Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
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.


New court decision about freedom of panorama in Germany

[edit]

Germany's highest regular court, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), has decided that photos taken from above using a photo drone are not covered by the FOP exception in Germany's copyright law. The case was about drone photos of sculptures placed on colliery spoil tips in Germany's Ruhr area. [1], [2]. Discussions (in German) at Commons:Forum and at de.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 07:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an expected ruling since publicly available views rather than public spaces are what German FOP is about. Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were conflicting decisions by lower courts (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/05#New case law about freedom of panorama in Germany), so the case was not immediately obvious. I personally expected a decision like that from the BGH, they're usually quite protective of author's rights. With some exceptions like the wallpaper cases below. --Rosenzweig τ 09:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig@Abzeronow: here is the English-language article on the court ruling. The logic is that the FoP privilege given by Sec. 59 of the German copyright law only applies to photographing of copyrighted pieces of buildings and artworks from the ground or street level where the public has 100% access. It is obvious that airspace is not publicly-accessible: you still need some forms of clearances to access the air, like airplane documents (ticket/visa/passport etc.), balloon tickets, et cetera. Drone is also a special device to allow photographers to illegally gain enhanced but non-public vistas of such works, on the same German legal logic as helicopters, ladders, et cetera. On their Facebook post, Freelens has adviced website developers and multimedia or photography creators to remove drone photos of copyrighted buildings and artworks, as a precaution (to prevent more needless lawsuits from architects and sculptors). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of originality: Gradiometer survey

[edit]

Are there any opinions on whether File:Magnetic image of council circle.jpg passes the US threshold of originality? At the original source, it is under a non-commercial educational use only license, so it could only be kept if it is below the threshold of originality. If people believe it to be copyrightable, I'd open a DR. Felix QW (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James, do you have any thoughts? I don't think this is a ToO Issue, because this isn't an artistic work, this is scientific data, and the rules around data representation are very confusing. I think there was a similar discussion around some data from the New York Times, but I can't find the exact case. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Felix QW, after further investigation, this appears to be a copyrightable image. I think a DR is in order. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plots of some data are not copyrighted. However, I would say this image should have at least the same copyright protection as an aerial photograph. Given the NC nature of the website, a DR is appropriate. Glrx (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medical imaging is not copyrightable in the USA as it is simply recreating what is there with no originality applied to it. Do not know about this image. One could always upload it to NCCommons.org however not sure if any wikis have adopted this yet.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James, I don't think this is medical imaging, this looks like land survey data. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never stated it was. Just mentioning the copyright rules around medical imaging in the USA. The Commons community can decide as they wish. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! Any further input is welcome at the deletion request page. Felix QW (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work of Ihor Hordiy

[edit]

Пишу українською мовою, бо не можу чітко висловити своє запитання англійською мовою. Прошу перекласти, якщо хтось достатньо володіє обома мовами.

Ситуація така: архітектор Ігор Гордій завантажив у Вікісховище серію власних архітектурних проєктів, які в більшости реалізовані в місті Тернополі (Україна), зокрема, завантажив цю світлину каплички (саме зображення вже збудованої споруди, а не ескіз твору), яка збудована 2013 року (також інші зображення будівель за його проєктами: File:Ресторан у с. Підгородньому.jpg, File:Тернопіль - Будинок по вул. Митрополита Шептицького, 5-а.jpg, File:Житловий будинок по вул. Липова в м. Тернополі.jpg, File:РТОК по вул. Кульчицької в м. Тернополі (2016 р.).jpg, File:Автосалон «Міцубісі», «Сузукі», «Ніссан» по вул. Микулинецькій в м. Тернополі (2009 р.).jpg, File:Торговий центр по вул. Оболоня в м. Тернополі (2016 р.).jpg).

