Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


Is this image public domain?[edit]

Moved from Commons:Help desk

Could the image of Bradley on page 68 of this USGS report be covered by Template:PD-USGov? BhamBoi (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BhamBoi: my take (though you might want to seek more expert opinion at COM:VP/C) is that it would probably come down to the status of The American Journal of Science Bradley Volume (1960). As a U.S. federal government document, the USGS report is presumably public-domain when handled as a unit, but if the image in question is copyrighted then its inclusion in the document is somewhere in fair use territory (and we can publish the document as a whole despite its containing copyrighted on something along the lines of a de minimis basis). The image as such doesn't become public domain just because it is included in a federal government document. Otherwise, the government could take away anyone's copyright by publishing their work in a federal document. - Jmabel ! talk 05:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By stating: "Photograph from the USGS Denver Library Photographic Collection, Portraits, in the “Last Name A–B” folder; published in The American Journal of Science Bradley Volume," I'm led to think that it was a USGS file, thus government PD, but later republished in the journal volume.
For reference, a link to the Bradley Volume is here, and the image appears in this article. BhamBoi (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
USGS having it in a collection doesn't mean it was taken by a U.S. government employee. Again, you might want to seek more expert opinion at COM:VP/C. - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will. Thanks! BhamBoi (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that anything that was published before 1964 and first published in the US and did not have a proper notice and renewal is in the public domain, though. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an update, I have not gotten a response from this board yet but would the image linked above be okay to upload to Commons? BhamBoi (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BhamBoi: I found no related copyright renewal records for "The American Journal of Science" or "The Bradley Volume" (the name of the book). So I think you can upload the photo under {{PD-US-not renewed}}. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 20:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does one go about uploading an image found in a PDF article? Screenshot?? BhamBoi (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BhamBoi: Please don't screenshot it, you'll lose a lot of the quality of the image. Instead, follow one of the techniques at s:Help:Image extraction § Extracting images from PDF files. Let me know if you need any help. Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 10:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BhamBoi: @Matrix: , I have uploaded the photograph as File:Wilmot Hyde "Bill" Bradley, American Journal of Science.jpg. I extracted via IrfanView and saved as a jpg because it's a photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For some reason, I missed this message... But thanks a ton! I'll add this to his wiki article. BhamBoi (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiel van der Randen (fotograaf 1897–1949)[edit]

L.s. I downloaded high res photo's from Wiel van der randen from https://beeldbank.spaarnestadphoto.com/ and want to upload them on commons on the already existing Category:Photographs by Wiel van der Randen The pictures are somewhat protected in high res but still downloadable. Although they are trying to sell them they are published on their own website and since copyright is expired, is it ok to upload them on commons? Thanks, Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Timmietovenaar: Hi Timmie, since you have done a lot of work for Het Nationaal Archief, could you share your insides as well? Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds painful. And messy. Maybe Timmie could share their insights, instead? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny 😃 Missed that error. Thanks for correcting me. 👍🏻 Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photos have to be in the public domain in country of origin and in the USA. Netherlands is {{PD-old-70}}, but for the USA part it's a bit of a puzzle. The pre-1929 ones are probably covered by {{PD-US-expired}}, the later ones are probably still in copyright because of URAA. Multichill (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pre-1929 should be easy. U.S. law says anything published anywhere before 1929 is now PD; no need to show U.S. publication. But, yes, anything later is going to have to wait for 95 years from publication. If you like you can upload them and then promptly start a DR to have them deleted now and undeleted on the proper date. If you do that, mark them with the correct Dutch PD tag (presumably {{PD-old-70}}). It would be easiest if you would start DRs in batches by year of publication so each DR need only one "Undelete in" category from Category:Undeletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the info.
However i still have a related question. The reason why i am confused is multiple files uploaded by either co-workers of Spaarnestadphoto and/or Nationaal Archief with multiple licences. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kabinet_1948_-_SFA006001812.jpg.
Regards, Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the example you gave, it would seem to be PD in the Netherlands, but still under copyright in the US (post-1928 photo restored by the URAA to 95 years from publication). But it seems the Nationaal Archief owns that copyright, so they were able to make a free license on that remaining copyright, which is why we can keep it. The PD-old-70 tag applies in much of the world, so valid to add that too, but we need the CC license for the U.S. (which can also help in a couple other countries too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ken&Den picture a Flickrvio?[edit]

Ken&Den photograph

We have this famous historical photograph here, licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0, transferred from Flickr, where it was uploaded by “Peter Hamer” and marked as freely licensed. The image has since been deleted on the source Flickr page (but we have a Wayback Machine snapshot thanks to {{Flickrreview}} via the File Upload Bot). Now: Do we have any reason to think “Peter Hamer” was the real author (or copyright holder) of the photograph? All photographs on his Flickr seem to be normal family photos, nothing which would indicate any relation to Ken&Den, PDP-11, etc., AFAICT. (Disclaimer: I claim severe ignorance of computer history, it is completely possible “Peter Hamer” is the name of a well-known IT personality of that time, and I just never heard the name.)

Unfortunately, the claim that “Peter Hamer” is the author of the photograph (and the photograph is CC-BY-SA 2.0) is now everywhere on the web, so trying to find its real provenance is difficult, other than

  1. this is “a publicity photo from about 1972” [14],
  2. it appeared in Scientific American March 1999 p. 48 (so the author might be named there?) [15],
  3. Computer History Museum lists it as “early 1970's. (Property of Lucent Technologies)”, and “Credit: Courtesy of Gwen Bell”. [16]

I discovered the problematic image via a Law Stack Exchange post Finding the license for a widely-used photograph, which has already been noted at the file talk page (by User:EvergreenStereo).

