Commons:Village pump/Copyright

The templates {{PD-BNF}} and {{PD-GallicaScan}} were created in 2008 when the general assumption was that everything the Bibliotheque Nationale de France scanned for Gallica is in the public domain. As we know now, that is not the case, and the BNF has changed the rights remark for many of its magazine, newspaper etc. scans to ""Droits  : Consultable en ligne" (rights: can be viewed online) - at least in the French language version; in the English version, you can confusingly still often read Rights: public domain for the very same magazine or paper, while the German version doesn't mention the copyright status at all.

Anyway, it should be clear that because some file is from the BNF or Gallica, that does not mean it's automatically in the public domain. So my proposal is to deprecate these two tags and mark them accordingly that they should not be used for new files. For new files from BNF/Gallica that are in the public domain for some other reason (because the author died over 70 years ago etc.), only the regular PD-old, PD-scan etc. tags should be used. If we don't do this, these tags will always come back to bite us in the a** because people will use them for new uploads. Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 10:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mostly  Support. Wording of these templates in indeed a problem. It should be mentioned that there are not sufficient for Commons, that a verification of the copyright status and a proper license are needed. Yann (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mostly  Support per Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  Support Admittedly I don't have much experience in the area, but the proposal seems reasonable from doing a basic glance at the templates and how they are being used. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I've changed both templates so that they now say the file might NOT be in the public domain and might be deleted if not in the PD; also that other valid license tags should be used. To do this, I've created a new marker template {{PD Gallica warning}} (modeled on {{PD German stamps warning}}).

The specific wording could probably still be improved. Thoughts on that? --Rosenzweig τ 12:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. We have now 1,403,257 files with a deprecated template. How do we fix that? Yann (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a large-scale tag swap we'd probably need a bot. Anything from ca. 1900 or before should most likely be ok, so perhaps the license tags for these files could be replaced with a suitable PD-old tag by a bot? For anything newer (and that might still be a lot), we'd probably need a file by file manual review. And that would most likely take a long time, see the German stamps situtation still in progress after a decade. --Rosenzweig τ 13:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precisely. We have 1.4 million files with a giant PLEASE DELETE ME sign on them, maybe some miniscule fraction of 1% actually might need removal upon request. Yes, the wording should be changed to the usual & much more neutral "... has been deprecated. This template should be changed to ..." like these things normally have.

Absolutely, though, the shift will require bots and we shouldn't be going out of our way to encourage removal of the files until such bots are available. This cart got waaaaaaay out in front of its horse. — LlywelynII 04:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fwiw,  Strong oppose until this can be handled better and less disruptively than what's currently going on. I've spent multiple weeks of my life on editing and research for several hundred of the files badly impacted by this. Others are doubtless in the same boat. The way we handle PD-Art would've been a much better way to handle this: "...please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States..." Simply changing the PD license to PD-Old etc. will remove the previously provided links to the BNF files.

@Yann: @Jeff G.: @Adamant1: Those arguments might not cause you to change your vote ("might as well get started & the links don't matter") but, given how this has shaken out in practice, do you have suggestions for minimizing the damage and disorder this is going to cause? Are there any mass-PD-editing utilities similar to HotCat for categories to speed this up? I have to edit everything here through a series of proxies to get over the Great Firewall & going file by file would be a vastly prohibitive waste of time. — LlywelynII 05:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My suggestion would be to look into how the review of German stamps was handled after they were found not to be PD. Which, as Rosenzweig has pointed out, still hasn't been fully dealt with 10 years later. So I don't think you have to worry about all the files being immediately deleted. Nor does anyone expect you to deal with it on your own. Let alone at all. Just as long there's a consensus about how to handle it and basic things being done to move in the direction of reviewing the files at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: Did those stamps come with 24+ point text "warning" that the files "could" be deleted at any point? I'm dubious. — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but neither does anything having to do with have such a warning either. If you look at the template for German stamps though it says "this file is most likely NOT in the public domain. It has been marked for review, and will be deleted in due course if the review does not find it to be in the public domain. Which I think is totally reasonable. If you look at Category:German stamps review there's still upwards of 8 thousand files that haven't been reviewed. That's just ones that are included in the category to, but there's others. With German stamps specifically, they are only being reviewed now because I've been slowly going through them over the past year. There's no one gunning to delete anything in mass though. So your assertion that the files will be immediately deleted the second we implement this is clearly hyperbole. Really, probably no one is going to delete the files. Let alone any time soon or in mass. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LlywelynII: So what is your proposal for the wording of the templates? And how do you think should we prevent them being used to upload copyrighted files, as some users are doing now? If we don't stop that, the amount of files will only get larger. And as Adamant1 pointed out, nobody in fact proposed to delete over 1 million files. Right now it says that the files might not be in the public domain and might be deleted. --Rosenzweig τ 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're curious, in toto, this seems like a (bad) answer searching for a (miniscule) problem. The template was largely fine and helpfully included a link to the BNF that the current solution will just delete. The things that shouldn't be uploaded shouldn't've been uploaded with or without this template's existence. They can be uploaded with or without this template's existence. The template could be rephrased to only cover the appropriate material. The problem would be exactly the same and it wouldn't be putting 1.4 million valid files at risk.

