Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Warren Laity

Warren R. Laity was an American photographer of the early 20th century. He died in 1936, and thus copyright has now expired on all of his works.

His grandson, Colin Talcroft, owns some of Laity's original work — in fact, for some of these, they may be the only remaining copies. Mr. Talcroft scanned these in, digitally restored them, and posted them on his own website. So far, so good.

Then I found them and uploaded them to Commons, because their copyright has expired and because Warren R. Laity was a skilled artistic photographer and also some of his stuff has historic value.

Mr. Talcroft recently discovered this, and is intent on asserting that he still holds the copyright to these images, because he restored them.

Is he right? DS (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he died in 1936 does not mean that copyright has now expired on all his works. COM:US is far more complex than that, and anything first published 1929-2002 may still be in copyright.

Restoration is a complex subject; it's unlikely to create a new copyright, but if whole parts of the photograph needed it replacement or something, it could.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If they were on public display (in , e.g., galleries or competitions), that would count as being published, yes? DS (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That again depends on the circumstances. US courts ruled at the time that if precautionary measures had been taken to avoid copying by patrons, then mere exhibition to the public does not count as publication. This is explained in some detail at Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Felix QW (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

One image now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Capitol in the rain (Laity).jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

New warning template for copyrighted interior architecture?

In many (most) countries where a Commons-compatible form of freedom of panorama for copyrighted architecture exists, it applies only to exterior views. So, it's for example perfectly fine to upload exterior views of Elbphilharmonie, but we can't host images of the interior such as the concert hall, see Commons:Deletion requests/Interior of Elbphilharmonie. In the case of Elbphilharmonie, a warning was placed manually at the top of the category page. But as this is a recurring issue that applies to all sorts of modern churches, concert halls etc. in countries such as Germany or Switzerland, I wounder whether a dedicated template would be useful, to be placed in the categories for these buildings, something like {{NoFoP-interior-category}}? There's {{NoFoP-category}} but this is for buildings / artistic work in countries that have no Commons-compatible FoP whatsoever (so, also not for exterior views). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I remember seeing that restriction on most countries with FoP, but it's there for a few for sure. So yeah I could see a template for such cases -- even if just a few countries, that could be many building categories. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Definitely Germany & I believe Austria & Switzerland. That would be enough to merit a template. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also the following: Türkiye, Spain, Poland, Venezuela, El Salvador, Colombia, Panama, Paraguay, and Chile.

However, is {{NoFoP-interior-category}} encompassing interior architecture only, or only interior public art? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Most countries that don't have freedom of panorama for interiors don't have them for any kind of copyrighted work in interior spaces - that includes architecture as well as other artistic work (sculptures, paintings...). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg: The Europe map at COM:FOP has only four countries with FoP for public interiors (dark green): Portugal, Ireland, the UK, and Austria. Additionally in light yellow-green (how do you call that color?) the Netherlands, Algeria, and Tunisia (not in Europe but still on that map) for "some public interiors"; all other countries on the map have either no FoP at all (red), "buildings only" (but not public interiors; yellow), or FoP, but not for interiors (light green, such as Germany etc.) Gestumblindi (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

̼@Gestumblindi: I'm not sure that is what the distinction on the map means, exactly. The UK has FoP for other works (say statues) permanently placed inside buildings, if those buildings are open to the public -- I think that is what is more meant by "interiors", if the interior of a building can be considered a public place. The interior architecture itself, is far less clear -- the interior is part of the same architectural work as the exterior. Germany certainly has explicit language that only the exterior is part of FoP, and also language about where the photographer is located, but that type of wording is rare in laws. It may well be that any part of the architectural work is fine to photograph (and use commercially), including the interior, but any other works inside are not. It's always possible case law could create such a distinction, but not sure there have been many (or any) test cases on that. For countries where building interiors are not public places, photos focusing on works other than the architecture would violate FoP in the first place, and shouldn't be allowed here in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I have to agree that things are more complicated than the map(s) suggest. "Public interiors" can mean different things in different countries, and the definition of a "permanent public display" is also varying - what exactly means "permanent"? What are the boundaries of a "public display"? From where may you take the photograph? And so on... So, the Europe FoP map and the world map are certainly only an approximation, though a valiant attempt and still helpful, I think. - I don't know the status of FoP for interior architecture in the UK. But as you say, e.g. for Germany it's clear, and there are other countries like Switzerland where we know that such photographs don't fall under FoP, so I think such a template - to be applied where we are fairly sure - still would make sense. Just don't apply it to UK photos, for example, until we know more. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to think of Template:NoFoP-category. Isn't the solution for these to upload photos to Wikipedia instead (at least for France/fr.wikipedia) but not mentioned there?

