Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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.

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.

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

About sharing photos on Wikishare.[edit]

I wanted to offer a new perspective on the field of "copyright in images", after all for any copyrighted image - then adding to it a caption or logo on the image, and almost any image that does not have a caption or copyright symbol are actually published for public benefit without any copyright. So I suggest that you just check if the image was edited so that the copyright symbol was removed from it and in that case do not approve the posting of an image on Wikimedia Commons, but if the image does not have a copyright symbol, you can find copies in the oldest published imeg and see that its first publication was without Copyright So in that case you will be able to publish this image because most of the FIRST PUBLICATION images currently on the net are published without publishing the photographer's name or publishing any license - which means that advertisers do not care about any license and are interested in providing a public service while giving up on the copyright. Is there anyone here who is qualified to correct a way of thinking in wiki sharing? ANAELIAZOR (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: Have you read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT yet?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes and as stated I disagree with what is said there.

Because everyone uploads an image that cares about copyright on their image - then a few things happen. 1. HE is the first publisher of the image. The oldest advertising can be found by search engines such as TINEYE.COM 2. It explicitly states that the image is copyrighted or written on the site itself or embedded in the image itself. All other advertisers who post pictures without any marking they publish knowing that the picture is available online to everyone - and so they show us that they waive copyright - most also do not leave contact information so you can not ask them permission to use the picture for educational purposes for example. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: that is simply not how copyright works. You may well be right that many of the authors who don’t make explicit copyright claims on their publications care little for such issues. However, I would expect most of those people to suddenly get much more interested in exercising their rights if they notice that their work is being used to someone else’s benefit, or in a manner of which they disapprove. At any rate, from a legal POV most countries’ laws—if not all nowadays—consider copyright to take effect with the creation of a work, whether or not it is published and without requiring any notice or registration.——Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: ANAELIAZOR (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If an image has been published without stating that it is copyrighted, i can understand why it should not be used for commercial purposes - and demand money from it. But I do not think it is right to claim that every image has copyright even if the creator of the image seems to have waived that right. In most of the images you can find their initial publication as stated and then you can see clearly whether the creator of the image is interested in preserving copyright or that he published an image to the public while giving up the copyright that he had. You see, Wikishae is meant to be a learning aid for me - and as such it should be open to receiving images that can allow us all to learn as openly and as tangibly as possible. An open mind also means understanding that most image, advertisers do it for fun to enrich the public's knowledge or give them any benefit - while in practice they do not seem to care about copyright - so they also do not add a copyright mark on the image - so they Do not even leave details like who the photographer is or through contact with him, most of them do not even write on the site that there is copyright on the image - this means that the actual situation is completely different from what they described in Wikishare - and Wikishare should be updated on this matter and not be left with wrong stigmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANAELIAZOR (talk • contribs) 03:50, 31 August 2021‎ (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: What was the source of File:עטרות בצבע זהה לעור הגוף עקב שיזוף.png? Pinging @Geagea as deleting Admin and native Hebrew speaker. What is Wikishare?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The file is a collage of women breasts (only the breasts). According to the OTRS ticket photos grabbed from the net and you can find them in many sites source. Beside the copyright issue, there is also concern about COM:IDENT. -- Geagea (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Wikishare, is the platform that allows sharing photos on Wikipedia.

By the way, they deleted the photo I uploaded, even though the publishers of the photo waived the copyright + the photographers took part in the photo and were aware that they were being photographed [this is evident from the fact that they looked at the camera during the photo shoot] ANAELIAZOR (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: How does one access Wikishare? How does one know that subjects are looking at the camera, just from their breasts? Where are the individual photos? For each of those photos, what can you tell us about the name and lifetime of the photographer and the dates and countries of photography and publication? Please read COM:EVID and COM:TALK. Noting ticket:2021082710006416 for the record.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I have the full photos including the face which clearly shows them looking at the photographer.

Also from the images I have you can do a search in a search engine such as TINETE.COM and find the first appearance of each image - so we can check if the publisher of the image claimed copyright or he published the images while giving up copyright [did not even mention in writing next to the image that Copyright and of course did not incorporate copyright text in the image].