At minimum (as already explained above) the language of the edit should be more neutral, more in keeping with similar templates like PD-Art, and simply request that separate/additional licensing be provided. — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LlywelynII: "has been depreciated": I presume you mean "has been deprecated". (Normally I'd let is slide, but since this appears to be a proposed edit…) - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: "Normally I'd let is slide": I presume you mean "I'd let it slide". (Normally I'd let it slide, but since this appears to be needless snark... Yes, if the normal phrasing is slightly different, sure, use some version of that instead. Neither here nor there. Still, do kindly leave some notes on the merits of what we're talking about. It's possible I'm just completely wrong in thinking that the current phrasing will cause a much bigger problem than the original issue. Some of the original posters hadn't even noticed that 1.4 million files were affected, though.) — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LlywelynII: "included a link to the BNF that the current solution will just delete": Which "current solution" do you mean? All links to BNF in the file descriptions are still there, none were deleted. And yes, when replacing the PD-GallicScan tag with an appropriate PD-old tag, another template with just the link (like {{Gallica}}, which does that without any claim of public domain) will have to be added at the same time. --Rosenzweig τ 07:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed the templates a bit so that the collapsed section with the deprecated tag is now expanded by default. --Rosenzweig τ 08:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need a wording saying these are not eligible for a mass deletion, just to prevent fear and conflicts. There are a lot of cases where the BNF doesn't claim a copyright, although it could, e.g. File:Portrait Roi de france Clovis.jpg. Would replacing the current template by {{CC-0}} be OK? Yann (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed the wording of {{PD Gallica warning}} so that possible deletion is now mentioned in the last paragraph. @Yann: What do you mean with your CC-0 proposal? Insert CC-0 in those cases you mentioned "where the BNF doesn't claim a copyright, although it could"? You mean in addition to a PD-old template for the underlying work? --Rosenzweig τ 13:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks. Yes, in addition to a license for the content itself, we need a license for the picture when it is not 2D (i.e. when PD-Art/PD-scan doesn't apply). Yann (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the BNF explicitly refer to CC-0 somewhere, or is this some other declaration that they don' claim such copyrights? Or is it just implicit / assumed etc.? Even if it is "only" implicit, we can most likely still find a way to express that, but we should try to get it as correct as we can. For the coin image you linked, the BNF now says "Droits : Consultable en ligne". Is that their new default? --Rosenzweig τ 17:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May be. BNF doesn't use CC-0, but there is usually a "public domain" mention. I wonder if we should use PD-self or CC-0, or something else. There are a number of cases where they said that the pictures are in the public domain, and later changed their mind, e.g. File:En attendant Godot, Festival d'Avignon, 1978 f22.jpg. Fernand Michaud donated all his pictures to the BNF, and they were available with a public domain notice, but that was later changed. Yann (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe create something under Category:No known restrictions license tags? - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, there were no new contributions here (or in the parallel COM:VP discussion) for a few days now, so the initial fears of imminent mass deletions seem to have died down. There was no bot mass-tagging files as missing license tags because of the tag deprecation, and nobody was launching mass deletion requests because of it.

So the task at hand is now how to replace the bulk (hopefully) of the PD-GallicaScan and PD-BNF license tags with better and more fitting tags so only a small percentage (hopefully very small) of them remain to be examined if they have to be put through the deletion process.

I've looked at various categories and files both here and at the BNF web site, and I've noticed that we really cannot rely (anymore, if ever) on what the BNF writes on the file description pages as far as copyright is concerned. In the French description, for all files at which I've looked I found "Droits : Consultable en ligne", regardless if it was a map from the 1600s or a magazine from 1970. In the English description, they say "Rights: public domain" for the very same files, 1600s map as well as 1970 magazine. In other languages (German, Spanish, Italian, Russian) I didn't see anything about copyright in the descriptions. Given that situation, what the BNF writes on its file description pages about copyright has become meaningless, and it really was about time that we retired and deprecated those tags.

Now what the proper replacement tags for PD-GallicaScan and PD-BNF are depends on the individual file. For those with named authors it would be some variety of PD-old or PD-old-auto, plus a tag like PD-expired or PD-1996 if they're also in the public domain in the US. I don't know how well a bot could do this, maybe better if the file description page uses a specific {{Creator}} tag for the author. For files with no named author, but a date older than 120 years, PD-old-assumed(-expired) could be a solution.

I've looked at some press agency photos from the Rol and Meurisse agencies we have which usually came from Gallica. The usual rationale here is that these agency photos are collective works accd. to French copyright, and {{PD-France}} applies if they're older than 70 years. I've tried to change some tags with VisualFileChange, and changed the tags of 200 files or so in Category:1927 photographs by Agence Rol and Category:1926 photographs by Agence Rol. Namely those that simply used {{PD-GallicaScan}} without any parameters, and I've changed that to {{PD-Scan-two|PD-France||PD-US-expired|}}. Stuff like that – very similar files which all take the same relatively simple license tags and are already grouped in categories fitting for the task – could be done without bots with the assistance of VFC, somewhat reducing the overall usage of the deprecated tags. Besides the press agency photos, are there any other suggestions for similar cases?