A similar looking template on categories that should actually have uploads seems like a terrible idea. Will recent US buildings have that too? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against adding something along the lines of "If your images are intended for use in another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia, and your local project allows for fair use, you might consider uploading the pictures there instead, if allowed as per that project's regulations", what do you think? - Regarding, US buildings, COM:FOP US says that FoP for architecture in the US applies to "interior public spaces" as well, so I think I would rather not use the new template for US photos (photos of non-public interior spaces would still not be allowed, but I think that's too specific for a template). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the note for France should be more specific than that. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

French Wikipedia has a "fair use" policy? For, of course, as France doesn't have freedom of panorama at all, you can't upload images there invoking the Lex loci protectionis (which is something German Wikipedia does for exterior views from countries without FoP - it doesn't have a fair use policy, as copyright law in German-speaking countries doesn't allow for "fair use", but it argues that you can show those images as FoP for a German-language target audience). Gestumblindi (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Reminds me of some user who planted Template:FoP-Switzerland on every street category. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Distribution Statements

Certain modern military manuals have "distribution statements" on their title page. For example, the 29 March 2002 edition of the AH-64 operator's manual, TM 1-1520-251-10, states:

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D - Distribution authorized to Department of Defense and DoD contractors only due to critical technology. This determination was made on 26 June 2000. Other requests for this document shall be referred to Commander, US Army Aviation and Missile Command, ATTN: SFAE - AV - AAH - ATH, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 - 5000.

and the C-17A flight manual, TO 1C-17A-1, reads:

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT - Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only for administrative and operational use, 16 November 1987. Other requests shall be referred to ASC/YC (AV/FS), Wright Patterson AFB OH 45433-7142.

I suspect that these statements may be an attempt to reserve copyright protection by government contractors, since all U.S. federal government produced documents are public domain, but a private work for hire can, in theory, be published in or as a government document and still be copyrighted. However, I am not sufficiently familiar with distribution statements to say for certain. For example, the phrase "due to critical technology" could indicate it is more for secrecy reasons than copyright.

As background, older manuals include statements such as "published under authority of the Secretary of the Air Force" or "published by Douglas Aircraft Co. with approval of Chief, Engineering Division, Materiel Center" on the title page. I have never seen the public domain status of these examples questioned. However, this may be because even if they weren't considered government produced, they would still be public domain as they were published before 1978 without a copyright notice.

If the distribution statement does constitute a copyright claim, it would seem that the claim would be invalidated by the somewhat recent decision in Georgia v. Public.Resource.org, Inc. that certain works created by contractors in association with the government are uncopyrightable. In addition, a federal court ruled in favor of a lawsuit by AM General against Activision regarding use of the "Humvee" name in video games. However, as this involved a trademark, not copyright, it may not be applicable here.

To sum up, the question is: Are military manuals with distribution statements public domain and can therefore be uploaded? –Noha307 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

These distribution statements have nothing to do with copyright. They have to do with status (current or former) of restricted military information. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you seem to be familiar with the subject, is there any chance you know where I could find more information about it? I don't doubt your explanation, I just have a distinct personal interested in the subject and would like to read the minutiae. Also, it would be useful to have something to reference should I need to explain it elsewhere. –Noha307 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I should have just searched it. It's covered by DOD Instruction 5230.24. There's also a chart laying out distribution statements and their corresponding reasons for use. Of the reasons, the only one that looks like it could involve copyright is for "proprietary information" (aka "proprietary business information" in DoDI 5230.24), which is used to "[t]o protect information not owned by the U.S. Government and marked with a statement of a legal property right". However, this only applies to distribution statements B, E and F, so it shouldn't affect my purposes. –Noha307 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Are images extracted from non-free PDF files from Japan always unuploadable?

For example, extract the political party logo from this press release (I think this is copyrighted), and upload it to Commons is not accepted? The logo itself is the same as File:Logo of Democratic Party For the People.svg and is considered the public domain in Commons. Article 20 (1) of the Japanese Copyright Act stipulated the Right to Integrity. I think extracting the logo from this non-free press release and uploading it violates this right. So, even if the logo itself can be considered the public domain, if the PDF file is unuploadable, the extracted logo is also unuploadable, and I think the PDF file must also be uploadable, what do you think about this? Momiji-Penguin (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No, public domain items that happen to be included in a copyrighted work are not unuploadable when separated from the copyrighted work.

