Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Please note
  1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
  5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.


Images tagged with unclear FOP template[edit]

I have noticed a couple of similarly-named images categorized at Category:FOP, with "Mark Formarek" in the file names. The inclusion is due to the tagging of these files with {{FOP}} template. However, in many of the images I do not see any public artwork or copyrighted architecture that would require addition of such templates. The artwork information templates claim that the images show a performance, but these are still images and not videos.

IMO, this is an inappropriate use of the template as there are no copyrighted public sculptures or artworks seen in any of the images. I assume the uploader may be claiming "privacy rights" but, copyright ≠ privacy of individuals and Commons generally does not matter with privacy rights as these are COM:Non-copyright restrictions.

We do have {{FoP-Germany}}, but again, I do not see any public artwork or monument that would warrant FoP-tagging of the involved images.

Pinging the uploader @Rainer Halama: as well as the editor who made fixes on the description pages @Wuselig: to respond to this matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the files? We will sometimes delete files on moral or courtesy grounds due to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and Commons:Country specific consent requirements. Consensus in deletion reviews often swings toward deletion where there is a justified argument that it was illegal to have taken or published the image in the source country. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore virtually all files at Category:FOP, with "Mark Formarek" in the file title. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Artwork is not easily recognicable. It is a plaque on a wall with a date on it. The date denotes the time when the plaque is to be exchanged with a new one. The images are taken at the specific time of the old plaque, when it is replaced with the new one. So yes, all the images depict a contemprary work of art, which is permanently installed in a public space. The artwork is there since 1992 and will stay there for at least another four years. So we can say, that it is not only temporarily, but permanently. Wuselig (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wuselig so does this mean it passes COM:TOO Germany? In some of the tagged images, the plaque is out of focus and show either the people or the building that I suspect is very old enough for the designer to have been deceased for more than 70 years. Also, {{FoP-Germany}} is the suitable tag; {{FOP}} is too ambiguous to use. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They may have just used a template for all the uploads, if the majority have architecture or the sign in them. Apparently it's a conceptual art piece by artist Mark Fortenek in Münster, which states a particular time when it gets replaced with a new plaque with a new date and time. Here is an article about when it was replaced the last time, in 2020. If a photo does not show that sign, and we are sure the church is old (and not renovated by a more recent architect), and it's not showing other buildings, the tag could probably be removed. Fop-Germany would be better than that tag for the rest. I don't think there is any way that sign would get a U.S. copyright, but Germany may look differently at conceptual art. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing is, that the artwork is not the plaque in itself, but the process of it being there since 1992 and being periodically renewed at a set date every 3-4 years, the pictures in the category showing this process at the most recent change. So this is part of the performance that has been going on since 1992 and it is not the different plaques that are the artwork. I would compare it to As Slow as Possible. So therefore the people participating at this moment are part of the performance. Wuselig (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wuselig you mean the people who are performing? I don't see the still images as becoming derivatives of the performance. It may be if the image is a moving image (video) complete with sound. FoP is not applicable to performances, or to the people acting. There is no derivative work issue as far as I know, if my comprehension of your reply is correct. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The get-together at the specific date to watch the changing of the plaque is the performance. So even the photographer of this act and all the on-lookers are part of the performance. I don't understand, why only a movie of a performance should count as a documentation of a performance and not a series of images of said performance? Wuselig (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wuselig I think you got confused. What I am pointing out is that I do not see anything that warrants the tagging of {{FOP}}, or even {{FoP-Germany}}. The gathering of the performers, a work of art? It is indeed a performance, but it is not a work of art. Anyone can gather and do specific performances, but a single still image of a scene of the performance does not count as a work of art. The performance is not a building, not a sculpture, not a mural or fresco, not a memorial text or plaque, not an outdoor map, and not even an informational board. FoP does not apply, because the act of gathering by the people is not a work of architect, a work of sculptor, a work of painter, a work of graphic artist, or a work of a writer of an informational board or a commemorative plaque. A still image of a performance does not need any FoP templates. The uploader's series of still images of the same performance do not need FoP tagging. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree to disagree. This act of gathering IS the work of an artist, and the power of this work is so strong that since 1992 people gather at a specific date and time at a special place without him even be there to perform a certain act. I think that is quite a powerful work of art. If you think we don't need to specify this contemporary artistic achievement, we can take out the {{FOP}}-tag. If anybody should come up with a different oppinion in the future, we can open this discussion again. Wuselig (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wuselig it is no different from a series of images of performances that we have, such as Category:Chocolate Bullets (2019-02-06). It contains a series of images, but none are tagged with {{FoP}}. Russia anyway does not provide commercial Freedom of Panorama for non-architecture and non-landscape gardens, so those images, in theory, may not be OK. But I doubt those are not OK. I think it becomes not OK if the files are videos of excerpts of the performance or of the performance as a whole. Still images of the performances are not derivatives of the actual performances. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in these pictures has a copyright, so there is no need for a FOP template. I removed them. A group of people in a public place doesn't has a copyright, whatever they do. Even the plaque itself (File:Mark Formanek - Date - Domplatz Muenster.jpg) is too simple to have a copyright. This case is similar to the Kawara case. Yann (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of copyright[edit]

