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.


FOP guatemala is all wrong, part 2[edit]

The following comments were mistakenly posted at the archived discussion Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/11#FOP guatemala is all wrong.

Objection. No idea why COM:FOP Guatemala was written to disallow buildings pictures (architecture). The quoted law clearly makes a distinction between works of art and buildings. It restricts "reproduction [...] of a work of art permanently exhibited in public places or on the exterior façade of buildings". I object to the overly restrictive nature of the language of COM:FOP Guatemala, which does not seem to reflect the quoted law and seems to be arbitrary. I don't know what I am missing. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thinker78 You seem to misunderstand freedom of panorama. We don’t look to freedom of panorama to tell when derivative works are disallowed; they are already disallowed. Freedom of panorama is an exception, where a work seems like a derivative work but it is allowed anyway. Anything not covered by the exception is still disallowed.
FOP Guatemala does not mention buildings (except for those with art), so photos copyrighted buildings are disallowed as derivative works. Brianjd (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Brianjd I have spent a few hours today analyzing the issue and all I can say is that it is disappointing that the Congress of Guatemala amended the law in 2006 to make it more restrictive and modified it in such a way that it took away the freedom of panorama regarding buildings that previously seemingly was there.[1] I will try keep looking into the issue. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thinker78: It is disappointing, as noted in the archived discussion linked above. Brianjd (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thinker78: Any restrictions to FoP are disappointing. This was noted by other users in the archived discussion linked above, but it is good that you express your opinion here too. I don’t see any FoP for buildings, even in the old law that you linked to (I translated article 64, which appears to be the relevant article – I can’t skim through it, not being familiar with Spanish). Brianjd (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thinker78: actually, it is not the sole intervention of the Guatemalan legislature, but also of a treaty that made Guatemalan FOP restrictive. Per Decreto 11-2006, their copyright law was amended to conform with the Central America–Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) with the United States. It is noticeable that Honduras and Nicaragua, two participants of the treaty, also revised their copyright laws in 2006, and made FOP restricted to personal uses only. Only Dominican Republic and El Salvador did not alter their freedom of panorama legal rights notwithstanding the demands of the treaty. Refer also to w:en:Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement#Intellectual property rights. For Guatemalan case, the restriction to FOP can be found at Article 91 of Decreto 11-2006. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345 @Brianjd what should the law says if it could be ammended? I am suspecting members of Congress of Guatemala didn't intend to overly restrict publishing pictures of buildings. Thinker78 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thinker78 I can’t understand your first sentence. For your second sentence, I can’t really comment, being unfamiliar with that country. But it would hardly be the first time that lawmakers displayed their incompetence. JWilz12345 has noted that there is a treaty involved here; I am also unfamiliar with that treaty. Brianjd (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that the previous text of art. 64d did have FoP for buildings. In addition to not restricting to personal use, that previous text allowed "la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en lugares públicos, o de la fachada exterior de los edificios" ("the reproduction of a work of art exposed permanently in public locations, or of the exterior facade of buildings"). The word "of" goes logically with the words "the reproduction", so the sentence allows the reproduction of the exterior of buildings. The present text after modification reads "la reproducción para uso personal de una obra de arte expuesta en forma permanente en lugares públicos o en la fachada exterior de edificios" (the reproduction for personal use of a work of art exposed permanently in public locations or on the exterior facade of buildings). The tiny change of one word from "of" to "on" causes apparently a huge substantive change in the meaning of the sentence. The previous text seemed to make more sense. The new text seems bizarre. This particular point makes no difference for Wikimedia Commons, given that the new restriction to personal use makes reproductions non free anyway. But there may be some merit to the question by Thinker78 asking if the legislature really wanted to remove FoP for buildings and even the possibility of taking photos of exterior of buildings for personal use, which seems a drastic change. I don't know if that particular point would have been required by the CAFTA-DR, considering that the treaty was between the CA-DR countries and the United States and the US has FoP for architecture. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias: I’d like to think I would normally notice that, so how did I miss it here? I relied on DuckDuckGo, which gives: The reproduction of a work of art permanently exhibited in public places, or the exterior façade of buildings, made by means of an art other than used for the preparation of the original, provided that the name of the author is indicated, if known, the title of the work, if any, and the place where it is located. It’s missing the critical word of. Instead, I interpreted it as something like … in public places, or in the exterior façade of buildings …. I guess the lesson here is to not rely on machine translation! Brianjd (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thinker78: if you have connections with Guatemalan peeps, then you can suggest to them an architectural freedom of panorama similar to COM:FOP US, COM:FOP Denmark, COM:FOP Russia, COM:FOP Finland, or COM:FOP Norway. Perhaps a fifth (e) provision stating:

The reproduction of a work of architecture permanently visible in or from public places, made by means of an art different from that used in the making of the original, provided that the name of the author, if known, and the title of the work, if it has one, are indicated.

Google Translate from English to Spanish:

La reproducción de una obra de arquitectura permanentemente visible en o desde lugares públicos, realizada por medio de un arte diferente al utilizado en la realización del original, siempre que el nombre del arquitecto, si se conoce, y el título de la obra, si lo tiene, se indican.

This is directly adapted from the restrictive Guatemalan FOP. At the very least users and content creators will still respect architects by obliging them to cite their names in captions or descriptions if the architects are known. Hope this helps, if ever you have connections or friends in Guatemala. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ↑ https://mcd.gob.gt/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ley_derechos_de_autor_conexos_01.pdf

Thinker78 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So Thinker78 you want a modification of the legal code? If so, then instead of asking here, shouldn't this be a matter to send to the Guatemalan Parliament? Wikimedia South Africa is currently trying such thing: the copyright restrictions mentioned at COM:FOP South Africa are nowadays an unfair wall for spreading useful ZA cultural contents, and they did such a proposal iirc. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Liuxinyu970226: not only ZA but also us too. It is now possible to lobby our Congress to pass the current IP code amendments, thanks to the newly-formed Greater Manila Area branch of the PhilWiki Community. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Before contacting Congress it is a good idea to have a proposal. Thinker78 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Thinker78: wait, here is the modified version of my suggestion, using the same Spanish wording for d. but for architecture only and no restriction (since the Google-generated Spanish translation above is of different wording): e) La reproducción arquitectura permanentemente visible en o desde lugares públicos, ejecutada por medio de un arte que sea distinto al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del arquitecto, si se conociere, así como el título de la obra, si lo tiene, y el lugar donde se encuentra. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some comparison with similar no-FOP Central Americam countries: @Brianjd, Thinker78, and Asclepias: I suspect if the restrictive Guatemalan FOP is interpreted symbolically (not literally), it tries to imply that architecture is included among works falling under restrictive FOP. At the same year as Guatemala restricted their legal right, Honduras modified their FOP, using CAFTA-DR treaty as the basis. Article 52 of their law is unambiguous but equally disappointing: Es lícita, para uso personal, la reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en las calles, plazas u otros lugares públicos, por medio de un arte diverso al empleado para la elaboración del original. Respecto de los edificios, dicha facultad se limita a la fachada exterior. At least it is not as implicit as Guatemalan FOP, or even Costa Rican FOP (in Article 71 of their law) which reads: Es lícita la reproducción fotográfica o por otros procesos pictóricos, cuando esta reproducción sea sin fines comerciales, de las estatuas, monumentos y otras obras de arte protegidas por derechos de autor, adquiridos por el poder público, expuestos en las calles, los jardines y los museos. It is non-commercial FOP, but non-commercial content is not allowed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A user licensing template + two template sandboxes and possible copyright issues[edit]

For the user licensing template User:Gazebo/CC-license, are there any copyright issues with the creation of the template, particularly given the usage of existing material?

Similarly, for the template User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox, are there any copyright issues with the creation of the template or this edit or this other edit?

Thirdly, for the template User:Gazebo/CC-relicensed/sandbox, are there any copyright issues with this edit or this other edit?

