfortable doing this process myself, so would anyone else be willing to remove the files from Commons and change the copyrights as outlined above? Hullian111 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. @Hullian111: I tagged the obvious ones with {{Logo}} and nominated the remainder for deletion using Help:VisualFileChange.js; the deletion nomination is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jdw06. -M.nelson (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone help with this? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to ask about files from a report by the US Office of Naval Intelligence (here), in particular maps (such as page 32) or ship silhouettes in this guide (page 35) that seem created by Office of Naval Intelligence. I want to make sure that they are Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy and I can upload them, are they? HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright notice in the first document implies that the only copyrighted material within the document is the images, so it gives me pause with respect to the pictures within the document. Some are non-U.S. photos that are in the public domain (the picture of Khomeni on Page 9 is hosted on commons), but I can't confidently say that every photo is in the public domain, as I could almost guarantee that many of the more recent photos of Iranian leaders (for example) are not the original works of a U.S. Navy employees working in their official duties. I doubt that the map on page 32 was made by anybody other than a navy employee, but I'm not quite sure. I'm not familiar with the extent to which {{PD-map}} might apply, so I'll defer to someone else.

The two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional seacraft is going to probably pass COM:TOO for the United States. If the U.S. Navy hired a contractor to draw the graphics (for example) and only was licensed permission to use the graphics rather than ownership of the copyright, then the work could be copyrighted. I don't know of any evidence that this is the case, and it's certainly possible that the copyright notice is bogus. Mhawk10 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They really should note which elements are imported from elsewhere. They simply say that it contains copyrighted material... without knowing which is which, it's hard. I'd have to guess the map is fine, but would not trust any photos. The ship outlines has the "copyrighted material" message right on it, and I can't imagine what would be copyrighted there other than the outlines. So, maybe they got those from some contractor or other source. Simply hiring a contractor instead of an employee to draw them would usually be work for hire (and therefore PD-USGov) but if they simply used works that a contracting company had on hand, it would be different. Given the explicit note... don't think those are OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HeminKurdistan, Mhawk10, and Clindberg: There is the school of thought that the actual seacraft visible on the seas are COM:UA, so outlines of them should be denied copyright.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ships themselves, sure. Drawings of them are still copyrightable. Independent outlines will be very similar of course, but unless they are simply auto-traced from a photograph, there will usually be some copyright in the precise lines they choose, and which ship features they represent, and that sort of thing. Particularly for a vectorization -- it's possible to have a copyrightable vector representation of a PD line drawing (that happened with some property maps; the drawn originals were public domain, but the New York City government vectorized them, and a private company was found to violate that copyright[7]). A drawing like that would not be derivative of a photograph, but the specific drawing is likely copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we accept this tweet as a release for the images to which it refers?

I hereby licence the above images as CC BY. Feel free to upload them to wherever they'll be most use.

If not, why not, and what could be changed, to make it acceptable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: No, because no version number of CC BY is specified in that tweet.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy Mabbett: It should be fine. Creative Commons does not require a specific number: “CC BY” means “CC BY 4.0 International,” because that is the current version of “CC BY.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "self/CC" licence for this file is wrong. The pictured report is here and the statement at end of the page says "COPYRIGHT - Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi" Can we use {{GODL-India}} for it? GeorgHH • talk   14:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it is explicitly marked that way. The GODL license was mainly for data sets, and I'm not sure we have seen it applied for anything outside of the data.in.gov website. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moin. I guess this subject would have come up along the years, but I can't find info about it in Commons, and the answers I get by mail are not clear enough. Some time ago I was told by a German journalist that the use of certain images from the National Archives Catalogue is free (yes, I know it's an american Catalog, but I can't bring myself to write it this way ;)), which is why they use WWII photos from this source in their articles without further consideration. Since I know that in Wikipedia the licence needs to include possible manipulation of the material (which I guess is not the case of the press), I contacted over the NARA contact form, asking about the type of licence for free use. Their answer was that photos taken generally by the US armed forces/Department of Defense around WWII (not a specific photographer) have no limitations. I wrote again, asking which type of licence would apply (gave them a couple to choose from), but the answer was that they are not responsible if someone decided to manipulate the image (which is not what I asked, I guess they understood me wrong). I can't bring them to refer to a specific licence type, and I would like to know if any of you have info about that.