A colleague of mine who was involved in the w:Values Party has some pertinent photos he wants me to upload to Commons. He is the subject of some of the images, but he is not the photographer. I have explained that Commons will require a copyright waiver from the actual photographer. My colleague says the photographer is prepared to transfer the copyright to him. Is there a form or template that can be used for that purpose? (My colleague and the photographer are now elderly and don't edit Wikipedia/Commons, so I will have to handle the uploading of the photographs and any release forms.) Muzilon (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muzilon: Hi, This should be handled by email. The photographer should send a permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if the photographer has transferred the copyright to the subject? Muzilon (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping by to ask whether the photos have been previous published- if not, everything becomes much simpler. Bremps... 07:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photos are unpublished, as far as I'm aware. Muzilon (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muzilon: if the copyright is transferred, then someone will certainly need to go through VRT to send the documents that prove the transfer. - Jmabel ! talk 08:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Sarah T Hughes - Published on uscourts.gov[edit]

The image for w:Sarah T. Hughes used on her page (image) is listed as copyrighted by the Texas State Bar. However, the same image has been published on the government website for the United States Federal Courts in the article Women as 'Way Pavers' in the Federal Judiciary and hosted here. Is the publishing of this 1972 image on the federal court website sufficient to upload to Wikimedia Commons with the licence PD-USGov-Judiciary? Caddyshack01 (talk) Caddyshack01 (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is PD-USGov-Judiciary, but not for the reason you've given. Posting something on a federal judicial website doesn't make something PD; a work being made by the federal government does.
The Texas State Bar website doesn't claim that the image is copyrighted by the State Bar of Texas. It only says that the copy came from the Archives of the State Bar of Texas.
She was a federal judge, not a Texas judge. Any official portrait of her is almost certainly a federal judiciary work. The fact that the Texas State Bar has a copy in their archive means nothing. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2D or not 2D[edit]

I have a UK postcard, published 1992, which is a reproduction of a postcard held by a Cornish museum. The original dates to before 1888. There is no record of the photographer, who would anyway have died long before. The postcard company claims copyright of their version as does the museum of theirs. What woud be the status if I scanned it and uploaded it to commons? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original would be PD in the US as having been published before 1929. Hypothetically, it could be in copyright in the UK but that would be extremely unlikely; the photographer would need to be known and have died after 1953. As the photograph was created at least 65 years earlier, we can assume the photographer would have to have been very young (or very lucky) to have survived to 1953. If the photographer is definitely unknown we could upload the original here with the following licences, {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-US-expired}}. Instead of {{PD-old-assumed}} we could use {{PD-UK-unknown}} but the latter has a slightly more stringent requirement of, "the author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry." If the museum is the one confirming the author is unknown, I'd defer to their judgement and use {{PD-UK-unknown}}.
The 1992 postcard may be a derivative work and have a separate copyright. It will depend on whether there are any creative differences to the original. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Digital copies of images, a mere copy of an earlier work doesn't generate a new copyright. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I suspected but wanted to make sure. I only have a copy of the 1992 card, there is text on the back added by the later publisher but the image is a straight copy of the original. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is OK. Republishing an old work doesn't create a new copyright. Yann (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, I'll get it scanned and uploaded. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medals from Finland[edit]

