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

• 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.

Images from New Zealand Archives with improper licences

Many images have been transferred to commons Category:Images from Archives New Zealand from the Archives New Zealand Flickr account: [1] and all of these images are licenced as CC BY 2.0. The problem is this licence is innacurate, many items are PD and many items are copyrighted despite the tag uploaded.

There are almost 10,000 files uploaded from this account (assuming they are all in the category, some might be uncategorised), pretty much all are incorrectly licenced and many are copyright violations. For a very obvious example I had: File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg deleted. The photo can be seen here: [2] The New Zealand Archives may have a copy of the book in their collection but they obviously do not own the copyright to it, which belongs to the publisher/author still.

Correctly licencing these images will be a very tedious task but in the meantime I think it would be good to disallow automated uploads from the Flickr account as the licences provided cannot be trusted. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yuk. I've just been through an analogous process with a few thousand images from the US National Weather Service published under an ambiguous and often wrong general disclaimer. I've observed a similar problem with the organisation's Flickr stream too.

I'm willing to lend a hand with any verification or clean-up efforts. Where do you plan to start? --Rlandmann (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My plan was just go look through images as I had time (although I'd certainly never get through it all on my own), correct the category and nominate for deletion if it isn't PD/copyright belonging to Archives NZ.

I've decided to be bold and create a sub-category for Images from Archives New Zealand that have been looked at, to avoid volunteers looking at the same images: Category:Images from Archives New Zealand with verified licence. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to help out! Are there opinions on whether the archives have the authority to license Crown works? Felix QW (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Their copyright information page suggests that they do have the authority to release Crown Copyright material, and that they are conscious of what they are doing when applying the CC license to their works. In that case, this would only affect privately held copyright; even copyright in the picture book you mentioned above will probably be held by the Crown. Felix QW (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The book isn't CC BY 2.0 or else anyone could publish it. I cannot find a single source besides the Flickr page which lists it as CC BY 2.0. They may have permission to release Crown works as CC BY 2.0, the problem is they don't correctly licence uploads to Flickr so it isn't possible to know, based on that alone, if a work is able to be licenced on Commons or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You said they were licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr? How would that not be valid then, if they had rights to license it there? If the work was Crown Copyright to begin with, it would seem that is valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I think you need to read the discussion more closely. As you yourself write, "if they had rights to license it there… If the work was Crown Copyright to begin with". According to the above, there is no particular reason to think they had the rights and a great deal of reason to think it was not Crown Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the description at the source of the deleted file: Archives New Zealand holds a number of Ready to Read books, as well as their original artwork commissioned by the Ministry of Education. In those days, anything even published or commissioned by the government was Crown Copyright. Even in 1984 -- it did not change in the UK until 1989. By that description, it would seem to almost certainly be Crown Copyright. Why is there no particular reason to think otherwise? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Because every other source about the book has it listed as copyrighted and there are no digital copies of the book itself/reprints, which one might expect if it wasn't protected. A good portion of their uploads are PD yet licenced as CC BY 2.0 which shows they don't correctly licence things.

[3] for example, PD Image but licenced as CC BY 2.0

This one is licenced but they don't know the author: [4], so how can they have the rights to it?

[5] this one is from a copyright file, so they clearly don't have the rights to the image. Maybe it is PD, but it certainly won't belong to them. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction here - the book is copyrighted, and presumably not under a free license. However, that doesn't make it unrealistic for the Crown to license individual pictures from the book, as they did when they posted them on the Flickr feed. In any case, the might make more sense to file an undeletion request rather than continuing here, and then depending on how that goes we may have a better idea as to how to continue with the general cleanup effort. Courtesy ping to Yann as the deleting admin of File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg. Felix QW (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The license was reviewed, so I restored the file, and created a regular DR instead: Commons:Deletion requests/File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg. Yann (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: Yes it's copyrighted. The book is from 1984, commissioned by the government, and is Crown Copyright (regardless of author) that will not expire for a long, long time. The New Zealand Archives has the right to license that, and it appears they did for a couple of particular images (not the entire book). The book and images are certainly not public domain, but it appears the images on Flickr have a free license. Nothing about any of that is contradictory. The second one of Prince Charles, if they know it was from a government photographer but not the identity, it's the same situation. The other possibility is material donated to them (along with copyright). They appear to come from slides in their possession (similar one here). When they get bulk archives from government departments, individual authors are often not known (similar to US National Archives material). The third one correct, they would not own the copyright. However it appears to be a pseudonymous publication from 1932, which would have expired after 50 years. The 1994 New Zealand law was still 50 years from making available to the public for pseudonymous works, so it would appear to still have been PD on the URAA date, so copyright would not have been restored in the US either. That appears to be a photo of the pamphlet and not a scan, and thus per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, it may have a copyright (especially under New Zealand law which is taken from older UK law). The pamphlet would be PD, but I guess the CC-BY license would be for the photo itself, in case there is a question. {{Licensed-PD-Art}} might be a better tag for that, if it's uploaded here. Either way, a CC license on a PD work is not reason for deletion. Anyone can make mistakes (Wikimedia editors included); it would appear that the New Zealand Archives has a pretty good grasp of copyright so would not assume there are gross mistakes; their material would most likely either be Crown Copyright or have an expired copyright in New Zealand, even if they reflexively add the CC-BY license to all of them. The usual concern there would be a work which is public domain in New Zealand but restored by the URAA in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

> Either way, a CC license on a PD work is not reason for deletion.

No, but consistently incorrectly licencing work means a CC BY 2.0 cannot be taken at face value. If this was not a government account we wouldn't be giving leeway to incorrectly tagging PD work as being own.

