Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

Copyright status of works cropped from magazines

I recently started this deletion request for a photograph that for all intents and purposes should be copyrighted because the photographer died in 2000. People came along and claimed the photograph was public domain because the magazine that it was featured in from 1930 is now free of copyright. Which I find to be a ridiculous argument since the magazine and the photograph are clearly separate, distinct works. At least in my mind enough that the photographer would retain their own copyright on the photograph that is separate from that of the magazine. Otherwise it seems like the copyright status, or lack of one, for any given magazine could be used as a justification to upload otherwise copyrighted works just because images of them were featured in the magazine. For instance essentially everything in Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter would uploader because "magazine." Since essentially every album cover out there has been in a magazine at some point. Same goes for most paintings, book covers, board games, plenty of buildings, screenshots from films, action figures, Press photos and so on so forth.

It seems rather ridiculous to me that it would be perfectly fine for someone to upload images of say Beatles album covers or screenshots of Star Wars movies just because they were in magazines from the 60s and 70s that are now potentially public domain. It seems like people in the DR think doing either one would be perfectly fine though as long as we can find evidence that the magazine in question doesn't hold a copyright anymore. So I'm wondering what exactly the rule of thumb for such things is if there even is one. Or if not, I'd at least like it to be clarified if otherwise copyrighted works are public domain as long as they have been featured in magazines that are. Personally, I would say not, or at least not if the image is cropped from the wider context of the magazine. But there's clearly a disagreement about it that I'd like to have clarified by people outside of the DR. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

First, you have the basic law all wrong. This is the US; the year the photographer died is irrelevant. Most magazines had a copyright notice, so they would need to get a non-renewal clearance, which isn't applicable to works after 1963. Not only that, the URAA restored foreign works, so at least British album covers would still be copyrighted in the US. Buildings pre-1990 are public domain in the US.

Yes, there's times when we have to worry that an image, like an album cover, was used under fair use. Still, virtually all album covers are going to be in the public domain because they weren't renewed. If a copyright owner wanted to preserve their copyright, they needed to take careful steps, like renewing their work 28 years after they were published, and in most cases, they didn't. Things like press photos in non-renewed magazines are almost never going to be renewed independent of the magazine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

first of all I don't see how the year the photographer died is irrelevant just because it's the United States since at least from what I understand the standard term for photographs is Life + 70 years. Otherwise, can you point out where exactly the guidelines say that's not the case and what it says instead? Secondly, the album covers where one example of many that I provided. Your free to toss them out of the equation, but still doesn't negate the point I was making. Cool though that British albums were restored by the URAA. There's still plenty of other examples where that's not the case and where allowing for the copyright status of the magazine to transfer over to images in it would allow for otherwise copyrighted images to hosted on Commons. So I'd still like it to be clarified outside of you just acting like the only thing I mentioned was British album covers.

More on topic I'd like to see some evidence that "press photographs" are almost never going to be renewed independent of the magazine. Although with the DR that insinuates it was a photograph taken explicitly for the magazine and under their employee, instead of just one taken by the photographer on their time that they licensed for the magazine, which at least as far as I'm concerned is way more likely. Since there's zero evidence that Arto de Mirjian worked for the magazine. Although he did take other photographs of celebrities' on his own time as an independent photographer. Assuming that's the case then he'd clearly be the copyright holder. Not the company that published the magazine. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

See the table near the top of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States: The death year is relevant only for works published after 1978. Of course, many of us have lived their adult life after that, so previous practices might have passed unnoticed.

Press photographs are taken to illustrate news, and most such photos are irrelevant soon after the event they were taken at. Only some iconic images are worth worrying about a few decades later. You might want to keep them for historic stories, but most competitors would use their own images anyway.

–LPfi (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, well. I'm aware of what the guideline says, but it's obviously not that simple. There's been plenty of DRs for works created in the United States before 1978 that were deleted because the author hadn't been dead for 70+ years yet. The only thing guaranteed to be public domain in the United States is works created before 1928. Everything else depends on the particular instance. We'll have to agree to disagree though. Either way tangential to question of how to handle otherwise copyrighted works that are published in magazines that are public domain, which I still haven't gotten an adequate answer to. Any opinion about that aside from press photographs since they don't really have anything to do with my question? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If something was first published in the U.S. before 1978, then the date of the author's death does not matter at all. All of those terms are based on date of publication. If it was created but remained unpublished until 1978, it's possible for the author's date to matter (though works for hire continue to be based on date of publication). You can use the Commons:Hirtle chart to see when copyright expires for US works.