ANAELIAZOR (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@ANAELIAZOR: Where exactly did you get "the full photos"? Why are you not providing the full answers? Why are you using three levels of indentation for one reply?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: 1. Where did I get the full photos? From sites that published the images without copyright .. You can search for the first publication of each image and see that neither the image nor the site has any copyright captions! But Wikipedia expects the image publisher to explicitly state that the image is publicly licensed - and I'm talking about that Wikipedia requires excessive and unnecessary requirement, as most image publishers post images in a way that proves they have no intention of making money from the image or copyright. And I'm not saying that everyone is like that, there are also those who expect to be rewarded for the image, and as such they embed in the image or next to the image they write that there is copyright to the image, but in the images I used there are no such captions.

2. In what matter did I not give full answers? Did you mean to ask why I did not provide the full pictures? 3. I used two levels of entry because I thought it would be more orderly in the eye, but now I just line up the last two paragraphs of the conversation - the previous paragraph goes down line, and my / your answer goes down line .. If we maintain this order that each time there will be only two paragraphs with a space interval then it will be easier for us to find the last answers in the conversation. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: Let me make it simple for you. Our policy is that we follow copyright law as it stands. Most countries in the world (179 at last count) have ratified the Berne Convention. Under that convention, a photograph attracts copyright as soon as it is taken, whether or not it is stamped as such. For each and every partial photo included in File:עטרות בצבע זהה לעור הגוף עקב שיזוף.png, we need to know exactly where to find it (which exact photo, on what exact page). I can't see that image, so if it is online elsewhere, where exactly is that? I can see, however, that your misunderstanding of copyright extended to Hebrew in Ticket:2021082710006416.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Okay, if I attach links to the full images and you see that the advertisers have not attached any text seeking copyright protection, then you will approve the image?

If not, I'm seeking to change the policy, as it is inhumane to expect any image publisher to indicate that their images are on a free license to the public.

There are full of photographers who are unaware of all this nonsense of licensing or copyright protection - so they assume that if they did not state that there is copyright + they posted the image so that it is accessible to everyone online then it proves they do not care about copyright and here ends the story !!

I understand that you have a different policy. I would like to talk to those responsible so that you can change the policy so that it is a logical policy and compatible with our time, a time when there are those who demand copyright and they do so by embedding text in the image. Do not live in illusions - do not expect to attribute copyright to the image when you have no idea who the photographer is, because he did not leave any details of himself + he published the images on sites that are available to everyone + did not incorporate copyright in the images. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: First, you must get a country to abandon the World Trade Organization, all treaties and other agreements documented in the List of parties to international copyright agreements, and domestic copyright laws, in writing. That would be a herculean task, and rather detrimental to the livelihoods of content producers in that country. Then, notify us here with evidence of that abandonment and get that list changed, and we will make appropriate change(s) to that country's entry at COM:CRT. Until then, you must comply with international copyright laws, treaties, and other agreements. You must also comply with Commons policies, guidelines, and procedures, including COM:L, COM:TALK, and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you for allowing us from you to lead change.

1. Do you have any idea who is in charge of copyright in the country? To whom in the country should I address my claims? 2. If I get approval from the relevant authorities - then the pictures I will post according to my country's laws, will these pictures be visible in all countries? ANAELIAZOR (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: In many countries with parliamentary governments, that would be the legislature. In countries with autocratic governments, that would be the autocrat. Good luck getting the US to honor a lack of copyright, and getting approval to upload to Commons servers in the US.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks, but I'm not in it, how do I contact them?

Can you give me an email address for UN copyright inquiries? Or a link to a filler for the sake of contacting those responsible for US copyright law? ANAELIAZOR (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: You are not in a country? That is rather extraordinary! Contacts for legislatures and autocrats are generally at their official websites, which can generally be found from the initial External Links on the bottoms of their English Wikipedia articles, for example en:United States Congress, en:Knesset, and en:Parliament of the United Kingdom. Do you consider "Wikishare" to be Wikimedia Commons? If not, please explain further.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Before I approached the legislature with our complaints and grievances, I thought to check the copyright issue again.