The right to integrity has nothing to do with this. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@D. Benjamin Miller: Sure, they do. The copyrighted work is merely the conduit.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This is presumably in reference to Commons:Deletion requests/Some files in anime television series logos extracted from PDF files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear. Public domain items that happen to be included in a copyrighted work are uploadable when separated from the copyrighted content. Be careful, that you use the original published captions for the PD items, rather than those in the new work. Broichmore (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We Animals Media

The not for profit organisation We Animals Media provides photos and videos under permissive licenses. A potential user can choose a "Non-Commercial License Type" or a "Special Non-Commercial Academic and Editorial Use Only License Type".

One of the differences between the licenses is that the Special Non-Commercial license prohibits works to be "used by nonprofit or charity organisation. Work(s) may only be used by individuals, educators, or for editorial use." Which I presume precludes Wikimedia?

The license is printed in full below, but the section on copyright reads.

We Animals retains all copyright and moral rights attached to this Work(s) as well as any other rights not expressly granted to You in this agreement. Credit/Acknowledgement must be given in the format [creator name] / We Animals Media when the Work(s) is published, either with a picture credit, caption or a link/acknowledgement in the publication where the Work(s) is used.

Am I right in assuming crediting the photographer in the metadata with the uploaded file is sufficient if a license template with the information in sections 2 and 3 are included in the template and the template is used with the photo?

If the answer is no. Would the same be sufficient for upload to a specific Wikipedia?

I will paste the standard "Non-Commercial License Type" license here:

Non-Commercial Use License This is a license agreement between you and We Animals Media that explains how you can use the Work(s) that you access from our site for the purposes indicated by you upon download. In consideration of our grant of this License, you accept the terms of this agreement. Section 1 – Definitions. Work(s) means the image or video clip licensed to you by We Animals. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this License. Your has a corresponding meaning. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this License that apply to Your Specified Use of the Work(s). NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. Please be advised fundraising is considered a commercial use, and you are required to use our Commercial License for fundraising purposes. Creator means the photographer / videographer who created the work(s). Specified Usage means the intended use of the Work(s) you specify upon download. Section 2 – Scope. Subject to the terms and conditions of this NonCommercial License, the rights granted to you for use of the Work(s) by We Animals are: Worldwide. Perpetual. There is no expiration or end date on your rights to use the content. Non-exclusive. You do not have exclusive rights to use the content. Unlimited. You can use the Work(s) an unlimited number of times for the Specified Usage. Section 3 – Provisions and Restrictions. Attribution. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 4 — Copyright in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Work(s). Adaptations. You are allowed to adapt, alter, arrange, transform, or otherwise modify the Work(s) to suit your purposes for the usage stated upon download, provided the adaptation or alteration complies with the terms of Subsection 3 - Misuse, below. Misuse. Work(s) cannot be used for any purpose that promotes or advocates for any industry, initiative, person or practice that engages in animal use or mistreatment, in each case as determined in We Animals’ sole discretion. For any breach of this subsection, We Animals may immediately revoke this License and terminate this agreement. We Animals will notify you in writing of such revocation and termination. You agree to cease all use of the Work(s). Continued use of the Work(s) after revocation of this License shall constitute intellectual property infringement, and We Animals reserves all rights and remedies available at law and in equity. No endorsement. Nothing in this License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, We Animals or others designated to receive attribution. Redistribution. You cannot sell, sublicense, and/or redistribute the Work(s). Section 4 – Copyright We Animals retains all copyright and moral rights attached to this Work(s) as well as any other rights not expressly granted to You in this agreement. Credit/Acknowledgement must be given in the format [creator name] / We Animals Media when the Work(s) is published, either with a picture credit, caption or a link/acknowledgement in the publication where the Work(s) is used. Section 5 – Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability. You indemnify and holds harmless We Animals against all claims, liability, damages, costs and expenses stemming from Your breach of this agreement, the use of the Work(s), Your failure to abide by any restriction regarding the use of the Work(s), or any claim by a third party related to Your use of the Work(s). The Work(s) is provided "as is" with no warranty regarding the suitability of the Work(s) for any purpose. We Animals is not liable to You or any person or entity for damages, costs or losses stemming from any usage of this Work(s). Unless delivered to You by We Animals, no model or property release exists for the Work(s) and You use the Works at Your own risk. Section 6 – General Provisions. Equitable Relief: You acknowledge that Your breach of this Agreement may cause We Animals irreparable damages, for which an award of damages would not be adequate compensation, and agree that, in the event of such breach or threatened breach, We Animals will be entitled to seek equitable relief, including injunctive relief, specific performance, and any other relief that may be available from any court, in addition to any other remedy to which We Animals may be entitled. Such remedies are not exclusive but are in addition to all other remedies available. Severability. If any term or provision of this agreement is invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability will not affect the enforceability of any other term or provision of this agreement, or invalidate or render unenforceable such term or provision in any other jurisdiction. No assignment. You will not assign any of your rights under this agreement without our prior written consent. We Animals may freely assign or otherwise transfer any of our rights or delegate any of our obligations under this Agreement. Amendment and Modification. No amendment or modification to this agreement is effective unless it is in writing and signed by an authorized representative of We Animals. Governing law. This agreement shall for all purposes be governed, interpreted, construed, and enforced solely and exclusively in accordance with the law of Ontario, without regard to conflicts of law provisions thereof. You agree that exclusive jurisdiction and venue of any dispute with We Animals or its licensors, or any of their respective affiliates, officers, directors, employees, contractors, agents, representatives or suppliers, arising out of or in any way relating to this agreement federal and state courts serving the city of Toronto, Ontario. You expressly consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction by such courts and agree that you will not object to jurisdiction of or venue in such courts on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, or otherwise.