If a work was previously existing, and published in a magazine, the copyright status of the magazine does not matter -- the work has its own copyright. If a work was first published in the magazine, and it did not have a separate copyright notice, then it was covered under the magazine's copyright notice. A magazine is considered a composite work; i.e. it has a copyright in the selection and arrangement of all the contained articles and photographs. Each of those articles and photos are works unto themselves, and can have separate copyright notices, but if not (or they are works for hire of the magazine) then their copyright is tied to that of the magazine, if that is where they were first published. If the magazine forgot a copyright notice, they became public domain immediately. If published before 1964 and they were not renewed 27 or 28 years after the first publication, they became public domain that way. If renewed, then copyright lasts 95 years (the 1928 line you mention). Again, this is only for works first publishe in that magazine -- if a magazine or newspaper forgets a copyright notice on say an AP article, that probably would not inject the AP article into the public domain. Only works for hire of the magazine, or first published there and not separately renewed as a contribution to a periodical, would the magazine's copyright matter.

In the case you are citing, the deletion reason doesn't make sense. It was clearly published in the US before 1978 (and before 1964), so the term is based on date of publication only. If the author was foreign, then there is a chance it was restored to the full 95 year term, but only if it was first published in another country at least 30 days before it was published in the US. If you find DRs of old US works deleted based on an author's lifetime, those are mistaken, or are because of one of the edge case exceptions. If the photo in question was first published elsewhere, then the magazine's copyright status does not matter and you'd have to find another reason -- though likely for something published then, you should find the actual renewal record to show it was in fact restored. Those are searchable online now. It was possible for a contribution to a periodical to be renewed separately, but it was very rare. The records for that are online though -- see links here for older years; anything published 1951 or later should be searchable online at www.copyright.gov . The author died in 1979; if he separately renewed that photo in 1957 or 1958 then it would still be under copyright until 2026. But for a DR, you should probably need to find that renewal record. If you can show the photo was earlier published in another source, then possibly that source kept the copyright alive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you said. Except it seems rather obtuse to expect people to search www.copyright.gov for the status of every single separate work in a magazine when it's a shared work and the copyright status of the magazine clearly doesn't transfer over to the individual elements. I don't think most photographers filed official copyright claims for every individual photograph they took either. But I image someone who is still alive and published a photograph in a magazine from like 1977 could still file a law suite if someone copied it. That said, it's clearly complicated and I don't feel the need to play devils advocate over the details. As long as we can all agree about the part of what you said that "A magazine is considered a composite work; i.e. it has a copyright in the selection and arrangement of all the contained articles and photographs. Each of those articles and photos are works unto themselves, and can have separate copyright notices." That's really my only issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Re: "it seems rather obtuse…". We didn't write U.S. copyright law. We don't have the choice of making it simpler, or more logical. We have to follow it as it stands. - Jmabel ! talk 22:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to claim PD-US-not_renewed, then you should document the searches you did. The status of the periodicals themselves are documented by UPenn here. If it seems reasonable that the work was first published in the magazine, it's reasonable to use that status. If you want to delete a particular work from it, it's because you have particular information that the work is not subject to that copyright, either by virtue of being published earlier or because a separate renewal exists -- the latter you'd have to search, under the photographer's name, and give the renewal number, and it'd be an obvious deletion. We follow copyright law, and renewals (and searches) were part of older US copyright law, so no getting around them. You are correct that most photographers did not file renewals for their photos -- it was a work for hire (staff photographer) they couldn't; otherwise they became public domain 28 years after publication if they failed to renew. There is some gray area if a periodical's renewal covers the individual works, if they were not also owned by the periodical. Some of that gray area depends on if the author died before the 27 year anniversary of publication, and the original contract. it was possible for the renewal term to "vest" in the periodical if they had exclusive rights originally, but if the author had died the rights went to his heirs or estate, and there was no vesting -- only the heirs could renew, and if they did they could re-sell the copyright as they wished. The connection comes into play when there was *not* a separate copyright notice for the article or photo; in that case the periodical's copyright notice covers it. Another exception to that is actually advertisements; those were considered to not be part of the selection and arrangement copyright, and as such required their own individual copyright notices otherwise they were public domain immediately ({{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}). You do have to determine the copyright for the photo itself, but if it was first published in that magazine and there was no separate notice, then you naturally start looking for the copyright status of the magazine itself. In your 1977 example, if it was published without a copyright notice (or even was published without a copyright notice later on, but before March 1989) then copyright was lost, and you cannot sue. But, any copyright notice in the magazine would serve to preserve your copyright. The fact of the subject still being alive does not affect the copyright (though publicity/personality rights of the pictured person would also apply, regardless of copyright). Copyright did not become automatic until March 1989 when the US joined the Berne Convention (and renewals of older works weren't abolished until 1992). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Re: "someone who is still alive and published a photograph in a magazine from like 1977 could still file a law suite [sic]": Absolutely, assuming it had a copyright notice. But if it was from 1963 or earlier and the copyright notice was not renewed, it does not matter whether they are dead, alive, or bodily ascended into heaven: the copyright has lapsed. - Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally believe that the entire concept and reason of "copyright" as is practiced to day has been so misaligned from original intent that regardless of what claim or position a person on Wikipedia gives you is most likely just that, their opinion. I would venture and argument that unless the concerns are from the artist (or in this case those charged with overseeing his estate), the magazine or a legal entity representing either of those two entities specifically, you should be safe to ignore them. While there is much information available offline that can guide you better as to involving an attorney some basic concepts that may help is first; what is the overall intent of your use of the photo? Is it with and inline of what would be considered "good taste" in its use of reference to the artist or magazine (who the artist in 1930 most likely sold all rights to an entity that no longer exists today - with a contract stuck in a coat pocket that's long been thrown away). If it's not in good taste, regardless of your own personal feelings, then you are safer not to use it. Another benchmark question to ask yourself is how much of the cropped photo contributes to the new material you are creating? If it's only a small portion of something that is uniquely yours then again you are more than likely safe. And finally regardless of the first two questions, giving and linking proper credit with the source (i.e. the artist and the magazine) in your post or work and citing it also shows good taste and judgment in matters like this; and helps support an earnest attempt to do the "right thing" with an issue that publishers and lawyers have turned into a huge complicated mess for their own personal means. Best of luck and hope this helps. 68.53.163.88 19:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• My personal belief is that the personal beliefs of someone anonymously disagreeing with Commons "precautionary principle" have no bearing on the discussion, which is about what we can and cannot host on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 21:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• The person who started this discussion clearly has no idea how copyright works in the United States. The date of an author’s death does not matter for copyright purposes for works published before 1978 (this was published c. 1930). The photograph in this instance was first published in a magazine, and, it appears, without a copyright notice specific to the photograph. That means that the copyright status of the photograph is determined by the copyright status of the magazine—which had a notice, but was not renewed. Based on the above discussion, it is clear that you do not understand the concept of historical copyrights, or how copyright in the U.S. used to work—viz., based on first publication. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Depeche Mode music videos - questionable status