For instance, if I look at this image, I see the photo is attributed to the Department of Defense, and I can see the access and use are unrestricted, but I can't find the licence type anywhere, and the NARA has been of little help. Can anyone direct me to the type of licence used in this case? Thanks. Virum Mundi (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the photos taken by the US Armed Forces you can use the {{PD-USGov-Military}} tag. Ruslik (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Virum Mundi: Images created by the United States military (or any branch of the US government) are not protected by copyright, thus there are no rights to license. They are considered part of the public domain. Nosferattus (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Virum Mundi (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fine before uploading here? I found an entry for the animated short television pilot episode since Sterling Television registered it as unpublished on February 11, 1960; I believe it never got renewed between 1987 and 1988 through accessing online in the post-1978 catalogues.

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 11:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC); edited: 02:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a renewal either on the Copyright Office catalog, which covers entries from 1978 and where the renewal would be if it existed. So long as it's not derivative of a character copyright created by previous works which are themselves still under copyright, it would seem to be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll do whatever then.

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 12:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm talking with the hier of a Danish cartoonist and I have 2 questions.

What happens if the hier give a permission to:

1. a photo of some book covers. Does the permission only apply for the photo of the books or could someone get the book and scan the cover in high res and then use that?
2. to one example of a cartoon. Does the permission only apply for the specific cartoon (drawing) or would it in fact mean that the character itself is now free?

--MGA73 (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: The permissions only apply to the specific works that the heir gives permissions for. If you want permissions for the book cover or the character, those would need to be specified in the permission statement. Nosferattus (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosferattus: thank you. The hier have send me a photo of some books with visible covers and want to give permission for the specific photo but would like to make sure that people can't use the covers for new books.

I asked because the photo (the work) also include the covers (that are also works). So for the permission to be good it needs to include both the photo and the covers. I think I saw something about that you can't give a CC-license for a low res photo and keep the high res version of the same photo ARR. But I could not find the discussion again.

The reason I asked about the cartoon is that a CC-license allows you to make derivative works. So if one drawing of a character is licensed CC then what would stop someone from making new cartoons with that character? --MGA73 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a photo you obtain permission for the photo from the photographer. For the artwork shown in the photo you additionally obtain consent from the artist that the photo may be shared by the photographer under the chosen license, (The artist doesn't give permission for the work itself but only approves the release of the specific photo by the photographer.)

If no photo is involed but the artwork is to be shared directly, I think this only applies to the specific cartoon strip and not to the character or idea as a whole.

I'm not a lawyer, and I think most of us aren't. We should always point out towards users that we enforce project rules only and cannot provide any legal advice. --Krd 08:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: Thank you. The problem is that they send me a photo of 4 books/covers in a pile and said somthing like that they would give permission for the photo provided that it did not give anyone the right to use the covers for new books. So I needed to find a good answer. Its a loooooooooooooooooooooooong discussion in Danish. --MGA73 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: If the copyright holders are worried about others reusing their work, then they might want to consider not uploading it to Commons. Basically, they'll be giving their COM:CONSENT and they can't really change their mind once they do. Commons doesn't accept any types of free licenses that place restrictions on commercial or derivative re-use as explained in COM:L. Depending upon where the copyright holder lives, they might try to attach some non-copyright related restrictions to the re-use of their work, but that's not really a Commons issue. Enforcing the license will be up to the copyright holder themselves as explained in COM:ENFORCE. Finally, one other thing to consider is that Commons is only really concerned about the copyright status of the files it hosts and not as concerned with how these files end up being used in the various Wikipedia projects. Each project has its own policies and guidelines regarding image use, and files aren't always automatically used just because they've been uploaded to Commons. In some cases, a consensus may need to be established to use the files in some Wikipedia article; so, you might want to see whether using the files will be a problem for encyclopedic or contextual reasons in the articles you want to use them in before uploading them to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: It's a bit like if the hiers of en:Walt Disney would like to let Wikipedia illustrate the article about him with some of his works but without risking to make en:Donald Duck or en:Mickey Mouse free for everyone if they donate 1 cartoon drawing to Wikipedia. So it's not the photo itself they worry about. It is what would happen if they take a photo of an old work and donate that to Wikipedia. On one hand I think it would be great if they would donate something to Wikipedia but on the other hand if I want to be sure that they do not ever get in trouble I could tell them no never donate anything to Wikipedia. --MGA73 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is reason for your worries. If the author of the underlying artwork and the photographer are different persons, then the original author can allow the photographer to license the photo without further worries, but if they are the same person, then the Donald Duck problem arises. There is specific wording in the licences about related rights, which might give some clues. IANAL and I know neither Danish nor US copyright law. Perhaps Clindberg could say something about the US part of this. –LPfi (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they don’t want others reusing their work with minimal restrictions in place, they shouldn’t upload it or let someone upload it to Commons. If they only want to share their work for reuse in certain ways, they should make it available in some other way under a more restrictive license like a NC, ND or NC-ND license. There are en:WP:ALTERNATIVEs to Wikipedia and Commons after all. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We want to have such images, so we should make it easy for them to upload images under a free licence. It might be that it isn't possible to publish images of these book covers without implicitly licensing also the book covers themselves, but if it is possible, we should advice them on that and on how to do it. –LPfi (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:USMC-09611.jpg of Martin Luther King Jr at the March on Washington says it is "in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1927 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice."