And it turns out that according to the law - it is allowed to use the images for educational or study purposes - even without obtaining permission from the creator of the image, See quote from here: "The concept is sometimes not well defined; however in Canada, private copying for personal use has been expressly permitted by statute since 1999. In Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 37, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that limited copying for educational purposes could also be justified under the fair dealing exemption. "

Therefore, it turns out that there is no problem with images on Wikishare because they are all published for educational purposes - and by the way, the same law also appears on the Hebrew page [the language I speak, that is, the law is the same in Israel], I hope this is enough to lead a change in Wikipedia - so we will reach a more collaborative and helpful world. If I open a complaint against the legislature, he will explain to me that there is no place for a complaint at all because it is not a problem to share photos for educational or educational purposes. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: Yes, that's called fair use, and it is not allowed on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Even if images are not allowed in the public domain, Wikipedia is still an educational platform and therefore in this respect it should not be a problem to publish images for the purpose of studying Wikipedia. It can be added in the text next to the image that the image is not necessarily allowed for use in the public domain but only in an educational context according to copyright law. But you should not ban the posting of images on Wikipedia just because the publisher of the image did not explicitly state that the image is freely licensed to the public, because as stated even if there is copyright to the image it is still permitted by law to be used for research or study. That is, I ask that you accept the law and update your conduct on Wikipedia. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@ANAELIAZOR: No, as this was already explained to you above. So for the last time, please read COM:L, why we can't accept such files. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: You only reinforced my claim that I said that the problem stems from Wikipedia and not from the legislature, because Wikipedia claims that they are interested in allowing everyone to reuse images and not just for educational purposes, and as can be seen from the quote here: [Paragraph 3 at the beginning of the page] "The additional restrictions imposed by our license policy are driven by our ultimate goal, which is to enable all Wikimedia site content— both media and text - to be creatively reused in a variety of contexts, in any country, without the imposition of cumbersome requirements or fees. "

"The additional restrictions imposed by our license policy are driven by our ultimate goal, which is to enable all Wikimedia site content— both media and text - to be creatively reused in a variety of contexts, in any country, without the imposition of cumbersome requirements or fees. "

But if you change your purpose - and it depends only on the openness of your thinking - you can focus on the main purpose for which people volunteer at Wikipedia - and that is to give access to educational content - and anyone who wants to publish educational content can also use Wikipedia content including images, so it should not To be a problem for Wikishare to get images which by law can be used for study or research ..

Too bad you create a situation where you pile difficulties on the volunteers and you create a problem that should not be at all - just change the direction of your thinking - instead of having a goal to contain images for use in any way - you should decide to agree to contain educational content - it will be more correct to implement, You are not a site for an image database without any purpose, but Wikimedia is an educational image database, do not try to force us into a situation where we will be very limited in presenting tangible content from the world - it is just unnecessary.

And if you can not change Wikipedia's policies because you are not the administrator - then I ask that anyone who has the ability to amend Wikipedia's policies - then he will be referred to our conversation.

Thanks. ANAELIAZOR (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@ANAELIAZOR: We can't decide the copyright laws. When you have read and understood the answers given to you by several experienced people, we can discuss. For now, bye. Yann (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Uzbek copyright extension[edit]

The Uzbek government has passed the law to amend the copyright extension for 70 years. Source: [1] -- 01:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Seems legit. Can you provide the official version gazetted for double verification? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Can someone help with updating the content on COM:Uzbekistan and {{PD-Uzbekistan}}? I don't know how to edit complex pages and templates with translation involved.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The outdated 2007/2018 amendment was replaced in 2021 to extend 70 year copyright term for Uzbek works. -- 07:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Is this retroactive, i.e. will works that are already out of copyright due to the old term but have not passed the 70 years threshold get a new protection? De728631 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Same as Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and some former Soviet countries which had protected for 70 years (in Russia, with additional three years during World War II). -- 08:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
But this law amended on July 2021, the Uzbek copyright would extend from 50 to 70 years in Article 2. -- 08:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@, De728631: From the Google translated text, it seems that there are no retrospective provisions (i.e. works published before the amendments comes into effect are protected under the new 70-year duration instead of the old 50-year duration). As the source is published on an official governmental website, perhaps we should proceed to update relevant provisions?廣九直通車 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

As I translated of the Article 1065 as they amended: "the word "fifty" shall be replaced by the word "seventy"". -- 22:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to update the information on COM:Uzbekistan and {{PD-Uzbekistan}}. Can someone help with tagging my updates with translation tags?廣九直通車 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Edward Weston, Armco Steel, Ohio, 1922[edit]

Hi, Why this famous photograph from 1922 would still be under a copyright? See [2], [3]. I understand that all US works from before 1926 are in the public domain, isn't? Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