If there are copyright issues, I would like to resolve them or have them resolved if at all possible. Thanks. Gazebo (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: Do you have any thoughts on this issue? --Gazebo (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the purpose? As long as you are licensing works with a CC license, I can't see any problem. Are you just trying to have a custom explanatory note around the tag? Not sure what issues you think there could be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Thanks for responding. My concern is that I may have copied existing CC BY-SA 3.0-licensed content in noncompliance with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license requirements particularly when creating the User:Gazebo/CC-license template and editing the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template.
For example, with the creation of the User:Gazebo/CC-license template, the edit summary has information about the Self template on the English-language Wikipedia but there is no hyperlink to the existing template in the summary. The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, specifically section 7, mention that a hyperlink should be used when attributing content if it is possible to use a hyperlink.
For the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template, specifically this edit, the edit summary has a hyperlink to the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template but also a non-hyperlinked location for a specific revision of the User:Gazebo/CC-license/sandbox template.
Perhaps edits like this edit and this other edit and this additional edit, where the edit summaries have hyperlinks to the existing page(s) and information about finding attribution, are OK even though the CC BY-SA 3.0 license is not mentioned. In particular, on the English-language Wikipedia, there is the page Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --Gazebo (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: I realize that you may busy. As it is, I am concerned that there may be a copyright issue with the previously-mentioned copying of content from the {{Self}} template and the Template:Self page on the English-language Wikipedia. Perhaps there are other Wikimedia Commons users who can provide feedback. Your attention to this issue is appreciated. Thanks. :) --Gazebo (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Carl Lindberg, I too find no issue. You are giving attribution through the edit summary and you are licensing your work in accordance with the CC-BY-SA license at the source. Felix QW (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Felix QW: Thanks for responding. Is there a problem with this creation of a template? The edit summary mentions the source of the material, among other details, in addition to mentioning the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, but the edit summary does not contain any hyperlinks. The Wikimedia Terms of Use in section 7 mention the issue of providing attribution when reusing text content and it appears to be mentioned that a hyperlink is to be used if it is possible to use a hyperlink. In particular, there is section 7(g) in the Terms of Use. (Hopefully, my mentioning this does not implicate any copyrights for the Terms of Use page.) --Gazebo (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny (1972)[edit]

This time I'm reviewing and discussing the copyright for the film in a quick way. Here's why:

  • The film came out in December 1972 that applies to the pre-1978 works. None of the copyright notices appeared at the beginning, the middle (including Thumberlina and Jack and the Beanstalk), and the end after Richard (or Barry or a distributor) probably forgot to put it. I doubt it would be public domain automatically.
  • I looked it up in the post-1978 catalogs on the US Copyright Office website. There is PA0000475709, where Richard filed a registration for the film on August 13, 1990. Is anything legally invalid with it?

Pinging @Clindberg here.

