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.
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.
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.
The page you link to has a CC-BY 4.0, not a CC-BY-SA 4.0 in the footer. Besides that, tread lightly. I'd tend to assume they meant to remove it from the whole site. Someone could communicate with them and ask them to clarify.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until they change that "Fars Media Corporation is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License" footer, I'd assume it's safe to upload these /photos page. Bedivere (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, This film was published in two parts. The second part was published in 1958. So it seems that File:1944 Иван Грозный.webm, which contains both parts, is in the public domain in Russia (the author died in 1948), but not in USA, according to PD-Russia-1996. Am I right, or did I miss something? Yann (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
De-jure, the author of film is Mosfilm, not S. Eisenstein, so see p.3(b) of {{PD-Russia}}/{{PD-Russia-1996}}. So, the 1st part (created in 1944, shown in 1946) is PD in Russia today (but there are or can be some nuances with the restored versions of 1987 and 2014 years) and not PD in the US (the 1st part was not PD in Russia on Jan.1 1996, it was temporally PD in Russia from Jan.1 1997 to Dec.31 2007 and it is PD in Russia since Jan.1,2017 again). The 2nd part is not PD in any case. Alex Spade (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is something like corporate authorship in Canada. A corporation may well own a copyright (en:Copyright law of Canada: “Ownership of a creative work may be assigned to a corporation or other employer as part of an employment contract.”), but the author would still be a human being, with the copyright term (the duration) tied to the year of that person's death. That is the situation in the UK, and Canadian copyright law is similar to UK copyright law in many ways. I didn't do a thorough research though. --Rosenzweigτ22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is correct. The company is the "first owner" of the copyright, but the "author" is the human who made it. Canadian copyright terms are based on the lifetime of the author, though if not named (i.e. anonymous) then there are terms based on year of publication and/or creation. Canada recently non-retroactively extended their terms, so some of the older terms may apply. Do note that any copyright which still existed in Canada in 1996 got restored by the U.S. to a term of 95 years from publication. The current term for anonymous works is the earlier of 1) 75 years from publication, 2) 100 years from creation, or 3) 75 years from creation if never published. The terms before 2020 were similar 50 years from publication or 75 from creation. {{PD-Canada-anon}} has those terms now. If the employee's name was mentioned (or became known) then the term would be based on their lifetime. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When uploading such works, we'd obviously need a USA PD tag too. What would be the best way to go about that? If it had no notice, let's say a post card, would that be okay for the no notice tag? (If you can prove it was published in the USA). Or would I use the USA corporate publications terms? (95 years after publication). PascalHD (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If first published in Canada, you'd need {{PD-1996}} to qualify. If it was published in the U.S. within 30 days of first publication in Canada, then yes you can use the no-notice tag, but that can be hard to prove. If it was under copyright in Canada in 1996, then you'd need to wait for {{PD-US-expired}} to qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that correctly describes the present situation, for the essential. The situation may differ in a few particular types of cases. Corporate authorship of photographs existed in Canada. It was abolished in 2012. The corporation was the author of the photograph when it owned the original support (plate, negative, ...) of the photograph. Being the author, the corporation was also the first owner of the copyright. The duration was 50 years from the creation of the original support. Such photograps whose copyright had already expired in 2012 (i.e. photos taken before 1962) remain in the public domain. For photograps whose copyright had not yet expired in 2012 (i.e. photos taken after 1961), the 2012 law retroactively transferred their legal authorship (but not necessarily their copyright ownership) from the corporation to the photographer. What happened with the copyright ownership depends on the type of relationship between the corporation and the photographer. Large commercial corporations were the big beneficiaries of that 2012 change in the law. Because they were the employers of the photographers working for them, they could use another section of the law, which provides that the employer is by default the owner of the copyright. Such companies thus obtained huge extensions of the duration of the copyrights they owned, passing from 50 years from creation to 50 years (later extended to 70 years) from the date of death of the photographer. Losers were small nonprofit corporations who had provided the negatives and a sum of money for occasional photos, and who retroactively were stripped of their rights to those photos. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, had forgotten about that. The 50 years from creation, for photos from before 1961, was specifically for photographs not other types of work (though cinematograph works were 50 years from publication). That line would be before 1946 to avoid the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The duration of copyright does not depend on who claims the copright, but it may depend on several factors and how they combine, such as what type of work it is, if the creator is known, who created the work, when the creator died, when the work was made, what was the relationship between the entity and the photographer, what type of entity it is. There can be many different answers, depending on the facts. It's better to link to the actual work or to describe all the facts than to list all imaginable cases. A work made by an employee of a Crown corporation or entity, provincial of federal (but not municipal), such as the National Film Board, has a copyright in Canada of 50 years from publication. A photo taken before 1962, and authored by a private corporation (the corporation owned the negative) or by a municipal corporation, is in the public domain in Canada. That doesn't apply to other types of works such as texts or paintings. A photo for a corporation taken after 1961 is in copyright in Canada until 70 years after the death of the photographer. The questions seem to imply a postcard published in 1952, possibly anonymous. The type of work is not specified. Assuming a creation the same year as the publication, if the work, of any type, was anonymous and the creator remained commonly unknown, it can be in the public domain in Canada, see the template PD-Canada-anon. If it's a work, of any type, by a know creator, it can be in the public domain in Canada if the creator died before 1972, see the template PD-Canada. If it's a photograph, by a known photographer or anonymous, it can be in the public domain in Canada if the "Company" was indeed a corporation and if it can be reasonably assumed from the normal practices that the corporation was the author (owned the negative). Commons does not have a PD template for such photos, but this situation of corporate authorship is included in the template PD-Canada of en.wikipedia. Anyway, in all cases, a 1952 Canadian work is probably not in the public domain in the U.S. because of the URAA, unless it meets U.S. public domain criteria. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not lawyers, and we can't give legal advice, but by complete coincidence I'm a musician and you might want to read this. The particular article is oriented to the U.S., so your situation may be a bit different, but probably not radically so. - Jmabel ! talk15:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh I don't really understand why the CC license would be void if the camarographer co-held rights on a video from the early Internet era, in this case Lapitsky. Even the Wikipedia page says "On Karim's camera" and was uploaded on Jawed's YT channel, it's most likely that Lapitsky informally gave permission rights to publish the video. If this was going to be the case, a lot of YT videos under CC would end up in problems because of "who is the actual owner of the footage" discussions. Hyperba21 (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the digital version of an old manuscript held by National Library Board Singapore[edit]
I would like to know whether the digital copy of the manuscript (link:https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/book-detail?cmsuuid=53de5273-f8df-4122-b808-8eb33ec61386) from National Library Board Singapore should be considered to be in public domain or not. This is because according to the page "All Rights Reserved. National Library Board Singapore 2006.", however according to the copyright rules in Singapore any works are in the public domain upon the expiry of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the author of the works died. In this case the author Munshi Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir has passed away in 1854, and if we calculate the year that the work should be in public domain is 1927. Therefore, the work should be considered to be in the public domain. However, according to the terms of use at the website held by National Library Board Singapore:
"No part or parts hereof may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, modified, republished, displayed, broadcast, hyperlinked, framed or transmitted in any manner or by any means or stored in an information retrieval system without the prior written permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY. However, you may download and print the Materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only provided you do not modify the Materials and that you retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the Materials. You also may not, without the permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY, insert a hyperlink to this website on any other website or "mirror" any Material contained on this website on any other server."