I’d be inclined to delete the file as a Flickrvio, but… maybe I’m mistaken? Mormegil (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is probably not by Peter Hamer. However, if it was published before March 1989 without a copyright notice (which includes publicity pictures which were distributed to papers without one, which is usually the case), then the photo is in the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've spoken to a local library to find a copy of Scientific American from March 1999. Have to wait a day or two since they did not have it on site. Will update if anything comes of it. PascalHD (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better would be to find a copy of the photo as published in the 1970s or 1980s, which could demonstrate that it is in the public domain via publication without notice. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also located a copy of the photo online from 1999, which claims Copyright to Lucent https://web.archive.org/web/19991130154207/http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/pdp-11/real_programmers.html PascalHD (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here I found a digital copy of this issue of the journal. The photo note on page 49 reads "COURTESY OF BELL LABORATORIES, LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES; PRENTICE-HALL". Therefore it is certain that the photo is owned by Lucent. 0x0a (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great find. All photo credits seem to belong to Lucent or Bell Labs - the company itself. PascalHD (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Info I see that the license tag was changed to {{PD-US-no notice}} "based on discussion". However, we have no proof it was published without a notice. All examples we have are from the 1990s and onward, in the Scientific American & online. I have opened a Deletion Request to further discuss it there. PascalHD (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O.K. I will reach out to Bell Labs regarding the copyright of this photo. 0x0a (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanish Ministry website images: do we need a template?[edit]

Hi! I'd like to bring here a question I made at the Spanish Café :P. In short: i was wondering if it would be possible to upload the picture located in this press release (she's the former chairwoman of Adif, the Spanish railway infrastructure manager). The legal notice associated to all resources in this ministry website is located here, and i think is pretty similar to Template:Attribution-La Moncloa, but there's no template that fits exactly this Ministry. Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! Yonseca (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you can use items from that site. You can use Template:Attribution-mitma. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, thank you!! :) Yonseca (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright issue: Gamma-ray burst map[edit]

URL source of the picture: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/12/aa24829-14/F4.html

Source paper: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/12/aa24829-14/aa24829-14.html

Relevant article (here in Wiki): Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall

Reasons:

I think this image is under copyright by the authors, and so is discouraged to be uploaded. But I believe this would be fair use because:

  • The resolution is the lowest possible (1200 × 1225) given the nature of the map, and just enough to give some sense of the subject.
  • No artistic value and only presents a graphical illustration of raw scientific data.
  • Purpose is clear and used to give an illustration of the subject
  • Falls under academic fair use, with no other comparable image in the public domain.

This is an appeal because the article has been using for too long a picture that is misleading and does not consider the relevant scientific information, uploaded by an author who has been the subject of an administrative review and mass deletion of uploaded works.

This is an important topic for science that deserves a factual illustration of its own, at the very least. Regards. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SkyFlubbler: Fair use cannot be uploaded to Commons. If you believe you can make a strong and clear case for fair use, then upload it locally to en.wiki with the appropriate statements. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Thank you for the response. Do you also know any relevant tags to use/what to do on the file description when uploading these types of pictures? SkyFlubbler (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SkyFlubbler: the requirements for a “fair use rationale” and the use of an appropriate template are described at en:WP:FUR. Note that a bot reduces non-free raster images to a size that would degrade these maps, because its maximum pixel count is considerably less than what you say above is minimal: I recommend converting them to SVG to maintain quality regardless of nominal size. OTOH you could avoid the copyright issue entirely by creating your own plots of the data provided in the appendix.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Skyflubbler: While Commons does not accept non-free material, these graphs are uncopyrightable (Template:PD-chart). Copyright does not protect facts. There is no authorial expression in these graphs themselves. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the University of Michigan website which gives further examples of graphs and charts that are uncopyrightable. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since both of these graphs are uncopyrightable, here they are.
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the uploads. Will now add them both to the article. SkyFlubbler (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US copyright law DOES protect the work of American Samoans[edit]

Every file in Category:PD-American Samoa must be deleted immediately. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/American Samoa is incredibly misleading.

  • Even though federal statutory copyright law may not apply in American Samoa, the result is that American Samoa (by default) must follow common law copyright (which is what happens whenever federal copyright does not preempt the common law).
  • American Samoa arguably incorporates federal copyright law by reference, but let's put that aside.
  • American Samoans are US nationals. The very documents cited on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/American Samoa explicitly state that works by American Samoans are copyrighted in (the rest of) the United States.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"American Samoans are US nationals" - wrong. They are not. They con become very easy US nationals. But they are not by birth. I know personally some American Samoans. And the rest of your statement is very likey as false as yout last point. So nothing "must be deleted immediately". So far you're just making a claim that you're backing up with nothing but conjecture. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
American Samoans are 100% US non-citizen nationals by birth. See en:US National. US federal copyright law defines the works of US nationals, wherever they may be made or published, as US works subject to federal statutory copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright for uploading family photos on family member biography[edit]

I am attempting to upload a biography of my late uncle and father but am unable to upload their photos which are sourced from our family albums.

What copyright do I need to upload these images that were taken by family members years ago? Lakang (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lakang: are you, personally, the heir to the intellectual property rights of the photographers in question? If not, do you know who is? - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Also, what country?) - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you took the pictures, then you are the copyright holder and you can write {{own}}.
If you are the heir to the person who took the pictures, and the person is deceased, then you can upload it as the copyright holder. Otherwise, you can upload it on behalf of the family member(s) who took the photos or their heir(s) if they grant permission for you to do so for them.
Any such photo can be released under any of the acceptable licenses or dedicated to the public domain.
Also, of course, the photos must be within the project's scope (so it's OK if your father/uncle have Wikipedia biographies — though you shouldn't create any for them yourself). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years[edit]

Apparently this is one the license templates which are too complicated for many uploaders. Looking at the hodgepdoge of files in Category:PD Switzerland (Individuality 50 years) which is populated by the template, I think the vast majority of the files, probably all of them, don't qualify for the template, which is for photographs of three-dimensional objects where the photographic depiction was created at least 50 years ago and the reproduction has no individual character, to paraphrase the template text. Most are either showing people (or animals), landscapes, street scenes or railway cars and locomotives out in the wild. The few which might actually be non-individual photographs of 3D objects appear to be less than 50 years old.