While VFC can help somewhat, a large number of file description pages will probably have to be changed by bots, especially those where the tags have parameters, which may not be what one excepts (like {{PD-BNF|{{ARK-BNF|ark:/12148/btv1b53184933b}}}}, combining two tags that probably weren't meant to go together). Those are probably too complex to be cleanly replaced with VFC. What do you think would be the best way to proceed with this? Simply turn up at Commons:Bots/Work requests? Ask somewhere else? Gather more details first on what exactly should be changed, preferably not here but somewhere else where it won't be archived after a week of no new contributions? --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Without very specific parameters, I would not want to touch this as a bot task. I don't read French.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosenzweig: I'm not grasping why you think VFC wouldn't be the main tool for this. Admittedly, I've never taken on something this large that way, but the key to using VFC effectively for this sort of thing is usually to start by a well-chosen search to find a set of images whose tags you want to change in a particular way, and I suspect that a lot of progress could be made reasonably quickly in that manner. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: We'll see. I've now discovered that a huge lump of the 1.4 million files (about half) are in Category:Manuscripts from Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) uploaded by Gzen92Bot, so uploaded by a bot. There are subcategories there for the works, containing the files for the single pages, and while some only have 2 files, others have over 500. Most are probably somewhere between those two. Per Category:Manuscripts from Gallica, many have less than 10 though. I've changed the tags in a 500+ category already with VFC, that went well I think, and by concentrating on the larger categories one could get down the number of template usages fairly quickly. Until only the smaller categories are left to change, and those would be more tiresome. Maybe the bot operator who uploaded these files could help out. --Rosenzweig τ 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and PS, not every search can be used as a basis for VFC unfortunately, as I found out. You can search for "has template XYZ" and everything, but VFC then won't accept that search, or more precisely, you're not even offered to use VFC then. --Rosenzweig τ 22:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't get around to try replacing more tags with VFC, but will try to do so tomorrow. --Rosenzweig τ 20:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosenzweig: You can instead search for "insource:{{XYZ}}", with quotes if necessary.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I've done some more both in the press agency and the manuscript categories, several hundred files. I'll probably have a bit more time to dedicate to this task over the holidays, so we'll see how many files can have their tags replaced in the near future. With just under 1.4 million files still left it will still take a lot of time until it is done. --Rosenzweig τ 23:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Down to slightly below 1,29 million files now, so a bit over 100,000 files in 6 days (my edit count here at Commons has certainly gone up dramatically). I didn't work full-time on this, but it certainly took quite a few hours. It works quite well for files uploaded by a bot (like the Gallica manuscript files) where you can expect a certain uniformity of the file description pages. You need to find some specific phrase that reliably (!) identifies a large subset of Gallica files (more than just one category), then go through all the VFC hoops like having to load "more" files several times to really get all of them. Even then, you won't get all (at least for some of the larger chunks) and will have to repeat the task two or three times, I guess because the servers/API take some time to really find all of the files. Also, some files will fail with API errors when processing several thousand files, so to catch all of them you need the repetition. I was able to process some larger chunks of 8,000 to 9,000 files that way (like archival records of the Comic Opera in Paris), but that is probably the upper limit of what can be accomplished with VFC. Other chunks were several thousand files. Once all the bigger subsets are processed, it will get more tedious, so this will take a lot of time as predicted. Looking at the template transclusion count, I noticed it going down slightly every now and then even when I hadn't processed any files with VFC, so maybe some users are actually replacing the deprecated tags. --Rosenzweig τ 13:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is my understanding that the copyright status of images taken by pre-positioned recording devices in the U.S. is currently unclear. Wikipedia tends to treat them as non-free, and images such as en:File:2023 Lewiston shooting.jpg and en:File:07-17-2016BatonRougeshooting.jpg are marked as fair use. However, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-automated was closed as keep earlier this year, and the overall consensus was that such images are not copyrightable. Does this change anything with regards to our licensing policies? Can we move such images to Commons? Ixfd64 (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Di (they-them), The Black Revolutionary 2006 for their opinions as Fair Use uploaders of the two mentioned files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I invited them to join this discussion on their user talk pages.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never knew about this. The Black Revolutionary 2006 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CCTV images usually accepted with {{PD-ineligible}}. Yann (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That varies from country to country, but generally in the US, what Yann says is true about CCTV images. Abzeronow (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honest question: How is that different from setting a timer on a camera and then running to get in the shot? GMG^talk 18:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timer or no, the photographer set up the shot. In a security camera case, there's no artistic aspect of setting up the shot and no control over who or exactly what is in the shot, or even intent to try.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(via edit conflict, and saying more or less the same) @GreenMeansGo: because in that case you have a specific intent about what you will photograph, comparable to the intent of any other photographer. The fact that there is a shutter delay doesn't change much. But installing a camera, having it run for years and capture whatever happens in front of it (mostly nothing, as a rule) is rather different in intent. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Essentially the utilitarian rather than creative purpose of CCTV. That's what I figured but I was trying to think of counterexamples. If someone set up a camera with the intent to capture foot traffic in Time Square for a documentary, there is still the creative intentionality behind the remote recording. GMG^talk 19:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not necessarily. U.S. courts have ruled David Slater, who specifically set up his camera equipment to get a monkey to take a selfie, did not own the rights to the image. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe that's the courts ruled on that. A court ruled that the monkey didn't own the copyright, but Slater has never sued someone for reusing the image and brought that issue into court. Also, whether or not he "specifically set up his camera equipment to get a monkey to take a selfie" is a factual matter that would probably be contested by the defendants.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments, everyone. Unless there are any objections, then I plan to start moving them to Commons soon. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that no-free images on en.WP are reduced in resolution; we should grab the higher resolution versions from the database (or higher-still from the original source, if available). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I always upload the original image if it is available. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe worth summarising at Com:CCTV? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sceptical about the CC-ness of File:DIVE Mr Bean! - Funny Clips - Mr Bean Official.webm. It comes from a YouTube channel claiming to be "home to the live-action series of world famous British sitcom Mr Bean", and the source of the video appears to release it as CC. However, I'm not convinced that the channel has the authority to do that (i.e. it's not official); the closing title card is "© Tiger Aspect" and, similarly, the channel features clips from Bean, which is going to be a different copyright holder altogether and just makes me think the whole channel is a bit iffy... MIDI (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm convinced this is one of those cases where the license provided is broader than any company would rationally put out and thus the file should be deleted. But it seems that recently, COM:PCP is of little importance... -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect a possible "license laundering" as there is no indication that the original episodes are freely-licensed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh no, not again :D. The X account (mrbean) links to https://mrbean.com. This web page links to https://www.youtube.com/user/MrBean as YouTube channel. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:DIVE Mr Bean! - Funny Clips - Mr Bean Official.webm‎. Yann (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/11#Upload of licensed content in YouTube. The channel looks legitimate for reasons mentioned in the discussion. Some videos of the channel, e.g. uploaded 4 years ago, are under the free license. This looks like the issue occasionally discussed in relation with such situations for other channels. Do we take the word of the channel and accept the free license or do we assume that we know better than they do themselves what they should do with their own licenses? It seems that if they didn't fix something after 4 years, it's probably because they indeed issued the free license or they agree to it or anyway it's their problem. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...or perhaps they just never noticed there was a problem. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MIDI, I would recommend that you join a related discussion regarding CC-licensed YouTube videos on the English Wikipedia at w:WP:VPP#Spongebob Squarepants is now freely licensed!. This discussion pertains to the validity of the CC-BY license on videos by corporate YouTube channels such as NickRewind and Disney Channel Israel. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'd appreciate if someone from the VRT/Village Pump help, can confirm that my uploaded photo of Pei May High School (Kolkata, India) taken in 1951 in my family collection, is good to use and share with right commons copyright? Its past 70 years already. Thank you very much!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeiMayHighSchoolKolkata.jpg

(I do not know how to tag licences etc and if someone can let me know or do for me. Thanks!)