Питання: в Україні відсутня Свобода панорами, але, якщо сам архітектор, який створив реалізовані в натурі (збудовані) будинки, завантажив на Вікісховище зображення цих будинків (споруд) під ліцензією CC-BY-SA-4.0 , то чи означає це, що він надав згоду на фотографування і завантаження зображень цих самих будинків іншим фотографам? Микола Василечко (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Summary of auto-translation: UK Architect Ihor Hordiy uploaded photographs of his own projects to Commons under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Does that CC-BY-SA license transfer to other photographers who wish to upload photographs of the same projects by Hordiy, even as there is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 18:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason it would. He didn't free-license the building, he free-licensed the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The CC license applies to "Licensed Material" --- defined as "the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License." Insofar as it is such a work, and given that there is no notice that it is excluded from the scope of the license, the appearance of the building embodied in the photograph should be included within this license grant. The "Licensed Rights" are defined as "the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license." "Adapted Material" according to the CC license is any material that is "derived from or based upon the Licensed Material […]" — but not necessarily from the Licensed Material in the particular form it takes in the photograph. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they uploaded photographs, I would assume the license would just apply to those photographs. We have to give authors that option -- licensing the building appearance so far as it is seen in those photographs, but should not assume more. I would simply consider the photograph itself the "Licensed Material" and I'd prefer to see a court case before aggressively assuming anything beyond what we actually need to host. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the images uploaded by the architect himself (or his camp/representatives) are the only images with legal licensing, since only the architect has the right to share and distribute the photos on the Internet. The uploaders can only have the right to freely share their photos here if they had prior permission from the architect, which should be made through COM:VRTS correspondence (like an email from Ihor Hordiy). The best option is to convince him to finally allow the free licensing of all images here as well as future uploads of his buildings, in a one-shot correspondence of authorization. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller: by way of a thought experiment here: if I paint an oil painting, and then free-license a macro image of one particular brush stroke (or a few such images), would you say I have thereby free-licensed the oil painting? Presuming the answer is "no," then how is what you are arguing different from that? - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very different. In your hypothetical, the copyrighted work (painting) is not substantially included within the image. Here, the copyrightable work (the design of the exterior of the building) is substantially included, and the license should be taken to apply to what is actually conveyed in the image. It is 100% kosher for someone to draw a picture of the building at a different angle — and it would also be allowed to take a photograph of a physical building to yield a similar result. In fact, the images posted by Hordiy tend to include most of the external appearance of the building; the other parts are generally similar to the parts included, to the point where they may include minimal (if any) separate originality constituting an independent copyrightable work from the portions actually shown.
The contrast between these scenarios is that in your hypothetical almost none of the hypothetical painting is shown, whereas these photos show almost all of the copyrightable elements of the exterior design.
As for what @JWilz12345 says, anyone who receives the license certainly has permission to depict whatever copyrighted work is fully contained within the picture from a different angle, and whether this is done via drawing or via photography is irrelevant. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gor Igor: Чи можете дати відповідь, як автор проєктів будівель? --Микола Василечко (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Написав також листа через електронну пошту до автора. Якщо зрозуміє про що мова, відповість і надасть дозвіл, то це буде позитивне вирішення. Інакше, доведетьсмя вилучати деякі завантажені зображення його проєктів будівель, завантажених іншими фотографами, наприклад зображення каплички у цій категорії.--Микола Василечко (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no answer from the author. So, what is the conclusion with the files? Other photographers can you download photos or not? --Микола Василечко (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Микола Василечко try to ask the architect if he is willing to allow the use of free licenses for the other uploads by other users. We have COM:VRTS to process licensing authorizations via email and other forms of correspondences. User:Gor Igor may be inactive, so it's no use of mentioning him here. Email correspondence to Wikimedia from Ihor is what we need. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 I wrote User:Gor Igor on email correspondence to Wikimedia as well. There is no answer. If I meet him (we live in city Ternopil), I ask it in person. There is no permission now, so the files must be deleted. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free or non free image subject? (Australia Local Govt public information sign)

[edit]

I asked this at Commons helpdesk, a responder suggested I post it here for an appropriate answer...

