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.


Street art and FOP in the US[edit]

Would the image of en:Guy Fieri in File:Portland, Oregon (July 26, 2022) - 008.jpg be considered copyrightable as a COM:DW per COM:FOP US or would it be treated as possibly COM:CB#Graffiti? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • {{Non-free graffiti}} imho apply here Юрий Д.К 18:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I thought that might a possibility, but this seems to have been painted on the wall of a restaurant owned and operated by Fieri; so, perhaps it's more of a en:work for hire, than random graffiti. Anyway, the uploader has stated on their user talk page that they only took the photo and didn't not create the image/graffiti; thus, the "own work" claim only applies to the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was legally painted, then it's not graffiti, and it would have a copyright. (The graffiti question is gray at best if illegally painted, but that has been our policy.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: It looks like this might've have been intentionally painted on the wall of the restaurant/food truck en:Viking Soul Food which was featured in a 2013 episode of Fieri's en:Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives. The photo seems to also show Fieri's signature next to his likeness. It doesn't seem to be a case of random graffiti, at least not to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This might help: "Fieri spray paints a memento inside every restaurant in Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives" -Another Believer (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly I'd lean towards suppoeting its deletion. There are street art cases in the U.S. as proven by w:en:Freedom of panorama#United States. Majority of the cases were settled out of court, but presumably favoring artists. As there is doubtful freeness on U.S. graffiti like this, those files need to be deleted in accordance with COM:PCP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly: Has anyone tried to contact Guy Fieri about licensing photos of these murals?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't tried, and I don't know whether anyone else has. I'm not sure how successful any such attempt would even be given that Fieri is a pretty well know celebrity and not just some "regular" person painting their likeness on the walls of restaurants. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What counts as an "author" for the purposes of copyright (with regard to a still image of a film)?[edit]

(copied from my question over at the English Wikipedia, because my question wasn't answered properly and i figure you all would know more)

The director? The cinematographer? The director in this case died in 1929 (it is a German film from 1920), and the cinematographer died in 1969. Or does it belong to the company? Since it's before 1928 it's good for America (so it can stay on enwiki) but it comes from a country that has life of the author + 70. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright term in the EU for a film, these days, is defined in the 2006 directive, article 2: The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work. The copyright owner is likely the company, if you are looking to obtain permission. But if you are waiting for the copyright to expire, then you need to look at the lives of those people. If that was a silent movie, then obviously there was no music. The cinematographer does not enter into it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: for a silent, insofar as the author of the dialogue [in this case intertitles] is distinct from the author of the screenplay, there is probably not a clue to be had as to who the former would be. Does that mean we have to wait a full 120 years from initial release for all such EU films? - Jmabel ! talk 08:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what is not credited will be attributed to the director and/or the producer, copyright wise. Nowadays, the producers manage the copyright, but it may have been different in the 1920s. Yann (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For unknown authors {{PD-anon-70-EU}} should apply for works form Europe. As in most cases the credited author was still alive on the date of publication this means that if it is public domain because all known authors are dead for 70 years the hole work is public domain. GPSLeo (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your response!
So in summary:
  • director died in 1929
  • no music (silent film)
So on that front I'm good.
Alas the other screenplay writer died in 1966 so not out of the woods there. And I have no idea who the intertitle / dialogue writers would be (unless it's the same as the screenplay). Thanks for answering my question! PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another related question: so when referring to copyright of film stills (not including dialogue/screenplay/intertitles), the same copyright still applies as to the whole work of the film (which would include the screenplay)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm prefacing this comment with a caution that I am not an expert, but I think a lot depends on exactly what you mean by "film still". If you mean actual frames extracted from the film, either by photographic reproduction of an original negative or print, or by capturing an image from a digital scan, then yes, the film copyright would apply. But many "film stills", especially in the silent era, are actually publicity stills: still photographs taken during production with a separate camera by a separate photographer, for use in lobby cards, advertisements, company promotional newsletters, etc. References to "film stills" often conflate both types of material, but it seems to me that any independently created photographs that were not extracted from the finished film have an entirely separate copyright, the term of which is determined by the publication date (in the US) or the death date of the photographer (in most other countries). If, as is usually the case with promotional stills, the photographer is unknown, then the applicable laws for anonymous published photographs (not films) would apply. In the EU, for example, that would be the standard 70 years after publication for works with no claimed author. This, at any rate, is what I have always assumed. If I'm wrong, I'd be grateful if User:Clindberg or someone else would correct me, because I can easily imagine using the wrong license myself when labeling future uploads. Thanks, Crawdad Blues (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that you mention it it seems to be a publicity still of the set. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something I learned from User:Pajz in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greta-Garbo-and-Jaro-Furth-in-the-film-Joyless-Street-1925-142462321702.jpg: In Germany, a single frame of the film does not share the term duration of the film as such, but is protected as a work of the cameraman (-person) who shot it. So 70 years pma. --Rosenzweig τ 21:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that's unexpected and very interesting. Thanks very much for the link, Rosenzweig. So the camera operator is irrelevant to the copyright of the film as a whole, but he has the complete copyright for any individual frame of the film. Copyright law is so crazy ... Crawdad Blues (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's quite the paradox. I guess that is what can happen when you're trying to "harmonize" existing copyright law regimes all over the EU. --Rosenzweig τ 23:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Italy protects them for just 20 years :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So in this case, would that apply to the cinematographer, or would it apply to the unknown cameraman (so PD-anon-70-EU would apply?) PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you say it's a German film, the German law cited in the link given by Rosenzweig above applies. Under that law, it really doesn't matter whether the image is a frame extracted from the finished film or a separately made publicity photo; either way, the copyright is determined by the rules for a single photographic image (70 years pma), with the author being the person who operated the camera. So
  • If the image is a frame extracted from the film, and the "cinematographer" was the actual cameraman (as was often the case in the silent era), then the image remains under copyright until 2040 (71 years after the death of the cinematographer in 1969).
  • If the image is a frame extracted from the film, but a separate camera operator (other than the cinematographer) is listed in the credits or is otherwise identifiable, then the image is under copyright until 71 years after the death of that cameraman.
  • If the image is a frame extracted from the film, and you know for a fact that the cinematographer was not the actual cameraman, and the cameraman himself is not identifiable, then then PD-anon-70-EU would apply.
  • If the image is not a frame extracted from the film, but a photograph taken at the time of production by some other photographer for publicity or documentary purposes, and the photographer is not identifiable, then PD-anon-70-EU would apply.
I think that sums it up. Out of curiosity, can you provide a link to the specific image in question? Crawdad Blues (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Crawdad Blues wikipedia:File:Algol 1920.jpg PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann moved it over to commons. Not sure about that... PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: @Yann: I'm not going to get into a fight with anyone over this, but I agree that moving the image to Commons was premature, and the grounds on which it was moved and the license now attached to it do not seem valid to me. According to the EU regulation cited by Carl Lindberg above, the film itself remains under copyright until 2037 at the earliest, because one of the two authors of the screenplay, Fridel Köhne, died in 1966. And according to the German law cited by Rosenzweig above, the copyright term on a single frame of the film is tied to the death date of the cameraman, not the director. So, at least as far as German copyright is concerned, I can see no legal justification for Yann's attribution of this image to the director Hans Werckmeister as creator, or the application of a PD-old-70-expired license to it on the basis of Werckmeister's death in 1929. Yann, can you clarify your reasoning here? Now that I've seen the image, I would argue that the creator of the original three-dimensional artwork was Walter Riemann (died 1936), the art director and set designer of the film, and that this photo is a derivative work made by the cameraman, who may have been cinematographer Axel Graatkjaer (died 1969) or someone else. Since Riemann's work is now PD, this image may still be eligible for the Commons, but only if the cameraman died before 1953, or if PD-anon-70-EU is invoked. That, at any rate, is my understanding of the discussion so far. Crawdad Blues (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine, feel free to nominate it for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Aelita Queen of Mars.webm[edit]

