Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ 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.

Please note

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.
Have you read the FAQ?
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).
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.
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.

Photograph of 1850 painting that may have never been publicly displayed until recently

When I searched for advice, it seemed to differ depending on the country and whether the painting had been publicly displayed, which left me confused.

I am in the US, the painter was in the US, and the people who have uploaded a photograph are in the US. There is a photo here: https://fineartsouth.com/pages/art-inventory/artdetail/115/1386

The painting was in an exhibit in New Orleans a few years ago.[1] I don't know if it was ever publicly shown before that.

Every page on the site hosting the photo has "©2024 Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom which for sure applies to all their text and design work, but is the photo in the public domain? Rjjiii (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer but based on Commons:Hirtle chart, if the artist died in 1853 and the work was not published before 2003, then it passed into the public domain on January 1, 2003 on the basis that the author had been dead over 70 years. (This change in status was due to a change in U.S. copyright law effective on that date.) There is no way that copyright could be regained; faithful reproduction of the work does not create a new copyright; it is almost impossible to imagine what intellectual property right Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc. is claiming, or how they think they came by that right. Perhaps they are over two decades out of date in their knowledge of copyright law; perhaps they are just bluffing. Your guess is as good a mine. - Jmabel ! talk 06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The painting predates US copyright protection for paintings anyway (it came in 1897 I believe) so I think it's fine, Hirtle chart or not. Bremps... 01:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I've heard about pre-1897 paintings not having copyright protection in the United States. Can you point me to what your talking about? grendel|khan 18:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grendelkhan: It's 17 USC § 303(a). [2] (The "the term provided by section 302" is 70 years pma, unless it is "an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire" in which case it is 95 years from publication, or 120 from creation.

An unpublished work from an artist who died in 1853 would have had a "common law" copyright (right of first publication) until Jan 1 1978, after which it would have received federal protection as an unpublished work. That copyright would have expired Dec 31, 2002 unless the work was published before that date, in which case it persists until at least December 31, 2047. Jarnsax (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as paintings not having a copyright in the US before 1897, this is wrong. The 1870 Copyright Act (in section 86) explicitly includes "paintings" in its list of eligible subject matter. Jarnsax (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian FOP and heavy retouching

The English version of {{FoP-Belgium}} it states «[...] provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there [...]» and if I'm not mistaken it restricts the modification that one can make on a photo. So, my question is if File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png is an allowed DW of File:Comic wall Asterix & Obelix, Goscinny and Uderzo. Brussels.jpg. My intuition suggest it is not as the DW doesn't look like a photo taken on a mural and part of the DW is interpolating the gaps after removing the surrounding characters, but maybe the experts on the Belgian copyright have a different opinion. Günther Frager (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Günther Frager I can't speak on the condition imposed by the Belgian FoP that was lobbied by the Wikimedians there way back 2016 (ping @Romaine: who actively lobbied for introduction of FoP there). My understanding tells me that the FoP of Belgium seems aligning to its peers (Dutch FoP, German FoP), in which excessive modification to the point that the integrity of the depicted work is affected is already a breach of the FoP rules. Cropping out all surrounding elements (like the sky, ground or grass et cetera) so that the image consists of an exact reproduction of a building, sculpture et cetera is one of such excessive modifications. Germany, where FoP originated, does not allow radical forms of digital editing, such as changing the colors of their public monuments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: How do you think rules like that are compatible with the whole "for any purpose" thing in the guidelines? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 I cannot comment on the possible conflict of the German FoP to both commercial-type CC licenses (like {{CC-zero}} and {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} and the FreedomDefined.org position that some German Wikimedians claimed as "extremist" and unrealistic, in the context of images of buildings and public monuments of Germany. It was debated on FoP talk page (see Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 1#Germany). Let's ping again the participants on that late-2000s discussion that have still contributed/made edits on Commons from 2022 up to this day: @H-stt, Historiograf, Wuselig, Jeff G., Micheletb, and ALE!: . At worst, meta:Creative Commons Foundation should have a public and solid statement regarding the nuances of Freedom of Panorama even in countries that we consider as having suitable FoP for Commons, like Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Malaysia, Hong Kong, mainland China, Singapore, India, Australia, and New Zealand. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Definition of Free Cultural Works is a good tool for identifying free licenses — that is, for defining what permissions a copyright holder must give in order for a work to be considered a free cultural work. While the Definition incidentally encompasses works whose copyright has expired, defining the bounds of the public domain was never its main purpose. This background should be taken into account especially with respect to the boundaries of exceptions to the rights of copyright holders and the boundaries of what kinds of works are subject to copyright in the first place. I think that some of the interpretations given on the page you link are too literal, and, by applying the Definition in a context where it was not meant to apply, sort of miss the forest for the trees.

I hope to make this make sense by addressing the US' FoP for architecture that @Clindberg discusses below. When the US joined the Berne Convention, it had to apply some form of copyright to architectural works per se, which it had never done before. In many (though not all) Berne parties (including those which joined before the US), there have long been exceptions to copyright which allow for pictures of buildings to be used freely. While Berne does not have a provision singling out this specific exception, it seems to easily fall within the freedom of member states to legislate exceptions to the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted work, as long as each exception "does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author."

In particular, this sort of exception makes perfect sense for architecture. The "normal exploitation" of architectural plans is done by constructing the building. The core interest of an architect is in the construction of buildings, not their depiction. Even in those (relatively few) countries which, like France, provide for the compensation of architects whenever a building they have designed is depicted in other art, the interest in the actual construction is necessarily more crucial, since those depictions cannot be made in the first place if the building is not actually constructed and placed somewhere where it may be photographed. The design of fantasy buildings — those one might see in a cartoon or video game — does not require actual architectural work, further emphasizing that the central interest of an architect is in the construction of actual buildings, rather than the depiction of mere appearances of buildings.

If we interpret the "for any purpose" clause entirely literally, then, presumably, any photo would be non-free which has, for instance:

Some de minimis copyrighted poster in the background... because the photo could be cropped to highlight that copyrighted element
Some copyrighted building... because someone could perhaps attempt to design and construct a new building based on its appearance in the photo

I think this ultra-strict interpretation of the Definition of Free Cultural Works is totally implausible, especially in light of the fact that it says that a free work remains a free work even when it (for instance) includes some limited quotes from non-free sources (with the caveat that those quotes themselves don't become free by incorporation) — not to mention the other exceptions in the Definition.

In terms of freedom, though, I think we can distinguish between architectural and non-architectural works by drawing the distinction I give above based on the purpose and use of a work type (i.e., the central interests). It is impossible to actually build a building just by manipulating a photo; transformation of a pictural representation back into an actual work of architecture which can be exploited is essentially impossible (it requires, in essence, doing the architecture all over again). In a country where there is architectural FoP, the normal re-use of a photo of a building is highly unlikely to interfere with the central aspects of normal exploitation of the architectural work per se.

Sculptures are easier to reproduce from a reference photo than buildings, and photos of sculptures are far closer to the sculpture's core normal exploitation than photos of an architect's building. So, even in a country where FoP for sculptures exists (I discuss the distinct matter of jurisdictional issues below) a photo that primarily depicts a sculpture is arguably "mostly non-free" because of how close to the central aspects of normal exploitation the reproduction gets. (Where you draw a line is a different question.) Still, though, the free aspects of the photograph — the positioning and lighting — can be worth something; the creation of a photo of a 3D work can normally create a new copyright, and so the licensing of the photo as a free work is still potentially relevant. Relatedly, casting the work from a 3D sculpture into a 2D image is transformative rather than being completely literal copying.

For flat images, though, matters are quite different. If the image is copyrighted, then the reproduction of the flat image is the main way in which the work is normally exploited, and the work can trivially (and perhaps carelessly) reused in exactly the same way the work itself would normally be exploited. Even if the image is off-axis in the photograph, restoring it to its proper alignment is a technical and mechanical adjustment, not a creative one; in most countries, it is unlikely that a simple photograph of a mural would even quality as an original work. Extracting the original 2D image from a (even potentially off-axis) photo of a mural is the reproduction of the original creative work in its actual form, with no transformation whatever. This is akin to scanning a 3D sculpture or getting the architectural plans of a building. Even where FoP does apply to 2D works, it is almost always primarily intended to allow for the capture of entire scenes, not for the duplication of the 2D artwork itself, just as the freedom of panorama in a sculpture garden would not permit the 3D scanning and duplication of the copyrighted sculptures.

To whatever extent the Definition of Free Cultural Works (as opposed to jurisdictional issues/legal requirements, which are entirely distinct) is an important factor, I think this test can be used to roughly estimate the prominence of the non-free portion of the work in comparison with the free portion. Taking this info account:

Photos of buildings — Highly unlikely to interfere with core exploitation of architectural work (construction). Photograph itself is generally copyrightable (positioning, selection, angles, etc.) and its licensing as a free cultural work is valuable. Free work with small non-free component.
Landscape with de minimis inclusion of non-free elements — Difficulty of interference by a user who wants to interfere with core exploitation depends (on kind of work, how it's depicted, what quality is even left in its context, etc). Nevertheless, the non-free component is necessarily small in comparison to the free work itself.
Photos of sculptures/3D art — Transformative, but has significant potential to interfere with core exploitation (both because sculptures can be made AND because derivative photographs are more key to exploitation of sculptures than to that of buildings). Photograph itself is usually copyrightable (positioning, selection, angles, etc.) and its licensing as a free cultural work is valuable. Free work with potentially significant non-free component.
Photos of 2D art — Interferes almost trivially with core exploitation. To the extent that it is a faithful reproduction of the image, almost always uncopyrightable (compare PD-Art). Status as an actual "work" is debatable to begin with, and if the real work depicted is non-free, this is at best a fundamentally non-free work with a thin "free" wrapping.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Günther Frager, The example File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png is modified, shows only a part of the image and no longer the situation as it is on the location. FoP in Belgium states that objects photographed are allowed as long as they are depicted as on location. As that is no longer the case here, this image is copyrighted and not allowed on Commons. (PS: I lobbied in the Belgian parliament for FoP and FoP came officially in force in 2016.) Romaine (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Berne Convention allows FoP type of limitations to copyright, but they also say that any such allowed uses cannot go to the point they prejudice the normal exploitation of the work -- I've always taken that to mean you can't make a sculpture of a sculpture, or make an effective copy of a 2-D work by cropping to just that work and exclude its public context, etc. I think once you remove the public context, you are also going outside any FoP permissions, and are a direct usage of the original work (i.e. the photographic expression, the work using FoP, is gone). It is a direct usage/derivative of the original, without the photographic expression being present. So, I would say this is a problem. We have always accepted that as an OK limitation to host FoP works -- you can make a derivative work of the photograph, but not to the point there is no photograph left. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg the Berne Convention does not mention anything resembling FoP. It only states that member states can make a list of exceptions/limitations to copyright, as long as normal exploitation of the work is not prejudiced. FoP may be one of these limitations, but there are also limitations on educational, research, and other uses. At least, there was an attempt in the past to have an architectural FoP be explicitly-mentioned in the treaty, from the meetings between WIPO and UNESCO in 1986 (see meta:Freedom of Panorama#A close call: 1986 WIPO-UNESCO proposal for global architectural FoP). For some reason, though, no such architectural FoP provision is present in the treaty. In fact, a few scholars and architects, like Architect Clark Thiel (1990), argued that the American FoP (Section 120(a) of U.S. Copyright Act) is a violation of the treaty, since the treaty "requires that copyright protection extend to the exclusive right of adaptation for all protected works, including architectural works." Unsure if there is anti-FoP sentiment among a few American architects and scholars today. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Berne does not mention FoP, but does restrict limitations such that the normal exploitation is not prejudiced. Effectively making a copy of the work on display is pretty much squarely in direct competition with the original, and I think would violate that Berne clause. FoP clauses are typically in the list of limitation clauses that laws have, pursuant to that Berne article. So I don't think FoP provisions can go that far. Interesting that a Berne clause specifically about architecture was discussed. I don't think the U.S. law violates Berne -- another architect making a derivative work of a building is a problem without permission; architecture has derivative work protection. The law simply states that the specific case of photographs of buildings (located in public places) are not derivative works basically (it's not within the scope of the architectural copyright). It's in line with FoP clauses elsewhere. Photographs of buildings are not part of the "normal exploitation" of a building. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg I think that the minority group of U.S. architects who opposed AWCPA's Sec. 120(a) way back in early 1990s based their arguments on the French copyright rules, that unambiguously does not allow commercial uses of images of architecture. Still, at least in a small circle within the scholarly and architectural community, the Section 120(a)'s compliance with the Berne has been put into question. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was from when the law was first going in, and architecture (beyond the drawing copyright of plans) was getting protection for the first time. The U.S. law also plainly stated that the text of the Berne Convention is not legally binding in the U.S.; only the text of the incorporating law. They could file a complaint with the WTO these days I guess but that type of limitation seems clearly in line with what Berne allows. (The U.S. did try to avoid restoring copyright; countries did complain about that, which eventually led to the URAA restorations as that was the compromise.) What France chooses to allow has no effect in the U.S. I don't think there is any serious challenge to it; the lawmakers clearly did not want to change the ability to take photos of buildings which had been fine forever in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The picture being in Bruxelles, Belgian law applies. It states two conditions :

«the reproduction [...] is as it is found there», which implies that the picture cannot be edited and modified.
«this reproduction [...] does not cause unreasonable harm to the legitimate interests of the author», which means that it cannot be used comercially without limits (as explicited by the legistative discussion).

Tipically, File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png cannot be printed on a T-shirt to be commercialized, which is equivalent in effect to a CC-NC licence, not accepted on Commons (even though its presence in Wikipedia pages would be legal with respect to that point of view). But in the first place, its being cropped and edited infringes the first condition, which is equivalent in effect to a CC-ND clause in that case. The picture therefore cannot be uploaded on Commons and must be deleted.

Freedom of panorama in Belgium allows for instance pictures of the atomium, because such pictures can be reproduced without authorization or payment, and their reproduction cannot cause an unreasonable harm to the author's rights. This is why it is acceptable on Commons. It does allow for pictures like File:Comic wall Asterix & Obelix, Goscinny and Uderzo. Brussels.jpg, because the wall is reproduced as-is, and that reproduction does no harm to Uderzo's interests. But {{FoP-Belgium}} is definitively not equivalent to a CC-BY-SA, so derivative works should be considered with caution. This is why it is in Category:Restriction tags. It is the same problem as with the de minimis clause : a picture may be acceptable on commons even though an excerpt of it would not, it is the responsibility of the editor to remain within the legal limits.

Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My (very limited) understanding of the Belgian law is that while cropping of the mural is permitted, isolating elements is not, as they don't appear as shown on the public wall. Here both the individual figures have to go as copyvios. h-stt !? 18:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion highlights the legal and practical absurdity of the Commons community's position on the freedom of panorama.

First and foremost, Wikimedia Commons is based and hosted in the United States. Much as a work falling into the public domain in its country of origin does not mean it enters the public domain in the United States, some exception or limitation to copyright law in a foreign country does not mean that limitation or exception applies in the United States. Under United States copyright law, photographs of buildings don't infringe a copyright in the architecture depicted. However, photographs of artwork do reproduce that artwork, and, where that artwork is not in the public domain in the US, such photographs can be infringing.

The basic argument here boils down to:

Claim: This work is displayed in a public place in Belgium.
- This much I think we can all acknowledge.
Claim: There is a "freedom of panorama" exception in Belgium that allows for the free reproduction of this work.
- This much is not exactly true. There is an exception, but it is highly limited. I have consulted the source, which is available in its official and authoritative form on WIPO-Lex in both Dutch and French. Here is my translation (from the French), for those who do not understand French or Dutch:
  Art. XI.190. When a work has been lawfully disseminated, the author cannot prohibit: [...]
  2/1. the reproduction and communication to the public of works of plastic, graphical or architectural art designed to be placed permanently in public places, so long as such reproduction or communication is of the work as it is found [in that public space] and neither interferes with the normal exploitation of the work nor unjustly prejudices the legitimate interests of the author.
- There are two key problems here, which mean that this "freedom of panorama" is actually quite limited, and clearly does not allow the kind of use we see here.
  1. The reproduction must depict the work as it is found in the place where it is displayed (telle qu'elle s'y trouve). There are two potential readings of this clause, both of which cause problems.
    1. The work must be displayed within the context of the place where it is found, and cannot be separated from that context — since it would then be reproduced in a way other than that in which it is actually found on display. In other words, isolation of the work and its separation from the situation in which it is displayed would be outside of the scope of the exception.
    2. The work can only be reproduced in the form in which it is displayed, and the exception only applies if no changes are made. In this case, retouching of the work would be outside of the scope of the exception.
  2. The reproduction of the work cannot interfere with the normal exploitation of the work or prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
    - The reuse of the isolated work within many contexts would interfere with the normal exploitation of the underlying copyrighted work. For instance, if these drawings of Astérix and Obélix were used as the basis for new derivative works (comic books featuring these character designs), that would clearly interfere with the legitimate interests of the author — or otherwise copyrights would become worthless in Belgium for any work permanently exhibited in a public place.
- My real question is this. What was the meaning of the law? Which of the following was intended?
  1. (As some propose) That any work permanently displayed in a public place is, for most intents and purposes, fair game to be reproduced and reused, including in derivative works? That is, that the display of comic book characters in an authorized poster or mural would mean that these characters could be freely reproduced in other contexts (e.g., in a collage) as long as the user could point back to this public display?
  2. (Or, as I propose) That the exception is intended only as a limited one, allowing for the reproduction of images of public spaces, even where copyrighted artwork is displayed within that public space — as long as the purpose behind the reproduction was not to interfere with the interests of the copyright holder of the artwork? I think the intended meaning is that, say, a picture of the unmodified mural could be included as a prominent part of a depiction of the public place in which it is displayed, but that most depictions of the mural itself, or of its constituent elements, would not fall within the exception. The purpose of the law was clearly not to make any item on public display freely reusable — only to allow for easier photography of public places themselves, with strict limits on reuse of those work outside of the depiction of how they are publicly displayed (telles qu'elles s'y trouvent).
- The mural itself is a comic book illustration recontextualized by its display on a public wall. I cannot understand any sensible explanation for how undoing that recontextualization by isolating the illustration and placing it back in the essential form of the illustration itself (whether in print or on a computer screen) would be any different from taking the image from an original comic book page direction. I'll acknowledge that within a certain new context, use of an image of the character Astérix might fall under the other more general exceptions in Belgian law (which, though narrower, are the rough conceptual equivalent of fair use in US law). Whether the illustration is sourced from a wall or a printed page, the effect on the interests of the author are the same. The depiction of a work's public display is another specific context in which a limited reuse can be made (similar to other reproductions which do not affect the core interests of the author), not a free pass for general reuse.
Separate Claim: It is OK to reuse this work freely on Wikimedia Commons (based in the United States) on the theory that exceptions in foreign copyright law can be applied within the US context.
- I find this claim extremely implausible. It is true that there is a lack of US case law on the specific issue of foreign freedom of panorama laws. However, the notion that foreign exceptions to copyright are intended to apply in the United States is without any real justification. It is clear, for instance, that US law, not foreign law, determines a work's term of copyright in the United States; this term may be longer or shorter than that in other countries. While in certain cases (e.g., determining the ownership of a copyright), foreign law may be relevant, there are specific reasons why, and those are the exception, not the rule.
  - In particular, the TRIPS Agreement's provision on National Treatment (TRIPS, Part I, Article 3) requires that each country grant IP protections to foreign nationals no less favorable than that accorded to its own nationals, subject to the exceptions provided for in existing conventions. The Berne Convention allows for both exceptions based on use (which can be used to carve out exceptions such as fair use, as the US does). But the exception allowing for fair use is not an exception to the national treatment rule, unlike the rule of the shorter term (which is allowed but not required under the Berne Convention, and which the US does not apply, except for determining URAA restoration eligibility). The US allowing for fair use on an equal basis for works (independent of the nation of origin) is OK; allowing for the application of exceptions from foreign law specifically in order to weaken protections based on the source country of a work is a clear violation of the National Treatment principle.
  - Similarly, the Berne Convention says (in Article 5), "[A]part from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed." No provision provides for the application of foreign exceptions appears in the Berne Convention.
  - Some editors point to the Oldenburg DMCA claim, where a DMCA takedown notice issued for pictures of a statue located in Germany was complied with by WMF Legal, as a sign that the WMF "endorses" lex loci protectionis (i.e., the application of US law, despite whatever exceptions may exist in a foreign law) to Commons. While I think this "endorsement" is correct, it is really not important whether or not the WMF "endorses" the principle; it is important what the principle is.
  - This is a more general issue — one for a separate and larger conversation — but one which WMF Legal really needs to address. Right now, Commons users generally feel free to reproduce objects found in public spaces, so long as the country in which the item is displayed (or from which the picture is taken, but that's the same country 99.9999% of the time) has some sort of freedom of panorama-type exception allowing for such reproduction.
    - US law says this is fine for buildings — but not for copyrighted sculptures or murals. So there is a ton of content which is non-free in the US, even if free in its country of display. (As we see in this case, though, the freedom of panorama exception is not necessarily a free-for-all permission to reuse the work. In many cases, the exceptions are limited in scope and rather context-dependent — much like other exceptions, such as fair use.)
    - While some uses of depictions of publicly displayed (non-architectural) art might be acceptable under US law's fair use provisions, this depends on the actual use made; such images are not free to use for any purpose. (Nor, in many cases, are they free to use for many purposes in the country of display.) These works are not free in the sense required by the Definition of Free Cultural Works, which is the sense incorporated into the Wikimedia Licensing Policy. And Wikimedia Commons has never adopted an Exemption Doctrine Policy defining the context in which non-free works may be used on the project.
Implied Claim: Belgium is the relevant source country for this work.
- Even if we accept the application of foreign copyright exceptions under US law (which, as I detail above, we shouldn't), I don't think this is really plausible. This is, as discussed, either a direct reproduction or close derivative of artwork from the Astérix comic books. The Astérix characters were designed and first drawn by the French artist Albert Uderzo, and the original works were published in France. The fact that artwork from Astérix was later displayed in Belgium doesn't make this a "Belgian" work — why should the Belgian exceptions apply just because a French work happened to be displayed in Belgium.
  - What this rule amounts to — and this is one that is commonly naively applied in Commons FoP cases — is the application of whichever country's exceptions can be seen as the most relaxed. When the same work is displayed in multiple countries, where some have an exception which can plausibly used to justify reproduction, while others do not, the de facto Commons community position is that whichever exception is the most liberal can be used to justify the (worldwide/US) reproduction of the work.
  - Taking this rule seriously, reproduction of a work first published in the US by an American author can be justified on Commons if a copy of this work can be found on public display in a country whose FoP exception is interpreted by the Commons community as allowing such reproduction. There are many such cases relating to US-origin cartoon characters on Commons. (While this mural is authorized by the Astérix copyright holders, the Commons community seems to apply FoP even to clearly unauthorized graffiti of cartoon characters, allowing for an absurd kind of FoP-laundering whereby a copyrighted image can be uploaded to Commons as long as it is a photo of a pirated copy put on a wall in a public place in the right country.)
- This relates to a more general problems with the "country of origin" principle. The "country of origin" of a copyrighted work is not necessarily the country where it is displayed, nor the country with which it is popularly associated, nor the country in which it was created or even just a single country (as various countries could consider a work to be a domestic work under their own law, e.g., based on publication or the nationality of the author).
- The country of origin principle is problematic for works displayed in multiple countries, or which are derivative of works from another country. The display in Belgium comes long after initial publication of Astérix, but it is undeniably the display (either directly or as a derivative work) of the original Astérix illustrations and/or characters. Was the original Astérix comic even simultaneously published in Belgium and France? It's plausible, but, for all the previously given reasons, that's highly unlikely to have any relevance.
- Under the Berne Convention, simultaneous publication means that one image can have multiple countries of origin; a foreign work is considered . Depending on how this is interpreted, this image could be considered a domestic work by many countries (those which recognize it as "published" because it is, through Commons, accessible in that country), in the US (because Commons is based in and serves files from the US) and so on.
- The US incorporates its own "source country" test into the URAA. Under that test (Copyright Office explainer), the (single) source country for non-US works simultaneously published in multiple countries is determined based on which country has the strongest connection to the work. Being exclusively created by French authors in France, and without any potential ties to Belgium other than (let's hypothesize, for the sake of argument) simultaneous publication there, the underlying work here is a French one, not a Belgian one. (And France infamously does not have any FoP exception that could plausibly support reproducing murals in this context.)