This is PD NZ for example: [6] but won't become PD in the US until 2031 [7] Regardless it should not have a CC BY 2.0 tag. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: It seems you didn't read what Carl wrote above and in the DR: The New Zealand Archives has the right to administer Crown Copyright, and they licensed this CC-BY-2.0 on Flickr, so that appears to be a valid license applied by the copyright owner. Yann (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about them licencing works that are PD. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

In a country such as NZ that traditionally has a low threshold of originality, the CC-BY license may well still be useful for covering the reproduction performed by the Archives. Felix QW (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: New Zealand and Australia have very low Commons:Threshold of originality levels, taken from older UK law (the UK itself has changed due to its membership in the EU which overrode that, and may remain despite Brexit). There had been questions about photographic reproductions of paintings in the UK prior to that, where the reproduction may have a separate copyright from the painting. Probably not applicable to scans, but there is no case law. If we have a CC-BY license on the reproduction, which is also what their CC-BY licenses on Flickr declare, that question is settled as well. Per Wikimedia policy, we ignore that possibility (we use PD-scan or PD-Art), but that can still be helpful to re-users in other countries (thus our {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template). But yes, that does mean we should see if a PD template could apply in preference to the CC-BY. As for that one photo, not sure where your 1931 date comes from. Older New Zealand photos were copyrighted 50 years from creation; that 1933 photo expired in 1984 in New Zealand, before the URAA date, and was not ever restored in New Zealand either, so that photo would be PD in both countries. If it had been restored, a 1933 photo would expire in 2029 in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

These would never qualify: [8] [9] [10] [11]

Copies of other work, which these clearly are, do not qualify in NZ [12] Traumnovelle (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: You say "never", but that can be hard without a firm court ruling on similar material. You're probably right, but an EU court ruled that digitization of a new work created a new copyright (or at least a "simple photo" copyright), shortly before a new EU directive came down which changed that. If they could rule that, a NZ court could as well. Agreed it's not likely. I'm not sure if the CC-BY licenses are there regardless of what they upload, or if it's just to make sure there are no questions about the digitization. Agreed that license should be changed to a PD tag of some sort if applicable, possibly using CC-BY inside of {{Licensed-PD-Art}} just for completeness' sake. But that is a task not much different than categorizing stuff, not a significant deletion issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: I think this is how it should be done. Yann (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Aren't the licences contradictory? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A work can be public domain in some / many countries but not PD in others. If there is some country which decided to grant a copyright to digitizations then the CC license could apply. While Commons cares about the country of origin and US specifically, re-users can be anywhere, so as much license info as possible is desired. It's why we have {{Licensed-PD-Art}} -- Commons does not require the license in that situation but re-users might. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I changed File:Press Branch, Government Print Office, ca. 1905.jpg to use {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}}, which I think sums up the situation quite exactly. Felix QW (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Images on https://vindskyddskartan.se

Hi, I would like to use images uploaded by users of vindskyddskartan.se. The Terms and Conditions of the site state the following:

"Intellectual Property

The Service and its original content (excluding Content provided by You or other users), features and functionality are and will remain the exclusive property of the Company and its licensors.

The Service is protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both the Country and foreign countries. Our trademarks and trade dress may not be used in connection with any product or service without the prior written consent of the Company.

[...]

Guidelines for photos

Your photos should show the shelter clearly, as well as other equpiment, such as fireplace, toilet, etc. If there is a nice view, feel free to include it as well. Only submit images that you have taken yourself, or that you have been granted the rights to use by the copyright holder."

I understand this as saying that the company does NOT claim copyright for the images. I could not find a statement on who are the contributors or owners of the copyrights for the images nor could I find any statements of copyrights or waiving of such associated with any of the images I tested. EXIF and IPCT data of images download have no information about the creator/artist/copyright holder of the images.

Can I upload user-contributed photos downloaded from the site to Commons? Uli@wiki (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Uli@wiki: No. The fact that you don't have a clue who owns the copyright does not somehow put the image in the public domain, and certainly does not constitute a license. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear: in almost every country of the world photos are now copyrighted at creation, and someone would need to take positive action to license them, waive rights, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

ok - too bad but not unexpected. Uli@wiki (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I've contacted the site and there is an interesting aspect to this: As discussed above, they confirm that the copyright is with the original contributor of the photo. BUT: They strip off the EXIF/IPCT data for privacy reasons. They currently have no technology to include license information (even if the owner would want that) - supposedly there is no interest for this. They would provide contact to the creator for individual images, which would be tedious to realize for many images. In effect this means, they are preventing anyone else from even knowning the license conditions/copyright owners. Since this is a company, it might seem that this prevents competitors from using the files, even if that were ok with the creators. So they are implicitly exploiting the copyright without owning it. --Uli@wiki (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

As long as their contributors have voluntarily let their images be used that way, there is nothing nefarious about that, even if it is inconvenient for us. It is no different from someone publishing their own photo without being interested in offering a license. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Not illegal - just an interesting way to get a more or less exclusive usage situation without owning the exclusive rights. Most contributors probably never thought about it - like me before I wanted to use the images. Uli@wiki (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

No FoP in Belarus (and Ukraine) — but what about mass produced buildings built across all of the Soviet Union?

The situation is as follows: the Soviet Union had a number of "standard and reusable projects [or project designs]" (типовые и повторно применяемые проекты) and "series projects" for buildings that were built all across the Soviet Union. Think of something like Khrushchevka s. Vitaly Lagutenko (1904–1968) was the designer of the Khrushchevka buildings (and is somewhat of a bad example to ask a question about Belarus given its copyright protection of only 50 years, so let's take Ukraine instead which has a copyright protection of 70 years after death?). My question is, could I upload photos of Khrushchevkas in Ukraine, despite the lack of FoP and despite the not yet expired copyright protection, with the argument that the same building can be found in Russia where it is not protected by copyright due to FoP? (Please ignore the fact that Khrushchevkas probably are below the threshold of originality because there are also "standard and reusable projects" that definitely have creative elements, e.g. reusable project desigs for Houses of Culture and for schools like this one, so that TOO can't be used as an argument for uploads.) Nakonana (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, is an extremely basic building counted as a work of (architectural) art? JayCubby (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that there are cases which are more elaborate in their design. There can be decorative elements on the facade, there can be columns etc. I only used Khrushchevkas as an example because it's rather well-known. Nakonana (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a list of project designs for Houses of Culture for example. Nakonana (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Things like https://rojavainformationcenter.org/storage/2024/12/Sheikh-Maqsood-9-scaled.jpg, where it's all boxes.