All works published before 1926 are in the public domain in the US. When was this published (not taken)? It seems unlikely for the 1981 copyright claim to be relevant, but there are several recent (post-1977) registrations for bunches of his photographs. Given that it was printed in 1941, it's likely it was published then, and the only renewal listed for Edward Weston before 1942 is "California and the West". Were it first published in another work, it might have been renewed with that work, but that seems unlikely for this photographer given his Wikipedia page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't realize the pages I was checking only had early art renewals, but I've looked at the art and photograph renewals on and Weston's name doesn't appear in any of them up to 1970, so if it was printed and distributed for sale or further distribution in or by 1941, it's now PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done File:Edward Weston, Armco Steel, Ohio, 1922, MoMA.jpg. Thanks for your comments, Yann (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Does it mean most (if not all his works) are in the public domain because of lack of renewal (he died in 1958)? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The work must have been published before 1964, and there must be no renewals from his heirs either. -- King of ♥ 21:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: OK, but how do you know when a photograph was first published? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
That will have to be found through research. For things like books, postcards, publicity photos, etc. it is reasonable to assume that they have been published absent evidence to the contrary. For artistic works it is a bit harder. Note that per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, any art which has been placed in a public location (including a museum) prior to 1978, unless visitors are forbidden from making copies, counts as published. -- King of ♥ 21:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Certainly not. I didn't check renewals for works first published after 1941, and any work first published in California and the West (1940) or the 1942 edition of Leaves of Grass illustrated by his photographs or The Photographs of Edward Weston (1946) or The Cats of Wildcat Hill (1947) or Fifty Photographs (1947), just to list the renewals of pre-1950 works easily checkable by me, is still in copyright, as well as quite possibly works first published in other works. There are a number of mass posthumous copyright registrations that didn't need renewal, so proving publication is key.
The Armco Steel photograph that started this discussion is something I would think twice before using personally. Part of that is because of possible lawsuits that don't come into play with Commons, but when push comes to shove, I don't know enough to be certain about the publication status of the work. The three new ones I'm really uncertain about; Plaster Works certainly could have been first published in California and the West, for example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have uploaded more pre-1926 photographs with the generic {{PD-US}} license. I hope that's OK. Yann (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup 2019 Final[edit]

I want to know how can I copyright the image in which England is holding the Cricket World Cup? Please write in simple words. RIDHVAN SHARMA (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The image is not allowed on Commons. Getty Images holds the copyright. It will be many years before their copyright expires. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's talk about South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks.[edit]

I talked about South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks last time, but I didn't get a clear answer.

I found two cases related to South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks.

First case: Seoul High Court judged the seagull pattern and the figure of Ebisu of EVISU Japan is not copyrighted because they cannot be recognized for originality. (Reference)

Second case: Supreme Court of South Korea judged the logo of Fox Racing is copyrighted. (Reference)

How about South Korean TOO for logos or trademarks?

It would be appreciated if someone who can speak Korean could read the case law and give an answer. (If you don't know Korean, you can use Google Translate.)

Ox1997cow (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid but nobody will give you a clear answer. There is no any clear definition of ToO in Korea or anywhere in the world. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Still, it is possible to make some inferences from precedents. What do you think? Ox1997cow (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Precedents are often contradictory. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure which image public domain template to use[edit]

I recently found a document which I plan to use photos from for an article I am working on editing, specifically Flare, specifically photos from Chapter 5. The document which I found the photos in says it is in the public domain (at the bottom of the document), yet it doesn't match up with any of the public domain file copyright tags that I have looked through. The document specifically says the following:

"Publications and training materials produced by NWCG are in the public domain. Use of public domain information, including copying, is permitted. Use of NWCG information within another document is permitted if NWCG information is accurately credited to NWCG. The NWCG logo may not be used except on NWCG authorized information. “National Wildfire Coordinating Group,” “NWCG,” and the NWCG logo are trademarks of NWCG."

I was wondering if anyone knows which copyright tag it matches up with and possibly if the photo is or isn't permitted to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Thank You So Much!