TL;DR: These images are not eligible for Commons.

There are significant restrictions on Belgian FoP, meaning these images are non-free (by any sensible reading of the Definition of Free Cultural Works) even upon applying the most liberal reading of the Belgian exception
- This is especially true for elements of murals. While the same exception (textually) applies to works of architecture in the Belgian law, there is little practical chance that a photo of a building can be easily transformed back into an actual building design (compare the US law's allowance for photos of buildings but prohibition on building a new building based on a copyrighted design); these drawings have already been transformed into (essesntially) the best form for infringing upon the author's (still protected) interests.
It's highly implausible that foreign copyright exceptions ever apply directly in the US — and Commons is based in the US.
- US copyright exceptions might sometimes apply in the same circumstances where Belgian ones do, but this is totally different from Belgian exceptions applying in the US.
Even if foreign copyright exceptions did apply under US law, this is either a French-origin work which happens to also be displayed in Belgium or derived from a French-origin work.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller @Micheletb the current version of the Belgian law excludes the final part, being confined up to the condition that the work must be depicted as it is found there. See COM:FOP Belgium note on the latest amendment which I added a long time ago. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. You're right that this isn't the latest version, but you're wrong to think that the condition was removed. The version in WIPO-Lex is apparently a few months older than the current version of the law. The current version does omit the "normal exploitation" condition from that clause. But that's only because it was moved to another clause. This restriction still fully applies (it's part of how Belgium implements the Berne three-step test); it's just put in one place rather than repeated in different sections.

In the current version of the law, we find the following article, added in the 2022 amendment:

Art. XI.192/3 The exceptions provided for in articles XI.189, XI.190, XI.191, XI.191/1, XI.191/2, XI/192 (Section 1, Paragraph 2), XI.192/1 and XI.192/2 are only applicable insofar as much as they do not affect the normal exploitation of the work or database and so not unjustly prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholder.

As this exception falls under Art. XI.190, this restriction on its application still applies. Accordingly, I am going to edit the COM:FOP Belgium page in order to reflect what the law actually says. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "normal exploitation" wording is part of the Berne Convention, so any country where that is self-executing (a good many of them) that limitation is in the law even if not explicitly mentioned. Even where countries have 2-D FoP, I don't think you can crop to just the work (since that would compete directly in the marketplace with a copy or print from the original copyright owner). A 3-D sculpture is usually fine, if there are FoP provisions, but particularly for 2-D, it really should almost aways show the public context. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller going back to the Asterix case, based on your analysis, should all images at Category:Parcours BD (Astérix et Obélix) be filed for deletion? Per w:en:Asterix#Publication history, it appears the first instance of publication was in a French magazine in 1959. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I opened an extended topic at the section "Copyrighted characters from no-FoP states displayed as murals et cetera in yes-FoP states" below, as it may also impact hundreds of images and Flickr / panoramio imports. Some past deletion requests with "kept" closures may need to be reassessed and (if found to be showing a character from a no-FoP country like France, Japan or U.S.), reopened/renominated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rundvald with the images discussed here, and others that remove the public elements of murals. Günther Frager (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Company logo

Hi, I need help with uploading a company logo. I want to add it to the article about the Polish branch of a company on Wikipedia. I don’t know how to add this logo to ensure it’s compliant with copyright laws. I don’t own the rights to it, so I can’t upload it directly. It redirects me to Wiki Commons. I have permission to publish it, but I don't have information about whether it’s under any license. I tried to find out how other brands upload their logos, but after clicking on them, it takes me to a page where there is no such information. Under the license heading, it says the logo is not copyrighted and the image is in the public domain. However, in the commons upload wizard in step 3 (release rights) at point 4, it is required to indicate that I am certain the image does not contain protected elements such as logos...

I’m confused and don’t want to infringe on copyright. :( Please help. Bonnjourr (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two questions here: The first is whether the logo is above the threshold of originality in the source country of the logo (COM:TOO). If yes, you can only upload it if you can obtain a free license from the copyright holder and prove it, either by the copyright holder marking the license on their website or by the copyright holder sending it to VRT. If no, then you can upload it yourself, since it is free of copyright. Felix QW (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonnjourr: further, you don't say what language Wikipedia this is about. Many of the Wikipedias have provisions to host low-resolution versions of non-free logos themselves (not involving Commons) when needed for articles. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for the relevant policy for the English-language Wikipedia; for other Wikipedias that have policies for that, the policy pages are linked from there in the usual manner for interwiki links. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be for the Polish Wikipedia, then there are indeed no local uploads or fair-use provisions though. Felix QW (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another place to look is m:nfc. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a copyright issue

I'm not sure if I'm reporting this to the right place, but these images seem to have copyright issues. There are also problems with the metadata.

Pragdon (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pragdon: The first might well have copyright issues (I can't read Farsi, so I cannot tell whether the source page offers a license). I fail to see the issue with the second, can you please spell it out? - Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also fail to see the copyright issue with the second. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How much do we actually care about paintings being in the public domain in the United States?

{{PD-old}} says that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States.". This is very rarely done, and when it is, it's usually simply marking it as "expired" without providing any evidence of the fact. For example, File:Henry Clive - Sultana.jpg is featured, but was it published before 1929, not just painted or exhibited then? (See en:Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication.) See, for example, some of the deletion requests on enwiki in en:Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_July_4. Some (for example, en:File:Henri Matisse, 1909, Still Life with Dance, oil on canvas, 89.5 x 117.5 cm, Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg.jpg) have publication information, but most do not, and almost none here do; if they do, there's no obvious way of indicating the actual evidence in the copyright tag. Are we just cavalierly ignoring the actual copyright rules and hoping for the best here? grendel|khan 14:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with your general point that actual research should be conducted before slapping on a {{PD-US-expired}} tag, and that such a tag is clearly necessary.