-- Jabbi (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jabbi: No, that does not qualify as a free license. The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. There must be no exception regarding, for example, political or religious considerations. Wikimedia Commons doesn’t accept {{Noncommercial}}-only licenses, or restrictions against e.g. promotion of “animal use or mistreatment”. --Geohakkeri (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Geohakkeri Thank you for your answer. Do you know if it would be okay to upload with this license to a specific Wikiepdia. Say the english? -- Jabbi (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The license is either free or not. That is, all non-free licenses are basically considered as All rights reserved for the purpose of Wikimedia. It should be considered case by case whether the file complies with the non-free content policy of applicable WMF wiki. --Geohakkeri (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Creating new figure based on figures published in scientific papers

Hi all, I would like to draw some maps of what Earth looked like during geological time to illustrate the geological period pages. I can only do this by basing my new maps on figures from papers in scientific journals and/or websites. I plan to use two or three figures as the starting point and combine them into a new map. Is this allowed under copyright rules and if so how do I credit it correctly? Silica Cat (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Indicate those papers as references (see File:CAMP Magmatism in the context of Pangea.jpg for a good example of doing this correctly). Remember, information is not copyrightable, just its expression. There are probably a fair number of free-licensed maps here that you can use as starting points for your actual creation of an image. I'm not sure just what you would need, but we have things like Category:Maps of past tectonic plates and Category:Palaeomaps. - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That's really helpful :) Silica Cat (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Photographs taken for state licenses - published? copyrighted?

Recently, I've been writing on English Wikipedia about a number of American architects who were active in early-to-mid 20th century. A lot of these folks have photographs from their Washington state architectural licenses, usually dating to the 1930s/1940s. Washington isn't a state that releases its own publications into PD, but these would have fallen out of copyright unless they were registered and renewed. I'm unsure what sort of PD license these would fall under, or even if they count as "published works" for copyright purposes. An example of such a photo is in this Seattle Times article. Generalissima (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You can look at Commons:Hirtle chart. The biggest issue is figuring out if the works are registered (esp. as not all registrations have been digitized yet). And i'm not sure how those licenses came by their photographs. If they were provided by a 3rd party, the 3rd party might have the copyright, irregardless of what state document the photograph was incorporated into. The primary work/copyright is the photograph here, the (scan of the) license is the derivative copyright of that photograph. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Any US photograph that was 'published' in 1963 or earlier, and on which copyright wasn't renewed, is in the public domain.

For a license photo, the question is really whether or not the photo was published before 1989. If architectural license photos were made available to the public, then the answer should be yes. If not, the answer is probably no. I don't know what the status of those papers were at the time.

However, here is your (probably) better route. I checked the Catalog of Copyright Entries, and it seems that no copyright was renewed (or registered) for the Seattle Times before 1978. Assuming the issues had notices, that means anything first published in the Times in 1963 or earlier should be in the public domain. That would include, for instance, the photo included in the 1950 clipping included in the article you reference.

Additionally, any photo of McAdoo created by USAID during his time working for that federal agency is in the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Can other users change the license if own work is considered to be in the PD?

I noticed that the license for File:Teishi-genkai.svg (own work) has changed from CC0 to {{PD-shape}}. Certainly, this is a simple geometric shape so I think it could be considered in the PD. However, I didn't agree to this license change in advance. In such cases, can other users arbitrarily change the license? If so, can this be applied even if the previous license is more restrictive than CC0 such as CC BY 4.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0? Momiji-Penguin (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Momiji-Penguin: To issue a license, you have to hold a copyright. You can no more license a public-domain work than you can sell the Brooklyn Bridge.

Also, if you granted CC0, you gave up all rights, so I'm not sure what you have to complain about. "This thing I said I'm making absolutely no claim to got changed" is kind of an odd complaint.