So I assume that the manuscript although was published in 1880, we still should refrain from uploading the work to Commons Wikimedia because it will be copyright infringement. Is this correct? Hakimi97 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hakimi97: A faithful copy of something in the public domain does not qualify for any copyright of its own. Some courts in common law countries have disagreed, upholding a "sweat of brow" doctrine. Commons, with the advice of WMF's lawyers, has chosen to ignore that precedent, which is certainly not valid in the U.S., where Commons is officially located. - Jmabel ! talk14:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Amarillo Texas - AQHA - Dash for Cash.jpg[edit]
File:Amarillo Texas - AQHA - Dash for Cash.jpg was uploaded with a license for the photo, but there's no license for the statue itself. The sculptor en:Jim Reno died in 2006, but it could've been a work commisioned by the en:American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame which might have been built in 1989. The horse en:Dash for Cash depicted in the statue died in 1996, and the statue appears to have been inspired by a photograph of the horse taken at a race held in 1976. That's lots of dates for sure, but none of them really indicte when the statue was created or when it was installed. It seems that there should be some kind of license for the statue per COM:FOP United States that shows it's within the public domain or otherwise OK for Commons; for example, like is done in the case of File:Secretariat statue.jpg (assuming that licensing is correct). I tried searching "Jim Reno" in the Art Inventories Catalog of the Smithsonian American Museum of Art and got a some results, but nothing for this particular sculpture. My best guesstimate is that this statue was likely installed after January 1, 1978, but possibly prior to the above-mentioned museum opening. I also tried searching of "Reno Jim" and "American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame" at the US Copyright Office's site, but came up empty. Could {{PD-US-1989}} be OK to use here or does this file need to be deleted? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An issue that I see is that according to COM:Public art and copyrights in the US public display of a statue was no longer considered publication if it occurred from 1978. Therefore, if it was not erected before 1978, it may not even count as published, let alone published without a notice. Felix QW (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed an interesting thing about the uploads at Discogs, a record collecting site. These are their intellectual property rules:
Intellectual Property Rules
By uploading images to Discogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements:
Image is Public Domain (expired copyright or public from inception); or
You own the rights to the image and agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or
Image is already made available through a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or
Fair Use – any image representing a physical or digital product in the Discogs Database for the purpose of critical commentary or for the purpose of reselling a physical product under the First Sale Doctrine.
— Discogs
Number two is particularly important in the following case. Many times, it is the artists themselves, even labels, who upload the records info and images on Discogs. Given that they explicitly accept those intellectual property rules (they are even prompted when uploading an image), and in the case they are the legitimate owners of the images, they agree to release them under a CC0 license. That means they would be eligible to upload on Commons. Of course this is to be observed case by case, but in any case, it's great news for the Commons. Bedivere (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I came across this local label, they've uploaded a couple of images (five actually). These, if in scope (I could not find an article about these artists), could be uploaded here given the label's express release onto the CC0 license. Here's another, band Zettt, which released themselves some photos of themselves and one of their releases. Another label that has published images of their own releases is Akasa Records [2]. Bedivere (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you've posted above seems to ignore the possibility that the content being uploaded to Discogs was uploaded in accordance of "4. Fair Use". Is it not possible that bands/musicians are uploading their content to Discogs as fair use? If they have done so, then such content wouldn't be acceptable for Commons per COM:FAIR. I'll admit that I don't know much about Discogs and I wasn't able to access the links you provided above, but unless the uploads are clearly licesned as #1, #2 or #3, it seems that you just can't automatically assume they're not#4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC); [Note: Post amended by Marchjuly to add the word "not" to the final sentence. -- 02:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)][reply]
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. I am only referring to works uploaded to Discogs by their legitimate copyright owners, which would then mean they "agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license" as per the intellectual property rules. By uploading a file to Discogs, any user agrees to those rules, either the file will not be uploaded. One could understand, then, that the files fall in any of these categories: if the image is not in the public domain (rule 1), the uploader is not the copyright holder (rule 2) and the file is not released under a CC0 (rule 3), it is available under the fair use doctrine, and so much of Discogs files are not acceptable on Commons. The point I make is that only those files uploaded by their copyright holders are acceptable here because then, rule 2 applies. Bedivere (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get where you are going, but I'm pretty sure you would never get a judge to uphold that understanding. I'm pretty sure a court would say that even with the way those terms of use are stated, uploading something to which you happen to own the copyright would not be an implicit CC-0 release, and that Discogs would be using it on a "fair use" basis. I would not want to see Commons rely on that other interpretation: I think it would put reusers at great risk of being successfully sued for copyright infringement. - Jmabel ! talk05:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also uncomfortable with that interpretation. I'd feel better if users put an explicit license on an image page, i.e. were forced to choose between those four options on an upload, with each image tagged with that choice. The uploader could argue 1) they are providing the images under fair use, to help sell their catalog, or 2) they violated the terms of service (nothing illegal about that) but never actually licensed their image. A photo of an album may be a derivative work of its cover as well, and even if valid the license may only be for the derivative aspect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: That could very well have been the intention of Discogs when they wrote that clause. That interpretation would have more weight if the introductory words were "... you agree that your upload meets...". I.e. the copyright owner's own use of the file. Indeed, logically, copyright owners are not using their own images under the fair use doctrine. However, the words are "... you agree that the image meets...", which can be read as meaning that, once the image is on the website, it is used in fair use by Discogs. Also, that clause seems to have been added to the Discogs upload guidelines in late 2022. It could not be imposed as such to images uploaded by copyright owners before then. One would have to look at the clauses that existed elsewhere on the website. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Copyright status of West African CFA franc and Central African CFA franc[edit]
I talked about copyright status of West African CFA franc and Central African CFA franc. (See this.)