In 2023 I photographed and uploaded my image of this information sign (includes some text) in public view (attached to the street frontage of a Council building) in my home town, Lismore in Australia, but am now wondering whether maybe the content would be non free to do so - advice appreciated... File:Lismore flood levels to 2022.jpg - Regards, Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This question concerns the w:threshold of originality at which a work becomes eligible for copyright.
In Australia, that's a low bar! The Copyright Act (1968) makes specific references to charts and diagrams. Australian case law touching on the threshold of originality has focused on whether a work was created by humans or just a mechanised compilation to which humans have contributed along the way (eg, a TV guide or phone directory). I think a chart or diagram like this would be eligible for copyright in Australia. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "low bar" that means "really strict", right? As an alternative would it be ok for someone to create a diagram based on the photo, with the years and flood levels, or would that be a derivate work of something under copyright. I am thinking it is just data, but not sure. Commander Keane (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Low bar" means that there doesn't have to be much to a design for it to be eligible for copyright -- even a really simple design like the Aboriginal Flag is eligible for copyright in Australia. This sign is considerably more complex than that, including its stylised water droplets.
But the factual information in the sign is not copyrightable, so I don't see why anyone couldn't make a diagram based on that. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to responders, it sounds to me like this information sign would be copyrighted as human-created, in which case I will request Commons admins to remove it and remove the links to it in Wikipedia (2 places). The same information can probably just be presented as an external link to something published elsewhere: a shame because I rather liked the presentation effort that had gone into making this sign. I am guessing that displaying it in a public place does not simply mean folk like myself can take a photo and put it on Commons as a copyright free image. Thanks - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it didn't have the graphics (water drops), there would be no issue IMO. No different to the manual flood gauges. Bidgee (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony 1212 -- Not in the case of a 2D work like this, no. (3D works like sculptures, buildings, models of buildings, and craft works on permanent public display are different). However; let me have a go at creating a free alternative :) --Rlandmann (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! Tony 1212 (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may find this graphic helpful as well - if readable :) https://www.lismore.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/1/2.-community/7.-emergencies-amp-disasters/images/flood/history-of-lismore-flood-events.png?w=902&h=609 Tony 1212 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem -- ideally, what would you like the graphic to represent? The original file has just the 4 biggest since 1974. Did you want any others included too? --Rlandmann (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlandmann: This https://www.lismore.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/3/2.-community/7.-emergencies-amp-disasters/documents/flood/history-of-lismore-flood-events.pdf is a good source for data of every recorded flood in Lismore. Gnangarra 11:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlandmann I'm not sure - whatever has the most impact I suppose (which would be the major floods; there are a lot more minor ones). In case it helps, the context for the original graphic is being affixed to the pump station itself, per this Google street view - link ... I quite like the juxtaposition of the building with the flood markers. If it helps, I could photograph the building myself on Friday and you could re-use that as a backdrop (or something), although it is rather ugly... but any other thoughts are welcome! Tony 1212 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow the people vs flood height pic in the link is remarkable! Reminds me of File:Human-brachiosaurus size comparison.svg ;-)--Commander Keane (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Commander Keane, @Rlandmann Yes, and the pavement is already 9.5 meters above the AHD (Australian Height Datum). The river normally sits at around 0.5 m above AHD, current plot here... http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDN60231/IDN60231.058176.plt.shtml Tony 1212 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more flood data here, excluding the 2022 event which was unprecedented: https://rous.nsw.gov.au/cp_galleries/flood_mitigation/master/Lismore-moderate-to-major-flood-peaks-1880---2017.PNG ... up to creative users what would be a good visualization of some of this data! Tony 1212 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Commander Keane, @Rlandmann Well I put up the image for deletion and @Infrogmation of New Orleans opined that it was not a copyvio; perhaps this diversity of views should be discussed further... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shortest, standard and language-agnostic license statement for social media posts

[edit]

Hi! I started a discussion elsewhere about what would be the shortest, standard and language-agnostic license statement for social media posts that we as Wikimedia Commons community would feel comfortable enough with. I was suggested to move the discussion over here:

I'm interested in providing simple ways for people to share their photos to Wikimedia Commons. In particular, I'm interested in ways how they can share their Instagram posts. I have already read this, this, this and this and found them all very interesting and useful.

What do you think may be the shortest text they may add to their post that acceptably communicates their will to release it under a CC license? I'm trying to find something as short, standard and language-agnostic as possible, as I think something like that may (1) make it easier for authors to add it, (2) make it easier for everyone to search such freely-licensed content on Instagram, and (3) make it easier for us to confirm (even automatically) that the post has been licensed appropriately.

Ideally, I think a hashtag such as #CC_BY_SA_4_0 would meet all the criteria above. Do you think this would be clear and unambiguous enough? It does not include a link to the license, but the examples provided here don't include them either and seem to be OK.

Consider also this previous thread for additional context.