Regarding specifically Henry Clive's Sultana, it seems to have originally been commissioned as calendar art, and seems indeed to have been published by the Louis F. Dow Calendar Company upon completion in 1925 (cf. this gallery page). Felix QW (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the evidence should certainly be included on the page; perhaps one could use the "permission" field in the information template for this purpose? Those using the {{Artwork}} template can make use of the "exhibition history" field as well. Felix QW (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more comfortable if it was part of the license tag in some way. The situation can be pretty complicated, and I'd like to be able to deterministically scan for files with incomplete copyright information. grendel|khan 17:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, we usually indicate the evidence for the license separately from the actual license tag, probably just because it can be pretty complicated. The only "deterministic" method is to look for files with no US copyright tag whatsoever; for everything else, one has to check the file page itself more closely. Felix QW (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is complicated. For non-US works, it depends on the definition of publication in the country of origin. I think that in most cases, if a painting was displayed in a place accessible to the public, it counts as publication. Also when a gallery displays works of art, it usually also publishes a catalog, so the works are also printed. Yann (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catalog, yes; public exhibition, no. This is counterintuitive, but see en:Wikipedia:Public_domain#Publication as pointed out above; US copyright law and the Berne Convention agree that, in short, "A work is published when tangible copies of it are made available to the public at large.". Exhibition or performance alone do not constitute publication. grendel|khan 18:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, the US definition matters for the US copyright and the source country definition matters for the source country copyright. According to COM:Public art and copyrights in the US, the definition of publication seems to has changed in 1978, with the previously adopted concept being significantly more liberal. According to the commentary on the page I just mentioned, this includes exhibition without preventing copying, or sale of the original. For post-1978 publication events, neither of those acts seem to suffice for publication. Felix QW (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grendelkhan: I believe in the era in question, in the U.S., public display was considered publication, even if that is no longer the case. Could someone more expert please weigh in on that? - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://chart.copyrightdata.com/c01B.html says that in American Tobacco Co. vs Werckmeister 207 U.S. 284 (12-2-1907) (be careful with that; the plaintiffs and defendants apparently went back to the courts several times) the court ruled that display without stopping copying would have made the painting published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition of publication only started in 1978 (as it came with the 1976 Copyright Act). Before then there was no definition in the law, and courts had to come up with some definitions. As mentioned in the Werckmeister case, the judges hinted that exhibition with no attempt to stop copying (by photography or drawing) could amount to publication. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Selling the painting may also qualify. (The dividing line between limited publication which did not lose copyright, and general publication which did, differed between judicial circuits so there are few clear-cut lines.) Most works are made to be published, so we often do assume publication near the date of creation, unless there is some evidence that shows that may have been delayed (such as the painter kept the painting themselves, or remained in the family for a long time). COM:PRP is for significant doubts; long-delayed publication is theoretically possible but less likely than under today's rules. We don't delete under any theoretical doubt; there should be some indication that this work had something a little abnormal happen to it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I mean above. Yann (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, for these old non-US paintings, the date of publication (under US law) should not depend on the definition of publication under the laws of the country of origin, but only the definition under US law. Additionally, since we are only speaking about pre-1978 paintings, only the pre-1978 definition of publication is relevant, as Clindberg says. American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister held that (under the pre-1978 definition) paintings and drawings, unlike books, are published by inspection and observation, and public display without a copyright notice or measures to prevent any copying constituted publication. (Additionally, this case specifically had to do with an exhibition outside the United States.)

The correct conclusion is that, as @Prosfilaes and @Jmabel say, pre-1978 exhibition of a painting or drawing constituted publication, and that such publication, made without a proper copyright notice (and renewal, if necessary) would put the painting in the public domain. Even if there were a notice, though, any painting published (so, exhibited without such measures taken to prevent copying as to preserve its common law copyright as an unpublished work) in 1928 or earlier, anywhere in the world, is in the public domain in the United States.

Most paintings were displayed publicly, and in most cases there was not this kind of rigid enforcement preventing copying which would have prevented publication. (Remember, also, that nobody needs to have actually copied the painting at that time; the important thing is that there was no systemic prevention of observation close enough as to allow for copying.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be extremely convenient, but it doesn't match up with existing policy as written on enwiki or at COM:PUBLISH. The interpretation that the pre-1978 definition applies to pre-1978 paintings (and the pre-1978 definition itself) does not appear on these pages.

Furthermore, we can't just assume that, say, a 1928 painting was never published. Given the explicitly started rules, if it was painted in 1928 but first published in, say, 1931, it would still be under copyright under US rules. (Non-renewal was mentioned elsewhere; that's only relevant if the author is American.) Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US is the work of one intern, and seems to apply only to permanent installations, and contradicts the main page on publication.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am, so is our documentation on copyright law. At best, it's contradictory, and we should make better sense of it. grendel|khan 09:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really policy as much as legal opinion on these copyright matters at Commons. As far as policy goes, it essentially boils down to "should be in the public domain in both the US and the source country". And while COM:PUBLISH should probably be improved, at least it does contain a link to COM:Public art and copyrights in the US. Apparently, that page was actually originally written by an attorney interning for the WMF, which may be as close to a professional statement on the matter as we at Commons are likely to have. Felix QW (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As @Felix QW says, publication is determined by what the law says, not what COM:PUBLISH (a simplified summary of the law) does. I don't have my citation handy, but the old definition applies to pre-1978 publications. More broadly, the 1976 Act was not supposed to alter the terms of pre-1978 works — as retroactively seeming them unpublished would have. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course, that being created in 1928 or earlier does not imply publication in 1928 or earlier. I was talking mostly about paintings which are very old (think 1700s) but which have no US tag. A 1928 painting could have not been published until 1931 and could still be copyrighted.

As an aside, renewal is not only relevant for works by American artists, but also works first published in the US (per US definition) and works which were in the public domain in their source country on the URAA date (usually January 1, 1996). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly have to care about the paintings being in the public domain in the United States. But most of these paintings are clearly in the public domain in the US — just not tagged properly. The lack of a proper US tag is a problem, but not a huge one. It's a more general problem, actually; lots of old items are just marked "PD-old" without a US license, including (for instance) items published in books in the 1800s which are in the public domain in the US without question. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: Hi, I don't understand why for a European painting published in Europe, we should use the US definition of publication, but I otherwise agree with your reasoning. Yann (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The US definition of publication determines whether or not an item was considered published according to US law — whether that publication took place in the US or abroad. For example, all works published in 1928 and earlier are in the public domain in the US, whether published in the US or abroad; the same definition is used to determine whether a work is published or not, wherever that act might have taken place. For instance, if Country X defined performing a play as publication, this would not matter for US law, since, under US law, performance of a play was not publication. See, for example, US cases of that era dealing with when foreign (usually British) plays were published; they apply the US law definition of publication on the basis the actions which took place outside the US. Of, course, the definition of publication in British law (or whatever country's law) would be used for determining whether or not publication took place according to that country's law, and this could determine the copyright status of the work in that country. But, except in circumstances where publication in the source country determines whether or not the work was in the public domain in its source country on the URAA date, the copyright status in the home country (determined by publication or other factors) doesn't determine US copyright status. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "clear" that these works are in the public domain in the United States according to stated policy. That's the whole problem. Now, maybe the policy as written should be changed to reflect a different interpretation of the law, like "for pre-1978 art, public exhibition counts as publication for US copyright status, and we assume in the absence of contrary evidence that paintings were exhibited within five years of completion". It's certainly not being followed as written, and people elsewhere seem to take the stricter interpretation seriously.

So, should the stated policy at COM:PUBLISH be rewritten to reflect that for pre-1978 works, for US copyright status, public exhibition counts as publication for our purposes? grendel|khan 07:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some groups take a conservative interpretation to be absolutely sure. The group you links takes publication more than 95 years ago as the rule. However, it could be published without notice or published with notice and failure to renew in the US, or published without notice or with failure to renew outside the US by an artist who died before 1926 (life+70 nations) or 1946 (life+50 nations), or never have been published before 2002 by an artist who died more than 70 years ago, and therefore be in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all safe to assume that any given painting was exhibited publicly within some arbitrary timespan from its creation. Many paintings are given as a gift, sold as a commissioned work, kept by the artist, offered directly for sale to a known patron, or otherwise not made available to the public. To assume, without any specific facts, that a painting was published, is not in keeping with the precautionary principle.

Any artworks with a PD-US assertion based on publication before 1978 should really be accompanied with some citations to confirm when publication occurred. But the vast majority of them are lacking those citations. I've often thought that we should have some template to point out that a PD assertion is lacking in supporting facts, like a less harsh version of {{Disputed}}, so reusers would be on notice to take the assertion with a grain of salt. Toohool (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no reason to assume exhibition within an arbitrary timespan. However, in many cases, it should not be necessary to establish the exact date of first publication in all cases. In particular, since exhibition can be continuous, an old painting which is known (or, from particular circumstances, can be reasonably understood) to have been exhibited at some point over 95 years ago is in the public domain, even if the exact date of first exhibition can't be established.

Also, any work that was published via public exhibition without restriction (or publication in print without notice, etc.) at some point before 1978 (before March 1989 for print copies), anywhere in the world, and which was in the public domain under the laws of its source country as of 1996, is in the public domain in the US due to URAA ineligibility, even if not published in 1929 or earlier.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and laws

I'm sure the following remarks with particular reference to several recent discussions (how to handle FoP in origin country vs. U.S.; some issues about how we determine whether and when a work of art in the early 20th Century was published; etc) will be controversial, but I think it needs to be said.

While we certainly need to try to make sure our policy conforms to laws, especially U.S. laws, it is not part of our precautionary principle to always opt for the most restrictive imaginable interpretation of laws in matters where we do not yet have clear legal precedent. Even for those of the participants in these discussions who happen to be lawyers, unless you are from the legal department of WMF, Wikimedia is presumably not your client. Of course your informed opinions are welcome, but you should not expect to have your legal advice accepted as if we were your client.

I wish I were in a position to quote individuals in what I am about to say, but I'm not. Two different people from the legal department of WMF have remarked to me that in general they find Commons' interpretations of copyright law overly conservative and restrictive. I for one keep that in mind when people suggest tightening down even further. I realize the rest of you have nothing here to go on in this respect but my word (though I'd greatly appreciate it if others could weigh in and say if you have also heard similar things informally, or if you have heard anything to the contrary).