Setwikirec0 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Setwikirec0: I have no idea where "past 70 years" comes from. In India, copyright lasts 60 years past the death of the author (in this case the photographer). So unless this was taken by someone who died before 1963 (10 days from now it will be before 1964), this is still copyrighted. Plus I think that under U.S. law, because of the URAA restoration it will still be in copyright in the U.S. until January 1, 2047.

There may be a way around this: you say you found it in your "family collection". Are you the heir to the relevant intellectual property rights? If so, then you may grant a license using a template like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} or {{Cc-zero-heirs}}, depending what license you want to grant. Or, if you are not the heir, do you know who is? - Jmabel ! talk 05:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They would need to be the heir of the photographer, not one of the pictured people, for there to be a chance there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For such photos, the basis is the date of creation, PD-India-photo-1958. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you User:Jmabel, User:Clindberg and User:Asclepias. Here the date of creation is 1951. It is in my family collection and also have a member in the photo. Now, Asclepias, the date of the year 1951, India, should be good with common use / copyright? (India, being 1958 copyright expiry?) Appreciate your input! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2024 to all. Setwikirec0 (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Setwikirec0: Sounds like Asclepias had more specific knowledge than I did. Yes, you can apparently upload it, using {{PD-India-photo-1958}} as a license. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, wait, no. I think he just left out the U.S. side of the equation. @Asclepias: that covers the copyright in India, but not (as far as I can see) the U.S. issues from the URAA restoration. I think for the U.S. we still need an assertion that a given individual is the heir and grants a license. Do you think I'm wrong about that? - Jmabel ! talk 20:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct that my comment was only about the Indian copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I edited to the Indian copyright {{PD-India-photo-1958}} of the photo taken in 1951. I hope I edited it correctly. Appreciate your input User:Asclepias

~~ Setwikirec0 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Setwikirec0: You still haven't indicated who took the photo. Again, we would still need a license valid in the U.S. If you know who the photographer was, and you are heir to their intellectual property, say so and use {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}}, not {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}} {{Cc-by-4.0}}. If you don't know who the photographer was, you cannot possibly be in a position to issue a license, and we need to delete this and undelete on or after January 1, 2047. - Jmabel ! talk 21:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helo Jmabel, I could not find the delete photo fumciton. If you need to delete, please do so for me. Thanks! Merry Christmas! Setwikirec0 (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: Those licenses are both the same, please try again.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Setwikirec0: is that to say that you don't know who took the photo? Yes, it would need to be deleted then. I can do that, but please clarify that point so I know to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 23:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jmabel, The goodness to grant permit to this family photo of 72 yrs ago may not be there by the photographer next of kin. So you may proceed to delete now. Looks like it will have to wait till 2047. Thank you. Setwikirec0 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So if this was posted in Wikipedia India commons, then the license is good to go, but not in America? Yet, wikipedia is virtual around the world wherever it is posted and license. The boundary line is confusing, but I kinda get it. Thanks Setwikirec0 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Setwikirec0: What is this "Wikipedia India commons" of which you wrote?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Setwikirec0: basically, the image is free to use in India. If you wanted to publish it in any way there, you are fine. But Commons is legally based in the U.S., and we have to follow U.S. copyright law (plus, we choose also to follow the law of the country of origin for the content), so we can't host it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, Thanks Jmabel! Setwikirec0 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do see the copyright situation for the flag images in Category:Army flags of Greece? In Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Greece#Not protected I only see textual information mentioned; also the phrasing of Template:PD-GreekGov^*) is about text. For some of the images in the category exist versions in enwiki and elwiki, which are hosted in these under fair use conditions. Strange enough, some of the images from Commons are used in enwiki, though. My actual, original goal was finding a larger version of File:20th Armored Division of the Hellenic Army.jpg which is used in dewiki because of the text string, but this is hardly readable, and on searching I found en:File:20th Armoured Division Emblem Greece.jpg and el:Αρχείο:20th Armoured Division (Greece flag).png.
^*) Not that one of the external links in the template is dead and the other points to a superseded law version. — Speravir – 22:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article 'New Life for The Loneliest Isle' from National Geographic Magazine, 1950, page 111, references a ship's figurehead found on Tristan da Cunha as coming from the Admiral Karpfanger.

I am interested in editing the Admiral Karpfanger page to cross reference the figurehead mystery with Tristan da Cunha. There are very few references to the figurehead online and there is doubt regarding the figurehead source

Can I reference the page showing the figurehead and the comment as it coming from the Admiral Karpfanger? I have my own scanned image of the single National Geographic page showing the figurehead and the reference to the ship.

I also have a scanned family archival image of the figurehead, but without the 'National Geographic' cross reference, the link to the Admiral Karpfanger is vague.

Thankyou. Peter Neaum (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peter Neaum: I'm missing context here: reference it where? Usually Commons isn't particularly concerned with formal referencing, except maybe for maps and charts. I see you say, "the Admiral Karpfanger page"; did you possibly mean to ask this question on the English-language Wikipedia (a separate site, but also a WMF project)? Yes, National Geographic would generally be considered a reliable source in Wikipedia.

If that doesn't answer your question, adding links to what you are referring to might make it clearer. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou. I was going to upload an image of the page and reference that as both the source of the fact, and as an image of the figurehead.

Information I looked up implied that 1950 is still under copyright, even though the scan is my creation.

I was going to reference the page (which I'll upload to wiki commons) off the Admiral Karpfanger ship page - saying it was suggested the figurehead washed ashore Tristan da Cunga (as noted by National Geographic).

I guess I'm asking - If I create a scan of the page, while it is my own creation, am I breaking copyright? Peter Neaum (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peter Neaum: you won't get in any trouble for scanning the page, but you should not publish it (and, especially, please, not here on Commons).