Hi, What's the copyright status of this film? This is a Soviet film from 1924, but published in USA only in 1929. The director, Yakov Protazanov, died in 1945. Yann (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia and Template:PD-Russia/en seem to have the most up to date information (the other languages versions of the template are apparently outdated). As a film shown in cinemas before 1943, it's apparently out of copyright in Russia. As for the US: If that stipulation that pre-1943 films are in the PD in Russia is a consequence of Russia's 1993 copyright law, the film probably wasn't protected in Russia on the URAA date in 1996, and the URAA then didn't restore a US copyright. A subsisting copyrights check for Aelita at [1] also didn't bring up anything, and a search for Revolt of the Robots only turned up a 1966 screenplay, presumably for something else. So the film is probably in the PD both in Russia and the US. --Rosenzweig τ 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I added a {{PD-1996}} tag. There is a high resolution version on YT, which I will upload. Yann (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless in the 9th circuit, I think the 1928 line is taken to mean published anywhere. We would use the same thing for any URAA restorations. I think that was restored by the URAA, given the 4-year extension for people who worked during WWII, but should have expired again in 2020 -- the same wartime extension meant it possibly expired in Russia on the same day. For Russia, their 1993 law says the authors were the director, the author of the script, and the author of the music if created especially for the film. If it's silent, that may remove the music part (though some of those movies had music designed to be played by a live orchestra... wonder in the EU if that could be part of the term calculations, though it would not be a co-author as I read it for Russia if not actually in the file). If Protazanov wrote the script, I think the file is fine, though should not have been uploaded before 2020. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Then it will only be in the public domain next year? Yann (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia specifically says that films shown before 1943 are in the public domain in Russia, without making any references to authors, directors or other people attached to the films. The 4-year extensions are only for the pma copyrights attached to people I think. So the terms for any films after 1942 (50 years before the 1993 law) are probably based on the lifespan of the people involved, while those for films before 1943 are probably based on the year of release. At least that is what would make sense to me. I don't have much experience with Russian copyright law though, so I could be wrong. Alex Spade wrote that portion of COM:Russia, so probably he could tell what is correct. --Rosenzweig τ 22:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I did not see anything in their 1993 law which gave a shorter term for films, and they did explicitly name the co-authors of a film. So, I assumed those would be 54pma on the URAA date in 1996. But, I'm sure I missed a detail somewhere, and Alex Spade would know that far better than me -- I missed that point on the PD-Russia tag. So... would seem to be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, the 1993 law had a transitional clause: The copyright of legal persons which originated prior to the entry into force of the aforesaid Act shall cease upon the expiration of 50 years from the time of the rightful disclosure of a work or the creation of a work, where it has not been disclosed. That was extended to 70 years later on, but the 50 would have applied on the URAA date, with no wartime extensions. So this film would have expired long before the URAA date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are citing the sentence about the the copyright of legal persons (aka corporate copyright in legislation of some other countries), which is actual for old, but post-1929 films - see p.3(b) of PD-Russia (which is similar to p.4 - both of them are about the copyright of legal persons). Aelita is pre-1929 film - for it see p.3(a) of PD-Russia (which is similar to p.2(a) - both of them are about cases, where copyright term counts from publication date, not from author death). Alex Spade (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated Template:PD-Russia/de. --Rosenzweig τ 23:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I retranslated Template:PD-Russia/fr from the English version, and translated Template:PD-Russia-1996/fr, which was never translated in French. Yann (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New archive[edit]