Do you agree with this assessment? And what should be done with the files? Delete the lot? --Rosenzweig τ 16:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template might indeed be too complicated, and I might have misunderstood it. Reading up on the official explanation for the 2019/2020 change in the Swiss copyright law, it appears they actually meant to include humans etc. as "3D objects". Are there any newer Swiss court cases about when a photograph has an individual character or not? --Rosenzweig τ 00:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Maybe this discussion is helpful? Basically, the template is the "spiritual successor" of {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} (my deletion request for the relatively few files still using that template, and where PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years isn't applicable, is still pending). Switzerland traditionally applies a very high threshold of originality for copyright protection of photographs, see the famous "Meili" decision by the Federal Supreme Court: A photograph of a man posing with documents was deemed to have no copyright protection whatsoever, as it lacked "an individual expression of thought" (in contrast, an expressive photo of Bob Marley was deemed copyrightable a year earlier). And as Switzerland didn't have an extra protection for simple photographs (unlike Germany's "Lichtbilder"), that photo was completely unprotected by copyright or related rights. As this was widely bemoaned as unsatisfactory by photographers and press agencies, the 2019/2020 law change introduced a new protection for such "unoriginal" photographs lasting for 50 years after creation of the photograph. So, the Meili image presumably is now protected by this new related right until 2047 (year of creation 1997 + 50 years), but still not protected by the full 70 years p.m.a. copyright, as the new protection for photographs was introduced for exactly this kind of case. So, the assumption for the template is that everything comparable to the Meili image which we previously wouldn't have seen as copyrighted in Switzerland at all has now that 50 years protection, but for older "Meili-like" images, the new template is applicable. As the law change came into effect only in 2020, I doubt there are already newer cases, at least I know of none. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gestumblindi: Was there ever a discussion about the US copyright status of these photographs which were not protected in Switzerland? One might think that because they were not protected on the Swiss URAA date in 1996, the URAA did not restore their US copyrights. But actually, only the US copyrights of works which had an expired copyright in their source country were not restored by the URAA (en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Five-point test: “Had the copyright expired in the source country on the date of restoration?”) and [17] “The work is not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection.”) The copyright of those photographs had not expired however, instead they were never protected. As photographs are generally copyrightable in the US, the URAA might have restored the US copyrights of these photographs after all. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: This is nearly a philosophical question. If a photograph had no chance of its copyright protection ever expiring in the source country because there was no protection to begin with - is it really intended by the URAA (""teleologische Auslegung") to grant creators a protection they never had in the source country? However, the Meili image (shown in English Wikipedia as fair use) was actually deleted several times here on Commons on grounds that it would be likely protected in the US, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg. I, too, argued in the latest deletion discussion - only ten years ago, how time flies ;-) - that "it's probably protected in the US indeed, so it does seem to go against Commons policy". That being said, there might be files using {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} that are PD in the US, too, for different reasons. For example, File:Delegation mit Titel.jpg is a 1928 photo, so it would be {{PD-US-expired}} by now. Or File:Feldbahn im neutralen Gebiet zwischen Belgien und Deutschland (Ans 05358-015-AL).jpg, a 1915 photo (btw, I don't see why this should be considered a Swiss work - it's from a Swiss collection, but apparently taken in en:Neutral Moresnet - anyone familiar with Neutral Moresnet copyright law? ;-) ) . So, if we should arrive at the conclusion that files using PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years should be deleted even if they were not protected at the URAA date in Switzerland (due to lack of originality instead of expiration of protection), we need to assess all files using that template individually. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically, this would mean that this template would need to be kind of "tied" to the PD-US-expired template, and we would accept "simple" Swiss photographs if they are at least 95 years old. And sure, we would have to look at all 200+ of them individually. I've already added CC-BY licenses to some of them (that were from the ETH library) and nominated one for deletion which wasn't even a photo, but a drawing. Some others are probably not even 50 years old, and I saw at least one other file which didn't seem at all "Swiss" to me. --Rosenzweig τ 21:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also just now nominated one for deletion that is from 1978. No objections to individually reviewing them. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's my thought on this. I think that the photos that were subject-matter ineligible in Switzerland would not be eligible for URAA restoration, for the following reasons, in addition to the fact that the term of copyright was zero:
  1. The clear intent of Congress at the time was to have minimal compliance with the Berne Convention's provision on the restoration of foreign copyrights. This meant both not extending protection to any work that was simultaneously a US work, as well as any work that was in the public domain at its coming into effect.
  2. The ownership of a restored copyright "vests initially in the author or initial rightholder of the work as determined by the law of the source country of the work." But this is impossible when there was no author or rightholder according to that country's law. Since there is no owner according to Swiss law, there is no person who can become the first owner of the restored copyright.
However, the Meili photo is definitely not in the public domain in the US, since it was created after 1989, and no formality would be required after that date. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller: Thanks for these thoughts. If we'd follow this line of thinking, we would have no URAA issue with PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years (provided the individual photos are indeed lacking "an individual expression of thought") until 2039, as all photos currently using that template (unlike the previous PD-Switzerland-photo) should be created before 1989 anyway, as they need to be older than 50 years. Only starting in 2040 we would get photos that are older than 50 years but created after 1989 and therefore would have protection in the USA. - What do you think, Rosenzweig? Following that approach, we could add an appropriate PD-US tag to PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah with the proviso that the photograph must have been published on February 28, 1989, or earlier, that Switzerland must be the country of origin under the URAA and that the US formalities must not have been fulfilled. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm. Sounds intriguing, but let's ask someone else well-versed in US copyright to be sure :-) @Clindberg: Can you agree with this approach? --Rosenzweig τ 11:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now, the counterpoint is that the "expiration of the term of protection" clause is, according to many interpretations, intended to prevent works which were in the public domain in the source country due to a failure to respect formalities from being in the public domain in other Berne countries, on the basis that the term of protection had not expired. This has been used to argue that (for instance) a US work which is in the public domain in the US due to a failure to renew its copyright would not be in the public domain in countries that apply the rule of the shorter term to US works.