It looks like the same image as https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/reverend-martin-luther-king-jr-waves-to-participants-in-the-news-photo/613499438 which says "Photo by © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images."

Which copyright claim is correct? PixQuester (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to figure it out and looking at en:Hulton Deutsch I was send to en:Picture Post that says "Picture Post was a photojournalistic magazine published in the United Kingdom from 1938 to 1957.". Since the photo is from 1963 that does not seem helpfull at all. But it seems that the publisher en:Edward_George_Warris_Hulton#Hulton_photographic_archive gives a hint "... then sold to Brian Deutsch in 1988." More can be read on https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1996/04/04/getty-buys-photo-archive/e09e0e6c-849f-4f4a-ae4f-ed1398b571ee/

That still does not give you an answer but it seems that Getty bought the photographic archive this photo was a part of. That is why they claim copyright. But the relevant question is if there was a copyright notice when it was published. Sadly I can't figure that out. Hope someone else can. --MGA73 (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hulton Archive was a photographic archive; it's possible it was simply a photo sent out at the time, and the archive had a copy (but was not authored by Picture Post). Getty would have no trouble claiming rights over a PD photo. Getty has a second copy they credit to "Central Press" and "Agence France Press". Alamy has a version; they give credit to a 2004 documentary it was a still from, without bothering to find the original authors. That would only seem OK if actually was public domain to start with. The marines.mil source still labels it public domain (it was used in a January 2010 article). It has a Marines VIRIN number, though with an unknown photographer I think. So, at least the Marines' public affairs office believes it is PD (and hasn't been taken down in the 12 years since it was put up there). Certainly feels like public domain, and not sure we should question the latter source, though would be nice to find the actual origin which neither Getty nor Alamy seem to have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: Thanks. Almay has two versions -- the one you cited (Image ID:F6JC4D) and Image ID:KKDHPR, titled USMC-09611, where they specifically state "This image is a public domain image... Alamy charges you a fee for access to the high resolution copy...." This doesn't get us any closer to an answer, it's just an interesting piece of the puzzle (and seems a bit contradictory on Almay's part). PixQuester (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: Thanks, this is helpful. I figured Getty had purchased it somehow, but hadn't found the Washington Post article. Now I'm trying to figure out if an image was once public domain and later purchased by Getty, whether or not it is permissible to use it with the public domain designation. PixQuester (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PixQuester: Getty claims copyright over pretty much every public domain image that exists. Unless they provide an actual author, I wouldn't worry about it. Nosferattus (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The public-domain statement on the marines.mil page doesn't seem credible. Why would a Marines photographer have been there? It seems more likely that some Marine downloaded that photo from the web and uploaded it for a blog post, and the system tagged it as public domain by default. The Agence France Presse attribution is more credible. It makes perfect sense that the AFP would have a photographer there. In that case, the copyright status seems to hinge on whether the photo was published in the U.S. within 30 days of its first publication. If so, it is quite likely to be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-no renewal}}. If not, it is likely to still be under copyright thanks to URAA restoration. I would guess the photo was not published in the U.S., as I'm not aware of U.S. newspapers that were regularly using AFP photos back then. Toohool (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toohool: Good point. I tried to find out more about the USMC image since the public domain claim is tied to it. The marines.mil source is on the website of the Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan and the dateline of the January 2010 article is MARINE CORPS AIR STATION IWAKUNI, Japan. Their website has no email addresses listed on their "Contact Us" page, only phone numbers in Japan. I'm in the U.S. so that's as far as I got. PixQuester (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it was a Marines photographer -- just that their public affairs office determined it was public domain photo, and OK to use for their articles. It may have been a regular photo which was never renewed, or it may have been taken by some other US government department. The VIRIN number does not have a particular photographer identified (that is the 0000 part of the number), so it came from an external source. All they did was vet the image to determine copyright status, that's all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a photo I took 20 years ago at what is now called “Tao Garden Health Spa & Resort Chiangmai“. The freedom of panorama in Thailand is OK, but I don't know if a photo taken at the resort can be considered "openly located in a public place". Is it OK to have this photo in Commons? Wouter (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Who made Huckabee?.jpg