Maybe we could come up with some guideline or policy? Maybe something like Commons:Flickr files? And maybe update Commons:License review and Commons:Where is the license on various sites? accordingly? Diegodlh (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I (insert name here) do Hereby release my work under (insert free license here)." in the caption. The image still has to be within scope. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that e.g. simply adding "CC BY-SA 4.0" to a photo is already enough. Gnom (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think there needs to be some statement of who took the photograph. A hashtag or licence mention could also mean that they're reposting a CC-licenced image they found online, and (wrongly) believe that it's enough to mention the licence type, without naming the original photographer. (eg. https://www.instagram.com/p/Bn2EqKxlmHi, which looks more like someone using a free stock photo.) Belbury (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about a guideline on Commons similar to that on Wikipedia, but to extend the guidelines to include publicists and agents. Of course we would have to call it Commons:Publicists, Agents, and You (COM:PAY). 😅 Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
com:PAY should be the paid editor page. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

COM:CRT/Malaysia used to contain contradictory information on whether the 1987 copyright act was retroactive. However, the section cited both for and against retroactivity seems clear to me in stating that expired terms would not be revived:

[T]his Act shall apply in relation to works made before the commencement of this Act as it applies in relation to works made after the commencement of this Act: Provided that this section shall not be construed as reviving any copyrights which had expired before the commencement of this Act.

I edited COM:CRT/Malaysia accordingly; however, since the previous copyright terms for photographic works were 25 years from publication, this seems to place all pre-1962 photos first published in Malaysia into the public domain, regardless of the life dates of the author, and also avoids URAA restoration for those works.

Does anyone see a fault in this chain of thought, and if not, should we perhaps create a template to reflect this? Felix QW (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My read of it is that all works that were in copyright in 1987 had their terms extended, while all works that were expired in 1987 did not have their copyrights extended so pre-1962 published photos are PD as far as URAA as well as all works by authors who died before 1962. Abzeronow (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to Abzeronow. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of it is similar to Abzeronow's interpretation, but I also see that regarding licenses, exceptions etc. the current law applies. The retroactivity part applies to such things as licensing, copyright exceptions, and penalties, while the non-retroactive part is for works that are already in PD in Malaysia by the time the law took effect. We may need to take into account two aspects of retroactivity in copyright laws: retroactivity regarding uses/licenses/exceptions and retroactivity regarding copyright terms. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all! Now we should only consider whether it makes sense to add at least the photography case to {{PD-Malaysia}} (authors who died before 1962 would be PD in Malaysia anyway, there the main interest is in avoiding the COM:URAA), or whether to make a new template similar to {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. Felix QW (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I am a bit confused about using National Portrait Gallery images, I know there has been some disputes about usage and I'm unsure of the rules. I want to upload this image from 1922. The photographer is unknown but it is by Bassano Ltd. I have seen some other NPG Bassano Ltd images on the Commons from the same year. Would this particular image be ok to upload and under what license? Spiderpig662 (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this is a negative that was acquired in 1974 might mean it's still under copyright in the U.K. (and thus the U.S.). Abzeronow (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phi Kappa Hall plaque, Athens, GA.jpg

[edit]

Since the text on the plaque shown in File:Phi Kappa Hall plaque, Athens, GA.jpg seems to be nothing more than factual information and not really creative prose and the plaque's design appears to be fairly utilitarian, it seems like all that's needed here is a {{PD-text}} license. Am I missing something? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Well, the text is PD, but the photographer holds a copyright in their work. Gnom (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The license provided by the uploader (assuming they're also the photographer) is fine, but it isn't applicable to the plaque. My apologies if my question was unclear, but basically it is whether a separate license (e.g. "PD-text") should be added for the plaque in addition to the one already provided for the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly you can freely add the PD-text template if you wish, or if you want reusers and readers to be more literate in the concept of derivative works. Both the PD-text and the uploader's licensing can be embedded within the {{Licensed-PD}} template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading image posted by a government "head" on IG

[edit]

hello there! The Vice prez of India uploaded this image on the official Instagram account of VP. Are such images considered public domain under GODL.? Can we upload such images to commons? What are the guidelines? ~redmyname31~💬 05:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar situation is discussed below at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#GODL-India_&_X_(Twitter). Commander Keane (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files created by SantanaZ and Minorax

[edit]

Buenas administradores, estos logos deberían ser removidas (delete) o quedarse (kept)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a case of limited publication?