This could be a work of 'art' as there's more to it. I dunno. JayCubby (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes that's what I'm curious about. This one is probably also artistic enough to be protected. This building can be found in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. However, if I'm not mistaken, Russia is the only country in this list with Commons compatible FoP rules. Does that mean that photos of this building design are not allowed on Commons if it's the version of the building in Homel in Belarus? Nakonana (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have argued against the deletion of images of such buildings in France, and I would do the same for buildings in Soviet Union (the housing ones like Category:Khrushchev houses). Yann (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I'll ping here @Alex Spade and NickK: for their insights. They may know about Soviet and post-Soviet states' TOO standards regarding architecture (and if {{PD-structure}} applies). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would say that for Ukraine they are not copyrighted because they lack any artistic intention. The article 1.56 defines work as an original intellectual creation of the author (co-authors) in the field of science, literature, art, etc. expressed in an objective form. The Law of Ukraine On Culture defines that architecture is a form of art, and that art means creative artistic activity. I don't think that a typical Khrushchevka can qualify as creative, there was no artistic intention while building it, on the contrary, multiple sources state that they were built deliberately functional and without anything artistic whatsoever. Thus, in my opinion, they don't qualify as copyrightable works of architecture as there was no artistic creativity involved — NickK (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  What about the Houses of Culture with this standard design? There are several houses of culture in Ukraine with that design[13] [14][15] Can they be uploaded? Because the same design can also be found in Russia, so Commons will have photos of this standard type of building anyway (see File:Нижний Новгород. Дом культуры имени Серго Орждоникидзе.jpg). Nakonana (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please note that just because a certain design has been replicated many times, that does not mean that this design is not copyrightable. Gnom (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that. The thing is just that we already have photos of this building design on Commons from Russia where it's covered by FoP. But in Ukraine it would be still copyrighted and we can't upload images? (BTW, I've fixed the previously red link above to the photo of the building in Russia) Nakonana (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I can't say that these buildings lack artistic creativity. The main question is whether we consider each individual project an exact copy or an adaptation. If the former, I think we need to find out where the first copy was published and what its copyright status is (as this will be considered first publication for US copyright law purposes; Ukraine will still be the source country for buildings still standing but will cease being the source country for a demolished copy). If the latter, each of them will have their individual copyright status depending on the location country — NickK (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about Soviet/Ukraine law, but I know that in the US, cases about architecture copyright have been quite heated about not the seriously artistic architectural works that will be discussed in classrooms for centuries, but about the houses that average person buys. Like a song or story doesn't have to be good or memorable to be copyrightable, neither do architectural works. Copyright has always protected maps, textbooks, and other things that are purely functional and not ostentatiously artistic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Ukrainian copyright law protects separately works of art and for works of science. Textbooks you mention get protection not because they are artistic, but because they are undeniably scientific. From scientific point of view I can imagine that drawings of Khrushchevkas are copyrightable (they likely involved some advanced engineering planning) but I don't see how their outside photos will be copyrightable (given that they contain neither anything artistic nor anything scientifically non-trivial) — NickK (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand conception works of art or science in Russian and Ukraine law. The key is in following (in respective articles) list of type of works. Both Black Square by Kazimir Malevich is creative work in recognized art style - suprematism, and Khrushchevka is creative work in recognized architectural style - functionalism. Alex Spade (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

How do you then define the threshold? There is a definition in Ukrainian law which is based on creative artistic activity, and the Russian one is similar. Looking at en:Functionalism (architecture), Khrushchevka seems like a real outlier there: unlike e.g. Mosselprom in the USSR or Bakkegaarden in Denmark which have a clear artistic intention while being functionalist, Khrushchevkas deliberately lacked a creative intention (and there are sources for that). There is indeed in-depth analysis on the merits of this project for fighting housing shortage, but I haven't seen any sources for merits of architectural design of this project. I don't see how a 2D picture of a Khrushchevka from the outside would be above TOO: it's hard to see which element of it is copyrightable — NickK (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

In Russia creativity threshold is defined by the judicial system (in individual court decisions (without precedents) and the Supreme Court generalization of court practice) and the legislators (in amendments to copyright legislation) (as it was done with TV / transport and similar schedules and automatic camera works). The last Supreme Court generalization (No. 10 of April 23, 2019) decrees "until proven otherwise, the results of intellectual activity are assumed to be created creatively".
Creativity of Khrushchevkas is discussed, criticized and disputed, but as I can see in sources - creativity postulated as limited, not as lacking. Alex Spade (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• In Russia, сreativity is primary criterion for copyrightability. Simplicity is not - "simple" Black Square by Kazimir Malevich was copyrightable. Regularity/uniqueness(originality) is not - it is unimportant, how many times some model of building/structure was erected - for copyright law these erected buildings/structures are copies in the same manner as number of issued copies of some novel. Artistry is not - article 1259. The Objects of Copyrights: The objects of copyright are scientific, literary and artistic works, irrespective of the merit and significance of the work or the method whereby it is expressed. Alex Spade (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• So. The Houses of Culture design in creative indeed (from my PoV). Khrushchevka design and its creativity can be disputed in some manner, but such design was discussed in core architectural journals/magazines, and such discussions will be proof, evidence, or/and argument for its creativity for a possible court decision . Alex Spade (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

1954 Nigerian newspaper

Hi, Haylad has uploaded many issues of a 1954 Nigerian newspaper claiming {{PD-Nigeria}}. AFAICT there is no signature in File:9th December 1954 Daily Comet.pdf, but does this license really apply? Could it be anonymous? Could it be a collective work? Yann (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Yann, Newspapers and Magazines are collective works, the copyright is assumed to expire 50 years after the publication year, this is in accordance with the Nigerian copyright act of 2022. It is imperative to note that while the specific wording regarding the duration of copyright for collective works may not be explicitly stated in the same section, it is generally inferred from the broader provisions regarding copyright duration in the Act. The common practice of 50 years from the date of first publication is widely accepted in copyright law and is reflected in the legislative framework. What do you mean by AFAICT, can you expatiate on it? Haylad (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Haylad: Hi, "Newspapers and Magazines are collective works". That's not always the case. I don't know Nigerian law, but in France, they are collective works only when the articles and images are not signed or attributed. So collective work is certainly not the general situation, only a specific case. Yann (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Work for hire

This is about whether or not a corporation or organization can own a copyright. There does seem to be some confusion about it. In many jurisdictions it's allowed with varying rules.