I noticed that two Depeche Mode music videos (with audio) were transferred to the Commons from YouTube recently. File:Depeche Mode - It's Called A Heart (Official Video).webm & File:Depeche Mode - Hole to Feed (Official Video).webm. I checked YouTube, and they indeed have a 'Creative Commons - reuse allowed' tag. It appears that these two videos were uploaded to the site in June/July 2020.
I am not sure if that tag alone would really allow such use. Both videos have © notices at the end, and the music will have its own copyright registrations. Music labels are not known for their generosity and take their copyright real serious. I highly doubt the artists/copyright holder would have done this.
I'll add - if you check the videos page and scroll down to about 2 years ago, you'll see a promo video, which is under a CC license. I am guessing that video was meant to be freely licensed but the channel manager left this setting on by mistake around the upload of those videos? I am pretty sure this was an accident/un-intentional by whomever manages their account. Does anyone know more about copyright on music/music videos/record labels and if a YouTube tag really overrides this? Thanks PascalHD (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• @PascalHD: it seems to me that if a (very) established and professional organization put out a video on their official channel with a free license, it isn't really our job to second-guess that. Being copyrighted is in no way a contradiction with offering a free license: in fact, you can only offer a license on something to which you do, in fact, hold the copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The videos are from Depeche Mode's own YouTube channel. So it's extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that the licenses would be wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I just find it really hard to believe that the band would release copyrights on just two music videos out of the blue (One from 1985 & other from 2009). Majority of musical artists have interns or staff who run these pages/sites, who cannot release the rights themselves, only the copyright holder can do that. Just because it comes from the 'official' account, how do we know for sure the copyright holder agreed to this? (Images are deleted on these grounds frequently). I mean sure it's possible, but this should be open to questioning as the video contains copyrighted music, is it really worth the legal risk? If someone was to take the song/audio from the Commons and tried to use it for other commercial purposes...? If you want to leave it up go ahead, I'm sure Sony will be pleased to sue whomever uses it. PascalHD (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Wait! Are the sound recordings subject to CC license yet? If non-free, then the music must be muted out. George Ho (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@George Ho: Not if the same entity owns the copyright. It's not like using someone else's music in your video. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying they necessarily did this intentionally, just that they did this. Just like if you published a book in the U.S. before 1978 without copyright notice, it was instantly in the public domain, intent be damned. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Not saying there isn’t a tag. I’m just concerned about the legitimacy. In order for a CC tag to be legitimate, the copyright holder has to release the content. If anyone else puts the tag there, it’s invalid. The publishing & artists who likely hold the rights would have to do that. They’re very strict about this stuff. An account manager who runs the YouTube account, cannot release the rights. How do we know for sure that the music publishers/licensers and artists agreed? I’ve reached out via email to get some answers. PascalHD (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable, and I'd be perfectly willing to honor their intention if they say they did this by mistake, but legally? I'd guess they haven't got a leg to stand on. An official page has apparent authority, and I can't imagine anyone losing a lawsuit for taking it at face value. - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@PascalHD: Have you heard anything back from them? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I sent some emails to the appropriate music publishers (Sony SMP), am yet to get any replies. Couldn't find an email address to contact the band management directly. PascalHD (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree this looks too good to be true. While we should avoid copyright paranoia, this is a very unusual move. I can understand releasing promotional material under a free license, but a whole music video? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a similar case as File:M83 - Midnight City.webm. We need to be cautious about such cases and not trust CC claims on first sight. There has been too much unjustified licensing by people who are not really copyright holders. --TadejM ^(t/p) 00:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you seen the Hogwarts Legacy and RWBY trailers uploaded here? This is hardly a new thing Trade (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I did a search on YouTube and it appears that the DM channel has a handful of videos under a CC license. Mostly promotional videos (which makes sense) and 4 music videos. Those 4 are which I am really skeptical about. Music videos in their entirety with music.
Looks like a third video made it to the Commons. File:Depeche Mode - Everything Counts (Live - from 101) (Official Video).webm the video is a clip from the D.A. Pennebaker Depeche Mode 101 film. Same situation at hand, yes there is a tag on an official channel, but did the appropriate rights holders release this? On the Apple TV page, i see '© 2003 Venusnote Limited/Mute Records Limited, under exclusive license to Sony Music Entertainment. Nothing shocking there.
I have tried reaching out to Sony Music via email but no response so far, hard to get a concrete answer. Not sure if these music videos would fall under precautionary principal worthy deletion or not. PascalHD (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay. If in doubt, let's nominate it for deletion. Right? --George Ho (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Commodore_TV_Game_2000K.jpg