Policy should be set to be good policy. If we are inclined to tighten our policies because we fear current policies may not be legal, it seems to me that we should be seeking advice from the lawyers who have a fiduciary responsibility to the Foundation, not taking quasi-legal advice from lawyers and non-lawyers with no fiduciary responsibility in the matter.

Note that these remarks are strictly about setting policy, not about discussions of individual photos, text content, etc. I would not expect WMF Legal to get involved in such small matters unless there were an actual case at hand in which the Foundation's interests arise.

I don't want to get dragged into an argument here. I've said my piece and I will not comment further on this thread unless pinged. - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually mostly agree with you: I think that many of Commons' rules and many common Commons community interpretations are actually much stricter than the law requires and there are some related rules I think are bad ideas. For example:

I think the policy that all Commons files be free in both the US and the country of origin (rather than just the US) is a bad idea.
- Commons is based in the US, as is enwiki, and enwiki hosts PD-US-only files. There's no legal difference between hosting them on Commons or on enwiki. It makes little sense, in my view, to kneecap ourselves by voluntarily adding another set of restrictions on top of US law. Of course, there are some things that are not in the PD in the US which are in many other countries, but US law giveth and taketh away. On Commons, though, it really only taketh away, and I think that's a foolish choice for a free media repository. (I know this is unlikely to change, but it's just my opinion.)
- The way in which "country of origin" is interpreted on Commons doesn't really make a lot of sense sometimes, since simultaneous publication is a thing. (This applies especially for anything originally published on the internet/Commons.) There are a lot of things out there that were simultaneously published in the US and some other country, and at least some have, I imagine, been passed over for upload (or deleted) because the US is not the country in which the work was created, even if it is in the public domain in the US.
- The interpretation given of non-US law can be especially conservative, and, since a file being non-free in its home country makes it ineligible for Commons, a decent number of free files have been passed over despite being perfectly fine in the US. This applies especially to photos of non-US architecture. Since it's acceptable to take non-commercial photos of buildings even in the vast majority of "no-FoP-architecture" countries, I find the mass deletion of photos of modern buildings from many countries around the world to be foolish — and certainly not required by US law.
  - The claim that hosting pictures of French buildings is likely to lead to a lawsuit and get Wikipedia/Commons blocked in France is beyond absurd to me... especially as enwiki already has photos of those buildings.
- See also: deletion of files that become non-free in their country of origin when that country abolishes or modifies an exception or passes a retroactive term extension.
The Commons community can perhaps interpret the threshold of originality as being unreasonably low.
- It was taken on faith by many that UK law in fact would grant a copyright in a photo of a painting, for instance — see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. But UK courts have since held such reproductions to be ineligible for copyright (THJ v. Sheridan), and there was case law which arguably laid the groundwork for that conclusion even then. The fact that the claims of the NPG were accepted by so many as authoritative at the time (in the UK, if not the US) — and, let's not even imagine how it would be if Bridgeman v. Corel had not already been decided — is a sign of just how low a bar some would think there is for enclosing the public domain.
- Many countries with (supposedly) low thresholds of originality have many PD-textlogo (and other simple files) removed. (Even if you accept a trivial TOI, which leads to its own absurdities, there is reason to think that many of these files posted on the internet could be considered simultaneously published in the US.)
- See above point about accepting the restrictions of stricter non-US copyright laws.
Many other issues, e.g., in some cases, people can adopt interpretations of CC licenses which would imply that they restrict the use of even non-copyrightable content, etc.

When it comes to actual determinations on legal questions and the adoption of a substantive position, I certainly agree that WMF Legal should be involved. (And, of course, the actual law is decided by courts and legislatures; Commons deletion discussions have no legal or precedential value.)

That being said, Commons and WMF policies are intentionally stricter than the law requires. So compliance with WMF policies — or the policies of Wikimedia projects — often requires going above and beyond what the law itself would allow. There would be no impediment to us hosting CC-ND licensed files here — but we choose not to because that license, while allowing for redistribution of a file, is not free in the sense required by the licensing policy. Along similar lines, the English Wikipedia's NFCC are significantly stricter than US fair use doctrine allows. This is, of course, on purpose — because the goal of the project is, to some extent, to be free content, and not just content. There have been some real upsides to that — and the WMF hosts a lot of really great stuff — but there are some debates you could have about some of those choices, too. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller@Jmabel may I ask that before making substantial changes to FoP policy of Commons, a proper consultation with Wikimedians from 80+ countries be made first? For example, Wikimedians from Singapore, Malaysia, and Brazil, if they are willing to have non-incidental (non-de minimis) images of Merlion and Christ the Redeemer to be taken down, as these are legally unfree in the U.S. (post-1929 sculptural monuments, covered by URAA so they won't be restored even during the lifetimes of most of the current members of Wikimedia communities in Singapore and Brazil). This shift – only to please U.S. law and obligations at U.S. courts/legal system – at the expense of the rights of Wikimedians in 80+ yes-FoP countries to host their numerous post-1929 sculptural monuments will certaibly have drastic consequences that will certainly affect Wikimedia movements on arts and culture in those countries. It will also be put into question if Wiki Loves Monuments will be viable once only U.S. FoP is going to be respected. Again, it is not U.S. Wikimedians that initiated it, it was Dutch Wikimedians that launched it – way back in 2010 – to cover photography of their buildings and monuments that are part of their heritage. It was expanded the next year to the entirety of Europe, and only reached overseas (including U.S.) in 2012. Photography and sharing of images of monuments through WLM and other photo competitions is one part of the Wikimedia movement that will certainly be affected by this shift to U.S. FoP law.

I will certainly

Oppose any attempt to change to U.S. FoP rule-only policy, unless most or all of Wikimedians from Brazil, Singapore, Netherlands, Belgium, U.K., Malaysia, etc. agree or concede to agree that only U.S. FoP law needs to be followed and that their hundreds of post-1929 sculptural monuments should not be hosted here anymore and the existing non-de minimis images of their monuments be removed from this site. Also, it means that South African, Philippine, and ESEAP FoP initiatives become pointless. For instance, Nelson Mandela and anti-apartheid monuments from South Africa won't be welcome here anymore, even if FoP is introduced in South Africa. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that US law must be followed. There is no choice of following US law vs. not following US law. There is only the choice of following US law or following US law plus additional restrictions. The community can choose to make rules which are more restrictive than what US law allows — it cannot create new exceptions to the law. The question is what US law actually allows.

Hopefully, WMF Legal can give an interpretation of what US law allows and doesn't allow here. It's not up to the community to determine what the law requires. I have my reading of what the law says (not what I'd wish for it to say). But I'm not WMF Legal — it's up to them to decide what US legal position the WMF is willing to defend.

But also, "pointless"? Wikimedia Commons is not the only site on the internet. Wikimedians from (say) the UK cannot upload works by authors who died in 1953 but which were published in 1950 and aren't in the public domain in the US — even though they are in the UK, for instance. But they can host them in the UK or other countries where such works are in the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller re: "pointless", Wikimedia Commons is the only site where Wikimedians may be able to share or host their monuments, inclusive of post-1929 sculptural monuments, to widely disseminate their cultural heritage to the widest possible audiences. No other media repository site can do the same feat or achievement that Wikimedia Commons already did. We here in the Philippines do not have any local repository site, as many upload their photos through U.S.-hosted Instagram and Facebook. For sure, Singaporeans or even Malaysians do not have their media repository sites (that can rival or even surpass Wikimedia Commons) where they can freely share Merlion and other post-1929 sculptures. And note, the prime motivation for South Africans to introduce FoP in their country in the first place is for them to finally share their images of anti-apartheid monuments and Nelson Mandela statues on Wikimedia Commons (they have more heritage in statues and public sculptures than on their contemporary architecture). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Commons is the largest site. But it's not the only website in the world. And you can start a site hosted in (for example) Germany or Canada fairly easily. But even if that's a huge inconvenience to non-US users, that doesn't have any impact on what US law says. It's irrelevant to the interpretation of US law.

Although you've said many times that the WMF can choose to ignore US law, this just isn't true, and it doesn't become true just because you'd like it to be or because it would be nice. (It might be nice if Golan v. Holder had gone the other way, too, but it didn't!) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably type out a lengthier explanation of my thoughts later, but I generally agree with Jmabel in that we are very conservative when it comes to copyright, and we can (if the community choses) expand on some things. I essentially believe our Yes-FOP is a de facto EDP as the community has chosen the additional burden of respecting non-American laws when works are not American, and I reject calls for US-onlyFOP rules. I agree with D. Benjamin Miller that the community can choose to allow non-commercial FOP because Wikimedia Commons is not a commercial site, but that would have to be something the community would clearly chose. We are a media repository, and eventually we'll have to reckon with governments and creators that may increasingly insist on non-commercial only licenses because of late stage capitalism and AI. Abzeronow (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with D. Benjamin Miller that the community can choose to allow non-commercial FOP because Wikimedia Commons is not a commercial site

I must clarify that, if this is your position, I don't think you agree with me. My interpretation is:

For architecture: broad exemption exists in US law. Thus:
- Buildings in US and FoP countries: perfectly OK to upload (and this is of course the rule already).
- Buildings in No-FoP countries: would be legal to upload (US site), but we have chosen to make a rule against it (which I think is a bad idea, but just my opinion).
For non-architectural works, where the presence of the work is not de minimis: no broad exemption exists in US law. Thus:
- Sculptures, etc., located in the US: already blocked.
- Sculptures, etc., located in countries with an exemption: allowed in practice — but I don't think this is broadly legal. The US has no FoP exemption for such works; there is only the more general fair use exemption. The fair use exemption does not allow for all non-commercial use.

To be totally clear, when anyone talks about my position on following "US-only FoP rules," know that it is the following:

I suggest allowing photos of buildings, even from countries which don't have FoP for buildings, because US law clearly allows this. That I think is definitely a choice the community can make (and compare PD-Art; I also think the arguments against both may be based on very conservative interpretations of non-US countries' copyright laws).
My position on non-architectural FoP, on the other hand, is that US law (fair use, since there is no specific FoP exemption) doesn't make any blanket allowance for it (even when non-commercial).