Hi! I uploaded the attached file and just wanted to check that I got the copyright right here; it's a collage of various images from commons which had different licenses. I uploaded the file under the most restrictive license of the three; was that correct? Also, the description is messed up. I meant to put links to each of the images, but the images themselves showed up. Thanks! TraderCharlotte (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TraderCharlotte: I can't comment on the copyright issue, but can point you to information about linking to files. According to Help:Links, use a colon as the first character in the double square brackets, like this:

[[:File:Example.jpg]]

PixQuester (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PixQuester: you added a red link. Perhaps you intended to link to the Wikipedia help page w:Help:Link, which also applies to Commons. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: Oops, thank you, my mistake. I was trying to link to Help:Links on the MediaWiki site and neglected to include the full URL. The Wikipedia page you linked to is also helpful. PixQuester (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TraderCharlotte: to respond to your main question, see Commons:Collages and also Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Collages. The main issue is that your source files have three different licenses: {{Cc-by-2.0}}, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, and {{PD-USGov-Military}}, and your license must incorporate the restrictions of all of them. We can probably ignore PD-USGov-Military as it a public domain license, the issue is whether cc-by-sa-3.0 you have assigned includes all the restrictions of cc-by-2.0. I don't know whether it does.

Partly because of this issue, it is preferable to generate collages on Wikipedia, using syntax that combines files from Commons. w:Wikipedia:Collage tips mentions alternative ways to do this, and you should also consider using w:en:Template:Photo montage, which appears to support your layout. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads from the Science Museum Collection, on the basis that the source webpages show a "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence", which is not sufficiently free for Commons. I have since noticed that there are many more files in Category:Images from the collection of the Science Museum, London some of which have the same issue, although some do not. It appears that the photos of Wellcome Collection objects have acceptable licenses – these are mainly medical or ethnographic objects, so it should be possible to separate them. However, the presence of questionably-licensed files from multiple uploaders suggests that the museum may have changed its licensing policy. Is there any way these can be kept? Should I add the other questionable files to the DR? Verbcatcher (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They probably should have gone through {{LicenseReview}} when uploaded, to be safest. Not sure they can be salvaged now, unless we can find archive links for the particular photos which show it once had the more liberal license. It's certainly possible the licenses were once valid, or uploaders had previously done free images from that source and not noticed that other images had a slightly different (but non-free) license instead. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone mind taking a look at File:Darren Bailey in 2021.png and verifying the claim that it's been released on YouTube under an acceptable license? I check the source URL and couldn't find any such license, but I could've just been looking in the wrong place. I also think it might be possible that uploader is assuming that YouTube video are by default licensed under a {{YouTube CC-BY}} and wasn't aware that the YouTube content needs to be explicitly licensed as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This file was actually a copyvio since the original video does not have a free licence. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this De728631. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shri-Viresh-Borkar.jpg, regarding a photo of a politician from the Indian state of Goa. In my view both the original and current license declarations are incorrect, but there may be a rationale for keeping the file. The file comes from the website of the Goa Legislative Assembly.[8] The 'copyright policy' page of the website has the following statement:[9]

Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others,the source must be prominently acknowledged.
However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is explicitly identified as being the copyright of third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.

My concerns are

1. reproduced accurately - does this amount to a ban on derivative works?
2. not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context - is this ok?
3. the source must be prominently acknowledged - would, for example, the Wikipedia practice of relying on a link to a Commons page count as being sufficiently prominent?