However, I will draw a distinction here. In those cases, we would be talking about a work which could have had a 95-year term, but which failed to get it in the US due to the failure to comply with formalities. Nevertheless, such a work would be of the type that could receive such protection. The Berne Convention presumes that different kinds of subject matter may be subject to different term lengths. One type of subject matter in question is photographs, which, under Berne, must receive a 25-year term (at least to the extent they are protected as Berne Convention works).
Compare, on the other hand, the EU copyright directive, which says: "The protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes. A photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account. The protection of other photographs should be left to national law." Switzerland, of course, is not part of the EU, but its copyright law has close ties to that of its neighbors.
We can say, looking at Switzerland (and other European countries, which themselves were the most influential on the actual creation of the Berne Convention, and in light of whose laws the Convention should be interpreted) that, much as some categories of work may receive longer or shorter terms than others in general, these countries have decided (where there is a dualistic system) that there is a category of work (original photos) which receives one term, and another (non-original photos) which receives another. In some countries, such as Italy, the latter term was non-zero. But Switzerland set the term for such photos (at the time, anyway — and only the law on January 1, 1996 is relevant) at zero intentionally and as a category; there was no formality which had been missed. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I had always taken "expiration of the term of protection" to mean that works that lacked subject matter protection could get restored in the US. But maybe that was simply the language in the Berne Convention so it was repeated in the law, letting courts decide what it meant if anything. Clearly, the Berne Convention did not require protection of photographs like that in the first place (they were not "works", though countries which adhered to Berne in the 1920s could grandfather their old treatment and were not subject to the minimum 25 year term). I would agree that the U.S. strived to only restore works which it absolutely had to per Berne, and used every clause in the Berne text it could to avoid restoring works. So maybe the "expiration of the term of protection" isn't particularly meaningful, and it would require that a term of protection existed in the first place. The interpretation of it referring to other formalities... maybe, but that was ignored in an actual court case -- in the ones mentioned at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/01#URAA_revisited_in_2019, there was a case where a few films were ruled not restored because they had been public domain in Mexico since 1948 due to failure to register per Mexico's old requirements. Berne did not require a country to restore its own works, just foreign works, so those remain PD in Mexico. Alameda et al v. Authors Rights Restoration Corporation et al. So, not sure we should take it to mean that either -- following the logic of the court decision would seem more authoritative. After all there was a term of protection, it was just not extended. We have always been resistant to delete the Melli photo for whatever reason (maybe illustrating the old Swiss law was important enough), though if it was after 1989 then it's always had U.S. protection for sure. But, I could buy that works not protected at all in the country of origin just have what protection the U.S. would normally give, which was subject to formalities before 1989. In the end, our policy on the URAA is a little reversed in terms of "proof", in that to delete we need to show something was restored, and so in that particular instance we have tended to keep works which are in legal gray areas, as we are not sure if they were restored -- thus keeping if they are PD in the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's definitely the language used in the Berne Convention that is the direct source of this phrase. The other issue is that there is no owner under local law in which the restored copyright would vest. In any case, I doubt a US court would recognize the existence of a restored copyright in a Swiss photo that had no copyright in 1996.
The Meili photo is from 1997. It might be fair use to show it in the context of discussing Swiss copyright law, but its status in Switzerland has no bearing on its status in the US. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure a court would find a way to get to a copyright owner -- the same one which would own a work below the threshold in the source country, but above the threshold in the U.S. The Berne condition may be there for that situation, when the threshold is different between countries -- you can't use the rule of the shorter term to not protect such works in your country, if they are not protected in the foreign country -- you should protect them in yours, if you protect them for your own citizens. I don't know which way a U.S. court would go on that; make sure they get the protection they should have gotten under Berne, or (since such works were outside the scope of Berne in the first place) just allow the U.S. protection which existed (and required formalities). I don't think we should delete works in that area unless we get a court case, if they are PD in the country of origin. Agreed that the Melli photo we can only use under fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I didn't really want to discuss specifically the Meili image anyway. @Clindberg: As discussed above, it's actually deleted on Commons since 10 years per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg), I brought it up to illustrate the high threshold of originality requirements for photographs in Switzerland. In en:Copyright_law_of_Switzerland#Lack_of_originality, it's certainly used appropriately under "fair use" as an English-language Wikipedia local upload, as well as the Marley photo which the Federal Supreme Court found to be protected. This discussion is about images that are similar to the Meili image and therefore lack an "individual expression of thought" (will be hard to judge in many cases!), and are older than 50 years (date of creation, not of publication) per the recently amended Swiss law. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah right, forgot that had been deleted a while ago. I honestly don't know how a U.S. court would treat this situation, and seems fairly unlikely to actually happen for us to find out. Given our current URAA policy, that would make me lean keep on those, provided they were published before 1989 without notice, since we can't really say if the URAA restored them or not. There are some good arguments either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so the preliminary consensus, in the absence of a US court decision, is apparently that either the URAA did not restore the copyrights of simple Swiss photos before March 1, 1989, or that at least as of now we should not delete them. What would be the best way to handle this in terms of license tag templates? Just add {{PD-1996}} to the files which are ok for the Swiss template? --Rosenzweig τ 13:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe we should make a specific template for such a case? PD-URAA-simple-photo? Arguably this should also be applied to other photos which weren't treated as Berne works in the source country. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ben Schnall - the original Sad Sack.jpg[edit]