That said, they should probably have indicated something in the "permissions" area of {{Information}} more like "Momiji-Penguin granted CC-zero licensing for this work, but we believe that to be redundant because it is {{PD-shape}}." - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Jason Myers image

I apologize for making a copyright infringement, however this photo has a "Some rights reserved" on it, however the photo on Flickr.com, it allows redistribution, so can someone tell me what I did wrong? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You uploaded a photo licensed under a CC-BY-NC license.

NC-licensed files are treated as non-free ones and are not suitable for Commons. The same also applies for ND-licensed files. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

NC means "non-commercial", ND means "no derivatives" AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It has a CC BY-NC 2.0 license, which you misrepresented as cc-by-2.5. COM:L, to which you've been referred thrice ([1][2][3]) not only says "Commercial use of the work must be allowed" (italics in original), but has a whole section on forbidden licenses and does not even really require literacy, as is depicted as " Not OK". Эlcobbola _talk 01:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

OK so that means that I cannot upload that file, yes? Or I just put the wrong license? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No, you can't upload the file here. The source literally shows that it's licensed under a NC license. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

OK I apologize thank you for putting up with me. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

👍 AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Recordings of live performances

Hello! I have some recordings of parts of live performances such as classical works (opera Attila, ballet of Nutcracker, etc.) and folk concerts. (30-60 seconds in length.) Am I allowed to upload them here? If so, what options do I choose for the license? - Klein Muçi (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's presumably going to vary somewhat with different countries' laws; what country? (Still, my guess is that in most cases it will be a problem, because at least some aspect of the performance will be copyrightable even if the underlying work is not.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In most countries where performances are copyrightable per se, they are sui generis copyrightable, not copyrightable as works, and the rights in the recording belong to the recording party alone (although there are sometimes requirements for splitting of royalties, where there are royalties, which there wouldn't be here). However, the main purpose of performance copyright laws is similar to 17 USC 1101 (which isn't copyright per se), mentioned by @Toohool - the performers need to have consented to the making of the recording.

So, basically, if you had permission to record, it is probably OK (at the very least the audio would be - video might contain new stuff). If not, it's not OK. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! But in that case, what does one select in the uploading procedure when asked if it is completely own work or not? Is this considered my own work? Is it considered a mixed work? - Klein Muçi (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It may not technically be a copyright issue, but if you didn't get permission from the performers to make the recording, distribution in the United States (i.e. on Commons) would be forbidden by 17 USC 1101. Toohool (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel, @Toohool, just so I can give a bit more info, they're performances from Albanian singers in Albania, mostly from the w:en:National Theatre of Opera and Ballet of Albania. I noticed that the theatre's activity was almost non-existent here in media terms, be those images, videos or sound recordings, and I already had some media related to those and thought I could help a bit in that direction. - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Most countries these days have "related rights" for performers. The major right is typically one of agreeing to be recorded, without which a recording cannot be distributed, though Albania's law may go quite a bit further (it complies with many EU directives as they are negotiating to join). The current law is here; based on an English translation of a slightly earlier version, you would need to get permission to redistribute such a recording. The portions regarding related rights start at article 103 there, and the main restrictions are in article 109. It may be that the theater company (which may be the government) holds those rights. Secondly, if there is any copyrighted music or dialogue being performed, that may be a separate copyright that needs a license. You would have the copyright to the recording itself but is likely not be the only license we need. If you had permission to record, and there is no copyrighted content in the performance, it may be OK but look over that law. It may also be that commercial reproductions of the performance need royalty payments to somebody, which could also cloud things. I'm not entirely sure which rights would be assumed transferred to the theater, and which of those rights were given permission for.

1. The performers /executors have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit:

a. The registration of their performances and/or executions;

b. The reproduction of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

c. The distribution of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

ç. The rental of a phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

d. The lending of phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions;

dh. The import of the phonogram or videogram with the content of their performances and/or executions, for commercial purposes in the domestic market;

e. The broadcasting of the interpretations/performances and their transmitting to the public, pursuant to the provisions of Article 29, letter ‘c’, ‘ç’, ‘d’, ‘dh’, ‘ë’ of this law, except when the interpretation/performances has been previously fixed or broadcasted. If the registration/fixation has been fixed on a phonogram or a videogram, the performer/executor has the right to a common and fair remuneration, for the other broadcastings and transmitting to the public of his/her performance/or execution. The common and fair remuneration, referred to in this section of this Article, consists of the remuneration received by the user of phonograms that belongs to the performers/executors and to the phonograms producer.