Can someone review this image so I can upload or not upload other images from the blog (without worrying)? You can see in the right pane of the blog the cc-by 4.0 licence. Thank you. Arosio Stefano (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The lincense is fine. The only worries:

• Whether the images are original from the blog. That's likely fine. At least, I can't find the same images anywhere else.
• Screenshoots: Screenshots are, in principle, not OK because they are derivative works of the copyrighted games. However, those videogame had so simple graphics that they might fall below commons:threshold of originality. i wouln't upload them but somebody more knowledgeable may give better advice.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. So now can an administrator or reviewer confirm that the license is valid and transform the "LicenseReview" tag as reviewed?--Arosio Stefano (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Arosio Stefano: I've (slightly reluctantly) marked the license as reviewed for File:Commodore_TV_Game_2000K.jpg, but I'm not confident that the four images for the four basic games/modes are simple enough to be under the threshold of originality. Don't be surprised if someone nominates it for deletion on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 06:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will not load the screen images. But why does @Jmabel: say "slightly reluctantly" about this single image? You have some doubt about the blog or the blogger? Can the blogger do something extra (what?) to make you feel more confident? Thank you. Arosio Stefano (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Arosio Stefano: Nothing the blogger can do. As I said, the four images for the four basic games/modes (which are included in File:Commodore_TV_Game_2000K.jpg) might not meet COM:TOO, and they don't look de minimis to me, so the image may be inherently problematic without permission from whoever now owns Commodore's intellectual property. - Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

These are clearly de minimis. That's a perfect typical case. Yann (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, Yann. They're in the dead center of the photo, and to my eye they "pop" more than anything else in the photo. I'm not nominating it for deletion, but I don't think it's a clear-cut case. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I think de minimis would apply as the focus of the photograph is on the hardware rather than the label. It also passes the separability test because you can't really take a picture of the hardware without the label getting in the way. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Who is Slg. W. Chmelar?