I'd like to start a new project page related to the copyright by jurisdictions; this information should probably also be included in each country. Obviously it's a big project, so it would help if we had some research. Note: The English Wikipedia article only covers the United States, so it's mostly useless for this endeavor. What I have so far:

• Germany:  No: Only a person can have a copyright
• United Kingdom:  Yes: A corporation can have copyright if an employee
• United States:  Yes: A corporation can have copyright if an employee or a contractor in certain instances

If anyone knows the rules in other countries, please feel free to add. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 23:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

First, please allow me to suggest that the distinction should probably read, can/cannot be an author, and not can/cannot own a copyright.

That said, the question is whether this distinction matters for us at all. For example, if a German employee at a software company creates code during work hours, the copyright in the code is virtually entirely and automatically transferred to the employer, making the employer (be it a corporation or an individual) technically not the author of the code, but still holding nearly all the rights in it. Gnom (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand how employees could retain the copyright of the works done during their employment. It would allow them to use the works after quitting the job without the employer's consent. Yann (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That is actually a real problem that some businesses in droit d'auteur jurisdictions face when they don't have proper IP transfer clauses in their employment agreements. :Gnom (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is certainly not restricted to some businesses in droit d'auteur, but to any employee which produces something copyrightable (engineers, architects, etc.). Yann (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The emphasis here is (I think) droit d'auteur jurisdictions, countries having a copyright model similar to that of France, as opposed to the Anglo-American copyright model. --Rosenzweig τ 21:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The answer is yes, with any Berne country. I think though the distinction you want is whether a corporation can be the first owner, or the author (as Gnom states above), which rarely matters for us. In many EU countries, the human author is always the first owner, but then the employment contract will dictate if the copyright gets transferred or not (virtually always yes). So in practice, there is little difference between that and an automatic work for hire. The EU (and Berne Convention really) separates things into economic rights (which are transferrable), and moral rights (which usually are not). The US "copyright" generally corresponds to the economic right. If any right is transferrable, i.e. you can sell it, then yes of course a corporation can own it (by later purchase or employment contract). There may be some differences in some edge conditions -- in the U.S. sometimes a copyright owner, or sometimes only heirs, can claw back a sold copyright many years down the road if initially owned by them, but not a work for hire. For "moral rights", those should still exist for the human authors in the EU even if the economic right was transferred. The UK law distinguishes between "initial copyright owner" (which can be a corporation) and "author" (which is always a human). The 2006 EU copyright directive (article 4) also has a slight difference for the term of anonymous/pseudonymous works in the situations where a Member State provides for particular provisions on copyright in respect of collective works or for a legal person to be designated as the rightholder -- in that case, if the human author was not mentioned on the original publication, the copyright term can never be expanded to 70pma by disclosing the author within 70 years (although not all such countries actually implemented that detail in their law, so probably need to look at each country's law -- the UK did not). In the end, whoever owns a transferrable copyright can license it, and that is usually what we care about. In virtually all cases, an employee's economic rights would be transferred to the employer, and it is that owner we need to get licenses from. Is there a particular situation you have in mind where the distinction would matter for Commons? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is based, essentially, on what I think is a misunderstanding (or a highly misguided approach to permission-gathering). See the section above about whether or not it is acceptable for a corporate uploader to upload a file to Commons as "own work," rather than requiring an external permission email from the individual creator.

The issue is, of course, that when the corporation is the copyright holder (through whatever provision this is done), generally this means that the permission is the corporation's to grant, not the employee's.

You could argue that the use of the phrase "own work" doesn't make a lot of sense, but a corporate uploader's license grants are fully valid (provided that it actually owns the copyright) — just as they would be valid on any external site, like Flickr. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking about [16]. I don't question that a corporation can own a copyright, but we usually require a formal permission is that case. Yann (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, yeah that seems a little odd. If the original human author no longer owns the copyright (or economic right), they can no longer license it, so we don't need their permission. I think we do try to verify accounts are actually from a company, but once that is done, whatever license they put up should be OK. In that case "own work" is more "self-owned work", as in any case we need a license from the current owner. I don't think we need VRT for everything provided the account itself has been vetted, or obviously OK for other reasons. But accounts are anonymous so we'd have to be pretty sure it really was an official company account. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Although I will say that, in principle, the same is true of all individual users' accounts, too. I don't think we should be setting a different standard of evidence based on this. Where something has never been published on the internet prior, and where the claim of ownership/authorship doesn't seem implausible, we tend to take it at face value, do we not? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Verifying accounts named for corporations (and well-known personalities) is part of policy -- Commons:Username policy#Well-known_names_and_names_of_organizations. I think for most accounts, there would be no reason for someone to misrepresent that they are someone other than what they appear to be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Work published in modern (post-1993) Russia and other post-Soviet republics:  No: Only a person can have a initial copyright
• Work published in USSR:  Yes: A corporation could have initial copyright in certain instances with very important nuances
  • Russia:  Yes: If corporation had initial copyright in certain instances, it is had initial copyright now.
  • Other post-Soviet republics: Unknown: their legislations have no respective transitional thesis in explicit form.

Alex Spade (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

But the actual copyright is not the important right. The question is who has the right the determine the attribution and decide over licenses. It is possible that the copyright holder gave all these rights to someone else. GPSLeo (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, but I am not talking about copyrightholder, I am talking about legal person as author in the Soviet laws - see points 3.b and 4 of {{PD-Russia}} and this information. Alex Spade (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
For examples: de-jure author of en:Four Hearts (1941 film) is Mosfilm (not director, screenwriters, and composer of film) and author of en:Raising a Flag over the Reichstag is TASS (not Khaldei). Alex Spade (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• In Sweden, it is possible for a legal person to own copyright as the original author could transfer the rights to a legal person by signing a contract with the legal person. Some rights, such as moral rights, are non-transferable, and so would always be held by the original author or his heirs. I don't know if a legal person could inherit moral rights if the legal person is listed as the heir to the copyright in the author's will.

The general rule is that the original author is the original copyright holder. The employer gets an implicit licence to use the work for the original purpose, and sometimes you hear stories of employers being sued by (usually former) employees because the employer used a work for a different purpose without realising that it was necessary to obtain an appropriate licence.

• Special provision Article 40 a of the copyright law (SFS 1960:729): Upphovsrätten till ett datorprogram, som skapas av en arbetstagare som ett led i hans arbetsuppgifter eller efter instruktioner av arbetsgivaren, övergår till arbetsgivaren, såvida inte något annat har avtalats. (The copyright to a computer program which is created by an employee as part of his work tasks or after instructions from the employer are transferred to the employer, unless otherwise agreed.)