Does this amount to a free license for Commons, and if so which license tags should be used? [Alerting Rejoy2003] Verbcatcher (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think it's a free license. The first two conditions use language more associated with moral rights, which can prevent that type of use for freely licensed works. It seems similar to {{Indian Army}}, which was kept after a discussion. I would think the source link on the image page would be fine to satisfy the third. Agreed that GODL should not be applied; not sure that really should be applied to *any* work we host on Commons, honestly, given that I've only ever seen it used on the data.in.gov website. ~~

I'd like to agree with Verbcatcher. Especially the part that reads reproduced accurately ... or in a misleading context prevents derivative works. Basically this is a licence for accurate reproduction of the material for news applications and such, but I don't see how it includes commercial reuse and the making of derivatives. De728631 (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geni recommended to raise this here, so for simplicity, I'm copying our discussion from Geni's talk page:

---

Hi Geni; in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Alfred Manessier you kept an interior view of a modern stained glass window in a Swiss church with the reasoning "Swiss stuff has no FOP inside churches but does for anything visible from a public place. Window can be seen from outside." As the window can't be seen that way from the outside and it's impossible to take such a picture of the window from a public outside place, per my understanding of Swiss FoP, it doesn't apply. A picture taken from the outside, in a public place, would be fine. If it were otherwise, a great many deletions of images of church windows in Germany or Switzerland here on Commons would be wrong, as in most cases, you can somehow see the windows from the outside (but almost never make really out the artwork that way, for lighting reasons). So I would like to suggest to reconsider your decision, and I think that picture should be deleted, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to raise it at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Nothing in article 27 says the photo has to be taken from an angle that is accessible to the public. The Law focuses purely on the location of the object not the photographer (German law is more concerned with the location of the photographer). You could argue that 27.2 means that photos of such objects are never truely free but again Commons:Village pump/Copyright.Geni (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

Well, what are the views on this issue here? Per COM:FOP Switzerland, "it is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27" (with lots of sources from the legal commentary literature under reference no. 28 there), and I have always interpreted that as applying to stained glass windows, too, as they're not designed to be viewed from the outside - they're actually part of the interior, and the only practical way to photograph them is usually from the inside, too, with the light from the outside illuminating them. Maybe Pajz who knows a lot about FoP could chime in, that would be great. A ping also to Rosenzweig and Martin Sg.. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've always interpreted it the same way as Gestumblindi does, and in my experience that's the way it's been handled at Commons for quite some time. The exact wording of the relevant article 27 in the Swiss law is (in German) „Ein Werk, das sich bleibend an oder auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund befin­det, darf abgebildet werden; die Abbildung darf angeboten, veräussert, gesendet oder sonst wie verbreitet werden.“ Grund here being a word for land, for the ground beneath your feet, so a work that is on (auf) or right next to (an) commonly accessible ground can be depicted. The law does not say if that means that said work can also be depicted from anywhere else besides that commonly accessible ground. My assumption would be, being on the cautious side, that it does not mean that. You would have to look for court cases or legal commentaries for more input, perhaps this question has already been answered at some point. --Rosenzweig τ 14:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Public directly addresses this issue. If swiss law is based of German to any extent we could potentially use that.Geni (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has approached En Wikipedia Teahouse enquiring if his/her images taken at a historic car race (1984) could be used in the corresponding the En article.

Trying to advise the IP on uploading to Commons as a file repository, and of en:wp:IMAGERELEVANCE for placement on En Wiki, and also that images should not have been published elsewhere, I have learned that the images were hosted originally on Photobucket (date uncertain), then on Imgur (two examples provided, one, two dated 2019). A lengthy thread at a motor race forum (dated 2014) has many images, including the two examples given above, and one watermarked by Photobucket.

I strongly suspect this will prevent uploading to Commons? Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to raise some concerns around these types of edits by RohanSingh948, claiming that "the copyright holder is not having any issue in using this logo in public domain". I'm pretty sure RohanSingh948 is a sock of the original uploader (LakshayYadav007, now blocked on en.wiki) and have started an SPI on en.wiki. Cheers, Number 57 (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update, the two editors are confirmed as socks of each other (see here). Number 57 (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to use creative commons pictures for a blog. The license says that you have to name the titel of a picture. Where do I find the title? I only find a description, which is often not usable due to length. Also I found out, that the title is not that relevant, when the source link is provided. Can someone please give me solid information about how to deal with the title and what is meant by title for pictures published on wikimedia network.

Kind regards Regiocommons (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]