Crucially, I think that the "pros and cons" list presented by @JWilz12345 at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/04#Pros_and_cons_of_mandating_U.S._copyright_law_sitewide presents these two issues as though the choices were connected, which makes no sense, because these are not connected at all. Whether or not you think US law allows for (foreign and/or non-commercial) sculptural FoP has nothing to do at all with whether you think we should choose to reject photos of buildings in countries where there is no architectural FoP.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Past discussions on the same issue: on FoP talk page and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/04#Pros and cons of mandating U.S. copyright law sitewide. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is what constitutes publication under US law is a significant policy question, and I'd like WMF legal to get involved in it, because there's clearly (a) significant disagreement, and (b) very broad implications. Stated policy is restrictive, but de facto policy is permissive. This is not a good situation. grendel|khan 07:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, COM:PUBLISH isn't a policy. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17th century painting by Reinier Nooms

This painting was made by Reinier Nooms (1623/1624–1664) in 1661. It says copyrighted on Flickr, but it should be public domain. -Artanisen (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is PD; the photograph (which includes the frame and a tiny bit more) you could argue is copyrightable. If you crop to just the painting, it's fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notion that the non-painting parts of the photograph constitute an original copyrightable work in (pretty much any) country is pretty absurd, but ideally the photo would be slightly cropped to show only the painting anyway.

More generally, a lot of items on Flickr are listed as copyrighted but are in fact PD — or, in some cases, are listed as licensed when they aren't. This painting is certainly in the public domain; we can ignore the tag on Flickr if we know it's not correct. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, COM:LL can be a problem when it comes to Flickr, which one of the reasons the practice of doing what you're describing is often referred to as "en:Flickrwashing", and Commons can and does ignore an invalid claim of copyright in such cases. However, Commons does treat the frame in photos of framed PD paintings as a possibly copyrightable element per COM:FRAME; so, ideally it would be best to take a new photo of the same painting (if possible) minus the frame or find an existing photo that's frameless. There's also the option of using the template {{Non-free frame}} if the file has already been uploaded. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded this picture, sans frame, as File:Reinier Nooms - View on the IJ in front of Amsterdam.jpg. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory images

There are a bunch of files on Commons that are listed as government works that are from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory website, which is a government contractor, and I think does not automatically release its images into the public domain. I found this CC-BY-NC-SA notice, which I think means the photos aren't in the public domain. I tagged those (this and this one). The problem is, this geese image and this lab image got posted on the US DOE flickr account (geese image post) (which apparently exists) as "United states government works", which I infer are free from copyright (the lab image at least must be taken by an LLNL employee since it's in the lab). Does anyone know if I'm just wrong on how government contractor copyright works? Also, does that count as the DOE releasing the images? Even more than that, LLNL has its own Flickr account and posted the same geese image as "All Rights Reserved". I'm feeling like it needs to be deleted, but I'm not sure. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a case of mis-interpretting a lay-language phrase. The "United states government works" tag on Flickr does not appear to mean the work is literally a creation of the US government (with its intrinsic PD nature as {{PD-USGov}}). Instead, that phrase links to https://www.usa.gov/government-copyright, which reminds that one site might incorporate content from some other party, which does not entail making a PD release on that third-party content (only hosted by not created by). DMacks (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That probably makes the most sense. The website linked does use the language "Not everything that appears on a federal government website is a government work (something created by a U.S. government officer or employee as part of their official duties).", which I think implies government works are intended mean the public domain ones, but it seems likely that they're just posted with an incorrect understanding of the license. I'll nominate these for deletion. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Usage restrictions: none" an acceptable license? Solenangis impraedicta

https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/1019167 Solenangis impraedicta (IMAGE) from MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN This page says "Usage restrictions: none". Is that acceptable as a license? We do not have any other photo of this species of orchid. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, though it may be worth further investigation. I think we would need something that addresses the copyright a bit more -- www.eurekalert.org does seem to hint that usage restrictions can be changed, though those do come from the contributing entity. The source is discoverandshare.org, a blog of the Missouri Botanical Garden, but I don't see any copyright information on that website at all. The main Missouri Botanical Garden website has a regular copyright notice with no license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite unclear. The relevant advice for the uploading parties does suggest that there is some direct connection between copyright status and the "Usage restrictions" field, but I still don't fully understand it. Felix QW (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The terms and conditions spell out how the process works. In short: submitters grant EurekAlert a broad license, including the right to sublicense. But EurekAlert doesn't allow free use of the images. "EurekAlert! and AAAS encourage the broad dissemination of research news to strengthen science communications worldwide. However, no reporter/freelancer member may use or duplicate any Website Content or any User Submissions on other websites in a wholesale or "content aggregation" fashion or otherwise use Website Content or User Submissions in violation of these Terms of Service or the Other Terms. News releases on EurekAlert! are intended to support bona fide news coverage by reporters registered with EurekAlert!. You may not download, reprint, reproduce, republish, transmit, or otherwise distribute Website Content or User Submissions in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use, without the prior express written permission from EurekAlert! and AAAS." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That helps some (nice find). It does sound like uploading parties must agree to the statement I certify that I have obtained in writing the necessary rights and permissions [...] to allow the re-use of such image and likeness as part of the Multimedia Content in news coverage and on social media according to the restriction I have selected. So there is some general permission, but I don't think it amounts to a free license. It also sounds like the uploaders had the explicit option to choose a CC license, and chose to state "Original Content" instead. So, the permission may be restricted to "news coverage and on social media", unless we get a more specific licensing statement. If someone wants to ask, they could go through the COM:VRT process to ask the institution to license that photo in particular, or at least get some clarification on what no usage restrictions means in their eyes. They would need to reply or CC directly to the permissions-commons address mentioned on the VRT page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the contributors have to certify that they have the right to give permission, but EurekAlert! is given the authority to give sublicenses to the actual news users. However, as the contributors' license is non-exclusive, they can also give a separate license acceptable for use on Commons. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original article is copyrighted by the publisher Elsevier. (Not sure if it includes this photo, access to the full article requires payment.) You could try to contact the corresponding author João Farminhão. Or the photographer Marie Savignac to check the copyright status of her photo. Marie Savignac is a freelance nature illustrator. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Elsevier article includes different images, actually (I happen to have access via my university affiliation). Felix QW (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and commercial purposes

Hi all. I had a discussion on the following file File:Portrait de Océane Godard.jpg. This picture has been taken from https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr. The following part is quoted from Legal information. From my understanding, we cannot upload here the files due to being for commercial purposes. I am right about that ?

Original Les documents « publics » ou « officiels » ne sont couverts par aucun droit d'auteur (article L.122-5 du code de la propriété intellectuelle). Ils peuvent donc être reproduits librement. C'est le cas pour les débats et les documents parlementaires. Les informations utilisées ne doivent l'être qu'à des fins personnelles, associatives ou professionnelles, toute utilisation ou reproduction à des fins commerciales ou publicitaires étant interdite.

Transalation Public" or "official" documents are not covered by any copyright (article L.122-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code). They may therefore be reproduced freely. This is the case for parliamentary debates and documents. Information may only be used for personal, associative or professional purposes. Any use or reproduction for commercial or advertising purposes is prohibited. Nicolas22g (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement can be a bit unclear, especially in this English translation. To clarify, this is what it is saying:

Official acts and documents — meaning the text of laws, court decisions, etc., but also parliamentary reports and debate transcripts — are in the public domain and can be reproduced freely.
Other information or files found on French government websites are copyrighted and not necessarily freely licensed. The ones covered by this notice aren't freely licensed.
- The Assemblée nationale does, however, make some items available under an open license, and those files can be used in accordance with that license.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Saparmurat Nyyazov

Greetings. Can you tell me the original copyright holder of the image of the first Turkmen President Niyazov, posted at the link https://ps.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%87:%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1_%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF_%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%88%D9%81.jpg? It has been posted there since the day of his death on December 21, 2006 and was made during his presence at the military parade in Moscow on May 9, 2005 (this is indicated in the metadata). MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should address this question to the Turkmen Wikipedia. Ruslik (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAE buildings before 1993

Hello. Kindly join the discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/United Arab Emirates#UAE Copyright law before 1992. There is a possibility that UAE buildings completed before 1993 are in public domain by default. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing of photographer permission

I'm polishing the essay en:Wikipedia:A picture of you a little to make it clearer what a person has to write when sharing an image on social media, if they want it to be uploaded to Commons.

If a person has a photo taken by a professional photographer and has that photographer's permission to freely licence it however they like, what advice should we be giving that person? Would a social media caption of something like I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence. Photo taken by John Smith, copyright transferred to me. be accepted at Commons, that we'd take the subject's word for it? Or would we want the photographer to share the image somewhere instead? Belbury (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my opinion, and I don't know what the policy is, but maybe it would be best to just get a statement from the photographer? They don't necessarily need to share the image. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Email permission from the photographer per COM:VRT is always an option, I'm specifically curious about the most streamlined advice we can give to a non-Commons-user who's sharing a photo on social media (and who may not be engaged enough to agree to pass an email template to a photographer with instructions to send it on to a particular Commons desk, particularly if that photographer is just a non-professional friend). Belbury (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caption you give as an example is an unambiguous, clear and acceptable license statement. Statements don't have to be so verbose, though; as long as the meaning is clear, and they refer to a valid license, then it is fine. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that without VRT or a posting by the photographer, we have no way to verify that the photographer (who holds the copyright) gave permission. What we have is the subject's assurance, not a statement from the photographer. That provides no reuser with any relevant evidence if the photographer sues them for a copyright violation. "But the guy in the photo said you said he could grant a license from you" isn't going to cut it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the copyright was assigned to the subject (as the statement given above says), then it's the subject, not the photographer, who owns the copyright, and the photographer wouldn't even have the right to sue (not being the copyright holder).

It's not that uncommon for the copyright in headshots (and commercial photography) to be assigned to the subject/client (although it's not universal, either). When the copyright has been transferred (or when the work is a work for hire), the client (who may be the subject) is the copyright holder, and the only one who can give permission for the work's use.

There is no way for us to definitively demonstrate who owns a copyright in 99.9% of cases, because we almost never have access to the contracts assigning the copyright (or not). For that matter, we can hardly definitely prove that John Smith or the like is the actual photographer, or that photos on Flickr don't come from a stolen hard drive or SD card that someone found lying around.