I don't understand why you seem to feel a need to put it on line. It doesn't need to be on line to be cited. - Jmabel ! talk 03:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peter Neaum: Please take a look at references 11, 14, 15, 19 and 21 on en:Robert Sténuit for examples of how you can reference National Geographic without having to upload an image of a page. If you need more help with editing English Wikipedia, you may want to try en:Wikipedia:Teahouse. From Hill To Shore (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel@From Hill To Shore Thankyou Both. I'll copy the reference format in the page referenced. Thankyou both. Peter Neaum (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chevrolet-logoo.png seems to be incorrectly licensed even if COM:Poland is somehow considered to be its country of first publication (which seems odd given that en:Chevrolet initially started using the logo in the US). The question is whether the logo would be considered too simple to be eligible for copy protection per COM:TOO United States. If it is, then probably all that is needed is to convert the file's licensing to {{PD-logo}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the history, it was uploaded with a Creative Commons-self licence and no indication of a relationship to Poland. An IP editor changed it in November 2023 to have a PD template for Polish government symbols. I think it is safe to rule out the Polish connection. I'm not too familiar with COM:TOO United States, so hopefully someone else can answer that point. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

assuming english law.

the company publishing a newspaper owns its copyright, right?

then the company closed and the paper is terminated. after the company is deregistered, who owns the copyright now?

let's say if i want to buy all the copyright over, who should i make my bid to? RZuo (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo: I don't specifically know English law on this, but pretty much everywhere, when a corporation is dissolved, some entity acquires its intellectual property rights. If there are unpaid creditors, then sometimes a successor entity is set up for this purpose, owned by the creditors. If not, then it could go to any sort of entity: an individual, another company, a non-profit, a government agency. Occasionally, as with an intestate individual, the rights may be in limbo for an indefinite period of time. And, of course, as with a person's will, if things are contested then it can take a long time to disentangle who owns what. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, i'm trying to find out who might still inherit the copyright from the dissolved company.

it's a bit like Vivian Maier. the curator of her films paid a distant relative to show that they have tried their best to buy over her copyright that could be inherited by someone. what i want to do something similar are newspapers that folded before 2000 in hong kong. RZuo (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wouldn't the copyrights have defaulted to the government of China since they don't really allow for private news companies? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: If the author obtained copyright in Hong Kong between 1950 and 1999 (from my memory due to the 50-year lease), UK law should rule (unless an agreement between the UK and China says otherwise).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo: One side note (don't know if this is relevant for you): While companies may own copyrights in the UK, the copyright terms there are still tied to the person of the author, which in the case of a newspaper might be a journalist or photographer. --Rosenzweig τ 13:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buenas y Feliz Navidad a los Administradores de Wikimedia, por favor necesito que un administrador agrega los artículo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras. Además del artículo 2 de la Ley sobre Derechos de Autor, a la Commons:Threshold of originality porque esos artículos en Venezuela aplica a los Logos, Banderas y Escudos (emblemas) en Venezuela está en el "Dominio Público" ese mapa Venezuela en el Commons:Threshold of originality debería estar en Verde (OK). (Nota:En el artículo 325 dice:Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público

La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.Esta parte invención significa que puedes crear Logos, banderas y escudos con tu propia creatividad)

AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not a matter of threshold of originality. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Asclepias:Buenas, una pregunta que significa "Invención" en el Articulo 325?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AbchyZa22: Hi, As mentioned in the other discussion on that topic at Commons:Help desk#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png, the interpretation and possible application of art. 325 of the LOTT would be a question for specialized jurists in Venezuelan law. Without references to decisions or doctrine, discussions on Commons are unlikely to provide an answer. You can try to find if there were any decisions by courts in Venezuela. A quick search online shows a few doctrinal commentaries by jurists. Two commentaries argue that art. 325 is inconstitutional [1] [2]. Another website mentions that the law was referred to the Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, for a decision on constitutionality. You can try to find what happened with that. Given the context and the title of art. 325, "Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras" (inventions, innovations and ameliorations), it seems plausible that the main intention or goal of art. 325 was related to industrial innovations and research and development. For example, industrial innovations in the petroleum industriy developed from research in State enterprises or funded by public entities could be immediately and freely used by companies in the private sector. Does the scope of art. 325 extend also to other areas, such as artistic works? Maybe yes or maybe no. Different articles use different words. The particular title of art. 325 seems to hint to a possibly narrower scope than other words. Commons cannot give you the answer. Look for legal decisions and commentaries. For the artwork of Caracas, on the help desk it was suggested to contact personally the artist. There is a contact form on his website. He will not give a legal analysis of art. 325, of course, but at least he can tell if he considers that art. 325 applies to his artwork. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does FoP-UK apply to File:London King's Cross rainbow light tunnel - 2023-06-25.jpg? Is it 2D art? Is it public art? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See File:K2inGjU 400x400.jpg. Unsure of its source or if it is copyrighted. Found while patrolling recent BLP edits on enwiki. Not too familiar with Wikimedia, so I'm posting here! Sorry if this is the wrong place! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Schrödinger's jellyfish: Thanks for the notification. This is the right place to come to if you are not sure if someone has the right to upload a file. I've marked the file for speedy deletion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anything I should follow up with at en:wiki? I'll remove the image from the article accordingly and warn the editor about copyright. Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Schrödinger's jellyfish: No action is needed at En wiki in regards to the photo. If a Commons administrator deletes it, a bot will remove the file from the article automatically. The user has been warned on their Commons talk page, so they will get an alert on Wikipedia. If you want to give the user some guidance then that is up to you but I wouldn't issue a second warning for the same action. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, See [3] for background. Cory Doctorow and Joshua Brustein accuse Larry Philpot of using Commons to sue people. Nenad Stojkovic is also mentioned by Doctorow. Nightshooter didn't upload anything since October 2013, but we should probably do something here. Images by Marco Verch were previously deleted for the very same reason. Yann (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: He just has 21 mediocre quality concert photos on Commons. I would strongly support nuking from orbit and banning his account for eternity. Plus maybe sending a note to his mother. He is exploiting Commons and hurting our mission and reputation. We should have no tolerance for such bad faith foolishness. Nosferattus (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nosferattus: concur, though I don't have a space laser to spare. Care to start the DR, or would you rather that someone else does? - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann and Jmabel: Done: Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Larry Philpot. Hope I did that correctly. Nosferattus (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cory Doctorow makes an interesting suggestion about including a warning alongside old CC licences to make reusers aware of the potential danger. However, our templates like {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} don't mention it. Should we add a warning to these templates along with a message encouraging copyright holders to re-licence their work under 4.0? The files will still remain here if the old licence is used but it gives reusers the opportunity to choose a safer file or make very sure they follow the terms precisely. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think about suggesting that. Yann (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've had this discussion before. I think it would be a good idea to first approach those users who are still active and ask them to change their uploads with pre-4.0 cc licences to 4.0 or cc-zero. The best way to do this could be with an offer: just agree on "this-to-be-created-page" and a bot will adapt all your uploads. It would also be good if Flickr would adapt its licences, as many of the pre-4.0 licences come from there. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And not to forget @Doctorow has an account at Commons. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we do that, it's probably best to add the 4.0 license and not remove the earlier version -- if someone is using it under an earlier license for a derivative work, they may still need the original version to comply with those older terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Philpot images had already been discussed and processed years ago -- see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive_74#Vote:_overwriting_the_images_with_forced_attribution. The images had the correct attribution and a warning added to them. It sounds like another user who uploads here (Harald Krichel) is now using Pixsy, which I guess uses copyleft troll tactics. That user is apparently a member of VRT, and Wikimedia Deutschland. The question seems to be what to do with those uploads. They use the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license explicitly, even now, and only the 4.0 versions have the provision which helps fight these tactics. Not sure we have heard back from that user -- whether this is intentional on their part, or not being aware of how Pixsy does business. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: Obviously, we should do the same thing with Harald Krichel's <4.0 uploads.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are unfortunately thousands of them, so unless done by a bot (and then the images protected from being overwritten like Philpot's were), not sure how easy that approach will be. But it is one option, for sure. Unsure if this user has actually filed lawsuits like Philpot did, or just uses Pixsy, which I would presume (given the notice on the help desk) demands payment rather than the option of just fixing the attribution. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there some reason that no one wants Harald Krichel to participate in this discussion? Nosferattus (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I uploaded this file that follows some time ago. File:FiskMatchbook.jpg. I'd like some clarity on the correct source and author. Is it okay as is. For instance, is the author of this cover the manufacturer, retailer, or artist who drew the character (or even Fisk Tires). All of them are mentioned on the page. There is a WP article on the artist proving authorship of the character (since a couple or so images of the character in that article are signed). Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since there is no copyright (and, given that the issue is lack of required notice, there never was), this really isn't a copyright issue or a legal issue of any sort, just a matter of how we choose to credit it. - Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right. There doesn't seem to be any strict conformity. So it's all secondary stuff compared to the major copyright issue. Thks. JimPercy (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author would be the human artist who drew it. However, for a credit line, it helps to include the company they worked for, if applicable. In many countries, the copyright term is based on the human author's lifetime, regardless of who owns the copyright. However, the company may be the copyright owner, and that may be important if you are seeking alternate licensing (if it's still copyrighted somewhere). Credit lines often name anyone (or any legal entity) involved, even if not strictly related to the copyright itself. The information could be helpful in different circumstances. They can all be listed in the "author" field, I think, though the human author probably should come first. What you have is fine -- the other information is listed elsewhere, but it's there. I added the Creator template and author category. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: Question: do other Berne Convention countries grant a copyright on "no notice" U.S. publications from this era? - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends. Some countries apply the rule of shorter term, some have a treaty with the USA with specific conditions. Yann (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If they do not use the rule of the shorter term, they would protect them to whatever term they have. And as Yann mentions, many western European countries have old (dating from the 1890s or early 1900s) one-off copyright treaties with the U.S., which were usually formulated as the U.S. will protect foreign works using U.S. terms, if foreign countries will protect U.S. works for their terms. Those can still be in effect, and override a general "rule of the shorter term". There was a case in Germany for exactly that; a U.S. work was protected for 70pma there despite it having expired in the U.S., and Germany using the rule of the shorter term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I uploaded a photo File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg, but I figured it out, it is copyrighted by BabaPhoto. Can you help me to remove the photo from page "Kalocsai Zsuzsa"? I tried everything, but I couldn't remove it. Thank you so much! Kalocsaizsuzsa (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 07:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kalocsaizsuzsa: Removing this from eo:Zsuzsa Kalocsai and hu:Zsuzsa Kalocsai would have to be done on those respective Wikipedias, although of course it will be removed automatically if it is deleted from Commons. But I don't understand: if the file is your own work, how can it be copyrighted by someone else? - Jmabel ! talk 07:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you started a deletion request, even if you didn't do it quite right (I'll fix that). Let's continue discussion there, rather than here. - Jmabel ! talk 07:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our website used File:A solzhenitsin.JPG fully attributed and linked to the creative commons license. PicRights International Inc is demanding we remove the image from our site and pay them damages, claiming the image is copyrighted by Reuters for exclusive use. We have refused to remove the image or to pay PicRights because the photographer has made the image available under CC-BY-SA 4.0 on wikimedia. I could not find talk at the image page. PicRights says we are infringing on https://pictures.reuters.com/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ITEMID=PBEAHUNGTCC If this is not the right place to ask about this, could someone direct me to the url of the appropriate page. Has anyone dealt with similar issues? Before hiring a copyright lawyer are there other steps to take? PastPicker4tA (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PastPicker4tA: Hi, and welcome. Please use internal links like File:A solzhenitsin.JPG or that for source File:Evstafiev-solzhenitsyn.jpg (both monochrome). Pinging @Evstafiev (Mikhail Aleksandrovich Evstafiev) as uploader 08:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC). It appears Reuters had the photo in color and much larger June 01, 1994 (13 years earlier), but the uploader claims to have taken it that day. Perhaps Reuters stole the rights from him or gave insufficient info to PicRights.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. PastPicker4tA (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to confirm that the photo was in fact taken by myself, however I was not the only photographer present at that moment. Mikhail Evstafiev Evstafiev (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Evstafiev: Thank you. Did you take it in color and license it to Reuters?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was shooting Fuji400 colour negative film that day. Reuters have a similar but not identical photo; the one from my archive was originally scanned in colour. When I began writing, editing and contributing to Wikipedia, I converted my file to b/w and uploaded to Wikimedia. Hope this resolves the matter. Evstafiev (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or, more precisely, is the claim of PicRights International Inc. believable, to the effect that you might have ceded to Reuters the copyright and the *exclusive* right to use all versions of this photograph? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the claim is not correct. Evstafiev (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what to say here. It sure appears as though it was uploaded and licensed by the photographer, long ago. Do note that is is NOT licensed CC-BY-SA-4.0, but rather multi-licensed CC-BY-SA-2.5-Generic, CC-BY-SA-3.0-Unported, and GFDL 1.2+. You can pick any of those licenses, but strictly speaking it is not licensed with the 4.0 version. Reuters has a color version; ours is black and white. The crops are different; the Reuters image has more content on the left side, while ours has more on the right (meaning it was not copied from that Reuters image). Reuters does not name the photographer, but just "Stringer" which may just be a term for a contract photographer. Presumably the photographer at one time contracted with Reuters. They may be mistaken on the "exclusive rights" aspect, in that they have rights to use it but the photographer may maintain rights to license it elsewhere, but only asking the photographer directly may resolve that. If the photographer transferred exclusive rights to Reuters per the contract, it's possible he did not have rights to license it here, and forgot that. Or Reuters simply assumes it has exclusive rights on all its images and assumes people copy from their site, and only gave superficial info to PicRights. I'm sure that is true most of the time, but not sure what realistic options PicRights will give you. Perhaps asking them for details about the contract with Mr. Evstafiev. The real answer probably lies in the contract between the photographer and Reuters, which none of us here would know. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that the Wikimedia image has more content on the right. I had noticed the crop on the left, but not the extension on the right. Very helpful information. PastPicker4tA (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: en:Stringer (journalism). - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The black and white version is also displayed on his official website [4] and, per his copyright notice there, he is the owner of the copyright on it ("All material and images on this website, unless otherwise stated, Copyright Mikhail Evstafiev"). That is consistent with the information on Wikimedia. It is not consistent with the claim of PicRights. There is an address where he could be contacted to clarify the matter. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this helpful information. PastPicker4tA (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So for some fun I took the cited images and superimposed them. They line up almost perfectly, but wikipedia image indeed has more content on the right (green box) and Reuters image, on the left (red box), and thus, Wikipedia did NOT lift the image off Reurters. That makes me suspect that Evstafiev WAS the stringer. -- Wesha (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Evstafiev last edited here 5 years, 7 months, 12 days, 1 hour and 47 minutes ago = 2052 days (Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:50:33 UTC) and on any WMF project on enwiki 4 years, 2 months, 27 days and 35 minutes ago = 1549 days (Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 12:04:33 UTC). Thank you all.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But, nonetheless, he posted ^^^^farther up on this thread about four hours after Jeff G.'s remark here, so he is now engaged on this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hypothetical situation. Suppose I come across a film shoot and decide to take pictures. Would such pictures be allowed on Commons, or would the arrangement of actors and props be copyrightable? Ixfd64 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What country would this hypothetical situation take place in? Some countries have rules around consent of participants (non-copyright restriction) that would prevent upload to Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's say this is in the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ixfd64: You're fine. In the U.S., doing things in a public place is implicit consent to be photographed, limited only by personality rights. - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends. If the shoot takes place in an area that is cordoned off, even if that area would at other times be a public place, it is now private. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you can't walk into the cordoned-off space of course, but you can still shoot from outside. Obviously, for the duration, the cordoned-off space doesn't count as public, but this is just like being able to stand on a public sidewalk to photograph a house. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No copyright issue IMO. There is no artistic, literary, or audio-visual work involved (I assume copyrighted elements may pass de minimis thing). Non-copyright restrictions like privacy, security, and house rules are not grounds for deletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 'arrangement of actors and props' is an artistic work and is therefore copyrighted. In some cases de minimis may apply. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may contribute on this arcticle's gallery which is now empty