In last discussion, the conclusion was that the Central African CFA franc is in the public domain, and the copyright status of the West African CFA is unsure.
However, after I read COM:CUR EU, I knew common side Euro coins are allowed under conditions, but national side Euro coins are not allowed.
Central African CFA franc is in the public domain in Cameroon where Bank of Central African States is located, is that public domain in other countries where Central African CFA franc is also used?
Or do the copyright laws on currency issued in Cameroon apply to all countries using Central African CFA franc?
Does applicable Senegalese copyright law include currency? And what about other countries using West African CFA franc? Ox1997cow (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeking some clarification on whether it is permitted to upload photos of murals. I came across a mention indicating that murals are generally not accepted. However, I also noticed that there is a Murals category with numerous photos of recent murals.
Can someone explain the policy regarding this? Are there specific conditions under which mural photos are allowed, or is there an exception for certain types of murals? Thanks, Fugit hora (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fugit hora. You might also want to take a look at COM:CB#Murals. There are two things that typically need to be considered when it comes to murals: (1) the copyright status of the mural itself, and (2) the copyright status of the photo of the mural. Assuming you want to upload a photo you took yourself, number (2) shouldn't been too much of an issue as long as you're willing to license your photo in accordance with COM:L. However, unless you're also the creator of the mural, (1) is going to be trickier to sort out because murals (even publicly displayed ones) are seem as being a creative work eligible for copyright protection under the copyright laws of many countries (even when the artist who painted the mural is unknown) and Commons won't be able to host a photo of such a mural unless the mural itself can be shown to be within the public domain either because it no longer is or never was eligible for copyright protection, or the COM:CONSENT of the mural's creator can be obtained for your photo of it. Perhaps if you provided some more information about the murals in questions (e.g. where they're located), someone might be able to give you a more specific answer. As for the photos in Category:Murals, each should have a license and relevant information for (1) the photo of the mural and (2) the mural itself. Whether the licenses are correct is another question, and those that don't two licenses probably need to be assessed to see if they can be kept by Commons. Files are uploaded to Commons all of the time, but their copyright status isn't really formally assessed during the upload process. Good faith is assumed when it comes to uploaders; so, problem files only tend to be found after (sometimes several years after) they've been uploaded. This means it's quite possible that some of the files in that particular category either are incorrectly/insufficiently licensed or never should've been uploaded in the first place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fugit horaDanish FoP rule only allows free uses of inages of buildings. Public art cannot be used commercially, so unless the artist or last-surviving co-artist died more than 70 years ago, the work cannot be shared here under commercial licenses like CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or CC-zero. Also, since Danish FoP for public art is invalid for Commons, U.S. copyright law comes into play. This means even post-1928 Danish murals that are already out of copyright there are not OK here because the U.S. copyright has not yet expired (typical term is 95+1 years from creation or publication for URAA-established U.S. copyrights over all eligible artistic works outside the U.S.). The interaction of U.S. law can be safely ignored by uploaders only if Denmark, Norway, etc. had complete FoP (and {{Not-free-US-FOP}} can be used on the description pages of images of Danish/Norwegian/Finnish murals). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fugit hora: The page you linked (COM:MURAL) sums it up well. As for any other work, the work must be old enough for the copyright to have expired, based on the author's year of death or other applicable criteria, or the work must be under a free license offered by the copyright owner. There are some exceptions, e.g. when a mural is barely visible in the background, etc. Derivative images of such works should be uploaded only when the uploader can tell exactly why the original works are freely usable. A large proportion of images of recent murals on Commons are not supposed to be there. Some people upload and reupload images of non-free murals (and of non-free currencies) all the time, sometimes in mass uploads. Such images need constant cleanups. But given that deletion requests for such images are usually made through slow deletion requests that can take months to be closed, the proportion of copyvios can become large, as copyvios are uploaded more easily and rapidly than they can be deleted. One user used to do a useful job of patrolling that type of copyvios, but he has recently been blocked indefinitely (for a reason unrelated to this). Even the two examples of murals currently featured in the Wikidata page for "mural" (mirrored in the box in the Commons category you linked) are possibly not free. (One is arguably a photo of a street but it is titled mural and the uploader himself inserted it in Wikidata as an example of a mural, thus showing that the mural in the photo is prominent enough and not merely incidental.) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. The profile image is a standard Unicode character (𝕏, U+1D54F Mathematical Double-Struck Capital X), the "verified" badge has been determined to be under TOO, the other icons are part of the open-source Bootstrap Icons icon set, and the words and phrases in the screenshot are all too short to copyright. Omphalographer (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like that was published in the U.S. in 1985 with no copyright notice, so it is most likely {{PD-US-1978-89}}. There is a small possibility they registered the copyright later to "cure" the lack of notice, but I'd be surprised if they did so, if they generally weren't concerned with holding onto there rights.
