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.


Great shearwater and plastics pictures from paper[edit]

May the pictures of a great shearwater and plastics from Figures S1 and S2 [1] (CC-BY) be uploaded here? If so, may I ask someone to do so? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.140.3.202 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

given that it's ccby, yes they can be uploaded. please register an account and upload. for help see COM:FS.--RZuo (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China traffic signs copyright[edit]

Is image like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beijing_Expwy_S11_sign_with_name.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beijing_Expwy_S11_sign_no_name.svg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Sxjs5902.png copyrightable or not?

If something like that is copyrightable in China (and there is some risk), then better template would be Template:PD-PRC-Road Traffic Signs - right ?

Or is it requiring template from author of work because it is derivative work of PD materials and therefore full copyright is captured by whoever made this file?

Or is it PD-shape even in China?

Though I am not entirely sure how to check that it actually matches official PRC traffic signs.

(it is offwiki, but if anyone got idea how to solve problem discussed in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny/notify_uploaders/Herman_Lee_Zh - help would be welcomed)

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, zhwikisource doesn't have local copy of GB 5768《道路交通标志和标线》, but regareless, they are in fact public domain as per 7.3.2.3: [2] Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for help - then I will use Template:PD-PRC-Road Traffic Signs Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of the material inserted by hackers[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:HackedForeignMinistry.png. In short, a website which is under CC-BY-SA 4.0 was hacked, and the inserted material is presumably original text and artwork. I guess it does not mean that hackers shared it as CC-BY-SA 4.0, and thus a screenshot of a hacked site is a copyright violation, but I guess we need more informed opinions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could argue as in COM:GRAFFITI: "the artist is unknown, proof of authorship of the art is problematic, and, some believe, the artist would have difficulty enforcing their copyright since that would require a court to uphold the validity of an illegal act as the basis for damages or other relief against a third party." The last point is the one which overrules our precautionary principle, as there is little risk for reusers in these cases. –LPfi (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Provided the artwork is original, of course. I am sure that in some cases material from elsewhere is inserted. –LPfi (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That part of COM:GRAFFITI is not an especially strong argument, given that it states general conclusions about how the law may be applied without citation to any authority. [3] gives a good rundown of the state of the US case law as of 2018: so far, no one has prevailed on that argument in a case. That is, of course, US law and not Ukranian law, so if someone can cite something for Ukraine showing otherwise I'm all ears. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent copyright watermarks by uploader[edit]

Wijayakusuma decoupling SGU.jpg

I stumbled upon the Upload list of Gaudi Renanda. Now, I understand Commons:Watermarks, but can be DONE about it? I don't see an easy way to apply the {{Watermark}}-Template to hundreds of files. Should a bot be tasked to apply that template? Should we instead begin with tagging the images for deletion, given that the uploader stopped all activities after being told on the talk page about the no-watermarks policy? Do we do nothing because the uploader might one day come back and upload unmarked pictures? Do we select some quality images for watermark removal and just delete the rest? --Enyavar (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar: ✓ Done, I marked the 198 unmarked uploads of Gaudi Renanda with {{Watermark}} for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool thanks, I'll remember to ask for bot-jobs next time I notice something like this! --Enyavar (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar: You're welcome. That was not a bot per se, but experience with VFC.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Languages Press logo.svg[edit]

I returned to uploading free logos of companies for use on Wikipedia. I started with this file, but now worry that a mistake may have been made. We know what the threshold of originality in China is, and I reasoned with myself that semi-cursive writing in Chinese is anything but new and so is not necessarily copyrightable in that country. However, when I compare it to this beauty of a logo, I wonder to myself whether the logo I just uploaded meets the "stroke of the brow" threshold. I doubt it, but I do not feel like seeing it or my talk page get templated with a deletion notice due to lack of permission. FreeMediaKid$ 16:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeMediaKid!: calligraphy is protected by copyright in china. but i couldnt find who wrote the logo, or if the logo used a computer font. the red logo might be copyrightable too, since i see it's a clever combination of ww (initials of waiwen) and 出.--RZuo (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I came here. I thought I had an understanding of the Chinese copyright law, but after seeing other text logos for comparison, I realized that I may need to reupload it locally on the English Wikipedia. I do not mind going through that again over there, but I do mind keeping my integrity. FreeMediaKid$ 05:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using Bundesarchiv photographs[edit]