[edit]

Here's an interesting one from my ongoing review of images uploaded from National Weather Services webpages: File:Sayler Park - Bridgeport tornado.jpg The story goes:

  1. In 1974, Frank Altenau, a resident of Cincinatti, Ohio, took two Polaroid photos of a tornado
  2. He showed his photos to one of his co-workers, Martha Metsch, who happened to be a volunteer weather observer for the NWS and who took the readings at the Cheviot Weather Station. Such weather stations are not offices, but simple collections of instruments distributed across thousands of sites across the US to enable volunteers to take readings to submit back to the NWS. We have photos of a few here. There is no indication that Mr Altenau was also an NWS volunteer, and we have no idea of who his and Ms Metsch's joint employer was. (That is, we have no reason to think that Mr Altenau was a federal employee performing his duties when he took these photos).
  3. Ms Metsch mailed photocopies of Mr Altenau's Polaroid photos to the NWS regional office at Cincinnati. You can see a copy of her letter here -- https://www.weather.gov/media/iln/events/19740403/Metsch.pdf . Ms Metsch's letter contains no statement about limiting further circulation of the images, and the copy published on the web includes a hand annotation that suggests that her letter was posted somewhere (a notice board?) for staff of the regional office to see.
  4. Many years later, a scan of one of those photocopies was published on the NWS website: https://www.weather.gov/iln/19740403 and eventually made its way here to the Commons.

It seems probable that Mr Altenau was aware that Ms Metsch was (a) making copies of his photos and (b) intended to submit those copies to the NWS; and we can infer that this happened with his consent.

My analysis: pre-1976 US courts sought to avoid accidental divestiture of copyright by developing a doctrine of "limited publication" to distinguish circulation of a work from general publication. Such limited publication was to a select group of people (not the general public) and for a specific purpose. I think that the facts we know or can safely infer fit that.

If so this image remained unpublished (as far as we know) until posted on the web, post 1989, and copyright belongs to Mr Altenau (or his heirs or estate).

Question: Does anyone think that the facts as we know them suggest general publication (which would put this image into the public domain for want of a copyright notice) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see proof of general publication. Mr. Altenau might know that Ms. Metsch was interested in the weather and showed her the pictures. She photocopied them. Mr. Altenau might then offer to get her better copies. Mr. Altenau might be ignorant of Ms. Metsch intention to share the photos with NWS. The forwarding of the photocopies is stated to be outside of her regular reporting. Glrx (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the transmission was made with the consent of the photographer, and there was no limitation placed on further dissemination of the photo by the receipient (that is, no limitation which would prevent the NWS from disseminating copies), then it was general publication. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were different doctrines of what limited publication was between circuits, but the most common was the one you mention -- distribution to a limited set of people for a limited purpose, and no further right of distribution. All three needed to be satisfied otherwise it was general publication. The Copyright Office notes that even giving a copy to a friend can be general publication. The main question here is under what conditions the photos were given to Ms. Metsch. There is no indication of limiting distribution after that, and it certainly seems Mr. Altenau was quite aware of the intent to forward on the photos. Not PD-USGov, but seems fairly likely to me these were published (maybe depending on judicial circuit). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright question at w:Wikipedia:Teahouse#PD - CA Gov

[edit]

Please answer at w:Wikipedia:Teahouse#PD - CA Gov instead of here. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

replied —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FiskEnvelope.jpg

[edit]

Is File:FiskEnvelope.jpg correctly licensed? It might be PD for some reason, but not sure how it meets the conditions of "PD-USGov". -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-USGov for the stamp. The card itself is probably PD no notice. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logos complejos al Dominio Público

[edit]

Buenas una pregunta,los logos complejos están al Dominio Público por motivos (osea por tener formato SVG,expiraron derechos de autor o según leyes en algúnos paises)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Por favor, haz una pregunta específica, no tan abstracta. ¿los logos complejos? ¿algúnos paises? Y me escapa completemente come sea relevante que sea SVG. - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel:Ok,pregunto los logos complejos están en el Dominio Público? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be moved here?