Only possible issue is that if they made unauthorized use of a photo or other image, it might not have lost its copyright by being there. But, again, it's hard to imagine the World Bank making unauthorized use of someone else's intellectual property. - Jmabel ! talk04:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did receive email .
here is the image that I need to update with approval. .
Non commercial licenses are not accepted on Commons. In addition, the copyright holder has to send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Best, Yann (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the File:Figure Skating Barnstar Hires.png, I used the Upload Wizard, selecting "own work based on others' works", but with those options I was not able to add the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (only the 4.0 version), so I changed it manually after the upload, but I am not sure if that is allowed. For the File:Golden Figure Skating Barnstar.png, I used the old upload method, selecting the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, but I struggled to tell the system that it is an "own work based on others' works" and add the GDFL tag.
I plan to upload another two requested barnstars for the WikiProject, but before doing that, I want to ask which upload method is the best for doing that (I don't want to cause any unnecessary licensing problems). Thank you very much in advance! Henni147 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for the Biellmann-spin image it says You may select the license of your choice. which is consistent with the use of the old GDFL license, so using it under cc-by3.0 is fine, even 4.0 is ok as that is backwards compatible with the 3.0 license requirements. GDFL is is depreciated on Commons and no longer valid for anything but software licensing. 06:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Gnangarra06:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnangarra: Thank you very much for your quick reply! So it fine if I simply upload it with the Wizard under the CC-BY-4.0 license and just skip the GDFL tag entirely, right? Henni147 (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
from this pic there have been extracted two images (quality even worse):
Being aware of this, I was able to find the same cover and I made a much better scan of the same page from which I extracted some decent images (here).
Hi Carnby. I'm not sure that would be OK to do because only the copyright holder has the right to release their work (or a version of their work) under a Creative Commons license. Whether they release a high-quality high-resolution version of their work would seem to be entirely up to them; so, if they choose to release a low-quality version of their work under a CC license accepted by Commons for whatever reason, I believe they could still retain more control over high quality versions of the same image. So, I'm not sure it would be OK for Commons to host higher quality versions without their consent, particularly if they come from sources other than the original copyright holder. This and this might be helpful, but they seem to primary reference US copyright law, which might differ from the copyright laws of the country of first publication. Of course, I might be completely wrong on this and am quite happy to be corrected by others; however, I would suggest moving carefully here since there seems to be multiple layers to this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly and Carnby: I believe that is not how we have interpreted CC-BY in the past. Pretty sure I've seen it said several times that if an image is released under such a license, it is on the image as such, not a particular resolution. The only exceptions I'm aware of are certain images released by GLAMs where we have made an overt compromise to get access to a large body of clean, medium-resolution images where otherwise we would have nothing.