The word of the client of a commercial photographer saying that a work has been licensed by the photographer or that the copyright has been transferred (esp. when dealing with the original source of publication, rather than some random third party) is one on which you can normally rely, unless you have reason to believe otherwise. If the client falsely represents the content as freely licensed, although the photographer did not agree, the downstream recipient (us) who relied upon the reasonable belief that the content was released with a valid license is at most an innocent infringer — being a person who was "not aware and had no reason to believe his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say the copyright was assigned, it says the photographer gave a permission to "license it as you like." As I understand it, VRT pretty routinely don't consider that adequate, and want to see a copy of an overt written transfer. The only exceptions I've seen them make are for established institutions such as major NGOs, arts organizations, or corporations, not individuals (including not individual politicians, musicians, etc.). This is just what I've observed: I have no knowledge of the inner workings of VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hypothetical caption states that the copyright was assigned. This is not the same as implication of the previous phrasing used by @Belbury, but I'm addressing the case mentioned in the caption. For what it's worth, the VRT instructions also say using VRT is unnecessary when "The image was first published on [the uploader's] website, or on [the uploader's] own space of a shared website." I'm also certain that many such cases have not gone to VRT to begin with. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the the subject's own site or social media presence is first publication, we generally take their word, though I've certainly seen it challenged on the basis that they don't have any evidence of owning the copyright; that seems particularly the case for bands. Again: just reporting what I've seen.- Jmabel ! talk 03:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of the gov.uk copyright notice

I thought I'd try to add a few ([3] [4] [5]) of the gov.uk images because the copyright disclaimer below said that they were all licensed under the OGL (Open Government License), but I'm not sure that it's accurate. I've seen at least one stock photo up there (specifically, this one appears on stock websites), and several produced by a non-governmental organization. I'm pretty confident in the Gauld photo being valid, but the Bee Network one was taken by Transport For Greater Manchester, which is an arm of a local combined authority, and I haven't been able to figure out whether local government is covered by crown copyright, or whether voluntary associations like that are exempt. Does anyone know whether these images' copyrights are valid? Mrfoogles (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "water sector" one seems more likely to be copyfraud by the stock websites than by the government. It's on several government sites. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yo-yo

So I invented a new term, can I just post it here then? Someone will steal it no? Freeseedco (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons hosts media files only, not word definitions. Words alone cannot be copyrighted – they are in the public domain. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the probability is high that someone thought of this word before --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teletoon 2005.png

File:Teletoon 2005.png seems incorrectly licensed since the logo didn't originate from Logopedia. It should be fine to change this to {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO Canada, right? Should Logopedia also be being used as the source per COM:BAD given that most of the content it hosts seems to be its own original content? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

& of course the author claim by uploader User:Marcel Ntim is presumably invalid. - Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File is likely below COM:TOO for Canada. {{PD-logo}} & {{Trademark}} can replace the CC license. The file likely came from here https://www.dafont.com/forum/read/372054/teletoon-2001-logo; there's your source. The author can be Corus Entertainment as that would be the parent company for Teletoon. PascalHD (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mural art on a French building

Can anyone verify when was the mural here painted, and if the artist's bio can be traced (when did he/she die)? Google Lens image searching did not yield results that would have been useful to know the authorship or date of the work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that the painting is over 95 years old. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now started: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Port-Vendres Peinture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this stamp original enough for COM:TOO Spain?

The Spanish government released this stamp (bottom of the page) a few years ago. Generally, Spanish stamps retain their copyright status, but I've been looking at this one again and it's just some text on top of the File:Gay Pride Flag.svg. Any second opinions? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The work must have the characteristics of ""uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability", which I think is not present in this stamp. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking that too. Thanks for the input! Now off to figure out which license templates to use. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLipstickLesbian: I agree it is TOO. You are probably best off to use {{PD-flag}} as opposed to {{PD-ineligible}} even though it does contain some text. Ww2censor (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor Oh wow, I agree that template looks much better! I'll swap it out, thanks for letting me know. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Trade

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Trade i have a question about that DR(9 July 2024), i suspect copyvio, because of (sort of)photographed package images. these images also contain slighty blured parts. guys, did i make mistake about this DR? please give information about this, thank you. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 15:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image public domain?

In the library of congress (government website) there's an image of the composer Alex North, I'm wondering if I'm allowed to upload it to commons. https://blogs.loc.gov/music/2020/06/composer-in-hollywood-manuscripts-alex-north-papers-now-processed/ Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, https://findingaids.loc.gov/db/search/xq/searchMfer02.xq?_id=loc.music.eadmus.mu020007&_faSection=usingThisCollection&_faSubsection=userestrict&_dmdid=d146036e12 sounds like it could be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it says "Materials from the Alex North Music for Documentary Film, Theater, Dance, and Concert are governed by the Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17, U.S.C.) and other applicable international copyright laws." It talks about the music, I don't think it says anything about the image. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::: If you check the contents of the collection https://findingaids.loc.gov/db/search/xq/searchMferDsc04.xq?_id=loc.music.eadmus.mu020007&_start=376&_lines=125 it says "Subject files, 1937-1984 Scripts, scrapbooks, programs, clippings, and other materials related to North's projects." and the blog credits the image as "Alex North Papers, Music Division." Abzeronow (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it is copyrighted? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also says 1910-1984 whilst the photo is from 1986 Academy Awards. --Geohakkeri (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image is credited as "Alex North Papers, Music Division." I'd still research if the photograph was published in 1986 or published later. Abzeronow (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public-submitted images on NWS websites

Hi all; a few days ago, I learned that the US National Weather Service websites host images not only created by their own employees (obviously {{PD-USGov}}) but also images contributed by members of the public. At least some of those images are in the public domain because since at least 2009, the NWS has had a process through which images become part of the public domain.[6]

I am currently involved in a deletion discussion about one such image (as the nominator) because I don't think we can be sure exactly which images of pre-2009 weather events are covered by this, based on the fact that we don't know when this process was first put in place, and generally don't know when images were submitted under it.

For a very long time, the Commons has assumed (based on the research or rationale behind this template: {{PD-NWS}}) that all public-submitted images to the NWS had gone through that process, at least since the process was put in place. That is, any image hosted on any NWS website and credited to a member of the public was in the Public Domain (see the language of the template).

However, as I was doing some further research to see if we could better pin down the start date of that process, I discovered that the NWS actually has a few different submission processes, not all of which have "release to the PD" as one of their conditions, and that some of these processes are still active in 2024. For example:

this process and this process only require that the owner give the NWS permission to share the photo
this process requires that the owner gives the NWS, NOAA, or "anyone else" permission to share the photo specifically "for lightning safety and related uses"

Neither of which puts the image in the PD, or licences it under anything compatible with CC.

Then we also haveː

this process that says that submissions become part of the PD, but also allows submitters to set a condition that credit is required with each use, so the resulting copyright and license status is unclear.

(My understanding at this point is whether or not publicly-submitted images hosted on NWS websites are in the PD or not hinges both on when the image was submitted, but potentially also which NWS/NOAA office it was submitted to; note that the various processes linked above come from different regional offices).

This obviously has an even broader implication than just images of pre-2009 events. My question isː where to from here? Should Iː

introduce this new information into an already pretty convoluted deletion discussion
withdraw the current nomination and start a different, broader discussion about publicly-submitted images on NWS websites (and if so, where)
something else?

Any advice appreciated. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which expiration date should the copyright of this image take?

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:1962《阿诗玛》封面.jpg First, the work was published in 1962. According to the copyright law of the PRC, some people believe that the work belongs to a corporate work and should enter the public domain in the PRC in 2013. Due to URAA, the image entered the public domain in the United States in 2058. On the other hand, some people believe that the creator of the work died in 2023. For personally created works, it should not officially enter the public domain until 2074, but due to URAA, it will enter the public domain in the United States 16 years earlier than in the PRC. As for the time point for the image to enter the public domain, should it be 2058 or 2074? Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy euro banknotes

It’s doubtful at best that {{Money-EU}} could apply to these. --Geohakkeri (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. These are designs created by the private companies Euro Special Note and Euro Note Souvenir. These companies are, as far as I understand, using the base design of Euro banknotes under the provision allowing for the use of the design so long as it is not confused for real currency. But these designs weren't created by the ECB, and so whatever permission the ECB has given doesn't apply to the original designs created by those companies. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree, these should be nominated for deletion Mrfoogles (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated. --Geohakkeri (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Film4 logo 2018.png is PD-textlogo, but the same file on enwiki is PD-ineligible-USOnly|the United Kingdom

file on enwiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Film4_logo_2018.svg which one is correct? PaperHuman (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOO UK is very low, so I would say the En Wiki reasoning is correct. The Commons file should probably be deleted. PascalHD (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful that the threshold is still so low in the UK; per THJ v. Sherdian (pages 6–7), the Infopaq standard is now the controlling one in the UK. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Labs images and CC-NC

Hello all. I'm not a regular on Commons, but think I may have stumbled across a rather large issue. While doing an FLC image review, I found File:Malha Wells, Sudan by Planet Labs.jpg from the company Planet.com. They take satellite imagery, and this photo was stated to be under a CC-4.0 license. However, it cannot be found in their gallery. While searching for it, I noticed that every other photo in their gallery is licensed as CC-BY-NC, a license we do not accept on Commons or Wikipedia. We do have quite a large inventory of Planet Labs images here on Commons, at Category:Images by Planet Labs. Some of these are marked on the image as CC-4.0, but many are not. I suspect that the majority of these will need attention and may need to be removed because of the incompatible license, and wanted to make some more experienced Commons users aware of this. Thanks! Fritzmann2002 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002 It is very possible at the time of upload, the site offered the images under a compatible CC-4.0 license and have since changed it to a more restrictive CC-NC license. If it was licensed under the claimed tag, CC licenses are non revocable so we can keep them - but not add more. Pinging @Ras67 whom uploaded the file(s) in question. PascalHD (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was indeed CC-BY-SA-4.0 on the date of upload, 7 March 2017. The images are broken in the archive.org capture of the link from File:Malha Wells, Sudan by Planet Labs.jpg, but looking at the HTML source from archived page it appears that at the time of the original upload the page displayed the CC BY SA icons and linked to the license at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. —RP88 (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org, old TV shows and PD Mark 1.0