Finnish digital archive finna.fi released the following image under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license: https://finna.fi/Record/tmk.161040521281500. However this is a commemorative medal of Finnish Literature Society (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura) issued in 1931 and authored by Wäinö Aaltonen (1894-1966). Copyright protection of this medal still persists, doesn't it? Or such medals are not covered by copyright protection, are they? Can this image be uploaded to WikiCommons? Olksolo (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:NOP Finland, it would seem they are protected by copyright. While laws, decisions etc. as such are in the public domain, “copyright protection continues to apply to independent works contained in the documents referred to in the list above. A work that is part of or attached to a decision or something similar is often such that it was not produced specifically as a part of the decision or as an attachment to it. In such a case, it is not reasonable that the attached work should also automatically lose copyright protection. An example is a work of fine art included in currency. This applies to independent works included in both the text of the document and its appendices. These independent works could be reproduced in connection with the document in question and used separately from the document for the purpose to which the document is related, but due to these restrictions the document or the protected independent work it contains cannot be uploaded to Commons.” --Rosenzweig τ 22:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem of the Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen[edit]

Can I upload this emblem to Commons using Template:PD-Somalia? This emblem was created in Somalia approximately in 2006—2010, author is unknown. Emblem: image, image (in the pdf-file). — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legit?[edit]

This user has uploaded a few old rapper-related photos on Commons circa 2010. It'd be great if we just had a free image of ODB just chilling here the whole time, but there's a copyvio tag on the user talk page. None of their uploads that I've checked turn up anything on Tineye. Is this user trustable? Bremps... 02:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the images seem consistent with one another. I can't tell whether the original upload of File:Silkski (Jerome Evans) at age 21.jpg is a scan of a photographic print or of a magazine clipping, though. You might contact them and ask who they are and how they came to take these photos. - Jmabel ! talk 08:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joint work?[edit]

How should this video be treated? One author (Picture This! Media) releases it under CC-BY 3.0 Unported but the other co-authors haven't definitively agreed. Any advice on how to move forward? Bremps... 07:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any coauthor can license their work under any non-exclusive license without consent of other coauthors. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Council[edit]

Hello, I'm looking to upload images from Highland Council's website for use on the most recent election article on Wikipedia but I'm unsure of the correct licence to use. The disclaimer on the council's website clearly states the images are free for resuse (copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission) but they do not mention anywhere that they are licenced under the Open Government Licence. I know of other council's which don't licence any of their work at all as they aren't required to, it's optional for public bodies to use OGL so I just want to make sure I upload them with the correct licence. Any help is appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland: Sadly their permission as quoted is not adequate, as it does not permit derivative images, Please contact them, and ask them to use OGL, or an equivalent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I wasn't sure so thank you for your help. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a performance of C. R. E. A. M by the Wu protected by copyright?[edit]

I would have assumed so, but there is also the argument to be made that the staff MTV knew what they were doing when they released the video under a CC-BY 3.0 license. Here is the file in question. Bremps... 02:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The performance of C. R. E. A. M by the Wu is definitely protected by copyright. Otherwise it would be impossible to license it! The question is about licensing, not about copyright. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-shape[edit]

Hi! I was adviced to ask here if the logo from this profile picture could fall under PD-shape for being simple geometric shapes. Many thanks in advance! NoonIcarus (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think it is creative enough and so could be eligible for copyright Bedivere (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: I understand, many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-ItalyGov and US copyright[edit]

I've opened a new topic on the matter here. Friniate (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no photographers listed[edit]

There are lots of paintings here from the 1800s and earlier, which I always saw as public domain work. I assumed that people were going to museums and taking pictures of these works and then removing the frames before posting. But I have noticed that the source/photographer box is never a name of a person. It's always a website. I wonder if people are just going to websites, copying these paintings and uploading them, which I assume is bad. SwoossieLou (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. While identifying the photographer is probably the best solution, PD artworks that are mere copies of the original can be uploaded without identifying the photographer. These should include {{PD-Art}} or one of its variants. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is body camera = public domain?[edit]

File:David Ben Avraham raising his hands moments before his killing.jpg Could anyone help double check if this photo qualifies for public domain? I believe it is a screenshot from one of the copies of this video. Thank you. Would body camera video (if it is that) qualify for pre-positioned video? Starship.paint (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: Not sure but
To me body camera does not seem prepositioned and seems not eligible for copyright but Wikimedia Commons thinking has no relationship to what copyright law does or interprets with new technology. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lester Pearson 1957.jpg[edit]