Can I upload this picture?

Ustanovka shindows (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This picture is in gallery now. I uploaded it in GNOME 3 article. Ustanovka shindows (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw that this file has only {{PD-US}}, but we know the death date of Orville Wright, so I figured I could put a more specific tag on it. But I wasn't sure whether to use {{PD-old-auto-expired}} or {{PD-old-auto-unpublished}}, as I tend to assume that merely transmitting a telegram does not qualify as "publication" under US law. Both templates indicate that the work is PD in the US (when given deathyear=1948), and logically one of them must apply (either it was published before 2003, or it was not). What template is appropriate for situations like this, where we don't know exactly which combination of formalities causes the work to be PD, but we can be reasonably sure that it is PD? I don't want to leave it with just {{PD-US}}, because we know the death year and can give more specific advice as to its non-US copyright status. NYKevin (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pre-1978 was murky in terms of what publication meant but you can use whenever the contents of the telegram became revealed to the public as a publication date. Abzeronow (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The date of death has almost no bearing on old U.S. works and does not help in determining which more specific tag to use. The deathyear argument helps in other countries, certainly. We would need to know the date of publication, with publication itself being often a murky topic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, I do see the text published here, a Kansas State College bulletin, with reference to it being published in the December 16, 1928 New York Times. So it's at least that old. In three days, it would definitely be PD-US-expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is good to know. Since I'm a NYT subscriber, I was able to verify that the Times did indeed publish the text of the telegram on that date (I looked up the article in TimesMachine: [5] is a subscriber-only direct link). As I would have expected, the telegram itself had no individual copyright notice, but I suppose it is possible it would be considered covered by the NYT's copyright, so waiting for January 1 and then tagging it -expired is probably the most pedantically correct way to do this. (I am extremely doubtful that the NYT actually has a valid claim to Orville Wright's telegram in the first place, but I'd rather not try to work out exactly how to write that in a PD template when we can just wait two days.) NYKevin (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The holiday cards in Category:Art of Vladimir Zarubin are all marked as {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Are these somehow official works? They are clearly not news reports, and since the author is known, they cannot be anonymous folk art. - Jmabel ! talk 05:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a peculiar Russian (or, specifically, Soviet, and thus, for pre-1991 — or, to be more precise, pre-dissolution of the Soviet Union, which happened at the end of 1991 — works) copyright law exemption for postal cards: since the stamp is printed on the card as a part of manufacturing process, rather than plastered onto the card postfactum, the entire card is considered знак почтовой оплаты ("the means to pay for postal services"), and, given that they were issued by Ministry of Communications of the USSR, an official government agency, by Soviet Russia's law, which makes documents (including "means of payment", which is primarily aimed at banknotes, but that category ends up covering postal stamps as well) public domain. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia#Stamps. While the scans were intitially deleted as a result of User:PlanespotterA320 (now, thankfully, banned) creative interpretaton of the law, recently it was reversed, so now due to this peculiar exemption, we have these (and only these!) works of his in public domain. Vladimir himself, sadly, died in powerty in 1996 of stroke (caused by the privatized printing company refusing to pay him a significant sum of money for his work). The total circulation of postcards bearing his art exceeds 1.5 billion units. -- Wesha (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(reposted from en:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Exclusive_licence/license_on_Wikimedia_Commons_contributions as suggested by ColinFine)