I came across File:Robert Gothie in Lock Up (Framed Ex-Con).jpg while looking at some other stuff. It's a screenshot from an episode of the TV show en:Lock-Up (TV series). The file was uploaded under a {{PD-US-not renewed}} license, but the source provided for the screenshot claims the show is {{PD Mark 1.0}}. Is this OK as licensed? Can the claim by Archive.org be taken at face value? If there's no problems with this, there might be other old TV show content found on Archive.org that's also PD, and some of this might be able to replace "non-free content" uploaded to English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find copyright renewals for the TV show on www.copyright.gov, then they are not OK. If you can't find them, it's probably fine. I would not take archive.org's word for it, but it's straightforward to disprove a PD-US-not_renewed claim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Clindberg. I see if I can figure out how to check for that using the website you linked above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly: I think the image looks rather distorted. If you put the time details of where it is in the film, then someone can try to readjust the proportions to make it look more natural. Ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor: I didn't upload the file; I only came upon it by chance while looking at some other files. I can't figure out the copyright.gov site; so, I haven't been able to verify the file's licensing. It would probably better to figure that out first before trying to upload a cleaner version of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked 1984-1988 and failed to find any renewals for a motion picture or television serial called lock-up. All I managed to find was music under that name (by an Eddie Davis), but that seems to be unrelated. Felix QW (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article about the production company mentions that some shows are in the public domain, but without more information nor a reference. A search on cocatalog.loc.gov returns 1645 entries for Ziv Television, but apparently nothing for Lock-Up (alphabetically, the list passes from Laughing to Lodestone). -- Asclepias (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A map from 1877 to 1898

I would like to upload this image: https://canterburystories.nz/collections/maps-plans/heathcote-road-board-rural-sections/ccl-cs-95654?keys=Opawa%20library&items_per_page=24. I assume since this was created over 120 years ago it is free of copyright? correct me if I'm wrong and should not upload. Alexeyevitch (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source states the items are free of copyright under the New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 so you can upload the map with {{PD-US-expired| PD-New Zealand}}. --Geohakkeri (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Alexeyevitch (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Théodore Simon photos

Is File:Theodore Simon ACERVO CDPHA.jpg OK for Commons? It was uploaded in 2013 and was being used as the main infobox image in en:Théodore Simon until quite recently, when it was replaced by a local non-free file uploaded to English Wikipedia as en:File:Simon Théodore.png. The Commons file, however, still is being used by other non-English Wikipedias and Wikidata. If the licensing of the Commons file is OK, then it would be really hard to justify the non-free use of the local English Wikipedia file; on the other hand, if it's not OK and can't be kept, then a non-free could possibly used on English Wikipedia.

It's also not clear whether the non-free uploaded to English Wikipedia really needs to be non-free. There's relevant discussion related to it at en:User talk;Non-free rationale for File:Simon Théodore.png, ut basically the provenance of the file is a bit unclear, The uploader states they got the photo directly from the Binet-Simon Society and agreed to only use a small part of the photo on Wikipedia. The file's description, however, states it was taken around 1905 and the uploader states the photo shows the subject when he was about 20 years younger than the Commons photo. So, there's a good chance the photo is within the public domain and thus would be OK for Commons. It also seems that whatever the agreement the uploader entered into with the source would be a COM:NCR type of arrangements that's not related to the file's copyright status.

Finally, there's another photo of Simon (at least I think it's of Simon) found online here whicb might also be PD. If it is, then it could used if the other two aren't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alamy states that the image in File:Theodore Simon ACERVO CDPHA.jpg is PD, something they would be unlikely to claim if they had a copyright they could enforce. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than just this one...

Hi everyone, I just marked this image as likely being copyvio. The name of the photographer / copyright holder is mentioned (Pierre Montavon), but there is no indication of a permission, or that the uploader is identical with the copyright holder.

Only when I was finished doing that, I saw that practically all uploads by this user are images by this photographer. Now what? Do I have to mark every single one of these, or is there some easier way to do it? Can someone help please? Thanks, --2003:C0:8F12:CD00:30CB:A7B2:4CA1:F9ED 18:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick searches don't show this image anywhere else on the internet. I think it's reasonable to believe that the uploader could well be Pierre Montavon, considering that they've only uploaded works by Pierre Montavon which don't appear to be online elsewhere. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the uploader wrote that the source is this book, published by Éditions D+P SA, so it would need a permission by the publisher or by the photographer, whichever owns the copyright. If someone wants to ask the photographer, his contact is there. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a Weird Al Yankovic picture?

So there's this Weird Al press photo that I found that has some inconsistencies about it, I noticed that there are copies that have the Copyright Notice affixed "© 1985 CBS Inc." but there's also other prints that omit the Copyright year (as you can see by the font, logos and print code 8505 it was printed around the same time and not chopped or removed) and were not registered in the Copyright Office by any of the parties involved, would that Invalidate the Copyright Status and make it PD under the 78-89 US Copyright Law?. ALSO there's an issue that the picture "in color" was published, registered and Copyrighted in Weird Al's parody book "The Authorized Al". I wanted to ask if only the PD status would only apply to the b&w photo if the photo is PD? Hyperba21 (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperba21 In a scenario where a few copies were distributed without a copyright notice between 1978-1989, it does not necessarily invalidate the copyright. The law at the time allowed minor omissions as long as most copies included a notice and reasonable efforts were made to correct any errors later on. Section 2203.4 states the following:

2203.4 Omission of Notice on Works First Published Between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989
The omission of a notice on a work published between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989 with the authority of the copyright owner does not invalidate the copyright, provided that one of the following conditions has been met:

• The notice was omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public; or

• The work was registered before or within five years after the publication without notice and a reasonable effort was made “to add notice to all copies or phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United States after the omission has been discovered;” or

• The omission was “in violation of an express requirement in writing that, as a condition of the copyright owner’s authorization of the public distribution of copies or phonorecords, they bear the prescribed notice.”

For example, some earlier copies could have been distributed without a notice, but was corrected relatively shortly after publication. Registration would still not be required as long as it was a 'small number' of copies. However, if a photo was published without a notice, and not corrected until after the 5 year window, it would most likely fall into the Public Domain. In this case though, it appears to have been corrected early on within the same year of 1985. I would say this photo is most likely copyrighted. PascalHD (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1959 Yearbook portrait of Charles Edward Kerbs (MATT)

Hello, I found a portrait of Charles Edward Kerbs (MATT) from his 1959 Warren Easton High School yearbook that I would like to post. Scans of the yearbook are widely available on various websites such as AlumniClass (<https://www.alumniclass.com/warren-easton-high-school-eagles-new-orleans-la/in-memory-view/?p=110796>). Is the 1959 yearbook considered to be freely available? Would love guidance. OiYoiYoink (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A US yearbook published before 1964 is in the public domain unless it had a copyright notice and a renewal was filed, which almost never happened for yearbooks. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rogers Mall Plan.jpg

Arial Bold (talk · contribs) is claiming ownership of File:Rogers Mall Plan.jpg. I know this is not their work, as it's a map I made way back in 2002 and posted on Angelfire. I have no idea how Arial Bold got a hold of it, as I took down the Angelfire page ages ago and I don't think I've ever shared the map publicly. For that reason, I think their other uploads should be scrutinized as ewll. TenPoundHammer (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the user does not understand what "own work" means, since File:Rogers Homested.jpg, for example, is (probably accurately) dated 2 January 1900, but claimed as own work, with a license offered using {{Self}}; there is approximately no chance that the user could possibly own a copyright for this image and be in a position to offer a license. But I don't think COM:VP/C is particularly the place to discuss this at any length. It looks like no one has engaged them on their user talk page or DR'd any of these images (some of which are probably OK if the right PD tag is used). @TenPoundHammer, do you want to start that discussion at User talk:Arial Bold, or would you rather someone else did? - Jmabel ! talk 04:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Contents

Photograph of 1850 painting that may have never been publicly displayed until recently

Belgian FOP and heavy retouching

Company logo

There may be a copyright issue

How much do we actually care about paintings being in the public domain in the United States?

Policy and laws

17th century painting by Reinier Nooms

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory images

Is "Usage restrictions: none" an acceptable license? Solenangis impraedicta

Copyright and commercial purposes

Image of Saparmurat Nyyazov

UAE buildings before 1993

Phrasing of photographer permission

Reliability of the gov.uk copyright notice

Yo-yo

File:Teletoon 2005.png

Mural art on a French building

Is this stamp original enough for COM:TOO Spain?

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Trade

Is this image public domain?

Public-submitted images on NWS websites

Which expiration date should the copyright of this image take?

Fantasy euro banknotes

File:Film4 logo 2018.png is PD-textlogo, but the same file on enwiki is PD-ineligible-USOnly|the United Kingdom

Planet Labs images and CC-NC

Archive.org, old TV shows and PD Mark 1.0

A map from 1877 to 1898

Théodore Simon photos

More than just this one...

Question about a Weird Al Yankovic picture?

1959 Yearbook portrait of Charles Edward Kerbs (MATT)

File:Rogers Mall Plan.jpg

Navigation menu

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Photograph of 1850 painting that may have never been publicly displayed until recently

Belgian FOP and heavy retouching

Company logo

There may be a copyright issue

How much do we actually care about paintings being in the public domain in the United States?

Policy and laws

17th century painting by Reinier Nooms

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory images

Is "Usage restrictions: none" an acceptable license? Solenangis impraedicta

Copyright and commercial purposes

Image of Saparmurat Nyyazov

UAE buildings before 1993

Phrasing of photographer permission

Reliability of the gov.uk copyright notice

Yo-yo

File:Teletoon 2005.png

Mural art on a French building

Is this stamp original enough for COM:TOO Spain?

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Trade

Is this image public domain?

Public-submitted images on NWS websites

Which expiration date should the copyright of this image take?

Fantasy euro banknotes

File:Film4 logo 2018.png is PD-textlogo, but the same file on enwiki is PD-ineligible-USOnly|the United Kingdom

Planet Labs images and CC-NC

Archive.org, old TV shows and PD Mark 1.0

A map from 1877 to 1898

Théodore Simon photos

More than just this one...

Question about a Weird Al Yankovic picture?

1959 Yearbook portrait of Charles Edward Kerbs (MATT)

File:Rogers Mall Plan.jpg

Navigation menu

Search