This photo is claimed as Public Domain, in Sweden and the US. I don't see how its a Swedish photograph, as it was taken in Montreal, Canada by Gaby (Gabriel Desmarais), 1956.[1] It's probably PD in the USA, but don't photos need to be PD in both source country and the USA? According to the Banq fonds for Gabriel Desmarais, all works are Copyrighted (Life+70). The GabyEstate is also selling prints on ebay at https://www.ebay.ca/itm/276064146320 which had some info.
Based on this info, should it be deleted as Copyrighted in home country? PascalHD (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The country of origin is the country of first publication, not necessarily where it was taken or the nationality of the author. I think the presumption was this was a portrait taken specifically for the Nobel Prize and published as part of that, in Sweden. At that point, the hope was that it fell under Sweden's 25-year term for "simple photos" which would have expired before the URAA date. However...
I'm not sure that qualified for the "simple photo" in the first place. Studio portraits, where just about everything is under control of the photographer, are usually "works". It's usually snapshots or news photos where the photographer has no control over the scene that are simple. If not simple, that would make it copyrighted in both countries. Given the link you gave, which shows that copies existed in 1956, then it seems likely that the country of origin was Canada, and it was published in 1956. That would make the Swedish question moot (for Commons anyways). Until 1999, the copyright term in Canada was 50 years from creation for photos, simple or not. That changed in 1999 to become 50pma, and just recently to 70pma. That would mean that while it got somewhat close to expiring, it never did, and thus the U.S. copyright was restored as well. It would expire in Canada in 2062, and the U.S. in 2052. If the photo was published within 30 days in other countries (particularly the U.S.) that could change things again, but we may need some evidence of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to open a DR to furthur discuss it there instead. Any further points by anyone can be made here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Lester Pearson 1957 PascalHD (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung GT-S3600 found in Google[edit]

Hi, I am OperationSakura6144. I was finding an image to use as an icon for my new upcoming userboxes.

When I searched in Google for that, I found this, a black stylish Samsung GT-S3600 on a hand. The photo of S3600 reminds me the old times of Samsung before the Galaxy phones in the late 2000's, and it is a ideal images for my userbox describing my love to retro and old 2000's technology.

Despite getting an ideal image, I find something wrong. The website having that image belongs to Carousell, a marketplace website. Now, I am confused. Shall I use that or not? If it is, can it be uploaded to WikiComms without any copyright issues? I am in the middle of the sea, because WikiComms doesn't allow non-free and copyrighted material, and I got a kinda non-free image in Google for my userboxes.

I would like you to help me in this situation. I don't intend or like to violate a copyright, just for personal reasons. That's why I am counting on you. I hope you get me a solution for this.

To end this post, I would be happy to hear I can use the WikiComms image of Samsung GT-S3600, especially on a hand operating it.