If someone uploads an image to Wikimedia Commons with a non-CC0 licence, and then submits it in a journal article which involves granting the publisher exclusive use, what is the status of the image for the uploader, as well as for everyone else? Thanks, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 12:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cmglee: AIUI, the status would depend on the contract between author and publisher, irrevocable vs. exclusive.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"with a non-CC0 licence" this is too unspecific, but for this i'm going to assume CC-by-SA 4.0 was used. If this image was uploaded to Commons with that license, then the CC license is irrevocable. Anyone can download and reuse the image according to the licensing rights, up until the copyright of the image expires (This being sort of the whole point of what we do here). If the copyright owner then submits that exact same image to a paper and this paper requires that the owner/author gives them an EXCLUSIVE right to the copyrights and the publishing rights of the article and all of its contents, then this is technically not possible. There is already a pre-existing conflicting contract (license) that gives non-exclusive rights to everyone else. Even transfer of the copyright does not invalidate the previously granted licenses. So effectively the journal cannot receive an exclusive publishing right from the author, and possibly if the author engages in a contract with them without notifying the other party of this previous contract, the submitter is creating a breach of contract situation between themselves and the journal. There are however many nuances to this and without a specific journal and knowing the specific publication contract (because most journals these days have multiple contract types) it is difficult to ascertain the impact for copyright owner and journal. But for Commons this all doesn't matter. The Creative Commons license is irrevocable. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. I'll have to carefully check the contract then. Would you know of any precedence of authors getting in trouble for breaching such a contact? Thanks, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 15:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assuming this is about yourself: I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that if you first offer an irrevocable free license and then receive some sort of compensation from a second party for an "exclusive" license for the same material, the party that paid (or provided some other quid pro quo) for the "exclusive" license would have legal recourse, because you agreed to provide them something you were not in a legal position to provide. (Harder to guess what happens if there is no quid pro quo.) If the contract in question is not yet signed, I would certainly think you would want to add a clause indicating explicitly that this particular image is already licensed under such-and-such license. They don't necessarily need to mention that license when they go to print (because they have a separate license from you), but they presumably can't sue any third party for using a license that you have also granted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If an author writes an article that quotes a text that is in the public domain and publishes the article with a publisher who demands exclusive rights, I expect that the legal department of the publisher will agree that this does not imply that the author from then on can no longer quote this text – unlike everyone else, who is not a party to the contract and can use it freely. I also suppose that the same holds for a CC-BY-SA licence, regardless of who the original creator was. (The author might include material created and licensed by someone else.) If there is any doubt, I'd ask written confirmation of this analysis from the publisher. I also have signed various contracts with a rider added at my behest making an exception to a clause that in the specific context was not reasonable.  --Lambiam 00:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much, @Jmabel: and @Lambiam: That seems like sounds advice. You're right that everyone else's rights are not affected no matter what is in the contract as they did not sign it – I should've realised that. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 01:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would summarize the situation like this: having issued a CC-BY-SA licence, in effect the only special or exclusive IP rights an author has left to grant are to waive the BY and/or SA conditions. I can imagine circumstances in which either might be of value, but I don’t know how often they occur IRL, if at all, to the extent that anyone would actually purchase such a right. Some form of BY is essential in all reputable academic work anyway, so here (if my inference from “journal” is correct), only the SA requirement would be on the block. For example it would allow licensees to assert ARR on DW of their making. (Similar considerations would apply to the NC & ND conditions, but we don’t go there.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my experience, when paying for a separate license for materials that are already free-licensed, most publishers understand they cannot get exclusivity (though that sounds like it might not be the case here) but they are willing to pay for a strong assurance that you really own the relevant rights, and to that end they typically want your real name, not an account name. Also, they want to be freed from any obligation to mention a specific license when they publish.

BTW, I've also had people pay for a 6- or 12-month exclusive on a set of photos, with me free to free-license them once that time is up, or (in at least one case I can recall) free to free-license whatever they didn't publish in their magazine. It's interesting how much business models seem to differ on this sort of thing. - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all-

I'm looking to use an image for a print piece that is tied to this licensing standard. However, one of the requirements is that a link to the license be included with the image when it's used. The issue is that I want to use the image for the print piece, so I can't provide a link in the common digital sense. I really don't want to clog up my layout with a long url. Can I just give appropriate credit like this, and the person who views the physical piece can look up the license if needed? "[Creator name/handle], License: CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons"

If anyone wants to dig into the license further, here's the Image. Clarejello (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do need at least to provide a URL. You can set up a bitly link, which will be short. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10-4. Thanks for the response! Clarejello (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a little over 3.5 days, w:Eustace Tilley as drawn by w:Rea Irvin will appear in the DYK section of the English Wikipedia w:Main page. I just stumbled upon something with an image of Irvin and was wondering if there is any chance that we can have a proper image in the Irvin infobox.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I request some assistance in properly adding some Perception-based map cartoons to commons. this article presents two w:John T. McCutcheon cartoons (from 1908 and 1922) that may be inspirations for w:View of the World from 9th Avenue. Can we add them to commons so I can include them in that article?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]