Is it possible to use photographs from the Bundesarchiv collection as covers for self published books? Who knows who to contact? Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a00:23c5:7f09:c501:5037:3151:6233:1513 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Can I upload an image from a public mural in the UK to Commons?[edit]

Hi all

I'm less familiar with Commons rules about murals so thought I would double check here, is it ok to upload images of public murals in the UK to Commons if the photograph itself in CC BY SA?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, 2D works are not covered by the freedom of panorama in UK. Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to Ruslik's input. You need license permission from the artist of the mural. If he/she is already deceased, his/her heirs who hold the artwork copyright. However, you can upload images if the mural is already in public domain; that is, if the muralist or last-surviving muralist is already dead for more than 70 years. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well thats not going to happen, thanks anyway. John Cummings (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cummings: Not all murals are 2D. If its a mosaic, for example, you should be OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs - choosing the appropriate license[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if you might know which is a better tag for me to use for a family photo? I’m writing an article on an artist who is a (deceased) relative of mine. He had plenty of reviews and such in legitimate newspapers and magazines, but there were no photos. I have a photo from 1943 - it’s in the VRT thing because the administrator nominated me for deletion, but then he said: “Yes, [Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs] is OK for works created by your ancestors, but we usually require a confirmation via email. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure.” I wrote to VRT asking for permissions, there’s been back and forth conversations, because I thought the photo should be public domain, so I said I think it’s [PD-US-no notice] but then he pointed out that I said the photo has never been published, and so PD-US-no notice doesn’t apply here. So then I asked for permission and I’m waiting for an answer. But what about [PD-heirs]? Can I use that one? It’s for “works released into the public domain by the heirs of the creator.” But these family photos have never been published and have never been copyrighted. In the old days people didn’t copyright family photos because it took too much time and money, and plus you didn’t need it. Nowadays you just click a photo and it’s automatically copyrighted. As an heir to the negatives and the photos, can I just release the photo into PD? Do I need to ask for permissions? Am I the one asking for permission or do I ask someone for permission? I’m happy to grant permission. But I think someone official has to grant my request? And which one is better - [PD-heirs] or [Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs]? Thank you for your help! JHVfan (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JHVfan: if you can prove you are the heir you can do whatever you want. as for which licence to choose, please spend some time reading the actual terms of the licences, follow the links in the licence templates when necessary.--RZuo (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the works are still unpublished, I think the term is 70 years pma (since his death) in USA, like in most of the world. You did not state where you live, so I assume it is not one of the exceptions. If the time has expired you can use {{PD-US-unpublished}} and {{PD-old-auto}}. If it has not, then you get to choose the licence. In Europe there is the additional publication right, which applies if the work is previously unpublished (see ‎#Unpublished in the EU below).
If the works are published, the year of first publication matters for the length of the copyright term, as do formalities, depending on when and where they were published.
The main differences between licences are whether you want attribution, for yourself or for the author, and whether you want derivative works to be under the same licence. Then there are differences in the wordings, and those might matter in some cases, but you need a lawyer if you care. For the CC licences, the former have "-BY", the latter "-SA". I'd recommend both, i.e. CC-BY-SA, which is the standard licence here on Commons, so the {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} you suggested. Public domain dedication is messier, as it is unknown in much of the world, but CC-zero works at least for USA.
–LPfi (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @LPfi and @RZuo Thank you both for responding to my question. Well, I received permission for a piece of artwork under [Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs] but I was not granted permission for the family photo I mentioned in the question above. The reason why is because even though I was very certain that his wife took the picture, I could not know with 100% certainty who the photographer was. Commons has to err on the side of caution because occasionally, a photographer or his heirs pops up and claims ownership of the copyright. I respect that Commons has to be very strict with this. I only just recently learned that Public Domain is kind of limited. It’s funny because I thought it was the opposite! I live in the US so I thought if I use that designation it would be easier for the artwork to use PD. But Lpfi, I’d like to read about what you mentioned above, as well as, oh doggone it....do I have to change all the artwork from PD-US-no notice over to Cc-by-as-heirs if I want the work to be attributed to the author (my relative)? Darn I was so sure I was finally done. Sigh. JHVfan (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are several points:
  • Family albums are problematic, as there seldom are any mentions of the photographers, and they might be anybody (such as a neighbour or a guest). But that anybody seldom gives the negatives and if they do, it is probably intended as "do what you will". Although that latter isn't legally enough (it needs to be in writing, and more explicit than that), it makes the claim on "serious doubt" needed for our precautionary principle to apply even more far-fetched. If you are a heir of all those who likely could have taken the picture and left the negatives with you, it is not that important which of them truly took the photo (you can state "X or Y" in the author field).
  • You either have the copyright or you don't have it (in a certain jurisdiction). If a work is in the public domain, licensing it is copyfraud (you should still license it for those countries where it is not PD, if any).
  • The problem lies with PD dedication: in most of Europe you cannot give away your rights just like that. You can licence your economic rights, such as with CC-zero, but that doesn't affect the author's moral rights, which are the right to attribution and the right not to have their work altered or presented in a defamatory way. At least in Finland you can waive the moral rights only for specific uses (see e.g. translation of Finnish law, section 3). CC-zero should handle the economic part, while legal interpretation of PD-self is uncertain in these jurisdictions.
–LPfi (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#Authors' moral rights. –LPfi (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @LPfi I’m having a heart attack right now because I never heard of “Copyfraud” before I started reading the article in your link a few minutes ago. This was the question when I first used the Upload Wizard. Who am I? What’s my identity? If I’m an heir to these works of art, am I an heir to the copyright? But what if my ancestor never formally copyrighted his works? Then isn’t that PD-US-no notice? He thought that just signing his paintings was enough provenance to prove his authorship. How do I inherit copyright to something that was not copyrighted between the years 1927-1978? Yikes! I don’t know what to do, except maybe breathe deeply, calm down, maybe keep reading some more. JHVfan (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LPfi I read several more things and found this about the Berne Convention “Before 1978, in the United States, federal copyright was generally secured by the act of publication with notice of copyright or by registration of an unpublished work. This has now been largely superseded by international conventions, principally the Berne Convention, which provide rights harmonized at an international level without a requirement for national registration. However, the U.S. still provides legal advantages for registering works of U.S. origin.” The USA didn’t join the Berne Convention until 1988, so now if I write song lyrics in a coffee shop on a napkin, or just snap a photo - those things are AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted. In the old days you had to fill out paperwork, and mail that, plus a photo of your work, money, etc. to US Copyright Office, then wait 4-6 months for your certificate, which you then had to post publically. So I think I’ll stick to PD-US-no notice and I’ll look for other PDs that might cover more of the world. One of my ancestor’s paintings was first published in France, though, 1933, so I’m not sure if the Berne Convention says it’s still copyrighted, since my ancestor died only 35 years ago. JHVfan (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Many American works on Commons are free because they were first published without notice, or the copyright wasn't renewed. They are still the works of their respective author. When the USA joined the Berne convention, USA started to recognise the copyright of foreign works that had been published without the US requirements. Thus a French painting published in France in 1933 (by an artist who still lived in 1952) would be under copyright in the USA. This copyright restoration (Commons:URAA) did not apply if the work was published in the USA shortly after being published abroad, nor if the artist had (certain) ties to the USA, the latter apparently being true in your case. Their manager might however have taken care of the copyright procedures, for this and for other works. Them taking care of the renewal is less probable. It is also unclear what works were ever published in the legal sense – unpublished works now have the 70 years pma term. –LPfi (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that I fell for you. The law doesn't care about feelings. And few people know copyright law, even the basics. Many here on Commons, like me, have had to learn great a deal to be able to help people like you, and to make as sure as we can that authors and reusers alike can share and use the works without legal trouble. –LPfi (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