On Commons, computers programs would be the source code to SVG files and various Javascript and CSS pages, I think. Possibly also some edits to the Template and Module namespaces. This provision covers computer programs created since 1 January 1993, whereas the copyright to earlier computer programs would belong to the original authors unless otherwise agreed.

• Special provision According to Article 14 of the old photo law (1960:730): Rätten till fotografisk bild, som utförts på beställning, tillkommer beställaren, där ej annat uttryckligen avtalats. (The rights to a photographic image, which has been produced as a request, belongs to the requesting party, unless not otherwise explicitly agreed.)

As there are lots of photos on Commons, this could be relevant to us. I think that this both covers photos in newspapers (the copyright belonging to the newspaper, not to the newspaper's photographer) and the situation where a tourist asks a random bystander to take the photo (the copyright belongs to the tourist, not to the bystander). The provision only covers photos taken between 1 July 1961 and 30 June 1994. From 1 July 1994, the copyright belongs to the photographer (the newspaper's photographer or the random bystander). No idea about pre-1961 photos.

For example, on this page, the Swedish central bank claims that the copyright to Swedish money belongs to the original author, not to the central bank. The bank claims that there is nothing copyrightable on the coins, but I don't agree. For example, several coins have a portrait by Ernst Nordin which looks complex enough to be copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Uploading PD (?) artwork

Hi all, I am uploading a lot of artwork from auction houses, for artists who died >70 years ago. I use {{PD-old-70}} to tag them. However, I started getting (speedy) deletion requests (example). These seem to be specifically about US artists. I have the Wikidata items for the artists whose work I upload, but no dates for the works themselves. Can/should I apply additional filters here? For example, I could exclude US artists who died after eg 1927. What would be the best filter to apply here? Or I can add additional templates under specific conditions? Thanks, Magnus Manske (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, That is not a speedy deletion request, and I also think that some information is missing to establish the copyright status. We need the date of publication (or at least the date of creation), and if it is after 1929, some evidence that it was published without a copyright notice, or that the copyright was not renewed. Anyway, the current license is not OK. Yann (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

So as I wrote, I don't have the creation/publication date for most of these artworks. I do have the Wikidata item of the artist, which puts the creation date before their death. What is my best way to proceed? Not upload artwork for anyone who died after 1929? Or just for anyone who was a US national, and keep the other countries at death > 70 years ago? Which license template to use, under which condition? I'd rather someone here can tell me what's correct, than keep guessing. I don't really know the minute details here. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

For works published before 1978, the US term was not based on the year of death at all -- it was 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever was shorter. Of course, works also had to be published with notice, and also renewed after 28 years, which rarely happened. Defining "publication" in the US was a thorny issue, especially for paintings, but if there is some information about a painting out there, it shouldn't take much to establish at least a strong probability it is PD by now. If correctly attributed, usually we can find at least something about the painter or painting to help. The one example you give doesn't "feel" old, and indeed the DR mentions it's unlikely to be the person that Invaluable credited it to. I did find one eBay auction of a print from the same artist, and there's virtually no way it was a person born in 1858. At that point, I think we have no information at all about the painting, and it could easily be modern. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Until I receive further advice, I will use {{PD-old-auto}} instead, as I know the artists death year. I will also leave a "created before" note in the {{Artwork}}'s "date" field. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Just note that art published after 1929 will still frequently be copyrighted in the United States. So any artwork not clearly published before 1929 (which should be uploaded with {{PD-old-auto-expired}}) will require careful analysis on a case-by-case basis. Actually, due to the URAA, this is even more true for non-US artists whose work may well still be copyrighted in the US despite disregarding copyright formalities. Felix QW (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo text Air France (1990).jpg

Buenas,por favor convierte este DR en un ejemplo para el COM:TOO France. AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, please make this DR an example for the COM:TOO France.

translator: --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

PD-Spain-photo

English: Hi, Do these photos comply with the license of the {{PD-Spain-photo}} (File:Ferrer y Rebrov - Barcelona vs Dynamo Kyiv 1993.jpg, File:Camp Nou Barcelona - Atletico 1996.jpg File:Team Atletico Madrid 1995-1996.jpg)?

Русский: Привет. Соответствуют ли эти фото лицензии шаблона {{PD-Spain-photo}} (File:Ferrer y Rebrov - Barcelona vs Dynamo Kyiv 1993.jpg, File:Camp Nou Barcelona - Atletico 1996.jpg File:Team Atletico Madrid 1995-1996.jpg)?

Mitte27 (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mitte27: The first photo is PD in Spain, but not in the US until 1993+95+1=2089, and is therefore unacceptable here until that year. Similarly, the second photo is PD in Spain, but not in the US until 1996+95+1=2092, and is therefore unacceptable here until that year. The third photo isn't even PD in Spain yet because it is not simple, it will be PD there in 1996+70+1=2067 and in the US in 1996+95+1=2092, and is therefore unacceptable here until that year. @Alexdevil: Please be more careful. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alexdevil#Files uploaded by Alexdevil (talk · contribs) 2.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mitte, I'm sorry. So the license is not usable outside Spain? I didn't understand that. Alexdevil (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alexdevil: Correct, those photos are not usable on Commons (or Spanish Wikipedia per es:Wikipedia:Uso legítimo, es:Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Cambiar políticas y reglas de uso de imágenes, es:Wikipedia:Sobre el uso legítimo, and es:Fair use) at all until they are PD in the US.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mitte27: @Alexdevil: I'll explain what Jeff did not, PD-Spain-photo can only be used for photographs created before 1971. The United States has a law that restored U.S. copyrights for all Spanish works that weren't public domain on January 1, 1996. Additionally, in 1989 and afterwards, the U.S. would have had a copyright on any Spanish photos so we cannot host any 1990s Spanish photo until the dates Jeff stated. Abzeronow (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

UN Fact Finding Mission documents

Kind regards. From what I gather, the documents published in this page [17] are in the public domain per {{PD-UN-doc}} and that they were published under a UN document symbol (namely these detailed reports: [18][19][20], and I can see several UN documents uploaded at Category:United Nations resolutions, but I wanted to make sure before proceeding. Is this correct? Many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