Hi, so a few images mention the author "Slg. W. Chmelar". To verify the copyright status, we need to know a) the full expansion of the name "Slg. W. Chmelar" including what "Slg" means; and b) the death date of this supposed person. I tried searching the VIAF and Wikidata, but with no luck. I can't really do more, since my German skills are very poor. I'd love it if someone could help work out who this is. --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 14:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not know, but...

If I look at a book using "Slg. W. Chmelar", I get

• https://books.google.com/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=fde3AAAAIAAJ&dq=isbn%3A3765471895&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Chmelar

  The credits on page 7 point to "Werner Chmelar".

  Example credit on page 26 is "Foto: Slg. W. Chmelar"

Looking up a definition for the German abbreviation "Slg." suggests it means "collection" ("Slg. comes from Sammlung which is collection").

• https://www.proz.com/kudoz/german-to-english/law-patents/81544-slg.html

So "Foto: Slg. W. Chmelar" might translate to "Photo: collection of W. Chmelar".

Google Translate: "Foto: Slg. W. Chmelar" → "Photo: Coll. W. Chmelar"

Glrx (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If these photos are in fact from the collection of Werner Chmelar, he may not be the author at all. Nosferattus (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: Indeed - so is it best to just stick up a {{PD-anon-70-EU}} tag? --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 18:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Files deleted despite archive org CC licence proof

Due slow License process on commons many files are deleted despite it had originally CC licence. Can we now revoke CC? Is this change recently? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_ToprakM Shadow4dark (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence that the original license was CC? Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Does this not count as evidence. https://web.archive.org/web/20230411030844/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itrk7OI-o70 Shadow4dark (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like that proves that the license was originally CC-BY. I'm not sure why Jameslwoodward doesn't consider that sufficient. Perhaps he could elaborate here. Nosferattus (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the administration or security of the web archive cited. Looking at an archive to do license review is not a part of our usual procedures. Remember, please, that a license review must be admissible and stand up in court. A review done while the original license is present on the file will count in court as a "contemporaneous written record" which would be admissible in a US court, and, I imagine, courts in other countries. I have no idea how courts would look upon an archive created by a bot. In any case, changes in our established procedures cannot be made on the fly by Admins. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I would presume that, given how archive.org works, there is no more chance of a forgery there than when we use a scan of an old newspaper rather than having seen the paper original. - Jmabel ! talk 17:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

how can we speed up licence process? I have here file uploaded on 2021 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephan_van_Baarle_in_2021.png but it is never confirmed if this is new policy on commons CC can be revoked. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

also Archive org is valid link according this page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_review#Uploaders 4 Shadow4dark (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The role of "license reviewer" is a made-up Commons construct that has no particular meaning in law. If a "contemporaneous written record" from a human is required, then wouldn't the uploader's statement suffice? As in, we use the archive.org link to be internally satisfied that the uploader is not lying (even though they are not an LR), but in a court of law the uploader counts as an LR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that counts in my book as sufficient COM:EVID. In fact, I view it as more a more reliable statement that the video on the linked youtube page was, on that date, licensed ac CC-BY than a license review. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Shadow4dark: Sounds like this needs an undeletion request. Nosferattus (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Portrait of Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici

This portrait was made by Bronzino, Agnolo di Cosimo (1503-72) in the 16th century. The artwork is also on Bridgeman Images. Is this in the public domain? -Artanisen (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Anything from that era has to be public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've uploaded the image here. -Artanisen (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Question (not to Artanisen, to the group in general): this should also have a U.S.-related tag. What would be the best choice? - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

University at Buffalo Digital Collections

The University at Buffalo has a Digital Collections page which contains "thousands of historical photographs, print materials, audio and video recordings, artworks, and other unique materials." A lot of these works were created before 1928 which, by law, should put them in the public domain in the US. However, under the "Rights" section on these photos, it says that "Researchers must contact University Archives to obtain reproductions of images and to request permission to use any image" (e.g.). When I submitted an inquiry to the University Archives to clarify, I got this response from a "Visiting Assistant Librarian."

because th[ese] item[s are] located in our Digital Collections, the University Archives is the steward over the preservation and use of th[ese] photo[s]. Researchers must obtain our permission in order to use our materials, regardless of copyright. For example, if an item was located in our collection, but the copyright was owned by the creator, we would require our researchers to obtain permission from both the creator and ourselves in order to proceed with use.

We are currently operating under a fee schedule, as directed to us by the University, at which photos for publication use is $30.00 per image, to the paid by credit card. We would consider use of this photo on a website like Wikipedia to be publication.