This file has the wrong license. It should not be a CC0 and the date is wrong. The photo is what is being licensed, but the underlying image is undetermined as copyright. I would classify it as an unpublished work by likely George Baker, who died in 1975. As such we should delete it until 2046. Thoughts? SDudley (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tagged it as speedy copyvio. It's a photo of a character from a copyrighted comic book series. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller: I corrected your tag. Pinging @Bonsaiman as uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, whoops! D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! @D. Benjamin Miller@Jeff G. SDudley (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo taken from a copyrighted book[edit]

Photo in question is from a book published in 2011. It is used in one article and was recently added. The uploader put this file under CC0. I think he was not the author of the photo. Should he use a lower quality image of it? The Yennefer (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Yennefer: No, absent further info, it should be deleted and the uploader at least warned. Please link the photo here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G. File:Ulomci vladarskog natpisa crkve sv. Vida na Klisu.jpg I dont have the neccesary permits for deleting on Commons so please delete it. I can warn them and delete the contribution on hr.wiki. The Yennefer (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Yennefer: Thanks. Please specify the book at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ulomci vladarskog natpisa crkve sv. Vida na Klisu.jpg. Please use internal links.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Booth Pictures" and U. S. Threshold of Originality.[edit]

I just closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg as delete because it was not a FBI-created photograph per license on the template. User:Yann raised a point that I hadn't heard before, that "booth photos" (like those created by a photo booth or passport/driver license photos) are below the ToO in the US. I have heard that in some European countries, simple photographs have a much more limited term of copyright protection that artistic ones (Italy comes to mind, which is 20 years from creation for simple photographs, and PMA 70 for artistic ones). So I figured I'd ask about whether "booth photos" should be considered {{PD-ineligible}} in the U. S. @Clindberg: @Jmabel: @Fourthords: @Feoffer: @Jeff G.: Abzeronow (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, a few points.
  • I don't know of any US court decision which specifically deals with ID photos; however, there is some pretty strong precedent which indicates that it may be possible for such photos to be uncopyrightable (see below).
  • If the photo was taken by a machine without human intervention, it may have no human author.
    • You might be familiar with the machines in use at airports in certain countries which automatically take a picture of the subject. Such photos have no human author and are ineligible for copyright. However, passport pictures are not taken purely automatically.
  • Some photos are taken in photo booths or using similar static setups, with plain white backgrounds.
    • I recall that for my (Hungarian) passport, I had my picture taken in such a booth — I think I pressed the button myself.
  • Some photos are taken by a photographer holding a camera manually, but the content of these photographs is still determined almost entirely by the specified requirements for a passport photo.
  • In any case, if a human still determines the timing of the photograph by pressing a button to take it at a particular time (which is normally the case for passport photos), then the minimal creativity requirement might be satisfied.
  • Still, the act of authorship, as defined in Feist, seems to require some modicum of choice. The taker of a passport photo has very little ability to make choices about the content of the picture, unlike the taker of a photo in any other context.
However:
  • Examine Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony. This is actually one of the earliest cases involving (as it would turn out) photography and the threshold of originality. This is also still good law (and is cited by Feist in the discussion of why there is a threshold of originality based on a "modicum of creativity"). Burrow-Giles leaves open the possibility that certain photographs may not be copyrightable (for lacking creative content). To quote the decision:

But it is said that an engraving, a painting, a print, does embody the intellectual conception of its author, in which there is novelty, invention, originality, and therefore comes within the purpose of the Constitution in securing its exclusive use or sale to its author, while a photograph is the mere mechanical reproduction of the physical features or outlines of some object, animate or inanimate, and involves no originality of thought or any novelty in the intellectual operation connected with its visible reproduction in shape of a picture. That while the effect of light on the prepared plate may have been a discovery in the production of these pictures, and patents could properly be obtained for the combination of the chemicals, for their application to the paper or other surface, for all the machinery by which the light reflected from the object was thrown on the prepared plate, and for all the improvements in this machinery, and in the materials, the remainder of the process is merely mechanical, with no place for novelty, invention, or originality. It is simply the manual operation, by the use of these instruments and preparations, of transferring to the plate the visible representation of some existing object, the accuracy of this representation being its highest merit. This may be true in regard to the ordinary production of a photograph, and that in such case, a copyright is no protection. On the question as thus stated we decide nothing.

The third finding of facts says, in regard to the photograph in question, that it is a "useful, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture, and that plaintiff made the same . . . entirely from his own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit." These findings, we think, show this photograph to be an original work of art, the product of plaintiff's intellectual invention, of which plaintiff is the author, and of a class of inventions for which the Constitution intended that Congress should secure to him the exclusive right to use, publish, and sell, as it has done by section 4952 of the Revised Statutes.

and, citing some persuasive British authorities of the time:

Brett, M.R., said in regard to who was the author: "The nearest I can come to is that it is the person who effectively is as near as he can be the cause of the picture which is produced -- that is, the person who has superintended the arrangement, who has actually formed the picture by putting the persons in position, and arranging the place where the people are to be -- the man who is the effective cause of that." Lord Justice Cotton said: "In my opinion, 'author' involves originating, making, producing, as the inventive or mastermind, the thing which is to be protected, whether it be a drawing, or a painting, or a photograph," and Lord Justice Bowen says that photography is to be treated for the purposes of the act as an art, and the author is the man who really represents, creates, or gives effect to the idea, fancy, or imagination.