Can someone who has been more involved in past discussions about CC licenses and image resolution please weigh in? - Jmabel ! talk03:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I did a bit more Googling and most of what I've found seems to support what you posted above (this is interesting even if it's just a blog which looks to be based out of India and there's also this from the Creative Commons website) in that the CC license applies to the image itself and not a particular version (e.g. resolution) of an image. So, as long as the higher quality image is exactly the same image (i.e. a case of COM:2D copying and not COM:DW) and not licensed under a more restrictive license, the license chosen for the lower quality version seems to also apply to all enhanced versions, at least under US copyright law. I guess it could be possible for a copyright holder to try to release multiple versions of the same image under different CC license in an attempt to individually license different quality images, but I'm not sure that works as they think it works due to the nature of CC licenses. They could also try to place their own restrictions on the higher quality versions through separate individualized agreements with re-users, but that would seem to be a type of COM:NCR that wouldn't be a concern of Commons unless Commons was party to said agreement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to draw attention of users who may be interested to an undeletion request discussion: File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg, which is remaining undecided for an unusually long time. More opinions may be useful. Although the request is technically about one file, the issue is broader and can potentially affect a large number of images and I guess that's probably one reason why administrators hesitate to close the request. C:VP/C would probably be a better place for the general discussion, if it hadn't started at C:UDR. I suppose that comments can be made here or there. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick overview:
What BCS is:
"Beni Culturali Standard" (BCS) is a tag placed by entities of the Italian government (e.g. the ministry of Culture) on some images (e.g. photographs of old objects). Essentially, the BCS tag:
1) states that the image has "no copyright", referring to this statement, and
2) describes some non-copyright legal requirements for some uses of the image.
The description of the BCS tag can be read in Italian there.
Example:
The source of the file discussed at UDR can serve as one example [3]. Other examples can be found on the same source website. Or on Commons.
What the question is not:
There is no problem with the non-copyright requirements (for which Commons uses the template MiBAC).
There is no question about the copyright status of the pictured objects. They are old enough to be out of copyright.
There is no problem with images that are obviously old enough to be tagged on Commons with PD-Italy, PD-1996, etc.
What the question is:
The question arises with images that look recent enough and would normally be considered copyrighted in the United States. The problems are to determine who owned the copyright on an image, by what rationale the entity tagged the image as uncopyrighted (BCS), and if that assessment of public domain can apply outside Italy.
Possible solutions:
There may be other solutions but, to keep it simple, there are at least these possibilities:
A) except where evidence suggests otherwise, it cannot be safely assumed that the recent BCS-tagged images are in the public domain in the United States, therefore such images cannot be hosted on Commons, or
B) except where evidence suggests otherwise, it is assumed that the Italian government somehow owned the copyright on the recent BCS-tagged images, and that tagging with BCS constitutes a valid statement by the Italian government that those images are in the public domain worldwide, therefore such images can be hosted on Commons.
Scope of the problem:
At present, Commons has a few thousand files sourced from beniculturali.it. At the source, many of those images are tagged BCS.
Also, apparently many, or most, of those files are mistakenly tagged on Commons with CC BY. That mistake is probably caused by the fact that, at the source, the descriptive notices ("metadati") are visibly tagged with CC BY, but to view the status of the image itself it is necessary to click on the image.
Review:
Whatever decision is taken, whether such files are accepted or not on Commons, a major review will be needed to assess the status of all those files and to tag them correctly.
According to this website, Greenland is not part of the Berne Convention. Does that mean any photograph that is (i) taken in Greenland and that (ii) has its copyright in Greenland expired, can be uploaded, as {{PD-1996}} only applies to members of the Berne Convention? I also don't see Greenland on the member list provided by WIPO. FunnyMath (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: That's what I thought as well. But if you look at the territorial information for Denmark provided by WIPO, it says "Accession to the Berne Convention (1886) included the Faroe Islands", and the Faroe Islands, like Greenland, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but it says nothing about Greenland. FunnyMath (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the original Berne Convention document. It says Denmark's membership "comprend le Royaume de Danemarke et les Îles Féroé, avec exclusion de l'Islande, du Grœnland et des Antilles" (emphasis mine). So it looks like Greenland is indeed not part of the Berne Convention. So does that mean {{PD-1996}} does not apply? FunnyMath (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf doesn't mention Greenland one way or the other. I've sent the US Copyright Office a question asking whether the US has copyright relations with Greenland; they say they will respond in 10 business days. I would note that D. Benjamin Miller is correct; anything published outside of Greenland would be copyrighted, so you're looking at things published for Greenland itself. With a population of 60,000, back 70 years ago (as Greenland is life+70), I'd be surprised if that was much more than a local newspaper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Copyright rules - Files uploaded to Commons should be free both in the country of origin (as defined by the Berne Convention) and in the United States of America.
So, we have something like {{PD-RusEmpire}} - if Greenland is not party to the Berne Convention (it is not country of Union for the protection of the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works), then Greenland is not the country of origin in any case and its copyright law and term of protection are unimportant.