ë. Cable retransmitting of their performances and/or executions;

f. The availability in interactive way of the fixations of their performances and/or executions

Some of those are just for phonograms, but others sound like they may apply. Not exactly sure who would own those rights for the particular performance in question, or what licenses they may have given. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi: if you can get around the rights issues here, I would recommend that rather than wrestling with trying to describe this complicated case to the Upload Wizard you do one of two things:

1. If you are comfortable filling out {{Information}} yourself, skip the Upload Wizard entirely and upload with Special:Upload.
2. "Bluff" your way through the Upload Wizard (give the simple answer that it is your own work), then immediately after upload correct the file page to reflect the situation accurately.

The Wizard is simply not built for complicated cases like this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers! They were pretty informative and covered everything related to my case. - Klein Muçi (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Are files licensed under this license acceptable?

The Digital Agency distributes illustrations and icons, which are licensed under this license.

The conditions of this license are that if the user has edited the file for publish, use, or redistribute, the user must cite the source and include a statement expressing that the content has been edited. This license does not require attribution unless the work is a derivative work. But not in any way that making public, using or making available edited information in a format that may be misconstrued as having been created by the Government of Japan (or its ministries and/or agencies). The file may be freely used, copied, publicly transmitted, translated or otherwise modified on condition that the user complies with the conditions, and commercial use of it is also permitted.

{{Zlib}} is acceptable to Commons, so I think that files licensed under this license are also acceptable, is this correct? Also, how should the license information be presented? Momiji-Penguin (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly fine. Much less restrictive than CC-BY, really. It should carefully note what files it pertains to... with Google Translate, the main site copyright policy seems to say that a "Public Data License 1.0" applies to content on the site unless a copyright notice is specified (which one technically is in the site footer), and does not apply to logos etc. That license also appears to be fine, and says it is compatible with CC-BY-4.0, but does appear to be different than the one you mention. It may be good to have some unofficial translations of those licenses, if possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

As stated at the beginning of the main site copyright policy, unless otherwise noted, work by the Digital Agency is licensed under the Public Data License 1.0.

And on 1.4 it states:

2. 具体的かつ合理的な根拠の説明とともに、別の利用ルールの適用を明示しているコンテンツ

This means something like "Content where other terms of use apply with rational and concrete reason" in English. I think イラストレーション・アイコン素材利用規約 falls within this exception. Momiji-Penguin (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if particular files have an explicit license just for them, that would override the site license. It all sounds fine, and we should probably have a copyright tag if we are going to copy many of those icons. The only official license text is in Japanese of course, which should be noted, but having some translation may help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I created {{DAIITU}}. Momiji-Penguin (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Would these qualify as public domain for Commons?

I've found a number of images I feel could be a good fit for articles from the old BC Ferries archive. [4][5][6][7]

From my understanding, all of these images are owned by BC Ferries, and as it was a crown corporation until 2003, these images would fall under section 12 of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) which states:

Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.

So from my understanding, all BC Ferries produced images from 1973 or earlier should be public domain. However, I don't know enough about Commons' proof of ownership standards and how it handles international copyright law to confirm they're suitable for upload. Emma0mb (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The date of the publication is important here. The images need to have been published by 1974. Ruslik (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

So assuming I can get confirmation of publication before 1974, it should be fine? Emma0mb (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"Without a copyright notice"

Per the text of one of the copyright tags, some pictures are uncopyrighted because they were, quote, published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years. In searching the loc.gov files for Ricky Van Shelton, it appears that no photos of him had their copyrights registered. From what sources, if any, could I get a picture of him that meets these qualifications and can be uploaded here? TenPoundHammer (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyrights aren't all that often at the level of individual photos. It is quite likely that he had a fair amount of press during this period, but that entire issues of a magazine or newspaper would have been copyrighted, not single photos. - Jmabel ! talk 04:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: So a back issue of something like Billboard or Radio & Records, if there's no copyright notice within, might work? TenPoundHammer (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I'd be astounded if Billboard didn't consistently have a copyright notice, but yes. - Jmabel ! talk 20:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: do you think you could help me find one or recommend other sources? TenPoundHammer (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I would not presume a PD image exists. I would think your best bet would be to try to get a free license from some amateur who might have taken a picture of him. Either that or see of there might have been publicity photos that had no copyright notice. - Jmabel ! talk 22:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: See also en:Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial and Commons:File requests.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

US National Archives and Records Administration

I am wondering about the copyright status of images in Category:US National Archives series: Artworks by Negro Artists, compiled 1922 - 1967. The issue was previously discussed here. Cheers, Genericusername57 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If they are marked PD-USGov, they probably are incorrect, as mentioned in the old discussions. A good percentage are probably PD-US-no_notice or PD-US-not_renewed, but I'm not sure anyone has had the energy to go through them and do the research, and there may be some difficult decisions there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I'm guessing quite a few of these are probably legitimately PD-USGov from the WPA era. If anything, the lack of knowing in many cases whose work it was leans that way: the obvious ones (like Jacob Lawrence) are identified, but someone who never got famous and whose style wouldn't have stood out would have been "Negro artist working for WPA" and it's likely no one would have thought past that. But, yes, it would be very tricky almost a century later to work out who made what and under what circumstances. - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion request for some of my images

Hi!