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 12:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC); edited: 12:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can register a work at any time, if it's still under copyright. It's the renewals which had to be at specific times, but those are irrelevant for 1964+ works. Registrations mainly mean that any copyright violations have an automatic monetary penalty, instead of being limited to actual damages. The Copyright Office might have been unaware of any copyright notice situation on previous publications. Note that publication happens when copies are sent out to movie theaters, or maybe at least a distribution company. If all viewings of a movie were under control of the producers, then it could still be unpublished. If it was published, then the copies distributed at the time needed a copyright notice. Were there any notices, anywhere? Copies distributed after 1989 would not need them. The copyright registration says publication occurred in 1986, although it also says there was a copyright notice in the film which gave a date of 1972. If the Copyright Office gave a registration, they must have considered the copyright notice valid, at least on the copies submitted. If the copyright notices were different (or missing) on the versions distributed in 1972, then you'd have to be able to prove that. I would respect the copyright registration, though there is a question if the copyright would expire in 2068 or 2082. I'd probably guess the earlier date given the date in the notice, and that maybe the 1986 date might have been for slight differences in the video cassette distribution -- if there were any copyrightable additions to the videocassette version, those would have a longer copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1964 Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer special (which I just remembered has its anniversary today, heh heh) has something similar going on; there's a typo in the copyright notice (the year given is MCLXIV (1164) and not MCMLXIV (1964)) and has been subject to substantive revisions over the years, yet the original special was registered as PA0000393260 in 1988 and renewed as RE0000578253 in 1992 (not that the renewal matters for ours purposes). The original registration says "C.O. correspondence", so perhaps the Copyright Office already asked about this? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works could be registered at any time. I don't think years were required on motion pictures -- just on a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work -- so that mistake is not likely to mean anything. Other types of works just need the copyright word/symbol and name of proprietor. The registration usually has a field for date of publication that must be entered in, so I'm sure the date came from that, but sure they may have asked for clarifications on just about anything. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Required or not, movies usually include the year in their copyright notice, and a website with all the copyright cases lined that now seems to be gone, or at least unfindable, listed a 1944 movie that said 1934 in the notice and thus the court said it needed to be renewed in 1962 instead of 1972. (I'm sure the years are plus or minus, but I know it was early by a decade, and about that time.) It could be argued that an 1164 date needed to be renewed in 1192 and even if that had been done, it would have run out by 1964, putting it immediately in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, there was a rule that the year in the notice did indicate year of publication if it was earlier than the true date. More than one year later than the true date was deemed invalid. On the other hand, not sure an obviously-wrong year like that would qualify, as opposed to something just a few years earlier which the public years later wouldn't necessarily know was incorrect. It's possible the Copyright Office got copies with a corrected notice, and didn't know of the earlier mistake. Or, they deemed that the shown year a mistake so obvious as to be ignorable. I think you are talking about www.copyrightdata.com, which does mention The Last Time I Saw Paris as making a 1954/1944 mistake in their Roman numerals. That page does not cite a court case or any other source for their information (while they are given as a source by many other sites), but may explain why the Copyright Office never printed a renewal. The music from that movie was renewed by MGM though, in a series of separate renewals. I can't find the original registration to see what year was shown on it. However, they did print a renewal for this one. Hard for me to not take that at face value. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And because of this, that's literally what NOT to register a pre-1978 work over production issues causing lack of or erroneous notice. I have a question, can I upload anything related to the film here, including a full video and screencaps? If yes?
The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 10:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC); edited: 23:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If the film was actually publicly shown in 1972, then it was published in that year (according to the rules for publication of motion pictures). The 1990 registration appears to be for a 1986 videocassette release, not for the original film release (thus the description of “2 videocassettes”). Registrations for works produced before 1989 need to have been made within five years, so PA0000475709 can only apply to that (and whatever copyright was in the 1986 release). Assuming, as Harvett says above, that the film (from 1972) had no copyright notice, then it is in the public domain in the United States per PD-US-no notice, the 1990 copyright registration notwithstanding. I can find no 1972 registrations for this film, either. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What rules are you talking about? By the modern statue, "Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." I know of several pre-1978 cases that ruled that broadcasting was not publication, and I can't see why a showing limited to people who were physically there would be publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me think about publication. The film was seen exclusively in Pirates World or the rest of Florida and was presumably supposed to be published.
The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 00:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC); edited: 00:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, that was the moment of publication. Not simply that the motion picture was shown -- if a showing was under control of the production company, it was not publication. But when copies were sent to distributors, publication happened at that moment even before being displayed. There were actually several court cases that pretty much confirmed that definition, which is now codified in the current law definition. This movie was most likely published in 1972, given there is a distribution company listed. On the other hand, any PD copyright claim would be based on the notices (or lack thereof) in the actual copies distributed in 1972. There was no five-year limit to submit a registration -- that could (and still can) be done at any time the copyright is still valid (it was even possible to submit the registration along with the renewal at the 28-year mark). However, if you published without notice between 1978 and 1989, you did have a five-year limit to register as one of the steps to regain your copyright. So if a 1986 publication happened without notice, it's possible a 1990 registration could save the copyright. The 1990 registration might also cover the original movie, but could not serve to save a publication without notice. However, if it was only the year that was wildly wrong, not sure courts would go for that. Courts would have to rule based on the 1909 law, but there is always some latitude and they may be less inclined to be harsh these days. If a type of work required a year in the copyright notice, it would be a stronger case, but an obviously-incorrect year might well be considered the same as a missing year, which was OK on some sorts of works (including motion pictures). As the Compendium (linked above) said, The Office will recommend use of the year date on motion pictures, Classes L and M; however, motion pictures without the year date may be accepted but a cautionary letter will be sent. So that did not invalidate copyright; the only claim would be that you might assume the 28 year clock started a thousand years earlier, thus the renewal was late. If it was me, I would not upload, but you'd have to judge the risks yourself. It's possible it could be nominated for deletion; it may be community (or admin) decision if there was a significant doubt as to the public domain status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Given that there’s a decent chance (judging by the general opinion in this discussion) that it is in the public domain, I would recommend uploading the film, as that would help with conclusively determining copyright. If there’s something in the film that makes it appear that it is still copyrighted, a deletion discussion can be started at that point: and that discussion will be made easier by the existence of the film on Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After I updated the copyright status on the Wikidata entry, let me handle it this time.
The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 02:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original manuscript of "The Portrait of Mr W.H." by Oscar Wilde[edit]