I concentrated in intellectual property in law school and this doesn't seem to make sense to me. If a photo was published before 1928, it's in the public domain in the U.S. You can't just say "regardless of copyright," we're the photo's "steward" and we're not going to let you use it without paying. It doesn't matter that the work was commissioned by the school, the school's copyright expires and it enters the public domain after 95 years, right? Am I crazy? Denniscabrams (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Denniscabrams You are correct. The museum has no right based in copyright to prevent copying of public-domain works they've posted on the internet (but may have a non-copyright restriction in their terms of use or contract elsewhere, which is not a concern of Commons but may be a concern to the uploader), and no copyright on anything that is an exact copy of the original (Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#United States / USA). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Denniscabrams: What the university is doing is no different from what companies and organizations like en:Getty Images and en:National Portrait Gallery, London have been doing for years: they're trying to monetize the digitalization of images in their collection. As pointed out above, Commons doesn't acknowledge such copyright claims and some intellectual property rights experts in the real world refer to them collectively as en:copyfraud. Of course, I doubt it's the intent of anyone at the museum to commit fraud, but that doesn't mean the museum is also not inclined to go after low-hanging fruit (individuals such as you yourself) if it thinks it can get people to pay for what it considers its images (see en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute for an example of this). There are many types of COM:NCR that Commons doesn't really worry about, but they could affect you depending on whether you're required to enter into an agreement with the university to access their images. That's probably what you need to be careful with the most because that would have nothing to do with image copyright and would just be between you and the museum. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a small addendum regarding the National Portrait Gallery case: This is slightly complicated by the fact that the NPG is located in the UK, where the threshold of originality is lower, and there can absolutely be British copyright on a faithful reproduction if done with sufficient care.

In this instance, the University is clearly located in the US and so the copyright situation is rather unambiguous in that there is no copyrightable expression in a mere reproduction under American law. Felix QW (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Can a police chief release the rights to a police department's works?

I am trying contact the Hopewell Police Department to request the release of an image of a meteorite under a free license. The image is currently used on Wikinews as fair use.

However, the only email addresses I could find are those of the police chief and lieutenant. [1] Would either of them have the power to grant such rights? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Ixfd64, works by the State within New Jersey are already public domain. See: w:Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States#New_Jersey. --dsprc ^(talk) 23:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dsprc: Interesting find. We had a {{PD-NJGov}} years ago, but it and all the related files were deleted because of a clause prohibiting derivative works. However, the linked page does suggest the such works are actually PD and not just "public" as in public records. Has something changed in the past five years? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Better find you have… en.wiki wording might be misleading.

Being too lazy to pull up the old template from The Wayback Machine: From what I understand, information in template was wrong, and referenced an incorrect statute (open "datasets"). This is NJ's Open Public Records Act (independent of the open "data" act) – which does not contain any restrictions upon derivative works, and …shall be construed in favor of the public's right of access… Harvard has some related stuff here (which may have a misreading of the third-party copyright disclaimer on the nj.gov website).

If not PD, then the original photographer would have to release under an acceptable license… unless it's considered like a work for hire, then 17 U.S.C. §201 says the employer holds rights… and I have no clue about the sub-structure of sub-government within NJ to say how far up or down the chain licensing would have to go. --dsprc ^(talk) 00:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Distraction
By USA law it is automatically oublic domain after 12 years for locl goverment Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Citation needed. --TadejM (t/p) 13:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC) User:Stanislov Patrick 473 was quickly banned for disruption/vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Karaoke images with lyrics are posted

There is a suspicion of copyright infringement by posting the lyrics.

Image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E3%81%AA%E3%81%8F%E3%82%82%E3%82%93%E3%81%8B_(15634044837).jpg

discussion (ja) https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%89%8A%E9%99%A4%E4%BE%9D%E9%A0%BC/%E9%80%9A%E4%BF%A1%E3%82%AB%E3%83%A9%E3%82%AA%E3%82%B1 Papu (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Distraction
@Papu: Song lyrics cant be copyrighted if they are less than 4 verses Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Citation needed. --TadejM (t/p) 13:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC) User:Stanislov Patrick 473 was quickly banned for disruption/vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Does crown copyright cover all published War Office works?