Rafaelmanman (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rafaelmanman: By NWCG, do you mean the en:National Wildfire Coordinating Group? If so, then since it is a United States government office then the generic Template:PD-USGov should be okay. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Howdy.carabao: Hello, Indeed I do, I also recently asked about this same subject in the Wikipedia Teahouse. They recommended I ask here but also said "Well, for starters, we're told that '[PD-USGov] should not be used if the department or part of the federal government which produced the work is known'." If you believe that I should use Template:PD-USGov, please let me know. Thank You! Rafaelmanman (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
We don't have a more specific template for NWCG in Category:PD-USGov license tags, and it doesn't appear to be under the purview of any other department or agency that we do have a tag for (being made up of representatives from various agencies), so the generic PD-USGov template seems fine, unless someone wants to try their hand at making a specific one. clpo13(talk) 17:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for the answers, I think I will just use Template:PD-USGov. Thanks Again!

Sincerely, Rafaelmanman (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright notice on collective work[edit]

The year is 1970, and Person A is publishing a book in the United States. Person B submits a photo they took and consents for it to appear in the book uncredited. The book is published with the only copyright notice in the entire book being "© 1970 Person A". Which of the following best describes the current copyright status of B's photo?

  1. It is {{PD-US-no notice}}, because each component of a collective work must have its own copyright notice.
  2. It is {{PD-US-defective notice}}, because while the copyright notice covers the entire book, it fails to correctly name B as the copyright holder of the photo.
  3. A is the copyright holder of the entire book, including B's photo, and is authorized to release the rights to B's photo.
  4. B is still the copyright holder of the photo.

P.S. Would the answer change if B is credited but not explicitly listed in any copyright notice? -- King of ♥ 03:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's a proper collective work, the overall copyright notice covers everything. If it's not, if Person A is the licensor or proprietor of the work, then it's probably still fine. The Jaws Copyright Office ruling would have allowed a lot of covers to be out of copyright, and if a publisher contracted for interior art on a John Doe's work, it looks like that art would need its own notice, but from reading that, if John Doe contracted for art and put © 1970 John Doe, it should be fine, and that's backed up by a good amount of case law. That ruling is basically all I looked at for this answer, but I don't recall anything in US law that would say otherwise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: What do you mean by "proper collective work"? What about a book written by A that uses an illustration by B? -- King of ♥ 05:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Instead of copying the page, I'll just link it: --Prosfilaes (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Carl Lindberg's link below (17 USC 406) makes no mention of collective works, so how do you square the Jaws ruling with that? -- King of ♥ 06:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Unless there was a written transfer, B still owns the copyright. A collective work's notice covered every component work, other than advertisements. The missing separate notice would create an "error in name" scenario, which did not affect the copyright status. 17 USC 406: With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, where the person named in the copyright notice on copies or phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner is not the owner of copyright, the validity and ownership of the copyright are not affected. It goes on to say that if you ask permission from A, thinking they are the copyright owner and A gives you permission, then you likely have a complete defense against infringement (as long as B did not register the work separately). But B still owns the copyright, and A might be liable in that situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess I should clarify that the above law is only part of the 1976 act; publications prior to 1978 were not explicitly covered by that, and the older law did specify that the name of the "proprietor" should be in the notice. However, there were a couple of court cases along those lines -- such as Goodis v. United Artists (We unanimously conclude that where a magazine has purchased the right of first publication under circumstances which show that the author has no intention to donate his work to the public, copyright notice in the magazine's name is sufficient to obtain a valid copyright on behalf of the beneficial owner, the author or proprietor), and Fantastic Fakes v. Pickwick (courts have generally avoided technical forfeitures for failure to strictly comply with the provision, focusing instead on whether the purpose of the notice requirement was served despite the defect in the notice provided [...] The claim of copyright placed on Fantastic's material, although defective, clearly notified the public of the existence of a claim of copyright.). So, the 1976 law was probably codifying that understanding. (The second decision came after that law actually, and was influenced by it.). As Prosfilaes showed though, items outside the collective work probably could not be covered -- there likely had to be some sort of licensing relationship between the two parties. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

São Tomé and Príncipe FOP revisited[edit]

The relevant page states that FOP there is not OK as it only mentions use and not reproduction. I actually revisited their copyright law and read Article 75(p). The clause states (using the translation at the right):

"p) The use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be kept permanently in public places."

IMO, the term "use" encompasses exploitations (like depictions or representations), which IMO may be "OK". There are no restrictions like "for occasion of current reporting purposes", "for personal use", "for non-profit use" or any other restrictions on FOP. Thus IMO, São Tomé and Príncipe FOP is "OK" for Commons.