Back then in 2019, I didn't know about the issue of election posters (whether they are FoP or not), so I would like to mark my images with a deletion request here, to close this issue. Some may not meet the TOO, but they can be sorted out in the request. Can someone mark these images with DR for me, please? I don't know how to do that, thanks :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You can use VisualFileChange for that. Enable the gadget in your preferences. --Rosenzweig τ 10:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it's done :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What's the license for a free image that cannot be used for commercial purposes?

and Is a image like that allowed on WC if it provides infomation about the subject?
Hydrogen astatide (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

To answer the second question: No, it is not allowed here, see Commons:Licensing#Forbidden licenses. [8] lists the CC licenses, among them those with a NC (non-commercial) clause. --Rosenzweig τ 10:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If an image "cannot be used for commercial purposes", then it is not (in the sense used on this project), by definition, "free". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrogen astatide: It is not free enough for Commons.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Paises de Ley en Comun

Buenas que significa Paises de Ley Comun en la Commons:Umbral de originalidad#Países de ley común?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: Países de es:Derecho anglosajón.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.:Por ejemplo si publico un logo simple (ToO simple) creado en Venezuela es posible agregar {{PD-textlogo}},porque según en COM:Venezuela no dice claramente el "Threshold of Originality" en Venezuela pero es posible publicar a Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyright issue about works created for the Wiki Loves Monuments photograph contest

I know I'm not a registered user, but I just wonder to know what you think about this: If the newbie users of Commons who participated in the WLM, they had casually entered private area and took pictures without get the permission from property owners, or even barged into their buildings, then will you accept them as a competition work according to the rules of the WLM competition? If yes, please explain why. My viewpoint is that what their doing is illegal, so their works are not protected by copyright, isn't it?--125.230.85.17 06:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Trespassing is often a tort, not a crime, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with their works being protected by copyright. See COM:GRAFFITI for discussions of the copyright protection of graffiti--in short, it's unclear--and graffiti is clearly a criminal act, whereas again, trespassing is often not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. In most of the world, due to the Berne Convention, sufficiently original works are copyrighted as soon as they are fixed in a tangible means of expression. Non-copyright restrictions do not negate copyright.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It must be noted that the laws of some countries are, however, not allowed take pictures in private areas, and not even in schools that looks like a public space that's open to everyone. This case might be similar to what COM:FOP says: "in countries without freedom of panorama, Wikimedia Commons requires proof of copyright release from the copyright holder when hosting any images of those buildings". That is to say, participants/photographers basically need to go through the COM:VRT process to get permission from the copyright holder (is the property owner). The problem is that we didn't know if photographers barge into a private area, but they also won't admit that they had not got permission. Obviously, it is a flaw of the mechanism of Commons. If you don't think so, then let's bring the topic back on track. Some countries are not allowed take pictures in private areas. If a participant or a photographer has a legal dispute with property owner, regardless of the outcome of the court's decision, are their works still protected by copyright and accepted by Commons?--125.230.85.17 10:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, WLM-i organizer here. The issue you are presenting here is not directly related to Wiki Loves Monuments, but a question of decency and courtesy of any photographer. Trespassing is never allowed, not for Commons' photograph competitions, nor for any other of our Wikimedia projects and initiatives. A bit of friendliness goes a long way: this means asking the owner of the property if you can take the pictures (and walking away when they refuse) helps against potential take down requests.

We do not require proof to be send to VRT for self-taken images unless there is a dispute on the matter. Please do not create work for our volunteers where simple common sense, decency and assume good faith are the baseline attitude in participation. Ciell (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@125.230.85.17: No, the property owner does not normally own a copyright on a building; where such a copyright exists, it would normally belong to an architect or other designer unless explicitly transferred.