I would like to upload it to Commons, but in order to do that I need to be sure that's in the public domain both in the UK and the US. (If it's copyrighted in the UK but public domain in the US, I'd like to upload it to English Wikisource.) For reference, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States.

Other versions of this story are in the public domain in the relevant jurisdictions.

The question I would like help answering is whether the manuscript contains content not published in the 1921 edition, and if so, when it was first published, because this will affect its copyright status in both the UK and the US. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that is the question. Are there links to the two versions? If it's just typesetting differences and that sort of thing, it should be fine, but if there was additional material then we'd need to know when the manuscript was published. (BTW, the copyright probably expired in 1972, 50 years after publication, and not restored in 1996 when works got retroactively extended to 70 years). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Thank you for correcting my arithmetic error :) The two published versions are linked above; "The Portrait of Mr W. H." is the first story in Blackwood's Magazine. The manuscript is at https://editions.covecollective.org/content/rosenbach-manuscript-oscar-wildes-extended-portrait-mr-wh. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg[edit]

Would some others mind taking a look at and assessing the licensing of File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg? This started out as a discussion over on English Wikipedia, but it seems to be something better off discussed here on Commons. The main issue that orginally led this to being discussed seems to be that the webpage given as the source for the file can no longer be accessed and this is making it hard to verify the file's licensing. An archived version of the webpage can be found here, but it doesn't show the photo. An additional concern of mine is whether the website given of the source is actually the copyright holder of the photo. An English Wikipedia article about the photo can be found en:Raising a Flag over the Reichstag and the photo is attributed to en:Yevgeny Khaldei. What's not clear per COM:Russia is whether photos taken by Russian soldiers as part of their official duties are within the public domain or whether they were eligible for copyright protection. If they were eligible for copyright protection, then it's not clear who owns the copyright over them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there is an issue with the license review. Whether they have rights to license the image, is probably the question. A very old discussion on this was at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Reichstag flag.jpg; the image was deleted then. It does sound like there were multiple photographs taken at the time, and it's possible that only one was really published in 1945, and some slightly different ones since. I'm not sure which this one is, but maybe it was something that mil.ru published for the first time, and maybe they have enough rights. That original DR was done at a time that Russia was retroactively restoring works to 70pma; I don't think there is any doubt that the copyright term lasts for a good long time yet in Russia. For the original published in 1945, it could get more "interesting" -- if it was simultaneously published in the U.S., i.e. within 30 days, then the lack of copyright notice meant it lost its U.S. copyright, and it would also not be subject to the URAA. If you could identify other countries that it was simultaneously published in, then the "country of origin" becomes the country among those with the shortest term. If you take that logic, you could have a very unexpected country be the country of origin, and maybe it could be PD by the rules in that country. Maybe Italy or Sweden? I think that would be the only way it could be PD. If we are using Russia as the country of origin, we'd have to decide that mil.ru had enough rights to license it that way. I'm not sure what relationship that site has with the copyright owner. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag (original).jpg is a more recent DR, which caused usages to move to this file, where someone did confirm the mil.ru license. So no problem assuming that license was given, but less sure as to its validity. But it was examined in that DR three years ago. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, it seems to have been published in Russian Ogoniok magazine on May 13th, 1945. So any simultaneous publication would have to have taken place before June 12th of that year.