I'm considering buying a scan of the book The Development of Artillery Tactics and Equipment published by War Office in 1951 in order to upload it here. Since for me £18.38 is quite expensive, I would like to check for sure that this is indeed covered by crown copyright which expired in 2001. If there is a more detailed explainer of what was covered by it in the middle of the 20th century than COM:CROWN, please point at it. Thanks in advance. Ain92 (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a 2005 edition, so unless it was a facsimile of the first, it (more precisely: any amended, updated or additional content) is still in copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Gandhi - Young India, v. 5, 1923.pdf

Hi, This journal was published by M. K. Gandhi (who died in 1948), so it is in the public domain in India. However, this volume has a different editor, C. Rajagopalachari, who died in 1972. So it is not necessarily out of copyright in India applying a 60 pma term. Is the copyright from the date of publication as a collective work, or not? It is in the public domain in USA, so it could be moved to Wikisource if necessary. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Usually the editor is not the author of articles published in any journal. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I just sampled the first issue contained therein, and C. Rajagopalachar is indeed credited as author of several, if not most, of its contributions.

So these should certainly still be in copyright in India until 2033, if the term there is 60 pma. Felix QW (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Tasmanian license plate

I was looking at File:Tasmania standard number plate, 2010.jpg to review the license which is okay for the photograph as the Flickr source doe specify a free license. But the license includes a stlyised Tasmanian devil. Based on the name of the file, this would be a 2010 plate and would not be out of copyright. Reviewing COM:FOP Australia, it states that there is FoP for 2-D works of artistic craftsmanship, but {{FoP-Australia}} specifies that it applies to works "situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public". Would that apply to a license plate? -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The stylized image itself can be based on some old photo, which may be already in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That's rather speculative, and in any case, a derivative work carries its own copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Any stylization will not be original enough for copyright protection itself. Ruslik (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

On what basis are you making that statement? -- Whpq (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

What elements of a stylization apart from the original photo the copyright can protect? Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

One might be tempted to argue that there's almost certainly always one of those situated in a public place somewhere in Tasmania. No idea if that's going to convince an Australian judge, though ... El Grafo (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Ariola Logo 1967 001.svg

The logo is German-based and is subject to COM:TOO Germany. The various shapes were designed to form a grid-like sphere resembling a globe. Can German law deem the logo copyrighted in its home country? George Ho (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This is just a red globe with the equator and meridians superposed on it. It does not look very original. Ruslik (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Manar al-Athar

The Manar al-Athar website (https://www.manar-al-athar.ox.ac.uk/en/copyright.html) includes a licence notice as follows:

All material including images on the Manar al-Athar Digital Archive is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 UK: England and Wales (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/. We realize that academic books, textbooks, and documentaries sometimes have a commercial component. Thus, you also have permission to use our images in them. See also the section on the ‘Copyright and Database Right for the Manar al-Athar Digital Archive’, below.

Whilst NC is normally a problem for us, does the "We realize that... Thus, you also have..." provide us adequate protection to use the images on commons?

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Onceinawhile: short answer: no. While this allows an additional set of uses beyond the strictly non-commercial, it still limits some commercial uses. Commons really doesn't accept any copyright-based restriction of where an image can be reused, although we do accept personality rights restrictions that can limit (for example) use in advertising or where an endorsement might be implied. - Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

FoP-Vietnam

All uploaded photographs of architectural and artistic works from Vietnam considered unfree if upload date 1 January 2023 or later. But how about images those has been uploaded to Flickr or other websites before this date? Can we still transfer this files of Commons? Files uploaded on other websites before this date don't violate copyright, why they violate on Commons? Юрий Д.К 13:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Юрий Д.К. in my opinion we do not inherit the user rights of Flickr itself. We function as media repository that hosts images, and importation from Flickr is an action in itself. We want to err on the side of caution; perhaps the action of restricting FOP in Vietnam is their legislature as well as artists' response of displeasure over our free culture hosting of their artworks, but that is just my opinion only. I would instead want to wait for someone to obtain official response from relevant intellectual property body of Vietnam, to know if Vietnamese FOP was unfree in the first place ("introducing/presenting images" is highly vague), and that their addition of non-commercial restriction only makes restriction obvious to content creators, specifically Wikipedians and users at Flickr, Unsplash et cetera. See also Violetbonmua's opinion here regarding a suspicion on the unfree-ness of Vietnamese FOP of 2005–2022. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Request and question

I had to upload new versions from two files with their copyrighted material removed/censored: Os Negros (1921).pdf (illustrations) and Meu amor! adoro-te!.pdf. Any admin could occult the early versions? There's any way to program a bot to "revert" it after some time? The illustrations from the first file shall only enter PD in 2055, while the preface from the second file shall only enter PD in 2046 in their home country (Brazil).