Further, it is unimportant, where photo was taken - it is important, where photo was published (was made public at the least), and besides possible simultaneous publication within 30 days in any other countries of the Union, there are 3 cases after that possible event, when other country of the Union will be country of origin:
in the case of cinematographic work the maker of which has his headquarters or his habitual residence in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country,
in the case of of architecture erected in a country of the Union or other artistic works incorporated in a building or other structure located in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country,
in the case of other works if the author is a national of a country of the Union¹, the country of origin shall be that country (¹ - Author who is not a national of a country of the Union but who has his habitual residence in a country of the Union, be assimilated to national of that country).
So, for example: some German photographer took a shot in Greenland: if he published it firstly in Greenland and the UK simultaneously (within 30 days), then the UK is the country of origin, if he published it firstly in Greenland only, then Germany is the country of origin. Alex Spade (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flugblatt der Sowjetunion aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg[edit]
Kennt sich jemand mit dem Urheberrecht an den Flugblättern der sowjetischen Armee oder Regierung aus (genauer Urheber ist nicht angeführt), die an deutsche Soldaten verteilt wurden mit der Aufforderung sich zu ergeben bzw. zu desertieren. Welches Urheberrecht gilt hier oder sind diese Flugblätter (damals "Feindproaganda") als Werke der sowjetischen Regierung gemeinfrei? Asurnipal (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn sie vor 1943 auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Russland ausgegeben worden sind, stehen die Chancen m. E. nicht schlecht, dass sie als anonymes Werk bereits vor der russischen Urheberrechtsreform von 1993 gemeinfrei waren und daher auch nicht von der Wiederbelegung des amerikanischen Urheberrechts 1996 erfasst worden sind. Dann könnten man sie mit der Lizenzvorlage {{PD-Russia-1996}} hochladen. Felix QW (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leider kann ich zum Zeitpunkt der Ausgabe nichts sagen, weil diese nicht vermerkt ist. Dort, wo das Flugblatt gefunden wurde, war ein ehemaliger Wehrmachtsangehöriger ansässig, der so ziemlich überall im Zweiten Weltkrieg war. Ich habe das Flugblatt mal unter (Kennelbach-Soviet army Flyer (pamphlet) to German soldiers to surrender or desert-01.jpg) und (Kennelbach-Soviet army Flyer (pamphlet) to German soldiers to surrender or desert-02.jpg) hochgeladen (unter {{PD-Russia-1996}}). Vielleicht meldet sich ja jemand, der es näher identifizieren kann. Asurnipal (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia noch einmal durchgesehen und es scheint, als würde die anonyme Veröffentlichung vor 1946 tatsächlich ausreichen. Da es ja dem Inhalt nach vermutlich an Soldaten unmittelbar an der Ostfront verteilt worden ist, ist das heutige Staatsgebiet als Ursprungsort ja zumindest plausibel. Felix QW (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wobei Veröffentlichung nach 1942 wiederum hieße, dass die Flugblätter in den USA noch geschützt sind, 95 Jahre ab Veröffentlichung (COM:URAA). Und Wikimedia Commons will nur Werke, die sowohl im Ursprungsland als auch in den USA frei sind (COM:Licensing). --Rosenzweigτ19:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das dachte ich zunächst auch, scheint aber tatsächlich nicht der Fall zu sein. {{PD-Russia-1996}} sagt eindeutig, dass anonyme Veröffentlichung vor 1946 genügt, um nicht vom URAA erfasst worden zu sein, und in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia steht, dass die Verlängerung auf 70 Jahre im Jahre 2004 erfolgte, also nach der URAA-Wiederbelebung von 1996. Die eigenartige getrennte Auflistung von vor 1943 veröffentlichtem Material scheint daher zu kommen, dass in 2008 die Urheberrechtsfrist für all diejenigen Werke auf 70 Jahre verlängert worden ist, deren Urheberrecht in 1993 noch nicht abgelaufen war. Felix QW (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mercy for grandma's photo wallpaper at Cologne District Court[edit]
That is a well-written article. Strange system of competition between courts, where the complainants choose the courts likely to favor them, thus favoring most extreme judgments. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That strange system is a big nuisance which politicians/lawmakers would have needed to address many years ago by clarifications in the relevant laws. So far, they didn't. --Rosenzweigτ11:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking the article. I feel for the granddaughter. German courts appear to need reform, and I'll definitely take it into account with Germany's already strict de minimis standards. Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded File:Interior of Asda, Barrhead.jpg from Flickr to Commons under CC-BY 2.0 license, but I noticed that the copyright details are on EXIF metadata:
@Xeverything11: It appears that Flickr user James MacDonald (jimmy_macdonald, 49703429@N00) wrongly appropriated it from photographer Ian Georgeson, we should not host it, and we should not trust James MacDonald. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I nominated two Twitter screenshots for cv before finding Category:Screenshots of Twitter and Category:Tweets looking not very free. Please excuse my poor understanding of copyright regulations. Some are marked with own work, some with PD-ineligible -- are they even applicable? What would happen if I were cought copypasting those Tweets into Wikipedia? This and this even show the design of the whole window. I'm really confused. Tried searching for COM:Tweets but found nothing. cc@Shinohara Chihiro: --魔琴 (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploads of Samarthisliveyo7x11 (talk·contribs) are map images which, as can be seen from their watermarks, were created at iipmaps.com[4]. The FAQ[5] of that site says:
Can I use the maps created with iipmaps free version for any purpose?