Hi, I made a pic for one article, Can I simply upload and the license Commons starts to work or I have to register it in any way? Thank you. AntonioCyla (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AntonioCyla: I'm sorry, but mostly what that question shows me is that you are very confused. "the license Commons starts to work" doesn't make any sense, and I can't even imagine what you are thinking about when you refer to "registering" it.
If the image is a photograph you took yourself, and it does not include anyone else's copyrighted work, just upload it as your own work, give it a license like {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} and it will be fine. If it is something else, please explain what the image is, and then someone can give you a more useful answer. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. AntonioCyla (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once it is uploaded you can include it in the article. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD in Italy 70 PMA or not[edit]

Hello. I have marked this file File:Emblem of the Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria (Milan).jpg as unlicensed. This is a picture from a 1915-1919 fascist party card. The user started this discussion linking this template. I ask:

  1. ) What does published mean? Formally published in a register or simply made known to someone
  2. ) What does anonymous mean? That we don't know him because we didn't make enough researches or that the author's name is lost forever
  3. ) Is that template valid? Because I have seen many photos, taken in Italy before 1976, deleted. So I do not understand

Can anyone knowledgeable take part in the discussion, please? Thanks a lot. Kind regards. Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read COM:DR and COM:SD. This should be a regular deletion anyway. Yann (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Distributing copies to people is always publication. The definitions can get blurry for types of works which you don't make copies of, and can differ somewhat between countries. However, the anonymous term in the EU starts from the "making available to the public", which is different than pure "publication" in their definitions, and includes public display and broadcast. So the definition of publication rarely matters for the term, in the EU.
Anonymous is simply published (or made available) without naming a human author. It's true that it's not simply lost and now unknown, but if you can find the original publications and no author is named there, it's anonymous. If the author becomes known (or in some countries, they have to make themselves known) within the 70 years, it can move to 70pma. So if the real artist of that was known by the 1980s, it could be 70pma now. Otherwise, its copyright expired long ago.
"Simple" photos are 20 years in Italy. Artistic photos are 70pma. I think such things as studio portraits, where everything is under control of the photographer, are not "simple". I think carefully-composed landscape photos have also been ruled not simple. Also, works also need to be free in the U.S. to host here -- and simple photos from 1976 and later got restored by the URAA (since the 20 year term was still valid on the URAA date of 1996), so 1976 is really a more realistic limit for Italian photos here (not just current year - 20). There was also a time when we did not accept the PD-Italy tag, and photos got deleted then. So there could be lots of valid reasons why photos get deleted (and I'm sure some were deleted incorrectly, too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos generated from DALL-E[edit]

I have recently checked the DALL-E model and found it interesting to generate AI photos. However, I wonder that FOP (Freedom of Panorama) has effects across various countries, if someone utilizes DALL-E to produce AI-generated photos of buildings and scupltures, could they potentially encounter copyright issues?  A l p h a m a  Talk 13:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My take: I doubt you could get in trouble for using DALL-E to generate the image, but you could presumably get in trouble for publishing it. (Just like you couldn't get in trouble for photographing a recent building in France, only for publishing that photo.) Someone who published could certainly encounter copyright issues in any country where the resulting image might be considered derivative work. E.g. an identifiable image of the Memorial of Rebirth in Bucharest or the pyramid entrance to the Louvre in Paris would presumably not be shielded from copyright because it was generated by AI. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"AI-generated photos of buildings and sculptures" are almost always going to be either out of scope or copyright violations. If the building or sculpture is in the public domain or ineligible for copyright, freely licensed photos of it probably exist, so an AI-generated image is unlikely to have any educational use and is out of scope. If, on the other hand, it's protected by copyright, an AI-generated image is necessarily a derivative work which we cannot host. Omphalographer (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Universal Permissive License and Commons[edit]

I looked at the Open Source repository of Oracle, and found the UPL (Universal Permissive License). I didn't find a corresponding template on Commons. 1. Did I missed it and if not: 2. Does this license qualify to be used on Commons? OSI provides a page for the license here: https://opensource.org/license/upl/.