However, I may need other users' opinions regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging for some inputs @Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, Clindberg:. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. Most of the time that "reproduction" is used, it means a straight copy of the work. Freedom of panorama provisions can never allow straight copies of the work (per the Berne Convention). Sure sounds like a pretty open FoP section to me. @Aymatth2: ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 September 2021‎ (UTC)
I agree, but there's a question. Under American rules of construction, "The use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture" is limited to architecture and sculpture. In order for it to apply to "works" generally, it would have to read "...such as, without limitation, works of architecture or sculpture". However, the rules of construction may well be different under other law, so the question is, is FoP OK for only architecture and sculpture or is it OK for all works? Carl, what do youthink about that? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:, Clindberg the country is apparently a former Portuguese colony. Browsing to COM:FOP Portugal gives a near-identical provision. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
However, because the provision is default and not accompanied by reliable legal literatures or casefiles (unlike Portugal's), we may safely say that outdoors is OK and public indoors, unknown (equivalent to grey cell at COM:Freedom of panorama/table?). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I would assume that the law in São Tomé and Príncipe has the same meaning as in Portugal. However, I see that my question above about construction applies also to Portugal. I note the word "editor" at COM:FOP Portugal which suggests that works other than architecture and sculpture (neither of which have editors) are permitted..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: If it was strictly limited to architecture and sculpture, they would not use the words "such as". But, it could be limited to works along those lines (say applied art too), and not purely any work. In either event, the wording was inherited from Portuguese law, so I would follow whatever {{FoP-Portugal}} says and any legal cases / precedents there, as they would likely be the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree -- we should copy {{FoP-Portugal}} for {{FoP-São Tomé and Príncipe}} with a few changes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Photos from TK KBS[edit]

Hi! I need a reflection from someone skilled of you! I would like to upload some photos from this page: I asked them if they would provide some photos to Wikimedia and I was adressed to this page with words : These are photos for free use, but you have to state the complete copyright string: e.g. in the case of the visit of Pope Frantisek in Slovakia, Man and Faith / TK KBS / Name and Surname of photographer. Is this compatible with the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence [or with Wikimedia Commons licences at all]? Thanks a lot!----ScholastikosSVK (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a CC-BY license. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@ScholastikosSVK, Ruslik0: I disagree; while that statement does suggest that the source is willing to provide a compatible free license for their photos, it certainly cannot be assumed to be a CC license itself. The credit line is missing the name of the license, which is required for CC attribution. I don't think the simple words "for free use" are sufficient as a license because that short phrase could mean something completely different to them as it does to us. I suggest that you have the source confirm explicitly that they would be willing to use a CC license using COM:RELGEN or COM:VRTS. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The name of the license is not required for the CC attribution. Ruslik (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC) says "If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: ... indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License." 3.a.1.C. If we have an explicit notification that it's under the CC-BY, the fact the upstream website doesn't say it isn't a problem, but if we don't have something explicit, we can't infer that all the minutia, both in what is being offered and what is being required, of a CC license applies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Brooklyn Museum and CC BY 3.0[edit]

Good evening! I found out that Brooklyn Museum has materials that it's licensed under CC BY 3.0 and I would like to upload some of them (about Javanese culture) to Wikimedia Commons. I need contributor to confirm whether the material is actually safe to upload, as I'm not sure whether the copyright holder is by museum or author that gave the rights to museum or copyright rules are applied to these material so that I can avoid copyright infringement. Thanks. AnsyahF (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That collection should be fine. I wouldn't rely on a boilerplate statement from a museum on anything, so only upload images that have an individual CC statement. -- King of ♥ 14:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Question on Copyright[edit]

Good day everyone, please I want to ask, if I should download a file I posted on another space e.g Google map and post that same file here on commons, am I still the copy right owner of that image? Remember I was the one that posted that same image in that space and maybe for some reasons, I no longer have that same image on my phone, and I decided to download from maps or the website I posted it so as to post the same image here for a purpose, hope I'm not doing anything wrong by posting that image and by putting my name as the original author? And if I can post that image will I post it as my personal stuff or post it as fair use? Please my questions may not be straight forward, but please try and understand and answer them for me. Thanks. --Idoghor Melody (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