CCTV in Gaza and the West Bank

Is there any precedent on whether it's PD? JayCubby (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC) ÆWhich files--Trade (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Mixtape Madness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixtape_Madness https://www.youtube.com/@MixtapeMadnessOfficial

Are the CCBY videos from this channel safe to upload here? --Trade (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

While some (not all) of their videos are tagged as CC-BY, I'm not at all confident that they've actually cleared this with the creators of the music on their channel. The "If you believe this video breaches your copyright, please direct your DMCA related emails to ..." statement in the video descriptions isn't a good sign either; it's barely a step above "no copyright intended". Omphalographer (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I would guess a mixtape channel would contain a slew of copyvios. Do you have any reason to believe the individual works they are combining are either in the public domain or free-licensed? - Jmabel ! talk 05:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

None of their uploads looks like actual mixtapes tho Trade (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Syrian Civil War map (ISW-CTP).svg

This file is described as own work based on this image produced by the combined ISW-CTP team and is copyright protected. It shows areas of Syria controlled by various groups/factions. My understanding of copyright is that the intellectual property protected by copyright in the base image is the outline of the areas controlled (an overlay on the basic map). My further understanding is that minor changes such as varying the colours used in the map, and the addition or removal of features from the basic map do not change/dissolve the copyright. Also, reproducing this outline (ie as an overlay) on a third-party open source map, whether or not it uses the original colours, is also an infringement of copyright.

If my understanding is correct the map could only be used under fair use criteria. The map is used in more than one place on En Wiki.

My question goes to whether the map can be used at all, under what conditions and what should be done about the present situation. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The information contained in the map isn't copyrighted though, that's the thing. JayCubby (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: you can't copyright facts. I don't think there is anything problematic here. - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

VRT question

Do we accept VRT permissions for Roblox? Or does their terms of service get in the way of that?--Trade (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Crimea

Do Commons follow Ukrainian or Russian copyright when it comes to photographs taken in this peninsula? Trade (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Both, in Russian and Ukrainian copyright laws it is unimportant when and where was photowork taken, it is important - when and where was photowork published.
• Pre-1954 published in Crimea photoworks are under Russian copyright term (see also {{PD-RusEmpire}} for pre-1917 published photoworks).
• 1954-2014 published in Crimea photoworks are under Ukrainian copyright term.
• Post-2014 published in Crimea photoworks are copyrighted in both countries anyway (without considering Freedom of Panorama). Alex Spade (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Photo of General Gregorio del Pilar in 1898

This is a photo of General Gregorio del Pilar in 1898 (photo link). The description says "General Gregorio del Pilar, known as the Boy General, and his troops in Pampanga, c. 1898. Arnaldo Dumindin" I'm not sure if Arnaldo Dumindin is the original photographer. Is this photo public domain? -Artanisen (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Artanisen: Hi, This should be OK. If there is uncertainty about the photographer or his date of death, you can use {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Yann (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Artanisen@Yann Arnaldo Dumindin is a 20th-century author, born in 1934 (see this, this, and this). He is apparently the author of Philippine-American War, 1899-1902 (as the Scribd presentations claim). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but this photo was taken in 1898 so Dumindin is not the photographer. Artanisen (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Danish money

I see that the following template has been added to Category:Money of Denmark and other categories:

Images in this category are reproduction of currency that are or were used in Denmark. However, per COM:MONEY#Denmark and List of countries' copyright length currency from Denmark less than 50 years old, i.e. created after December, 31 1973 are copyrighted. Note: {{PD-DenmarkGov}} does not apply to currency.

What is this information based on? Usually, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author, not 50 years after publication. For example, many coins from the first decades of the 20th century were designed by w:Gunnar Jensen. His coins are {{PD-old-70}}, but some of the last designs may be unfree in the United States (until 2029 at the latest). The template was added to the file information page by User:ARTEST4ECHO in 2015, without providing a source. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Under Danish law, the term of copyright in anonymous works was formerly 50 years from publication (now 70). This is surely the term to which the user was trying to refer. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That's very weird. First, the term was extended roughly 20 years before the text was added to that category page. Secondly, I have never heard of anonymously created coins, at least not from recent centuries. Often the engraver's initials appear somewhere on the coin. Looking at a 1 DKK coin from 1993, I see LG = Laust Grove. On a 50 øre coin from 2015, it says JS = Jørgen Strandgaard and HW = Henrik Wiberg. I think that the former didn't do any work with the coin and that the latter only updated the year of the coin. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Afiche milleniumturngala.jpg

I'm not sure File:Afiche milleniumturngala.jpg is correctly licensed since it's most likely a case of COM:2D copying and Template:PD-scan with the copyright status of the photographed book cover being up in the air. If the book was published in 1962 in the Netherlands, then it could still be under copyright protection until at least January 1, 1933 per COM:Netherlands if the author is known since the Netherlands seems to apply 70 p.m.a. for works published prior to January 1, 1995 and the author died in 1962. Even if the author is unknown or the book was a en:work for hire, it seems like the copyright on this might have been restored/extended under US copyright law because the book was still under copyright protection as of the Netherlands URAA date of January 1, 1996 since the Netherlands allows such works copyright protection for 50 years after first publication. Is there any way the this file's licensing can be tweaked so that it can be kept by Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you are right. It's not a book btw, it's either a booklet (the type you receive before the event) or most likely, as it has Afiche in the name, it is a poster. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

File:100 sosiaalista innovaatiota Suomesta.jpg

File:100 sosiaalista innovaatiota Suomesta.jpg looks to be book cover art, but there's nothing (at least nothing I can find) on the source url provided by the uploader which indicates the cover art has been released as licensed or that the uploader is the copyright holder. This could possibly be {{PD-logo}}, but COM:TOO Finland isn't very clear and it would need to be "PD-logo" both in Finland and the US for Commons to keep this. Any opinions as to whether this can be relicensed as "PD-logo"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly PD-logo in the US; it's eight words, a title and author and publisher, plus a big 100 in the background. (Well, half of a 0 and the other half of a 0, with the 1 completely implied.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Images from Flickr (copyright and freedom of panorama)

Would there be any copyright, freedom of panorama or any other issues with uploading either of these images from Flickr?