Greetings! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PantheraLeo1359531: Is it every used for anything other than software? - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume it is only reserved for software, like GPL and others, and of course screenshots that show result of code, etc. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PantheraLeo1359531: I guess if it is free enough and likely to be used, you could create a license tag. I can't imagine it will be used much. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I will think about it! I looked at the license on the Oracle website, and it sounds rather freely --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also compatible with the GPL (https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/universal-permissive-license-added-to-license-list) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I post images received via FOIA?[edit]

I know copyright is by jurisdiction, but in cases where it's from a department of the Government of California (whose works are in the public domain), but are there any different circumstances for FOIAs? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: The details are covered by {{PD-CAGov}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So a FOIA wouldn't be any different? I guessed it wouldn't but wasn't sure because it wasn't "published" prior to them giving it to me in most cases PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: I don't think that's any different, but let's see what our experts say.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: It doesn't matter if it's from a FOIA or not. What matters is whether or not it meets the conditions specified in {{PD-CAGov}}. Nosferattus (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mannequins cosplaying copyrighted characters with simple clothing designs[edit]

I was wondering the legal status of mannequins dressed as copyright-protected characters wearing "the kind of clothing that an ordinary person might wear on the street or on the job" per COM:COSPLAY (for example: Emmet Brickowski, Lois Griffin, Lincoln Loud, Dipper Pines and Steven Universe). May one illustrate copyrighted characters with simple outfits by using photos of mannequins cosplaying them? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JohnCWiesenthal: I'm sorry: do you mean "mannequin" in the sense of a doll used to model clothing or a human modeling clothing? The word can mean either. Normally I'd guess the former, but "cosplay" suggests the latter. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A doll modeling clothing, such as in department stores. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is how you get close enough to be useful without getting close enough to be a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, how close could one get to modeling the clothing of Mario or Indiana Jones without infringing copyright? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DM check requested[edit]

File:FBI exhibit - Joe Biggs in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.png was deleted IAW this discussion. That image was originally taken from File:US v Biggs - Affidavit in support of criminal complaint (redacted).pdf, a 16-page document containing seven medium-to-large non-free images. Would they qualify for {{De minimis}} tagging, or are they too much of the overall work? Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has nothing to do with de minimis. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? It's an overall public-domain work (a report written by an FBI agent) incorporating seven medium-to-large pieces of copyrighted content. That seems to be equivalent to the examples at COM:DM. I'm just asking for a check whether those copyrighted images are a substantial-enough burden on the PDF to render it unsuitable for our purposes here (as the images themselves, excised therefrom, are). Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, really. The notion cannot apply to that. The photos are included voluntarily in the document and are intended to be seen as part of it. It's not as if taking a photo and inadvertently a small part of a non-free statue happens to be far in the background. Not sure if DM could make sense at all in the context of a document. Maybe if a small corner of a kitten photo happened to be inadvertently photocopied on the side of a page. To the other question, the proportion of the document taken by the photos does not matter. If there is one non-free photo included with a 30-page free text, the photo cannot be hosted. It is different from trying to determine an acceptable proportion for an extract in fair use. But the document can be hosted with the non-free photos removed. It is not unusual. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias: could you explain what you are saying here? Fourthords's question seems to me to be very much on the mark. And, in any case we certainly could host a redacted form of the PDF with the photos removed (blacked out or something like). - Jmabel ! talk 22:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias: Going by your comment above, which you wrote after mine but for some reason chose to place above it: perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here. I agree that the images cannot be pulled out. They are copyrighted. But "It has nothing to do with de minimis (emphasis mine)? Clearly de minimis is exactly why we can host the document as a whole, and the fact that when you zero in on the individual image, you are taking precisely the copyrighted portion, so de minimis no longer applies. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we have to delete File:FBI exhibit - Joe Biggs in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.png because it's copyrighted, but we can instead keep hosting the exact same image (pixel-for-pixel) because it's contained on page thirteen of this PDF? Should we add the {{De minimis}}, in that case? Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you publish a 200-page book, you think you can, without permission, grab 20 non-free illustrations and photos from the internet and include them in your book and say "abracadabra, de minimis!"? That, without permission, it's not ok to use those non-free works outside a book but it's ok to use them in a book? That does not work. That has literally nothing to do with a notion of de minimis nor with a notion of incidental inclusion. It is just copyright violation. Unless in fair use or other exception (e.g. publication in judicial documents or whatever), but still not a matter of de minimis. (The 22:42 UTC comment is in reply to fourthords' 21:29 comment and therefore it is correctly positioned accordingly. Why did you position your 00:29 comment as if it were a reply to your own 22:05 comment?) -- Asclepias (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Why did you position your 00:29 comment as if it were a reply to your own 22:05 comment?" you had made enough of a hash of things by replying up-thread that there was no "normal" way to do this. Any placement at all would have had one problem or another at that point. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If you publish a 200-page book, you think you can, without permission, grab 20 non-free illustrations…" of course not. Conversely, if an entire copyrighted book is introduced into evidence in a trial, do you think it becomes PD on that basis? - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then what exactly are you saying? Using 20 non-free images in a 200-page book is not ok, but Commons hosting a 16-page document with 7 non-free images is ok? The mystery thickens. You have not explained the rationale by which one might reach such a conclusion. What is that about a book into evidence? Can Commons host a non-free book if it was used as evidence? If not, then what? And what connection, if any, does that have with the file under discussion? The licensing of the file is that the text of the document is PD as a text written by an employee of the US government. That does not apply to the non-free images. How is it possible to extend the "freeness" to those 7 non-free images in a 16-page document? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The US government employees can insert non-free images under a fair use rationale in a document and publish it. The whole document is in the public domain, but not the images. This is the same rationale as freedom of panorama. We can host host pictures of non-free artworks if the law of the place allows that. It doesn't make the artworks free, and there are restrictions of what can be done with these artworks. Take for example File:007 new rail-tram-bus interchange.png: the permission from the map copyright holder is still needed to publish a copy, even if we can host this picture. Yann (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can host the whole documents, but we can't extract the pictures which are not in the public domain. That seems pretty clear. We already have had similar cases, i.e. court verdicts, etc. Yann (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, what I'm making sure of is: it's 100% a-okay for us to host File:FBI exhibit - Joe Biggs in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.png (previously deleted IAW this discussion) as long as its hidden within File:US v Biggs - Affidavit in support of criminal complaint (redacted).pdf? That's okie-dokie? Also, doesn't that mean I can just get around the deletion by invoking that PDF page in its stead ([[File:US v Biggs - Affidavit in support of criminal complaint (redacted).pdf|thumb|440px|page=13|Biggs inside the US Capitol on 6 January 2021]])? Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fourthords: It depends what you do with it when "invoking" it. If you somehow insert it in a web page in such a manner that it displays just the image in question, then you are back to a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So then we should add {{De minimis}}, lest yet another editor mistakenly extract the copyrighted materials within and reupload them here? Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Court of Justice[edit]