In principle, yes you can repost your own copyrighted work to this site. However there are a few problems that you may encounter. First, you will need to check the terms of the site(s) where you posted the image previously; if you granted them an exclusive licence to your work (or transfered the ownership of copyright), you may be in breach of your previous agreement if you repost it elsewhere. In a worst case scenario, the previous site owner may have some legal right to claim damages from you for breaching the agreement. Second, Commons' automated processes may detect the upload as a copyright violation of a file uploaded at the other site and either block upload or list it for immediate deletion (this can be resolved in my third point). Third, whether your image is blocked, deleted or survives upload, it is a good idea to submit a statement to Commons:OTRS to confirm that you are the original copyright owner and that you are re-releasing the image here (this specific situation is covered by the point at "I am the copyright owner but my file has been previously published without a free license on a medium I can't alter"). Submitting an OTRS statement will avoid any mistaken accusations of copyright violation for uploading your own work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore, thank you very much, I'm now clarified.--Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Separability of sex dolls[edit]

I came across an interesting DR of a sex doll: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Musée de l'érotisme 011.jpg. It's not clear to me whether it is copyrightable, and I'd appreciate some more opinions at the DR. We can use it as a test case for sex dolls/toys in general and update Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter at the conclusion of the DR. -- King of ♥ 05:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Kandinsky and URAA[edit]

Does affect COM:URAA on Kandinsky works were copyrighted in the United States after 1926, when Kandinsky died in 1944, works are still copyrighted in the United States due to URAA and 95 years after it was published. -- 09:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Wassily Kandinsky? Reading his article, he lived in Russia, Germany, and France at different times. The "country of origin" for a work is the country it is first published, so those may be different countries for this artist. Any of his works published before 1926 should be fine ({{PD-old-70-expired}}). Works first published in Russia, at any time, should be fine as either {{PD-Russia-1996}} or {{PD-RusEmpire}}. 1926+ works first published in France and Germany would be OK in those countries now, but the U.S. copyright would have been restored to 95 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

File:CUB-31a-El Banco Espanol de la Habana-25 Centavos (1872).jpg contradictory statements about its copyright[edit]

File:CUB-31a-El Banco Espanol de la Habana-25 Centavos (1872).jpg has three contradictory statements about its copyright:

  • "The Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page."
  • "This work was created in Cuba and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired."
  • Table cells: "Type of material"→"Corporate and government works" "Copyright has expired in Cuba if ..."→"Never (perpetual copyright)"

So who sent the e-mail, and who is the putative copyright holder on whose behalf they were writing, and what did they say exactly? Jnestorius (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no contradiction at all for a work to have multiple applicable copyright statuses, e.g. a photo of a modern building in the US. The photo could be licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0, while the building is copyrighted & all rights reserved by the architect, but a provision in copyright law (COM:FOP US) makes it so that the architect's copyright is inoperative for the photo. Regarding the reproduction, it is CC-BY-SA 4.0 by Godot13 on behalf of the National Numismatic Collection, but truth be told it more likely falls under COM:ART or COM:SCAN so the terms of the license are not legally necessary.
Since the government this note was issued under is now defunct, we have a few things to consider, such as whether this should be considered a work of the Cuban government at all. -- King of ♥ 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"for Wikipedia only"[edit]

Despite the title, File:5873-2 web from Cranbrook for Wikipedia only.jpg seems to have an OTRS ticket that has been verified. Could someone with OTRS access take a look at the ticket and confirm that it isn't just "for Wikipedia only", and if so, change the file title accordingly? Nosferattus (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Ganímedes. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: In the future, please use COM:ON to ask agents to look into permission tickets. -- King of ♥ 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Despite the name of the file, permission has been granted by the copyright holder with the right template naming CCBYSA 4.0, so it's valid, IMHO. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Cordell Affeldt as uploader.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: Can we change the title of the file then? Otherwise it is misleading and confusing (and discourages reuse). Nosferattus (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done - I've gone ahead and renamed the file as per the discussion above. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Problematic attitude of the user Houssam BH[edit]

Hello All,

I write this message because I would like to bring some attention to the attitude of the user Houssam BH. Not only did he upload a big amount of copyright material, as you can see on his talk page User talk:Houssam BH, he removes the banner from the pictures asked for deletion[4], [5]. Is there a way to open a request to the administrator or is there another action to take to make him understand his attitude is not acceptable ?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

Best regards, --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer: This is the wrong board. Please see COM:ANU. Do not tag simple logos for speedy deletion, especially if there are used. I nevertheless blocked Houssam BH for 3 months (third block). Should be indefinite next time. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thank you for your answer. I will remember using this link if a user will cause some trouble and I will no longer tag logos for speedy deletion. Best regards,--CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Can it be published at Spanish Wikipedia?[edit]