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/7c0/53823698971/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/menetekel/52254896904/

Helper201 (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The first one being a poster is definitely not covered by FoP, so uploading would be a copyright violation. Not sure about the second one. Nakonana (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The "legalize it" banner shot, according to the image data, in Phoenix, Arizona, is also not uploadable. See COM:FOP USA. The depiction of a cannabis leaf is surely in the protected realm and not below the COM:TOO threshold. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nakonana the poster is found in Germany (one tag is Frankfurt, which may be Frankfurt am Main). Does that poster still failing COM:FOP Germany? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if I'm not Nakonana, I'm German too and able to provide an answer. Posters and advertisements of the depicted kind fail at the FOP prerequisite of being permanently placed in a public place, as they are only exposed for a limited time of days or weeks, seldom months, in any case less than the natural lifetime of the work would be. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Confirming what @Grand-Duc said: No FOP for non-permanent posters in Germany. Gnom (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201 the question is settled. The first Flickr image you mentioned,  Not OK (German FoP does not cover non-permanent works like posters). The 2nd image,  Not OK as it is in the U.S., and the U.S. does not provide any FoP for copyrighted public art. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

New Computer Modern font and LPPL and GFL

Hi!

The original Computer Modern font has the SIL as its license. The New Computer Modern font has the GUST Font License as its license, which is based on Template:LPPL. Can the LPPL be used for the New Computer Modern font anyway? Thank you --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the GUST Font License is just LPPL with an additional non-legally-binding request to rename derivatives. I think just using Template:LPPL should be OK, but maybe other folks have other opinions. Nosferattus (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Logo district de dordogne

bonjour je souhaiterais importer le logo du district de football de la Dordogne mes je n'ai aucune connaissance pour savoir comment repérer le licences libre de droit et la date a laquelle le logo a étais créer, quelqu'un aurais t'il la gentillesses de me l'importer ? Rawksss (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rawksss: Bonjour,

Pour l'importer sur Commons, il faut que le détenteur des droits d'auteur autorise une copie sous licence libre. Si le logo est actuellement utilisé par le club, cela a peu de chance d'arriver. Vous pouvez importer une version sur Wikipédia en français en suivant les règles de fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

trop complexe pour moi :)) je vais faire sans merci. Cordialement, Rawksss (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Bandcamp album covers

If an album on Bandcamp is marked as CC-BY (such as this album), does that apply to the album cover too, or just the music? I haven't been able to find the answer online. Suntooooth (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I would not presume that it applies to the cover. Quite likely the musicians have never even secured ownership of the copyright from the artist/photographer. I've been involved in probably half a dozen record jackets as a photographer myself; I never remember anyone securing more than use rights. - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks :] Suntooooth (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The way {{PD-GallicaScan}} was handled is absolutely terrible.

Take, for example, [21]. While it 100% does have a valid copyright tag, {{PD-old-100-expired}}, that's not what one sees.

Instead, an aggressive message announcing This file might NOT be in the public domain. is what you see, followed by lengthy paragraphs about why it might not be, then a big bar saying "Previous public domain rationale, no longer applicable" - under which is, of course, the 100% valid PD tag.

This affects over 1 milion files, of which I'd presume the vast majority are completely within PD.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't deprecate the tag. But the overblown language is harmful. Instead, why not just... ask for the tag to be replaced with a different tag? Accept that the vast majority of images covered by PD-GallicaScan were simply using it as a more precise, detailed replacement for {{PD-scan|PD-Old}}.

Now, I'm sure some of them are inaccurately copyright tagged? Maybe, but I'm not convinced the percentage is any higher than the baseline. PD-US gets incorrectly used on non-US works all the time.

As I see it, we have two options:

1. Replace it with {{PD-scan|PD-old-70-expired}} and a maintenance category. This is in line with the actual argument made by the template for why the image is out of copyright.

2. Keep a message but make it way less hyperbolic. "This copyright tag is deprecated. Please replace it with a more accurate tag, likely {{PD-old-70-expired}}. (Gallica doesn't actually claim copyright on their scans from what I can tell, so no actual need for PD-scan.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Can't the template itself be edited to be a bit less agressive/add the maintenance cat? All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 00:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think it can. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that tag is that it originally claimed the work was a scan of a work that is in the PD, and that is NOT always the case (I know because I changed the tag and participated in the discussions about this move, about one year ago - as did you IIRC). If a file already has a valid PD tag like PD-old-100, the Gallica-Scan tag is not needed and can simply be removed. Usually those files already have a {{Gallica}} tag for the source link, which is sufficient. --Rosenzweig τ 09:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

As for your first proposal “Replace it with {{PD-scan|PD-old-70-expired}} and a maintenance category”: If a bot operator to do it can be found, I'd be principally ok with it but only for works created before a certain (tbd) date. The Gallica-Scan tag was rather indiscriminately used for bot-driven mass uploads from Gallica, including files which are definitely still copyrighted. We should not declare those to be PD-old-70. --Rosenzweig τ 09:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/11#Deprecate Template:PD-BNF and Template:PD-GallicaScan and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/12#Random deletion of perfectly good files from Gallica for context. --Rosenzweig τ 09:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, If the deprecated tag could be replaced or removed by a bot, it would be great, as nobody is going to manually edit over one million files. Now I also agree with Adam that the warning is exaggerated. I would suggest something like "This tag should be replaced after the copyright status of this file is verified." There is no need to scare people here. Yann (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

500px copyright location

Hello, came across File:Blue Snow (197935565).jpeg in media needing categories. I was trying to double check the licence before adding a category, it's imported from 500px. I can't see where the licence would be located on that site. Thanks for help with this question, CMD (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@CMD, the detail is located where it says detail page. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 04:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I see. How do you get to that import page from the main file page? CMD (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't see it on 500px because they changed their licensing on June 30, 2018. Commons already has a project page discussing how these work and what you need to do to verify what toolforge is doing, which is going to archive.org and viewing the source text, which Toolforge is doing for you. Which is why you don't need to verify it, because Toolforge is working exactly as it's supposed to. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Surely there should be a non-Toolforge way to access the copyright information at the source? Felix QW (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Follow the rather complicated instructions on the Commons project page (which I did to answer this), or trust Toolforge. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I see, thank you! Felix QW (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Threshold of originality and the Cloud Gate sculpture