The ICJ says on their website (https://www.icj-cij.org/media-services): "The Court produces videos and still pictures of all its public sittings and various official events. A presentation video is also available in a large number of languages. Such material is made available to the press, schools and universities free of charge for editorial use (copyrights exempt)."

I would like to upload these photos from this link https://www.icj-cij.org/multimedia/203403 of today's proceedings. They say "Photograph: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved".

Can I upload these, and if so under what license? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. (1) You can't make up a license. The copyright-holder has to offer the license. (2) This is sort of like when someone puts out a publicity still. They are saying "Go ahead and use it for the sort of thing it's meant for." But it presumably doesn't allow derivative works, and it's not clear whether commercial use would be allowed (e.g. an excerpt in a commercial film). - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Does anyone have any ideas where I might find public domain photos of the hearing? I know that a number of national news agencies release their photos into the public domain, but I cannot find a list? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onceinawhile not free for two things: 1) we require files to be freely reusable even by commercial reusers, not just editorial purposes, and 2) the image you mentioned bears the "all rights reserved" note, presumably for the photographer mentioned. ARR are non-free for Commons' licensing requirments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US Federal food photos[edit]

I'm looking at https://www.myplate.gov/eat-healthy/food-group-gallery and would love to have several of them for articles like w:en:DASH diet. https://www.usda.gov/policies-and-links says that of course Template:PD-USGov-USDA applies to most of the website. I don't see any indications to the contrary for these photos, but would someone else please check before I try to upload some of them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Just the images at the top? Those should be fine. If you meant something else, please be more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the ones in the gallery itself. Click, e.g., on Fruits > Berries > Strawberries or Protein foods > Poultry > chicken. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would think those are fine. It says, with reference to the copyrighted content on the site, "USDA with permission, and USDA has made every attempt to identify and clearly label them." These are not labeled, so it's reasonable to assume they are not copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'll try to upload some of them soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
USDA Eat Healthy Food Group Gallery serving size small apple
Here's my first. Before I upload any more, would you please let me know if there's anything I should do differently? It'll be easier to get it right on the first try than to fix them all later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Only this. - Jmabel ! talk 07:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: 76% of the image is unnecessary whitespace.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think they're using that white space to communicate that "one serving" is a small apple.
Thanks for providing a cropped version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is File:USDA_Eat_Healthy_Food_Group_Gallery_serving_size_small_apple.jpg out of focus? Yann (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe upscaled from a smaller version of the image (instead of making a new larger image from the photo)? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source photo at [2] is out of focus to begin with. --Rosenzweig τ 16:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prensa Obrera[edit]

The license {{CC-AR-PrensaObrera}} is for images taken from the website Prensa Obrera ("Workers' Press"), a site managed by the Partido Obrero, a minor left-wing political party from Argentina. On first sight, it seems legit, the cc-by license is there at the bottom of the page. Problem is, if we check more closely, the site relies on license laundering, grabbing images from bigger and more reputable news pages and using and licensing them without attribution. Let's take a look on the images used today in the front page, January 11, 2024.