Thank you. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OperationSakura6144: Have you reviewed COM:NETC?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've read COM:NETC. It says public domain images are allowed in WikiComms. The image of Samsung GT-S3600 I wanna use is kinda public domain, as it's available through Google, but I am not sure about the copyright laws permittting the usage of images from commercial websites. They would allow commercial images to be used as free in some cases, right? Even if it's so, I need to find what copyright licenses the image of S3600 has to prevent copyvios. In simple words, I can use the image of S3600 from a commercial website in WikiComms after uploading it, but it has to comply with the copyright laws here. Otherwise, that would end up in a copyvio. I hope you understand it. Thank you. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OperationSakura6144. Your The image of Samsung GT-S3600 I wanna use is kinda public domain statment seems to be a common mistake that many make in that looks like you're confusing "publicly available" with "public domain". You can find out more about public domain here, but the fact that something is available online (even something that can be freely downloaded) doesn't mean it also free from copyright protection. "Public domain" bascially refers to content that once was but no longer is protected by copyright for some reason (e.g its age) or content that is considered too simple or too common (i.e. not creative enough to warrant copyright protection) to be protected by copyright. In principle, the copyright of a photo is considered to be owned by the person taking the photo; so, if you didn't take a photo you want to upload, you probably should assume that the copyright is "owned" by the person who did per COM:NETCOPY and that you're going to need their COM:CONSENT if you want to upload the file to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, part of the confusion stems from "public domain" having more than one meaning. While we on Commons use it in the sense of "free from copyright," there is another usage that means, "available to the public." The term is explained differently between dictionaries, which also sows some confusion, especially with non-native speakers of English (who won't know which dictionary to rely on). Other than being understanding about the source of confusion, there is not much more we can do. From our perspective, we are talking about the definition related to copyright only. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for mixing up the words "public domain" and "publicly available". Anyways, that was not the topic I was talking about. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OperationSakura6144: Right, you can't without Samsung and the photographer sending permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but I need to tell something. Samsung has nothing to do with it, because it is about an unused product that's for sale in Karousell, and I don't think I need to contact the photographer you refer for my trivial userboxes, because I now realised the S3600 in www.carousell.ph was sold out! Even though, to avoid copyvios, I am giving credit to the so-called photographer for his/her image after uploading it and adding to Category: Samsung mobile phones (I am not being dishonest by the way). Thank you for helping me, and I hope you can help me in times of worry. I appreciate your help. See you all. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OperationSakura6144: Giving credit to the photographer doesn't remove copyright. Please do not upload images from the Internet without the formal written permission from the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer. Yann (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could've, but there's no time for that because I cannot waste time to have the permission granted to upload images from internet just for my userboxes. Now, I've uploaded the image of S3600 and gave credit to the photographer. I am not egoistic, but I had to do it. I'm sorry. It's too early to do that. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OperationSakura6144: I deleted your file as it is a copyright violation. You say "I cannot waste time to have the permission granted to upload images from Internet", but it is essential to respect copyright. Do not upload it again, or you will be blocked. Yann (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you did what you should. Now, I am not angry with you because I have many ways other than uploading images from internet, but, can you and other users help me by uploading a photo of Samsung GT-S3600 on a hand, so that it doesn't serve benefits just for me but also for the community? I don't think it can be done in a moment, but I am sure every user in WikiComms is capable for that. Sorry for committing a copyvio, in your gut felling atleast, but it's okay. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OperationSakura6144 usually, it is the obligation of the uploader to contact the photographer of the internet image to obtain commercial Creative Commons license clearance. COM:VRTS correspondence is encouraged: VRT page provides the steps for the copyright holder to send licensing authorization to Wikimedia Foundation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not egoistic, but I had to do it. I'm sorry". You were explained several times in this thread it was not okay to upload the image, yet you did. If you are unsure about the copyright status of certain file, please do not upload, and when seeking advice, please don't disregard it. It wastes our time, and yours, too. Bedivere (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please confirm...[edit]

Hi there! Can someone please confirm that this image is CCBYSA4, and is therefore allowed on Commons? Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source page says it is available under {{OGL3}}, which is accepted on Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your time on this, and your confirmation. There are hundreds of similar aerial photographs, and I wanted to be 100% certain. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywelyn2000: I notice the file is called File:Black Point Rath, Pembrokeshire, Wales - Bryngaer y Penrhyn Du o Wefan Coflein ar CCBYSA4 via OGL.png, which includes references to specific licences. It is not a good idea to include licence details in the file name (especially in this case, as both licences are wrong - it is OGL 3.0 rather than the original OGL). Would a file title of "Black Point Rath, Pembrokeshire, Wales - Bryngaer y Penrhyn Du o Wefan Coflein ar" make sense or is the Welsh a bit nonsensical now that the licences are removed? If you can confirm the correct file name, we can request a page move. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: many thanks! I didn't spot the OGL3 detail! I've never added licence details in the past, but needed to bring the openness of this image to the fore, before it was deleted by someone! This is because RCAHMW have never in the past placed their images on an open licence! After 10 years of discussions, we have a break through! I've now requested a page move, and thanks for your input in this. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

Hi. I wanted to ask for more information about the copyright status of maps. I have a scanned map from a textbook and I have read through Commons:Threshold of originality#Maps, wondering if it can be uploaded. I think the design is too simple, but it marks the location of several ports and boats. Is there a way I could tell if it is suitable for upload? Maybe I could ask a Workshop for a derivative work? Many thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: It is very difficult to know without looking at the individual maps, but in general maps are exactly as copyrightable as any other image. - Jmabel ! talk 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I'll think about creating a new map from scratch, in that case. Many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus: typically no reason to start from scratch. Start from a PD or free-licensed map of the relevant area. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organs in countries with no-FoP indoors: copyrightable or not?[edit]