70 years since author death, exactly when?[edit]

Like the subject says, when actually 70 years are tagged from? the author's death date or January 1? So for example, if photographer died in 1953, does it mean his works now in public domain? Thanks.Crook1 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is 1 January of the next year. So, if an author died in 1953 their works will be in public domain from 1 January 2024. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFT copyrights[edit]

This had to happen eventually... File:Purple SolaStar Personal Collection.jpg is, apparently, an algorithmically generated image sold as en:NFT (based on information in en:Draft:The SolaVerse). The draft is unlikely to survive after which the image might be deleted as out of COM:Scope, but I wanted to ask about NFTs more generally:

  • Do generated NFT images have copyrights at all, or are they {{PD-ineligible}}? Do they have an author?
  • Even if the generated image is considered machine-created and ineligible, might they still be COM:Derivative works if the elements used in the generation process are complex enough?
  • If there is a copyright, who is the copyright holder? Does purchasing an NFT include transfer of copyright (I suspect this depends on the NFT in question)? Can the buyer of an NFT then upload and license it as CC image if they wish? MKFI (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing weird about images associated with NFTs. They're just images, with all the legal rules. en:NFT answers several of those questions; NFT transfers don't usually transfer copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing special about NFT images (with regards to copyright). Some are algorithmically generated, and are not protected because of the lack of human authorship (I don't know if this one is or not). The vast majority of NFTs have no affect on copyright ownership, the original author is still the copyright owner. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether NFT related to image was sold it does not influence image copyright in any way at all. (in theory NFT sale may be bundled with selling copyright, but in this case NFT activity still has no influence whatsoever and can be ignored). In general NFT machinations are utterly unrelated to copyright and do not influence it at all (there is plenty of misleading claims and outright lies stating otherwise, so do not worry about being confused). Note that anyone at all can create NFT pointing to anything, if I would want I can create NFT pointing to Wikipedia logo. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ura umebachi.gif Files and copyright infringement in violation of copyright.[edit]

There is a copyright file without permission to distribute in the Japanese community yamauchi-man ちややまる에서.

Ura umebachi.gif This file violates copyright.

http://yamauchi-man.com/chihou/shiro_hidatakayamajou.html

It's protected by copyright.

It's a file that can't be used on other sites.

I applied for a separate deletion request. Takuyakoz (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ura umebachi.gif.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Aboriginal Flag[edit]

The Australian government's low threshold of originality has now cost them $20 million in buying out the copyright to the Aboriginal Flag: [4]. I suppose the flag can now be hosted on Commons, given that it seems it will now only have the restrictions that typically apply to flags, "where its use is free, but must be presented in a respectful and dignified way." Perhaps an official government statement can be found. See Category:Australian Aboriginal flags. --ghouston (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not too sure if it will be PD, there is a discussion on the undeletion request. Bidgee (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And another DR request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg. --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Headshot for an article about an author[edit]

Hello! I'm hoping to assist with this drafted article by Wikipedia user:Innisfree987. They have a completed draft[[5]], but it doesn't have any image of the author yet. I found a headshot on the author's website and reached out to him for permission to use on this Wikipedia article. He responded yes. Do I need to send him some sort of paperwork to confirm this before I upload the image? Thank you for your help! Its choosday innit (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He would need to send e-mail to [email protected] under OTRS system... if he actually owns copyrights to the pic. Just because it is someone's pic doesnt mean you own copyrights to it. Typically they belong to whoever took the photo. Borysk5 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask; thank you for the information @Borysk5! Its choosday innit (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check the instructions at Commons:VRT (the OTRS changed names to VRT). –LPfi (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is chart qualifying for PD-shape?[edit]

Is chart like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:UNMappersHighways_MINUSMA.png qualifying for {{PD-shape}}? Or is it requiring licensing by author? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's on OpenStreetMap wiki which is licensed under Creative Commons so it shouldn't be a problem. Borysk5 (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that OSM Wiki has massive amount of files under license different than stated (or which would be assumed from footer). Text on wiki is not affected, as it is original and not copied (it is original research). But files are getting reviewed, mostly by myself as many are uploaded by people who are not authors or lie about licensing. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki#Designing_policy_for_handling_files_without_clear_license In this case I am wondering can I PD-shapeify this images or is it above TOO Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FoP-Uruguay[edit]

Hi, I'm seeing a discrepancy between the policy policy COM:FOP Uruguay and the template {{FoP-Uruguay}}. I've started a discussion at Template talk:FoP-Uruguay - input would be appreciated there. Thanks, -M.nelson (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the template the law seems to be mistranslated. It should be: "It is not unlawful reproduction". Borysk5 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Thank you for confirming that the template is inaccurate. I've updated it to match the policy page COM:FOP Uruguay; any future changes should be made in both locations. -M.nelson (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julie Snyder Michel Drucker Musée Grévin Montréal.JPG[edit]

This is not a photo of two people but rather of wax museum sculptures of them. Aren't such sculptures copyrighted? Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: As this appears to be from Canada, it is covered by Freedom of Panorama. Please see {{FoP-Canada}}. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, From Hill To Shore. That clarifies things. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished in the EU[edit]