So, of all the images used in articles today, if I uploaded them with this license only a kitchen hob would survive a deletion discussion. I don't think this site can be trusted to be the author of the images it uses. Cambalachero (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So: should we consider dropping that license (at least going forward) and blacklisting the site? Or what? - Jmabel ! talk 04:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should probably start by reviewing the images in Category:Images by Prensa Obrera for potential copyvios. Omphalographer (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would a 911 call (in California) be public domain?[edit]

I doubt I'd upload the file I'm thinking of anyway (it's interesting but I'm unsure if I'd want to use it in the relevant article) but would it be public domain in theory? Who would it belong to if not? (unrelated to FOIA question above, was released by news) PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably to the operator who recorded it. Since the operator will likely be a state employee then it follows that the recoding will be in public domain in California. Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author for unpublished photographs[edit]

Apologies if this has been asked already, but say I upload some historical photographs that haven't been published anywhere before. Would I be the "author" or would the photographer? Also, would I put when they were originally taken or when I uploaded them to Commons in the date field? Or would the date of publication be whenever the person who sold them to me posted a picture of them on the internet? Adamant1 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, There is no reason for you to be the author. Best is mentioning the date when they were taken AND the date when they were published (now). Yann (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the person who sold them to you posted to the Internet, that is definitely publication.
Do you have the copyright to these images (and if so on what basis)? Or are they public domain (and if so on what basis)? Physical possession of the photos does not give you any right to publish. If someone were to acquire an envelope of photos I shot in the 1960s, they would not have a legal right to publish them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: They were taken in like 1904 and have been in a family album ever since. That is until I bought them as separate pages from the original owner, whom I assume was related to the original photographer. Regardless, I think they would be PD at least in the United States due to the age. So I'm mostly concerned with citing the proper information when I upload them. Since there's essentially zero risk of legal issues due to how old they are, but I don't want the description to be wrong either. Although I agree that there would probably be some with your example, but I guess that would depend on the country of origin and existence of a copyright notice. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: there's always {{Unknown photographer}} if you don't know anything more. Assuming you are using {{Infobox}}, the "date" field is normally the date depicted, but it is probably worth describing the situation at some length in the "permissions" field.
If these are actually unpublished 1904 works from the U.S., then they are just shy of entering the public domain. Under current U.S. copyright law, unpublished works enter the public domain 120 years after creation. Since that's always rounded to the end of the year, 1904 works would become PD on January 1, 2025. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presence of a frame in the photograph of a 2D painting[edit]

Is the presence of the frame of a painting in a photograph (to be more specific, this one) enough to make it not qualify for {{PD-Art}}? I know it could be cropped, but I wanted to know if it was really necessary. The painting is from 1884 (according to the sources I could find) and the author died in 1952, for the record. Lugamo94 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photo is CC-BY-SA so {{Licensed-PD}} format could work here. Abzeronow (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I searched in the archives, and I've found some previous discussions on this very matter (which I should have done earlier). It is definitely enough to make it not qualify for {{PD-Art}}, but, given that we have the permission of the copyright holder of photograph, the main question is to find if the frame itself meets the threshold of originality, which is a complex matter. Lugamo94 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about a frame[edit]

Does the frame in this picture meet the threshold of originality? I know that some frames were able to, hence the question. It could also be {{PD-old-auto}}, but I have no way to know that. There are not old pictures of that painting that I could find, especially with the frame included. --Lugamo94 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say it's not copyrightable. If someone were to manufacture an identical frame, I cannot imagine a successful copyright-based suit to prevent them. - Jmabel ! talk 05:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Jmabel. As the painting is from Argentina and both the painting and frame are in Argentina, it is a fair assumption that COM:TOO Argentina will apply to the frame. That says, "The creations are subject to a threshold of originality that distinguishes them from others by giving their personal imprint." In this case, I can't see anything in the frame that gives a personal imprint. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@From Hill To Shore @Jmabel Thanks, I will upload it then. Lugamo94 (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Land art installation copyright - Walter De Maria[edit]

If anyone has any knowledge on land art/copyright, could use your help! I uploaded this picture of Walter De Maria's art installation The New York Earth Room (1977), want to be sure I have the licensing/copyright details correct.

This art installation is a room filled with dirt in New York City, owned and stewarded by Dia Art Foundation. The owners imply that the work is copyrighted and the copyright is owned by the artist's estate. But obviously there are some pretty major issues with that claim, chiefly being that it is a room filled with loose dirt and does not meet the "fixed" standard to be copyrightable in the United States. The dirt is regularly replaced, and the only permanent "product" by the artist in the room is a small glass wall in the entryway. And there's no copyright registration.

a) Do we think that it's OK to move forward assuming the work is not in fact legally copyrighted, meaning freely licensed photographs of the work can be uploaded to Commons?

b) Is there any type of license/copyright tag that would be relevant here? As in, something that would acknowledge a claim of copyright but refute it? Or is that just overkill?

Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can see, they don't say the work is copyrighted. The only claim of copyright I see anywhere there is for the photo, not for the work itself.
More of an issue for you, I would think, is that the page in question says, "Photography is not permitted." That probably means you violated the conditions of entry by taking (let alone publishing) this photo. That's not Commons' issue, and it's entirely your call how you want to handle that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I don't really care about their photo policies lol, I don't believe nonprofits should limit access to their collections unless it's for genuine safety/conservation reasons. And as you said, "house rules" on photography don't matter to Commons (the exception obviously being photos of identifiable people). There are lots of photos of the Sistine Chapel ceilings on here, after all.
But from my perspective, Dia does seem to be claiming that the work is copyrighted. Their brochure for the installation includes a copyright credit at the bottom which separates the photograph from the installation itself. It says "The New York Earth Room (detail), 1977. Installation view, 141 Wooster Street, New York, New York. © Estate of Walter De Maria. Photo: John Cliett"
They could be trying to fudge it a bit to make it appear that they're claiming copyright for the installation while giving enough wiggle room to not be declarative, but this is the standard format for including a copyright claim for a work of art. The photograph is essentially implied to be copyrighted by the artist/estate as well, but the copyright label in this format almost always applies to the work itself.
Edit/Addition: Should clarify that the reason I'm trying to be so specific here is to find the right way to format the file so it doesn't get brought up for deletion again and again because of such a clear copyright marking on the owner's website/brochure. It was already nominated for deletion like within hours of me uploading it. And apologies if I came off snarky re: the no photo policy. Didn't mean to be rude, thank you for your help. --19h00s (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to me that claims copyright on the photo, not the installation. It doesn't say The New York Earth Room © Estate of Walter De Maria" or "The New York Earth Room, 1977. Installation, 141 Wooster Street, New York, New York. © Estate of Walter De Maria. Detail view: John Cliett." The copyright claim seems pretty clearly specific to the photo (at least that's how I read it). - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image has been nominated for deletion. Discussion should continue there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image of an old postcard (> 70 years old)[edit]

What is the situation with a photograph of an old postcard - where the original card does not state owner or publisher ? Charles.bowyer (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Then the author is anonymous, but the backside should be checked. Yann (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyright situation might be very different in different countries. Where is this? Also, when you say "does not state owner or publisher", have you been able to look at the back (since that is where this would normally be)? - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim Davis' early work (Gnorm Gnat, Jon, Garfield)[edit]

I'm writing to about an issue that came up a few years ago, in September 2021. User:PseudoSkull had questions. I have answers!

Jim Davis is well-known for his comic strip Garfield. Before writing Garfield, Davis wrote another strip, Gnorm Gnat. Gnorm Gnat was not very successful, and was not picked up by any syndicate. It was only published in the Pendleton Times from 1973 to 1975. Davis followed up the strip with a new one called Jon, about a man named Jon Arbuckle and his cat, Garfield, beginning in 1976. The strip was renamed Garfield in 1977 and was published exclusively in the Times until February 1978, when it was picked up for syndication.

PsuedoSkull asked if the original comic strips were in the public domain due a lack of notice, asking:

  1. Did the original newspapers have a copyright notice?
  2. If the newspapers did have a notice, could the comics be in the public domain (if Davis had them placed as advertisements)?

I think that it's unlikely that the comics could be considered an "advertisement." The good news is that it doesn't matter! I checked the relevant issues of the Pendleton Times, which is available on newspapers.com (you can read it for free if you have a Wikipedia Library account). Except for the final Garfield (announcing that it had been picked up for syndication), none of the strips have a copyright notice, and there is in no case a copyright notice anywhere else for the paper as a whole.

All the Gnorm Gnat, Jon and Garfield strips published from 1973 to 1977 in the Times are PD-US-no notice, and the Garfield strips from early 1978 are PD-US-1978-89.

I have already uploaded all the Gnorm Gnat strips (see Category:Gnorm Gnat comic strips). I will shortly upload the Jon and Pendleton Garfield strips. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: Thanks so much for this! Great to see that this is finally being done (I've been meaning to do this myself, having gotten in touch with a review channel who revealed the comic strips for the first time in 2021 for the files). With Mickey Mouse being the hype of the month right now, I bet people will find it cute that Garfield is also a public-domain character (at least in his 1977-8 form). PseudoSkull (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Files uploading now to Category:Jon (comic strip) and Category:Garfield (1977–78 comic strip).
However, I don't think it's accurate to say that the comics were "revealed for the first time [since the 1970s]" in 2021. As far as I'm aware, the Times issues were never lost. They were always in the local libraries and accessible to the public, and I suspect the complete back issues were already on newspapers.com for years (as they are now). It's just that nobody had bothered to really look (and take the time to write about them).
Please go ahead and update the appropriate pages/categorize the files as you see fit! D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles III official portrait[edit]

Cabinet Office released it's statement for the official portrait of King Charles III released for public authorities. I can assume licensing with {{OGL3}} and UK Crown bodies it could be compatible. Ferret-o-meter (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't see any evidence of release under OGL at this time. They may choose to release the image under a free licence but I have yet to see it. There are some complicating factors in that UK Government works are often (but not always) released under OGL but Royal Household works are not. We will need to wait for more copyright information before identifying if we can upload here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-Turkey[edit]

Hi! I have been translating {{PD-Turkey/en}} and would ask for advice regarding the word 'owner' (particularly the fourth line about legal persons). Does this refer to the physical owner of the work or the creator/author? Should the text be rephrased by replacing 'owner' with 'author'? –TadejM (t/p) 15:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TadejM: Probably author. See also en:Copyright law of Turkey.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. I am also going to update the English version. --TadejM (t/p) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos / Screenshots from the "Apache" recording of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster[edit]