  • A later case Aalmuhammed v. Lee has to do with what we might call contributions which fall below the level of authorship. Aalmuhammed made what might be copyrightable contributions in themselves, but, because he was not the mastermind of the work (with the ability to make the ultimate choices), he has no authorship.
  • We could conclude from Burrow-Giles that the person who takes a passport photo acts solely according to the uncopyrightable and precise instructions for how to compose and light the photo. They are, in this sense, not an author with the ability to make creative choices, but more akin to an amanuensis taking dictation, or a someone following the instructions of a director. The person who presses the button in such circumstances does not superintend the work, does not have the ability to make a creative choice and does not engage in an act of authorship. The photographer has no artistic control over the photograph, despite pressing the button, because the photographer must follow the instructions exactly. (However, this particular line of reasoning would only apply for photos taken in accordance with ID photo instructions — because there is no act of authorship. Another photo that is sort of like an ID photo but where the photographer has the creative latitude to determine whether or not the photo should be like that is different.)
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would like to also point out that in Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel's case the photo was taken from here, the FBI Multimedia database, and as the footnote at the main page states, "These images are for your use in publicizing the FBI and may be used without cost or permission. Please credit the FBI or the appropriate individual/organization listed in the description field.". So since FBI confirmed this photo is free to use and it's a booth photo and there is no appropriate individual/organization listed in the description, therefore we can treat it as official confirmation that booth photos are PD-ineligible. --Czarnybog (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The FBI will get any good photo they can. It was probably a passport photo. It would be fair use if used for the purpose of apprehending a fugitive. Use in other situations, not as clear. But, the FBI would not own the copyright (if it exists) so can't license it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In France that may be true -- they may not have any copyright for "simple" photos. There are Switzerland rulings along those lines. In other places, not as sure. If it's a true photo booth, where everything is under control of the person being photographed (posing themselves etc.) not sure it's much different than a selfie. Unless there were contracts signed, I would imagine the people pictured would own the copyright. For a perfunctory ID photo, where there is a fixed camera and the subject is just positioned to be in the frame, it's quite arguable there is no creativity -- there isn't much framing, and the angle is straight on, there is no posing of the subject, etc. But, I'm not sure there is a court case or Copyright Office guidance which could help us. User:D. Benjamin Miller gave one of the foundational decisions on what constitutes "copyrightable expression" in a photograph -- angle, framing, lighting, posing the subject, etc. When all of those elements aren't there, or maybe most of them, it can be ineligible for copyright (such as the photographic reproductions of paintings). It does get down to some very technical on if we can identify any authorship in such photos. Of course, it's virtually certain that such photographers would never sue for copyright, so it's unlikely we'll get a court case on them. It may be a difficult rule for us, if we don't know the circumstances of how the photo was taken -- a selfie cropped to conform to passport or other ID standards may well be copyrightable, but a perfunctory photo taken by someone else may not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I think conclusion of Burrow-Giles is that a photograph produced according to a specifically delineated uncopyrightable procedure would not be eligible for copyright. Much like in Bridgeman, there is no opportunity for creativity. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I had to guess I'd say you're right. I do think an actual photo booth, where the subjects pose themselves, may actually have some copyright. If the arrangement of the subject is part of the photographer's expression in a studio portrait (which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, [...]) then I don't see why folks can't have the same copyright in posing themselves. It's basically a selfie. But dry ID photos taken by someone else, sure. Maybe booking photos too. Knowing the difference could be a bit difficult in some situations. Without a precedent, we are just guessing though -- we have no decision or guidance from a government authority to stand on. Whether that passes the "significant doubt" threshold is the harder question, and may be up for debate. I would not vote to delete such photos (though I may not upload them, either). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree that there can be a copyright in photos taken in a photo booth, just as you say — in instances where there is creativity exercised by a human author who determines the content of the image. So I think that "booth photo" is a poor choice of phraseology to refer to the kind of photo that can't be copyrighted. The key element is not the tool that is used to express the creativity (that is, whether or ont a physical photo booth is involved). It's just whether or not there is an act of human authorship. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is not only the fact that the picture is taken by a machine, but also that, at least for some official ID pictures, there is absolutely no possibility of originality or creativity. No accessory (hat, glasses only if the person wears usually them, etc.) is allowed, makeup should be minimal, facial expression should be neutral, place of the head in the frame is strictly defined. See the rules for France: [18], [19]. Yann (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US sound recordings and derivative works[edit]

On Commons talk:Character copyrights @SDudley argues that the Lone Ranger, who first appeared on radio in 1933, will be protected by a sound recording copyright in the US for 100 years. I can't imagine that the intent of the CLASSICS Act was to lengthen the copyright of the Lone Ranger by five years, nor do I believe that the Lone Ranger wasn't protected in some other way; maybe the script would have registered for copyright? As an unpublished work (as broadcasting isn't publication), it wouldn't have been a concern until they started distributing it to other stations, but then surely they would have had some protection. Did the CLASSICS act have the side effect of lengthening certain radio characters' copyright by (at least) five years?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Prosfilaes: Yes, per en:CLASSICS Act there was no federal protection for sound recordings until October 11, 2018, and now it is 100 or 110 years, despite protection having already expired in various states. Recordings since February 15, 1972 are subject to the limits in COM:US.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The right under the CLASSICS act is sui generis and is not considered equivalent to publication of the script. The term applicable under the CLASSICS act applies only to the sound recording and not to any script which is embodied in it. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sound recording copyright can indeed be 100 years (and 110 years for 1947-1956 recordings). Recordings since 1972 have a regular 95 year copyright. However, that is specifically for the recording itself -- that would not affect any character copyright, which must have been embodied in some other work. (The expression involved in actually making a recording is separate from the content of that recording, and typically nothing is derivative of it.) I think a soundtrack as part of a movie is not considered a recording (just part of the movie). So yes, a Lone Ranger character copyright would only be embodied in those radio scripts, though figuring out when the copyright clock actually started on those might be a bit difficult from the sounds of it. Additionally, simply taping a radio broadcast may exhibit enough originality to get a sound recording copyright in the first place -- as this circular says, a recording must contain a sufficient amount of production authorship. (It also says Short sound recordings may lack a sufficient amount of authorship to warrant copyright protection, just as words and short textual phrases are not copyrightable. Sound recordings captured by purely mechanical means without originality of any kind also lack a sufficient amount of authorship to warrant copyright protection.). So yes in general, that should not affect the length of the character copyright at all, though might impact when we can upload a recording of it (depending on who recorded it and how). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are these images posted on US government websites taken by the US government[edit]