In Germany we have "If an anonymous or pseudonymous work is still unpublished 70 years after its creation, its copyright expires." but the recommended license template is Template:PD-EU-unpublished which describes a 25 year clawback period if an unpublished work is published after the copyright expiration. What is the correct template for the unpublished images/texts created prior to 1951. Or should the text in PD-EU-unpublished describe the 70-year period of being unpublished, as well as the 25 year clawback? --RAN (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So in EU it seems we have three cases of works the copyrights of which have expired:
  • Works published before copyright has expired. Normal PD-old templates.
  • Previously unpublished works where the uploader is the first publisher or where the first publisher has permitted republishing under a free licence.
  • Previously unpublished works where the 25-year publication right has expired.
The template you linked seems to be about the third case. Do we have something for the second case? Is that the category you are concerned about? We don't need a PD-EU template for the 70-year period, nor for the 25-year period, as works are not PD during those periods.
–LPfi (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, case #2, I suggest we expand the text of PD-EU-unpublished to cover that case, rather than make a new template. It appears that the template is already being used for those instances, even if the wording of the text in the template implies it only covers case #3. What do you think? --RAN (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case #2 is technically not public domain, so not sure it makes much sense to use a PD-* tag. It would need a normal free license tag like any other upload, though maybe we could have a wrapper template, which would take a PD tag for the original work, and a license for the 25-year first publication term. Not sure how often this actually happens though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see many cases with that claim, but probably mainly because people are not aware of this possibility. Images from family archives (which we have quite often) first published on Commons could fall in that case. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me reword what I am looking for, maybe that will help. We have Template:PD-US-unpublished in which the text contains both situations where an unpublished work falls into the public domain. It has the dates for authored works (70 years from the death of the creator) and the dates for anonymous works (120 years from creation). PD-EU-unpublished should contain text for those two cases, and not just the text explaining the 25-year clawback rule. It should have the text "If an anonymous or pseudonymous work is still unpublished 70 years after its creation, its copyright expires." which appears to be the EU rule. Copyright expires = public domain. Do I have the rule wrong for the EU? --RAN (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem would be in having a PD template for a non-PD work. Once the publication right has expired, the cases are the same.
      Carl Lindberg's solution might still work, in everything but the name: allow a parameter for the licence and a parameter for the publication year in the template; when the 25-year period has expired, what is shown would be the text for the third case, while before that it would tell the licence (and an explanation).
      While this situation seems to be rare, I think the impression is just because we haven't told people to tell about it – we say PD-old for old EU works regardless of publication history, while some of them are from family collections (and some are recently published by institutions). –LPfi (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose you could also go to some archive institution, find previously unpublished photographs, scan them and publish them with a free licence (CC-BY?) for the time of the publication right. –LPfi (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The strong distinction between unpublished and published is mostly unique to the US (well, technically also some of the other countries on the UCC side of the UCC vs Berne divide). The copyright term of anonymous works expire in the EU based on when they were made available to the public whether or not they are actually published with the permission of the author — for these works Commons has the {{PD-anon-70-EU}} template. If the identify of the author is known the appropriate copyright template is {{PD-old-70}} or similar. If someone asked me, I'd recommend that {{PD-EU-unpublished}} be used in addition to either a PD-old or PD-anon-70-EU copyright tag when one wants to emphasize that not only has the copyright expired, but that any relevant publisher's right has also expired. —RP88 (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshots[edit]

Are mugshots from the state police free to use? I thought they were public domain, but a bot has tagged one I just uploaded:

I'm sure I've done something wrong here. -- Valjean (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: It was tagged because you didn't add a recognized copyright tag to the page. {{PD-USGov}} exists for works by federal employees, but works by state employees may or may not actually be public domain. I don't see any tags for New Hampshire, so unless you can find something that says otherwise, this is a copyrighted image. We used to have {{PD-US-mugshot}}, but that is no longer accepted. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do? Should I contact the webmaster for the NH state police website? -- Valjean (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valjean: You can, but that is a long shot.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know. On small websites, there is often a contact link to the webmaster. On large ones there rarely is. Any other suggestions? -- Valjean (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

License info ignored by bot[edit]