Yes, you can use the maps created with the free version of iipmaps for any non-commercial purposes. However, they will bear a watermark indicating that they were created with the free version.
Since we don't allow any of the NonCommercial CC licenses, this seems like a possible licensing issue. I don't know the first thing about Indian copyright law, though. Apocheir (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dzień dobry, opracowuję biogram jednego z żyjących profesorów. Chciałabym umieścić Jego zdjęcie, otrzymane e-mailem. W jaki sposób sprawić, aby to zdjęcie znalazło się w domenie publicznej?Pozdrawiam Ledowiczka Ledowiczka (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate: "Good morning, I am working on a biography of one of the living professors. I would like to post his photo, received by e-mail. How do I get this photo into the public domain? Ledowiczka" - Jmabel ! talk17:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that translation is accurate, I think there is a misunderstanding here. You cannot turn someone else's copyrighted material into public-domain material.
What we need is for the owner of the copyright (typically the photographer) to offer a free license (in Polish: Commons:Nadawanie licencji) such as {{CC-BY 4.0}} or {{tl|CC-BY-SA 4.0}; if their intention is actually to place it in the public domain, and they do not care about attribution, they can use {{CC-zero}}. There are two ways they can do that:
The owner of the copyright (not you) can go through the email-based process described at COM:VRT (COM:VRT/pl in Polish). Do have them cc you on the email. NOTE that the license must allow commercial reuse and must allow derivative works (so no "NC" or "ND" licenses).
If the photographer still owns the copyright themself, they can shortcut this by posting the image on a web page clearly under their control (e.g. on their professional site as a photographer, on their account at Flickr or a similar photo site, in a public post on social media, etc.), with an indication of what free license they are offering. Then you (or anyone) can cite that as a source when uploading, using that same license.
چرا ویدیویی که در ویکی پدیا بارگذاری و منتشر کردم حذف شده است[edit]
ویدیویی با عنوان سکانس خواستگاری پیرمردها برای مقاله خود استفاده و بارگذاری کردم که حذف شده است این ویدئو حق نشر دارد زیرا قسمتی از فیلم پیرمردها نمی میرند است که مالک اصلی آن رضا جمالی است که خودشان اولین بار این ویدو کوتاه را نشر کرده و جهت معرفی فیلم در اینترنت گذاشتند و سپس پیج ها و سایت هایی نظیر
aparat - hashure- you tube
@Aden-9023: Hi, You are not allowed to copy images and videos from the Internet without a formal written permission from the copyright holder, unless this content is licensed under a free license, which should allow any use by anyone for any purpose, including commercial ones. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright link to my website in the attribution[edit]
Hi Community!
Is it possible to have a hyperlink to my website in case somebody uses and attributes my image?
Currently, this HTML attribution looks as following if placed, and links to the Wiki page:
- https://example/, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Is it possible to have a link to my website instead? Even if both Wiki and Website are displayed, it's fine. For example:
- Example.Com (links to my website), CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
or
- https://example/ (links to Wiki), Example.Com (links to my website), CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Also, how do I set it up by default without editing the file data every time? Even if what I'm asking is not possible, where do I set up the default attribution data?
.jpg){kind=link}
Done I think that's how we interpret CC licenses. I uploaded the larger version over. Yann (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