[edit]

en:File:Greenville, NC City Logo.jpg

This logo does not meet the threshold of originality AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: @IronGargoyle: Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes. This is easily below the US threshold of originality. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks below ToO to me. Most is text. The square is a simple geometric shape. Changing the color in one corner does not add much. {{PD-textlogo}}. Glrx (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so, and figured someone who was an administrator at enwiki could import it faster than I could (since I'd have to request undeletion there since I'm only an extended-confirmed user there). Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone moved it AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can't change the license, can't report a bug

[edit]

I found a file with the wrong license: File:Bao river basin.png and I wanted to fix it adding {{OpenStreetMap |name = |location = |description = {{en|1=Bao river basin}} |top = |bottom = |left = |right = |date =2024-09-30 |authors = |other_versions = |warp_status = |warp_url = |odbl = |other_fields = |image = }} because the license of the file is incorrect. I got an error "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. " and can't save the edit.

There was a link to "report this error" so I clicked it and filled the form. Then there was a captcha, and then another one, and another one, and it forces me to solve the captcha infinitely.

Please correct the license or remove this bug. 83.30.123.79 13:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure the integrity of the license information only logged in users are allowed to change the author or license of a file. GPSLeo (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The filled-out template above does not actually give any proper location info, so I have no easy way to find the OpenStreetMaps map in question. - Jmabel ! talk 06:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello,

I tried to review some licenses of uploads in the huge backload of Youtube sourced files. The YT link is dead, archived versions are available. But I did not see a visible license mention on the page. The uploader provided a screenshot of the HTML code of the archived page showing a hint to a CC license. Indeed, for this example, archived here, there is this code to be found at line 618 in the archive:

  • <a href="https://archive.md/o/Spt91/https://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons" style="font-size:100%;background-color: transparent; cursor:pointer;text-decoration:none;white-space:nowrap;color:rgb(51, 51, 51);border-width: 0px; border-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-color: white; " target="_blank">Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)</a>

    • Would that be sufficient to pass the review? Are we from the community of license reviewers supposed to check source code pages for licensing info? Can we trust the archiving techniques to reproduce faithfully the license information? Just asking to remove a bit of uncertainty for me and for learning. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Permission statements

    [edit]

    What the current practice on permission statements? At Commons:Email templates there is a template requiring an uploader to send an email for each file.

    Is there a possibility to do that for organizations to do that for all uploads through their account?
     ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @John Cummings for this question. Gnom (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lic

    [edit]

    Please confirm the license for the file File:Toxi$.jpg. Sorry for writing here, I don't quite understand how Wikimedia Commons works, please tell me which template to use in the future. Нейроманьяк (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Нейроманьяк: please do add categories to your uploads.
    This one is a little tricky. YouTube indicates "Creative Commons Attribution license" but does not give a version number. I don't know quite what we do with that, though it should presumably be OK. Other thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 19:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel: That's standard for Youtube and regularly accepted here since it links to 3.0. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @King of Hearts: where does it link to 3.0? I tried following it up and didn't see that.
    @Нейроманьяк: assuming King of Hearts is right, what you did is fine (but you should add categories to the file page). - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel: The Youtube explainer page for Creative Commons has a link. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it now, but it's almost like they were trying to hide it (no mention of version number on the explainer page itself!). - Jmabel ! talk 21:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oscar Parkes

    [edit]

    We have quite a number of pictures made by Oscar Parkes as a British naval surgeon during World War I. We generally host them as {{PD-UKGov}}, assuming that his photography was in the course of his regular duties, and I just tagged File:A_fake_submarine_date_and_location_unknown._(48914227996).jpg as such too. Does anyone here have an opinion on whether it is reasonable to assume that the photos made by someone whose ordinary duties did not explicitly involve documentation fall under {{PD-UKGov}} rather than being private photos taken alongside his regular duties? Felix QW (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As a general principle, I'd say it's not reasonable to assume that. However, Parkes was not just a surgeon; he worked for naval intelligence, and his work certainly covered decoys like the one in the photograph. Without knowing the context in which this photo was taken or used (if any), it's impossible to distinguish whether it was taken on-duty or off-duty, and I would support a precautionary delete of this and other questionable images by Parkes until 2029 (not long now). --Rlandmann (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the start of WWI, that access to Royal Navy establishments became restricted and censorship of photographs commenced. OP was on active duty, when these pictures were made. Broichmore (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    GODL-India & X (Twitter)

    [edit]