Hey everyone, I'm bringing up this photo hosted on the Commons in particular: "ColumbiaFLIR2003.png", which is a frame from this source video on YouTube, posted back in 2008. I wanted to make this image the infobox photo for the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster page on Wikipedia, as it depicts the most historically significant and memorable part of this tragedy. However, from prior mentions on Wikipedia talk pages and in the Commons' Village Pump, there's concerns about its "freeness" to use on Wikipedia and other sites, specifically because the helicopter's camera was operated by a foreign crew, either Danish (as per the CAIB Report Vol. 1), or Dutch (as per YouTube and Reddit comments and "public knowledge", as well as an unsourced article on the aviationist.com). Still frames from the original Apache recording were used and presented in the CAIB report Vol. 1 and 3 (published in August 2003), the Columbia Crew Survival Investigation report (2008), and the Loss of Signal Aeromedical Investigation Report (2014). All three of these are NASA documents authored by government employees, and none of them mention a linkable source for the original Apache video, besides that it was a military source coming from a helicopter, which is public knowledge. Something else to note is that the YouTube video where the Commons image comes from is clearly edited, specifically at the end with the slow-motion and increased zoom at the end.

So given all of the above, and previous discussions / context, is this photo, ColumbiaFLIR2003.png free-to-use or not? If it is free, should anything be changed to its Commons description to make that more clear? If it isn't free, it probably should be removed from the Commons, and if that happens, I should be able to use this photo or a similar one of the re-entry in the article under free-use, since there would be no freer options available. SpacePod9 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Kylesenior, Prosfilaes, LPfi, and Carl Lindberg as commenters in that section and UnderworldCircle as uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see this was previously discussed a few years back at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07#Footage_taken_by_Netherlands_military_pilot,_using_US_equipment,_on_training_in_US? PascalHD (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think my opinion has changed. Any editing of the video was mostly like by US government employees. It may well qualify as a work for hire under U.S. law, making it PD-USGov anyways. I doubt we'd ever know for certain unless a lawsuit was filed and the details of the contracts were spelled out and judged on. To me, this falls into the "theoretical doubt" area, well below the COM:PRP threshold. It's probably fine, and near certain to never find out for sure. I'd vote keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt that USA military would allow a foreign trainee to retain any copyright over such (very sensitive) images. There must be a clause buried in their contracts where they agree to relinquish any claims to copyright. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright notice Q - Art exhibition catalogues/publications[edit]

Question re: copyright notice formalities for published works of art in the US. If a pre-1977 work was published for the first time in a catalogue for an exhibition, does there need to be a separate copyright notice for the individual work, in order for the copyright to have been correctly established? Obviously a copyright marking for the publisher covers most original content in the publication, but would that also the art reproduced in the book?

Specifically I'm thinking about Méret Oppenheim's Object (1936). It was first published in the United States in the Museum of Modern Art's catalogue for the exhibition Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism (1936-1937). The catalogue is available online mostly in whole. The book itself has a copyright notice for the Museum of Modern Art trustees from the year it was published, as well as a 2017 copyright notice from their digital upload. But there are no additional copyright markings or rights credits for individual works. Would the overall copyright marking cover the individual works, and if so, how would copyright ownership be established there if MoMA technically claimed the copyright for these individual works?

Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:UnfoldTheUniverse[edit]

Background:

I believe that the images were uploaded with CC license to Flickr due to a mistake, which was later corrected. It is highly unlikely that NASA has legitimately acquired the rights to publish all the art, produced by hundreds of artist for this contest, under a CC license. As such, I believe that all art in Category:UnfoldTheUniverse should be deleted due to a copyright violation.

Just because there was a period of time when the Flickr pages for these images showed a CC license, doesn't mean that these files should be allowed on Commons. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uhh, sorry. My fault. I uploaded the files using Flick2Commons and when I saw these images of drawings and models I also had my doubts about uploading them. If elimination is necessary, go ahead. Astromessier 02:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was already a discussion about these files last year and I fully agreed they needed to be removed. I updated my bot to ignore them some months ago, I'm surprised to see that these files are still here. vip (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don-vip, do you mean Commons:Deletion requests/File:-JWSTArt and -UnfoldTheUniverse Art - by Cassandra Li (53075839805).jpg or was there some other, wider discussion? —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes exactly! I thought all files would have been deleted through this DR. vip (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had only nominated the one, and I hadn't done a deeper search on Commons for similar files. The licensing is on this page now, and it doesn't appear to grant the U.S.A. the ability to re-license the work to third parties. As such, images that depict this sort of artwork in a greater-than-de minimis way are going to need to be deleted for failing COM:L in light of PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a step to take before nominating possible copyvio for deletion?[edit]

I have noticed two files which taken from another site. The uploader has stated such publicly, and the wayback machine confirms the images were on the site before they were uploaded. I wasn't able to find any release of the files on the site, and the files are listed as {{Own}}. There are a couple of possibilities here:

  1. The uploader is the owner of the site, and they own the rights to the files.
  2. There is an image release somewhere on the site I could not find. The uploader was uploading based on this release and the uploader mistakenly tagged them as their own work during the upload process.
  3. The files are not freely available and the uploader has made an error in uploading it.

I am hesitant to nominate the files for deletion since only (3) would require deletion. (1) would require no remedy and (2) only correcting the attribution. I contacted the uploader about the issue but they have not responded and have since made a number of edits. Would it be appropriate to nominate for deletion? I don't believe whether or not the files ought to be deleted, and it seems like it would not be assuming good faith. Is there a different first step to take, or should I drop this entirely? AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=842599927"