https://www.loc.gov/item/il0894/ shows various images of the Chicago Parks District headquarters, and https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/81000295 shows the Baskin High School Building (existed 1926-2021). It seems these are US Government images but I see no explicit confirmation of such. Should I treat them as such?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can see the source information by viewing "Data Pages from Survey" (click the link on the page you just linked).

This report was prepared on behalf of the Chicago Park District by Elizabeth A. Petterson, Consultant, and Julia S. Bachrach, Planning Supervisor, as a donation to the Historic American Buildings Survey. The photography was produced by Judith Bromley.

So the photographs appear not to be a US government work. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HABS submissions are supposed to be released to the public domain -- see here. That is not quite the same thing as being government-authored. I'm not sure how long that policy was in place, and earlier submissions may have have that explicit declaration. However that submission looks like it was in 1981, and did not have any copyright notices on it that I see in the downloads, so it could have also been PD by that route (which HABS may have previously counted on). The loc.gov guidance does mention that most of them are PD, though sometimes images do come from a historical society (like the ones you point to did), and maybe a bit cloudier. We do have the {{PD-USGov-Interior-HABS}} tag, which used to note the declaration of PD status (which is also mentioned in their guidelines), but I think someone updated that tag to simply refer to PD-USGov-NPS without the specific wording which used to be there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The items are PD either because they were published through the HABS (being offered to the public) without notice before 1989, or because the donors released the work into the public domain specifically. So they should be fine. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ship picture from a 1935 Dutch Newspaper.[edit]

(Preliminary apology, I am quite new to Commons)

Hello, I am interested in using pictures of the ship MV Rapana for use in its Wikipedia article.

I originally found the pictures on this website (collection of Shell tankers) with no author attribution. I have found what I believe to be the source of one of the pictures in this article published by "De Nederlander" on the 5th of March 1935. Separately, I have also found similar pictures of the ship in this archive of Dutch shipping and in this article from a Rotterdam newspaper published on the 6th of March 1935.

Neither source provides any authorship for the pictures, and the closest it gets to an "author" is that some pictures on the archive came from a "Marien Lindenborn" collection, which I have been unable to identify.

The website for the newspaper (Delpher) states that "It is possible that (parts of) this object is still subject to copyright", but also goes on to state "If no name is mentioned or, for example, it says 'from one of our reporters', then the copyright belongs to the publisher. The object is then protected for 70 years after publication and in this case has therefore expired."

Given the circumstances (and having asked on Wikipedia), I have been told that Template:PD-anon-70-EU may be suitable. However, I want to make sure before proceeding to utilize/upload the pictures.

Thanks for taking your time to read all of this! SpanCan (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has probably expired in the Netherlands. But in order to be uploadable to Commons, it must be in the public domain in the United States as well, which they would not be (since they get an automatic URAA-restored copyright). They will be in the public domain in 2031. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's a shame. Thanks for the help! SpanCan (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos from defunct British Army blogs[edit]

Good day.

Saw a good photo from this page for the National Directorate of Security. Not sure if it can fall under any British military/government copyright tags here. Ominae (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thecollectivehk.com[edit]

This website's copyright notice at https://thecollectivehk.com/%E7%89%88%E6%AC%8A%E8%81%B2%E6%98%8E/ says

《集誌社》所有文章、資訊圖片均按「共享創意」（Creative Commons）的「署名」（Attribution）原則，即標明出處為《集誌社》的情況下，授權他方自由使用，以支持涉及公眾利益的新聞報道，能廣傳流通。

Which autotranslates as

All articles and information pictures of "Ji Zhi She" are based on the "Attribution" principle of "Creative Commons", that is, if the source is indicated as "Ji Zhi She", others are authorized to use it freely to Support news reports involving public interests that can be widely disseminated and circulated.

Should this be taken as a bad (possibly just badly autotranslated!) explanation of CC-attribution, or as the website deliberately extending the licence to exclude non-public-interest non-widespread non-news usage (meaning that it would be incompatible with Commons)? Belbury (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read the original in Chinese and I've got two concerns.
One is that there's no version number stated. Per COM:VRT/CONSENT, You may choose another license from our list of free licenses if you wish, but you MUST state a license ... simply stating Creative Commons license, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, or CC BY (without the version number) is not. I'd imagine the same for here.
Another is that the notice says 所有文章、資訊圖片均按..., in which "資訊圖片" generally refers to "File/Stock photo". Point 4, however states 本網站及社交媒體的相片及影片，版權可能屬於他方，因此《集誌社》保留所有版權。 (The copyright for photos and videos on this website, as well as those on social media, may belong to others. As a result, The Collective reserves the rights for such media.) This means that we have to distinguish between those "Stock photos" and the ones that are not.
S5A-0043Talk 08:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible copyright infringement... by me.[edit]

Hello, I uploaded a lot of time ago a series of mythical creatures or cryptids, drawn by me but directly copied from possibly copyrighted images found on the web. I was not aware at that time of this possibility. I think they should be deleted, just like happened to my Altamaha-ha.