has the shape of a jelly-bean, and was inspired by a natural phenomenon (mercury's surface tension). Is a shape such as that copyrightable within the United States? Perhaps the NRA lawsuit settles that possibility, but I'm not sure whether simplicity was argued (and also which 3d shapes are too simple for copyright). Thanks! JayCubby (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. Copyright Office accepted Sir Anish Kapoor's copyright registration so that would argue it is copyrightable and Kapoor is notoriously litigious. Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That settles it, I suppose. JayCubby (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The registration doesn't have any precedential value per se; it accords a presumption of validity. No court has ever ruled on the copyrightability of the sculpture. The only thing that there was any actual ruling on was that the case should be heard in the Eastern District of Virginia rather than the Northern District of Illinois (for personal jurisdiction reasons). The court in Illinois never ruled on any copyright question (besides copyrightability, fair use would have been relevant). The case was settled out of court, with the NRA agreeing to cut the frames including the sculpture from the video (while not paying any damages), so no court ever ruled on anything relating to copyright in this sculpture. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller sorry, but I'm on the view that a copyright registration is an evidence that the sculpture is a protected work of art. We don't want Kapoor becoming the second Oldenburg by filing a take-down notice against Wikimedia, just because we are hosting images of his work based on the "threshold of originality" claims. TOO for US sculptures are lower than TOO in logos. If Cloud Gate was a simple sculpture, then the US Copyright Office should had denied Kapoor's registration filing at first. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that the work wasn't copyrightable. I only said that no court has ruled on this (or, as far as I know, any similar sculpture based on any similar rationale). The Olbenburg DMCA claims had nothing to do with the threshold of originality, so I have no idea why you bring those up. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller, I assumed that, based on your insight, the registration is only a mere presumption of validity and does not guarantee copyrightability; we may host images of the sculpture because of the absence of a concrete court statement that targets the sculpture's copyrightability. Still, I oppose allowing Commons to host images of Cloud Gate based on the absence of such a court statement to avoid the camp of Anish Kapoor from filing Oldenburg-style claims against the Wikimedia Foundation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think he's just saying that Copyright Office decisions are not legal precedents -- while they do have to judge copyrightability a lot more than courts, and a court could well take a decision from them under advisement, a court could decide very differently if it ever came to that (and the Copyright Office would have to adjust their rulings). Courts have certainly ruled infringement cases on sculpture, but not sure that any were on the edge of the threshold of originality -- those cases were more a question of fair use or not. A registration is however prima facie evidence that the copyright is valid, meaning a possible infringer would have the burden of proof if to show it was below the threshold, if it came to court. It's a very bad idea for us to host works which do have a valid registration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Kenhub videos

This discussion stems from Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices#Kenhub videos and Commons:Village pump#A dangerous precedent - DMCA after false relicensing, but I think the question of what to do with the other 90 videos is complicated enough to be worth a separate discussion. I would have opened a deletion request, but I'm not sure I actually think anything should be deleted.

The background is that in 2015, CFCF uploaded a bunch of videos from the Kenhub - Learn Human Anatomy channel on YouTube. They can be found with Special:Search/intitle:Kenhub. The uploader tagged them with CC BY 3.0, with a note saying "Licenced as CC-BY as of download date 3/1/15". But most of them didn't have a link to the source video and weren't licence-reviewed. Two of them were taking down in response to a DMCA request recently.

I've found 29 of the videos are still on YouTube and I've added added {{From YouTube}} as their source, which provides convenient archive links. In other cases (an in particular for all the "preview" videos I've checked) the channel has replaced the videos with newer ones at different URLs.

I've looked through the Wayback Machine archives for those videos, and very few of them were archived close to their upload date. But a few had archived versions from 2014 and 2015 and I've also found a few other old videos on the channel with archives from 2014 and 2015. The "show more" link on the archived pages doesn't work, but the licence can be found in the HTML source. This is what I found, sorted by the date they were captured by the Wayback Machine:

Capture	Commons file	Licence
20141009004017		CC BY 3.0
20141101193855		CC BY 3.0
20141106054704		CC BY 3.0
20141209091851	File:Pectoralis Major Muscle - Anatomy and Function - Human Anatomy Kenhub 1.webm	CC BY 3.0
20150116132344		Not stated(?)
20150125135848		Not stated(?)
20150609232518	File:What is the Anatomical Snuff Box - Human Anatomy Kenhub.webm	Standard YouTube
20150826061638		Standard YouTube
20151005221253		Standard YouTube
20151204184225	File:Teres Minor Muscle - Origin, Insertion, Innervation & Action - Human Anatomy Kenhub.webm	Standard YouTube
20151204193311		Standard YouTube
20151231013357	File:Pectineus Muscle - Function, Origin, Insertion & Innervation - Human Anatomy Kenhub 1.webm	Standard YouTube

So all the captures from 2014 show a CC BY 3.0 licence, while the ones from 2015 show either a Standard YouTube Licence or no licence at all. This would be consistent with all of Kenhub's videos being licensed under CC BY 3.0 at the date when these files were uploaded to Commons, and with the channel changing is licensing (including on older videos) in 2015.

So what can we do about this? Presumably File:Pectoralis Major Muscle - Anatomy and Function - Human Anatomy Kenhub 1.webm can be kept, since there's an actual capture of its page with the right licence. Can we keep the rest on the assumption that all the licences on the channel were CC BY 3.0 until some time in 2015? bjh21 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me close to certain that their claim is bogus. The question is: is it worth fighting, especially given that for the files they explicitly named in the takedown notice, our evidence is circumstantial? - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• As I see it, the only way to avoid this problem in the future is to always archive a copy of the page when it is uploaded or licence reviewed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Just a ping to User:JSutherland (WMF) as this might be interesting to him, in case he hasn't followed the related discussions closely, and User:BChoo (WMF) from the Legal Department as well. As I see it, per bjh21's research, it is most likely that these videos were all originally licensed under CC-BY at YouTube, just as the Commons uploader CFCF claims in the related discussion, and the license was changed later to non-free. As this would make the DMCA request which was grounds for deleting the two files bogus (CC-BY licenses are irrevocable), I would welcome it if the WMF would take a stand against this in some form. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• As Jmabel points out, it may not be worth pursuing. WMF should consider sending a letter to Pellonia Technologies LTD. demanding a declaration from the author that each of the videos was never released under a CC-BY 3.0 license. Glrx (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)