Dear colleagues! I have just uploaded the file from the website where it is claimed that the materials are available under the license CC BY-NC 4.0. I have provided a link to that website and license info. Nevertheless soon after uploading the file was marked as candidate for deletion. Could somebody check and instruct what is wrong? --Mikisavex (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikisavex: Hi, and welcome. I'm sorry, but the license restriction "‐NonCommercial" AKA -nc- (noncommercial) is not usable by itself for Wikimedia Commons. For the reasons, please see Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jeff G., thanks for explanation. If the CC BY-NC 4.0 license is not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons (sorry I didn’t know this) please delete the mentioned file just now. It will not be relicensed. --Mikisavex (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame busts of individuals[edit]

I came across File:John Madden (11282631876).jpg and started wondering about it. It seems that bronze busts like this one of en:John Madden are 3D-works of art and thus eligible for copyright protection in their own right; this means that photos of them are likely going to be considered COM:DW. So, I'm not sure this en:Pro Football Hall of Fame bust of Madden can be kept regardless of whether the photo of it is released under an acceptable license on Flickr as long as there's no consent from the copyright holder of the bust. Perhaps the Hall of Fame or the en:NFL has these busts created as a "works for hire", but that would make them the copyright holder, right? In addition, there would still seem to be copyright concerns for the busts themselves even if they were casted from molds, wouldn't there? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading of Higher Colleges of Technology logo to Higher Colleges of Technology page[edit]

The official logo of the Higher Colleges of Technology was uploaded to the Higher Colleges of Technology page on October 7, 2021 by an employee of the Higher Colleges of Technology. On October 13, 2021 it was removed by user Tarawneh on the basis of Copyright infringement. Higher Colleges of Technology owns the copyright in its own image (logo), and it was uploaded by an authorized employee of the Higher Colleges of Technology (as can be verified from the account details). Therefore, it was not copyright infringement. Therefore, please undo the removal and re-instate the image urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullancaster (talk • contribs) 07:21, 28 January 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Jpaullancaster and Paullancaster: Hi, and welcome. I see that you uploaded File:HCT New Brand Logo Mark (October 2021).png and File:President & CEO at the Higher Colleges of Technology.jpg, and that they were deleted. They have been judged too complex to be under TOO in the country of origin, so please have an authorized representative license them on your official website or social media or send permission via VRT. Also, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up, so you may want to upload an svg or jpg version of the logo, too. If you can't get a compliant license, the files may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. In addition, please stick to one account and see COM:SIGN. Pinging @Tarawneh, EugeneZelenko as deleting Admin and tagger.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1931 UK sound recording[edit]

Hi, What's the copyright status of UK sound recording from 1931? i.e. File:Gandhi - His Spiritual Message to the World, 17 October 1931.mp3 The author died in 1948, more than 70 years ago. Gandhi was in England at that date, so it was certainly first published in UK, probably in a news broadcast. If it is not yet in the public domain, when will it be? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of a document from the 1800's[edit]

Hello, I found an image of a document dating back to the American Civil War era, and I think that it would be a great addition to this page on Wikipedia. However, I am unsure about its copyright status. Would this image be in the public domain? Or would the one who scan the document own the copyright? ---ILikelargeFries (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The best license would be PD-USGov. We already have a category for these docs, I can't find it now. --RAN (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! -- ILikelargeFries (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arcadia logo originality[edit]

The image File:Joan_of_Arcadia_(logo).png currently exists at EN Wikipedia under fair use. However, the curve shape thing connected to the i is the only thing ambiguous to me as to whether it would be public domain as a textlogo. 93 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested wishlist item[edit]

meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Bots and gadgets/Tool that reviews new uploads for potential copyright violations is a really important wishlist item for copyright on Commons, and I hope it gets your support! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chief-Tecumseh-col 18.jpg[edit]

File:Chief-Tecumseh-col 18.jpg is a new painting that was recently uploaded by a user with no other uploads or edits. I see no indication that the uploader can actually claim this as their "own work." Could someone knowledgeable about such matters address this? I am ignorant of the proper procedure. Much obliged. Kevin1776 (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The proper procedure is to follow closely VRT. This means the painter, Eleanor Rindlisbacher, should write an email with her permission to publish the painting with a free licence. I will ping the uploader about this now: @Walkerpub: . In the meantime you can place Template:No permission since on the file page. Please note the documentation on the template. Thanks for asking and helping. Ellywa (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=625907833"