Thanks.-- Carnby (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carnby  Question There are from random websites? Don't you remember the source for these pictures? Ruthven (msg) 12:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Follow the links below the images.-- Carnby (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carnby: For the images on Wikia, please also include the pages they appeared on.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven and Jeff G.: ✓ Done-- Carnby (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U.S. Department of Transportation Flickr[edit]

Not sure if this has been discussed previously, but is there a reason why the U.S. Department of Transportation on Flickr has marked all the photos as 'Copyright' instead of Public Domain? Aren't all Government works free from Copyright? PascalHD (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, all (US Federal) Government works are in the public domain. But "all rights reserved" is the default on flickr. Don't worry, for files from this account, you can ignore this. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I figured, thanks for the clarification. PascalHD (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Portrait_head_of_Barry_McGovern_(Imogen_Stuart).jpg[edit]

Am I missing smething that explains the copyright status of the bust? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you're missing anything. Even if the free license for the photo is correct, we can't keep it since it since the photo is a derivative work of the sculpture Portrait Head of Barry McGovern created in 1992 by the still living artist Imogen Stuart. I can't find any indication that her works, or Portrait Head of Barry McGovern in particular, are freely licensed. —RP88 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, nominated for deletion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisiting SOHO warning (in template talk)[edit]

Hi all. I recently opened a discussion Template talk:PD-USGov-NASA#Revisiting SOHO warning: redux pertaining to the copyright of data/images from the w:Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. I would appreciate if someone could weigh in. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public domain camera footage[edit]

It is listed on {{PD-automated}} and {{PD-CCTV}} that footage captured on a bodycam, CCTV camera, dashcam or traffic enforcement camera without creative input is in the public domain in the United States. Does this also apply to footage from a doorbell camera, photo booth camera or webcam? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably it does, though it is my personal opinion. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say that footage from a doorbell camera is analogous to a security camera, and as such would likely be below the threshold of originality (TOO) in the US. The term "webcam" is pretty context dependent. A webcam that is an outdoor camera with fixed framing is probably below the TOO in the US, but one that can be remotely pointed by the user may not be. Similarly, I could easily see someone paying close attention to a desktop webcam's framing, lighting, and maybe even the background before an setting up a videoconference call — this would probably be above the TOO in the US. With regards to photo booth cameras I've actually seen and read lawyers familiar with US copyright law argue both for and against there being sufficient creative input — so this situation is likely dependent on context as well, particularly in the case of manual trigger photo booths. —RP88 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Files from Junta de Andalucía Flickr stream[edit]

I came across this photo of a lynx and translated the description to get a better sense of where it was taken. I noticed, however, that the description says: La fotografía no puede ser manipulada de ninguna manera y no se puede utilizar en materiales comerciales o políticos, los anuncios, productos, promociones que de alguna manera sugieran aprobación o respaldo de la Junta de Andalucía. It was uploaded to Flickr with a CC BY-SA 2.0 license, but the very same Flickr page includes this notice. Clearly it was intended to be CC BY-NC-ND, which of course is not compatible with Commons. I checked a couple other photos in the category, and both had the same notice. There are 7,674 photos in the category, and it seems like perhaps they should all go to DR. Posting here, however, on the off chance there's a strange Commons precedent to consider. Also pinging the uploader (of the files I checked, anyway), Killarnee. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went through some images in the category and the text isn't in the description for all images, but it is in the description for some.
You could say that once there is a CC license, the license is valid forever and the text was added later and thus is void. But you probably can't prove that.
Or if there are two licenses available you can choose one. Strictly speaking, the text is also a license. Just because one license says something different doesn't mean the other license is invalid. Killarnee (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The presence of that notice outside of the license is not relevant. As the CC BY-SA 2.0 license says, "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here."
The existence of a separate license offer with different terms does not in any way invalidate the CC BY-SA 2.0 license offer. Incoherent multi-licenses are not that uncommon, even if they don't make a lot of logical sense. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loesje and the TOO[edit]

An example.

There is an international artist collective which calls itself Loesje that claims copyright ©️ on all their works, the style of the texts is simply black text on a white background with a signature below. The argument goes that "There is copyright on Loesje's signature, texts and ideas." but the text is usually only a single sentence, the signature is just the generic name "Loesje", and you can't copyright ©️ ideas. So why are we upholding this organisation's claims to copyright?

According to this article, in 2013 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled the 16 Juli 2013 lawsuit Endstra heirs vs. Nieuw Amsterdam Publishers that unusual expressions are not enough to warrant the creation of copyright. Neither are the fonts or styles protected by copyright in the Netherlands. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a related discussion, please see "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Personalised St. Valentine's Day message, Rotterdam-Centrum, Rotterdam (2021) 01.jpg", though this discussion is about the general TOO in the Netherlands and whether or not the "Loesje" artist collective has any broad claim to copyright ©️ as they state on their website (as the category just seems to take "Loesje" at their face value). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is certain that these are not copyrightable works.
All the "works" by Loesje are short phrases/slogans.
  • In the United States, the Copyright Office says, "Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases."
  • In the Netherlands, the government says that works must be "original and personal" and "[not] similar to works of others." In line with CJEU decisions, the work must be an "intellectual creation of the author." A single-sentence slogan or phrase will not be copyrightable in the Netherlands either.
The fact that Loesje members may claim that catchphrases and slogans are copyrightable does not make it so. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
D. Benjamin Miller, thank you for your explanation. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

remove logo from his girl friday[edit]

Could someone please remove the Criterion logo from this edition of His Girl Friday? SDudley (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=850428162"