And while we do not encourage people to trespass, unless the photo violates copyright laws or privacy rights, we would not generally delete a photo over claims of trespass. I'm sure we have many photos of building exteriors where someone stepped onto private property to take the photo, or where someone photographed non-copyrighted content in a museum without proper permission from the museum; that is not our problem. - Jmabel ! talk 16:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The property owner is not the copyright owner -- owning a physical object is completely separate from the copyright in that item, which belongs to the author (the person who actually created it). For a building the copyright is actually owned by the architect, unless transferred via contract (or by being an employee of a company, in which case the company owns the copyright). The licensing rules here are very much specifically about the copyright -- so for a photo of a statue, we need permission from the sculptor, not the person who owns the statue, most likely. Photos of a building are not derivative works in the U.S., so photos of U.S. buildings usually don't matter, but in some countries it does. Restrictions based on laws other than copyright are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and fall outside of our licensing policy. Those restrictions can be very real, but it is up to re-users to follow those. For things like house rules on photography, the photographer themselves is most at risk -- they would still own the copyright, but if they are breaking any laws by taking the photograph, or alienating people or institutions they have a relationship with, only they can really weigh that. So, we often leave that up to the photographer. Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum_and_interior_photography has some information on that. Photos which violate someone's privacy (generally people in situations with an expectation of privacy though the specifics can differ by country) will be deleted, as those can be illegal to simply host here. WLM may want to have photos deleted if there was a specific complaint or some discourteous act involving a particular photo -- I'm sure they would not want to get a reputation of having that type of thing happen. Other situations can be case-by-case -- if community consensus is that we don't want to host a photo obtained by dubious means, that can happen in a deletion discussion. But strictly speaking, property owners generally do not own any copyright of photos taken on their property, so they are not involved with the licensing part of policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Uploading movie poster

how can we upload a movie poster, i get copyright violation. how can we add the credit and correct Creative Commons license? Bfilmy (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bfilmy: Hi, On Commons, you need the formal written permission from the copyright holder for a free license. But you can upload it locally on the English Wikipedia (and some others) under a fair use rationale. Yann (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

thanks dude... Bfilmy (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Image of polytope copyright

I'm trying to add this gif to an article: https://polytope.miraheze.org/wiki/File:975-Sisp.gif

It is technically copyrighted, but it says it can be used for any non-commercial purposes.

"This file (or parts of it) are copyrighted by Robert Webb.↵↵The copyright holder of this file, Robert Webb, allows anyone to use it for any non-commercial purpose, provided that the name of the software used (Stella 4D), along with a link to the website https://www.software3d.com/Stella.php are given." Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-commercial licenses are not acceptable on Commons. Trade (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, see COM:LJ.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Video game screenshots

At what point are video game screenshots considered PD-text/PD-simple? See Category:Japanese-language video game screenshots for examples Trade (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Very hard to imagine anything copyrightable there.

Warning to anyone clicking through: possibly NSFW text. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

De minimis?

File:Civic Boulevard Entrance, Syntrend Creative Park 20220806.jpg

There's a deletion request on this file due to NoFoP, and while I believe the contents of the file fall under de minimis, the nominator does not. I'm forwarding this here for more information because I'm not an expert. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say not de minimis. The main interest of the photo seems to me to come from the copyrighted elements. - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree. The image description provided by the uploader primarily describes the advertisements surrounding the door; that leads me to suspect that they are the focal point of the photo, not the architecture of the building. Omphalographer (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Understanding copyright renewal

Hi all. I’m wondering if I could trouble someone to explain to me how one might go about determining a copyright was not renewed, as is indicated on File:Sylvia Plath - The Boston Globe (1953).png for example. I read the linked Hirtle chart and copyright logs but I’m sorry to report for the latter I’m still not sure what I’m looking at. Thanks for the help! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): to search for 1953 copyright renewals, you'd want to check the 1980 and 1981 copyright catalogs to see what the Associated Press had renewed. AP generally did not renew copyrights on photographs. Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah good to know. Thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• To start you can look up The Boston Globe in Wikidata then look for "online books" which takes you to https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/globemaboston which says that "no issue renewals found in CCE or registered works database" The newspaper never renewed any images or issues, which takes us to 1964. They did renew at least one article on "May 7, 1940", it can be fun to look up and see what that article was, I have a list somewhere of what articles were copyrighted in papers and it is always a guest writer who may want to include their essay in a book at a later time. For instance in 1927 several papers ran a first hand account by Charles Lindbergh that he later included in his biography. According to the Library of Congress, the Associated Press did not copyright or renew images, even their most iconic ones. Some local papers never included a copyright symbol in the masthead or on the second page that lists the publisher and editors and the address to write the paper. After 1989 those formalities of registration, renewal, and copyright symbol were no longer needed, everything creative was automatically copyrightable. People would still mail in copies to the USCO to get a date stamp, especially for songs, to show priority, in case someone else claims that they wrote the song first. --RAN (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Fascinating, thanks so much! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this belongs but...

I uploaded these images and the author did in fact said he was fine with his images being reused. However the only evidence I have is an email. What do i do to confirm that the author did in fact was fine with his images being reused? Hydrogen astatide (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• They need to fill out a Commons:VRT form and send it to the Commons addy. --RAN (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• And, in case it is not clear, only the copyright holder can do that, though you probably should have them cc you on the email. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)