    Hello guys. From the past few days I am seeing an increase in number of files upload under GODL-India where source is some or other Official Twitter handle of various agencies under Govt of India. This includes PMO, ministries, armed forces and others. Can someone clarify if files imported from Twitter are allowed? Bcoz as far as I understand there is nowhere stated that files published there falls under GODL. It is never published like that. Pinging @Yann who too said that we don't have permission for files coming from official social media handles of different agencies of the Indian government. Please correct me if I am wrong. ShaanSenguptaTalk 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I think we should not accept files from any social media, including Twitter. Yann (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Yann. Anything from Facebook is an automatic speedy for me. (On reflection, It does seem that burden of proof has shifted from the up loader/keep voters to the person nominating for deletion/deletionists.) All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On that point@Alachuckthebuck I would like to ping @King of Hearts for his input. Bcoz in past I nominated some files taken from Twitter uploaded under GODL. He advised against speedy and told me to go through DR. I would love to hear them. ShaanSenguptaTalk 10:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Files from Wikimapia

    [edit]

    Hi, How reliable is the license for files from Wikimapia? This concerns among others, File:Киевская правда.jpg, a small and poor quality file without EXIF. Yann (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Visual art copyright - Publication & Reproductions Q

    [edit]

    Hi y'all -- This is possibly a very rudimentary question, so I apologize if I'm asking for help on something super basic. But I wanted to get clarification on the publication requirements for copyright under U.S. law. I was formerly under the impression that for a work of visual art (2-dimensional, i.e. painting, drawing, etc.) to be considered published, it needed to be reproduced visually in a publication, whether that's a serial like a magazine, as numbered prints, or even in the form of a postcard. But earlier this year I asked this forum about a specific instance of a reproduction of a painting being published without copyright, and it was explained to me that technically that reproduction didn't count as publication of the underlying painting because it was not high-quality enough to include all the details of the painting.

    Completely unrelated to that earlier question, I stumbled on the file talk page for Picasso's painting Les Demoiselles d'Avignon - hosted in full resolution directly on English Wikipedia - and was really intrigued by the (now very old) discussion there. It seems editors on Wikipedia came to the conclusion that a black-and-white, fairly low quality reproduction in a magazine of Picasso's painting in the early 20th century counted as publication, meaning the painting is in the public domain.

    I'm struggling to square these differing conclusions. Carl Lindberg stated in his response to my earlier query that "only the expression in those distributed copies was without notice, and only that expression lost its copyright protection," meaning reproductions of visual art only count as partial publication of the underlying artwork, unless the reproduction is mechanically identical enough to capture all the visual detail. But editors at Wikipedia seem to think that this reproduction of Picasso's painting constituted publication of the underlying work. Does anyone have any insights here? I have to think the editors on Wikipedia just weren't totally informed, but the Picasso painting in question is like, universally considered one of his most important, so I'm kind of surprised his estate/gallery haven't tried to prove it's actually copyrighted in the U.S. 19h00s (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @19h00s: All of this if very murky, because U.S. copyright law of that era was simply not written with one-off works of art in mind. There was no statute law clarifying what constituted publication of such works, and all we have to go on is case law. I think Carl's answer is entirely reasonable. A low-res black-and-white reproduction is a derivative work. Under the old pre-Berne U.S. regime of copyright law, if that were done without copyright notice, it would probably not mean that the underlying work automatically passed into the public domain. I'm not as sure whether, if done with copyright notice, it would start the clock ticking on the 95 years of protection after publication. But that is likely to be moot, because at the time public exhibition was generally counted as publication.
    I would also say that the Wikipedia editors were probably wrong about that particular line of logic, but Les Demoiselles d'Avignon was exhibited in 1914, so under that era's standard that probably counted as publication.
    Again, though: none of this is "hard and fast." We are in a murky area. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is super helpful, thank you! Especially good to know that this is a somewhat murky area of the law. One last question -- do you know when the standard changed from exhibition to publication?
    And to be clear, I definitely wasn't doubting Carl's explanation or expertise, I was just struggling to square it with the conclusion Wikipedia editors came to. Really appreciate your help! Thanks again. 19h00s (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Related file: File:Aspects of twentieth century painting, 1963.pdf. This is a US catalog of various works of art. Is it OK here, or should it be moved to the English Wikipedia? Yann (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=953442972"