I also have a question about the Category:Jéca Tatuzinho: the illustrator, Kurt Wiese, was a German-born illustrator who died in 1974. According to Britannica, in around 1927 he became an US citizen. In this case, which copyright law takes precedence for his early 1927 works? Germany, Brazil (where the work was published - both cases Life +70) or the United States (where he became a citizen and died)?

Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have hidden the first version of the 2 files mentioned above, and added them in the relevant categories.

Copyright depends on the place of publication, not on the nationality of the author. So works published before 1928 are in the public domain in USA whether the author is a US citizen or not. Works first published in Germany will use German law, whoever is the author. Yann (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: thanks! So in this specific case is the Brazilian law which takes precedence? In this case, going by this discussion in the Portuguese Wikisource, it seems that it would be PD since he didn't have any heirs. Erick Soares3 (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible for someone "not to have any heirs" in this sense, since there will always be someone taking on the inheritance, even if it is a government body as heir of last resort. I would be very surprised if copyright would not have been transferred to some entity. Felix QW (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Besides, the NYT obituary states that he has been survived by both a widow and a sister. Felix QW (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The bookseller's copy of a public domain book

Is it possible to upload the image of that copy of an antique book, which is offered by a bookseller on his website (or on AbeBooks) with no free license? --Frognall (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Frognall: If the image is basically of something two-dimensional (e.g. a title page reproduced), then yes, because it is an uncreative reproduction, and there is nothing there to copyright. However, if it is (for example) a picture that clearly shows the book as an object, then no, because that photo would itself be a copyrightable work. - Jmabel ! talk 07:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I'm confused. Is it possible to upload a (more or less cropped or retouched) image of a closed copy of the old book (like this one), with details and defects which make it a unique piece? And can the source (the bookseller's website) be cited, even if copyrighted? --Frognall (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. The court case was about a photo which basically served as a copy of an old painting, so it was a straight-on photo cropped to the painting's borders. Such photos take skill, but not creativity, so they were ruled as below the threshold of originality, since several of the creative aspects which goes into the copyright of a photograph (the angle chosen, and the cropping) are basically decided for the photographer. However even a photo of a coin may still have enough of those elements to still support a copyright, so we keep pretty closely to the court decision and delete such photos if not actually taken by the uploader. In the photo you mention, it has a copyright, as a photo of the entire book as an object. If it's a straight-on to the cover though, you could crop the photo to just the cover art, especially if you retouch away some of the wrinkles/tears specific to that photo. At that point, if the result is just a copy of the cover art, it would be the same copyright as that cover art. As a U.S. book published before 1928, the cropped/retouched result should be {{PD-Art|PD-US-expired}}. The artist of that cover was William E. Hill who died in 1962, which should be noted since any 70pma country which has a reciprocal copyright agreement with the U.S. (many in Europe do) cannot use it yet because the cover art is still copyrighted there, despite the fact it can be uploaded to Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would the wrinkles and tears need to be removed? They are not specific to that photo, but to that book, and created without original human decisions (if I understand the words correctly). Or do you mean that the photographer chose to take the photo from an angle where some of them were pronounced and others not? –LPfi (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

They wouldn't necessarily, but it'd be safer probably. You might be able to argue that the photographer was intentionally including them for effect, or using a particular lighting to create shadows using them, or stuff like that to distinguish this particular photo as a copyrightable work, from other plain photos of the cover. They may not be winning arguments, but anything you can do to get the cropped copy to be closer to just the original artwork, the better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Here the image must be cropped to keep only the cover, and remove the shade affect of the picture. Yann (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all. Please, @Clindberg: can/should I cite the bookseller's website as a source? --Frognall (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That would be appropriate, since they are certainly the source of the image. Felix QW (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Photos of a metro card

Hello, I'm new to the Commons village pump, so if I get anything wrong, please correct me. I have taken a photo of the back side of a Christchurch metro card for use on Wikipedia. The photo contains mostly text and shapes, but I still want to check in here to make sure that this photo doesn't violate copyright. As well as the proper tags/template, I should use: File:Christchurch_Metrocard_back_side_2023.jpg

Also, here are some older photos that I would also like to hear people's copyright analyses of, but they weren't taken by me: File:CHCH_Metrocard.JPG File:CHCH_Mobile_Phone_Metrocard.JPG CoderThomasB (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, these are too simple to get a copyright. You can add a mention "Object: {{PD-ineligible}}" under your own license. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I am less sure of that, since Christchurch lies in New Zealand and COM:New Zealand suggests that the NZ ToO is very low, with little regard to originality of expression.

So the arrangement of the coloured panels may already push it over the edge, I think. Felix QW (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)