Hi everyone! I would probably create Spanish Wikipedia Congressional Quarterly article and I want to know if CQ'S logo ( can be used at that project. I think it dont meet threshold of originality because is only text but i prefer youe answers because you know much more than I know. Sincerely yours, Fewasser (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fewasser: This doesn't seem to be copyrightable in Spain (see also COM:TOO Spain), so you can upload it here with a {{PD-textlogo}} licence tag. De728631 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Производное произведение[edit]


Я разместил фотографию своего прадедушки из семейного альбома. Вот ссылка на страницу файла: [[6]].

Фотография была загружена для статьи о нем на Википедии: [[7]].

Сегодня я получил уведомление о том что: "Этот файл — производное произведение" и что необходимо: "указать автора и источник использованных произведений, чтобы можно было легко проверить выполнение авторских условий".

Я не могу предоставить какие либо источники и автора, тем более с возможностью проверки. Эта фотография была сделана в 20-х годах 20 века, а тот кто фотографировал давно умер и установить авторство не представляется возможным в принципе.

Что я могу сделать для того чтобы эта фотография не была удалена? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myshelov (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Derivative work


I posted a photo of my great-grandfather from the family album. Here is a link to the file page: [[8]].

The photo was uploaded for an article about him on Wikipedia: [[9]].

Today I received a notification that: "This file is a derivative work" and that it is necessary: ​​"indicate the author and source of the works used, so that you can easily check the copyright conditions."

I cannot provide any sources and author, especially with the possibility of verification. This photo was taken in the 20s of the 20th century, and the one who photographed died long ago and it is not possible to establish the authorship in principle.

What can I do to prevent this photo from being deleted?
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Myshelov: Привет и добро пожаловать. Как вы думаете, это фото было сделано одним из ваших предков? У вас есть негатив? Можете ли вы сузить круг, когда оно было снято? Pinging @EugeneZelenko, JuTa в качестве тегеров. См. Также COM:SIGN/ru.
Hi, and welcome. Do you think this photo was taken by one of your ancestors? Do you have the negative? Can you narrow down when it was taken? Pinging @EugeneZelenko, JuTa as taggers. See also COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Фотография выглядит отретушированной. Это сделано во время создания или это современные модификации? В какой части довоенной Польши был сделан огригинал? Каковы даты жизни сфотографированного человека? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: The subject lived "(ur. 1891 w Maślennikach, zm. 1944)" per pl:Antoni Szapiel.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Lithuania is applicable. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

FOP in France[edit]

I'm wondering how what's written in COM:FOP France might apply to en:File:Medici Fountain in 2021 after cleaning.jpg. The file was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as {{PD-self}} and the en:Medici Fountain seems to be more than old enough to be PD. In fact, the same photo (in a sense) has already been uploaded to Commons as File:Paris Jardin Luxembourg Polyphème surprenant A&G 2014.jpg (the 2021 photo shows the fountain after it was cleaned). Can this local file be transferred to Commons as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If the sculpture is free and the photo is free, why could it not be transferred? And why mention FoP? -- Asclepias (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I mentioned FOP because France's concept of FOP seems to be a bit more complex than some other countries and because it states "Not OK" right at the beginning of the section. I also was sure how a refurbishimg of the work might affect its copyright status. So, I just asked to make sure. Anyway, after reading that section again, it seems that there a 70 year pma placed upon publically displayed 3D works of art which almost certainly applies here, which means this should be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not aware of any country which protects architecture more strictly than paintings. So if it's OK for a painting, then it's OK for architecture. -- King of ♥ 22:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

CC BY version discrepancies?[edit]

Definitely the following files are CC BY. The version discrepancies put me in doubt, though, as I don't know which versions apply.
These files say 2.5 but the first one's metadata says 3.0 (though it could be both):

File:A-New-Look-at-Some-Old-Animals-pbio.1000007.sv001.ogv (note that this is featured on tlwiki)

I would also like to clarify many, if not most other PLOS files before the wide adoption of 4.0, but this should be the one I really want to have clarifications for now too:

File:Trichoplax adhaerens photograph.png

I just keep being in doubt about these files. Thanks, Caehlla2357 (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)