From the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Heilig Geist (Zürich-Höngg) (still-open Swiss FoP deletion request) comes a claim that organs are mere utilitarian objects whose designers cannot protect. Is it true for all organs in all countries with no applicable indoor FoP, like Switzerland and Germany? Some discussion may be needed as I think there are images of organs that have been deleted in the past. Ping two people involved in that DR: @Paradise Chronicle and IronGargoyle: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I've been wondering about myself and at least IMO they should be copyrightable in cases where it's not a "simple" organ. For instance if it contains an inornate or ornate design. Although who knows where the line is, but that's at least where I'd draw it at. Since I think you lose the whole argument that it is purely utilitarian at that point. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these pictures show more than the organ. So these could be a problem. Also something must be subject to a copyright in the first place. I doubt it is the case for File:Heilig Geist Höngg Werktagskapelle.JPG. This only shows chairs, a table, and plain walls. Yann (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add COM:UA which refers on utilitarian works, mostly on US law and makes a difference between law in the US and law in other countries. In in Switzerland (and other countries) originality seems to be important (chapter copyright at p.3) and in my opinion an organ in a church is in the vast majorities (I have not yet come across a duplicate or a series of church organs) an original. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The shape and arrangement of the pipes and organ housing may be aesthetically pleasing, but it is inseparable from its function (the type of sound produced). This inseparability of form and function is the key element of COM:UA. I should also mention that COM:UA notes the threshold of originality for the applied arts (which this would be) is higher in Switzerland. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian Institution Copyright[edit]

I was wondering whether this article and in particular the drawings therein could be in the public domain under {{PD-USGov-SI}}, given that they were made by an employee of the Smithsonian Institutions / the US National Museum. The notes on that template suggest that some additional research may have to be done to ascertain the funds from which the author had been paid, but maybe this is known for staff scientists at the museum in the 1960s? Felix QW (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure.
A government employee wrote an article with illustrations. All works of that employee are public domain. The first publication of that article is in a journal which claims copyright. I am not sure what happens when a unpublished work which is public domain from creation is first published in a journal which seeks to acquire the copyright of everyone who contributes to it. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball card uploads[edit]

I'm looking through JonP125's uploads. I'm seeing hundreds of baseball cards with extremely shaky public domain claims.

None of the uploads explain why they are marked as unregistered or without a notice.

What does the board feel should be done? I'm loathe to do a mass nomination without community input first. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No-notice claims should be fairly straightforward -- if there is a notice on the card, it's not fine. We should see the whole front and the whole back, of course. If cards came in packs and there was a notice on the outer container, that could be an issue. No-renewal claims can be rebutted by finding the renewal number. Looking through several of the uploads, the source usually has the front and back, and I don't see notices. So, not sure what the problem is. The uploader seems to have been somewhat careful about only using pre-1989 cards. There may be some mistakes but any DRs should probably be on a case-by-case basis if there is reason to doubt that we are seeing the entire front or back. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the company and year but most of the time with modern baseball cards the copyright notices are on the back of the cards and are on all the cards for the same season. If there are ones that don't have images the back they are easy enough to find on eBay. Although if there's like a 1978 card from Tops that doesn't have a notice then its pretty likely none of Tops cards for that season will have one. I don't think I've ever seen a notice on the pack, but then you could argue the packaging is what is copyrighted, not the cards themselves. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only one I've looked into definitely had a copyright notice on its original publication. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even a baseball card. Raw photographs of players are probably going to be copyrighted by default. Largely because they aren't technically "published" at that point yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same photo which was later? used on the card under DR, though the card had a much tighter crop so not all of it became PD. As I mentioned there though, all copies had to have a notice. Per 17 USC 405, notices omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public would not lose copyright. That was also the case law from before that. I gave a couple links in the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#1969_and_1971_US_newspaper_clippings that most rulings were between one and two percent which allowed copyright to be kept. If notice was omitted on the baseball card, I would say it's OK. Now if that photographer registered the copyright, that would also keep copyright per the 1978 law. Those records would be online at copyright.gov and should be easy to search and find. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=866166989"