On the other hand, if mil.ru really is the website of the Russian military, couldn't photographs made by a soldier (or "military photojournalist", as seems to have been his position) as part of their official duties be considered "works for hire" for the Soviet military, who would therefore be able to license it however they please? Felix QW (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems reasonable, sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Clindberg and Felix QW for your analysis. Of course, it's possible that members of the Russian military are like members of the US military in that works created as part of their official duties are PD. It's also possible that such works are works-for-hire. Is there anyway to document such a thing though for Russian military personal like Khadei? Is it just enough just to go by what the mil.ru website is saying? I didn't find anything about this in COM:RUSSIA. The first DR about this file seems quite contentious and the file might've ended up deleted simply per COM:PCP since it couldn't be demonstrated for sure that the image was OK for Commons. The subsequent DRs had much less users participating in them and seem to focus on the licesning claims made by the mil.ru wesbite as opposed to anything in Russian copyright law. What's further complicating things is that the file's uploader appears to be currently blocked on both English Wikipedia and Commons; so, there's no way to ask them for clarification. The whole question of the file's licensing seems to somehow be connected to a discussion at en:Talk:World War II#Collage, which then led to en:WT:NFCC#Russian Ministry of Defense site, which in turn led me to starting this VPC discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I imagine most any work done by a government worker was property of the Soviet government, given that copyright really didn't exist at the time for them. Since then copyright has been restored, but I'd have to guess that ownership of the copyright would remain with the military or government, as it does basically everywhere else. It was a military photographer after all. The term would be based on the author's life, as normal, but ownership would be with someone else. So I think it's pretty clear that the copyright has been restored in Russia, and not PD there. However, if mil.ru is the Ministry of Defence's website, they would seem to have the right to license it, and it would appear that license existed when uploaded. We don't need to hunt around for oddball country of origin arguments (which would need some evidence of publication in 1945 elsewhere) that way, which is far better. The license was confirmed in the 2019 DR; that part did not seem to be under question. The license did not exist during the first DR, and Russian law itself changed on Jan 1 2008, right around the time of that DR -- nobody liked to think about reams of works exiting the public domain, particularly for Soviet works, though the effects have been made more clear since (retroactive restoration to 70pma in 2008). There might be some arguments for PD status, but would need more evidence than we had (or have, as far as I have seen). You would need to bring some good arguments to explain why their Ministry of Defence does not have the right to license works made by their soldiers, I think. The fact the uploader has been banned should be immaterial -- if we have evidence of licensing status separate from their own word, that is fine. We never delete works uploaded by banned users, unless we were relying on good faith and their actions bring that into doubt. This one does not -- just the license on mil.ru which would seem to be quite valid. The other DRs were about deleting related photos which did not appear on mil.ru and therefore don't have a license (that we know of). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the additional analysis Clindberg. Just to clarify, I wasn't implying that the file should be deleted just because the uploader's account is currently blocked; I was only trying to point out that the uploader is currently unable to comment on the image's copyright status or participate in any discussions related to it. As for the other points you make in your post, they all seem reasonable to me; in other words, if the image is fine as licensed for Commons, there should be no problem with people wanting to use it in any Wikipedia articles even if the source website can't currently be accessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you guys.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Paul Siebert: A splitting of hairs perhaps, but just want to clarify that this image isn't PD as you posted on English Wikipedia; you still will need to comply with the terms of the license it has been released under by mil.ru since the image is still being treated as protected by copyright. This probably won't matter when use the image on Wikipedia since attribution will be provided when using the file since clicking on the image will link to its Commons page where it's properly attributed. It could perhaps matter though if you decide to modify the image in some way or use it outside of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did I understand you correctly that CC or GPL is not PD? Then what is considered PD? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Creative Commons and public domain aren't really the same thing. en:Creative Commons licenses are typically for content that is still considered protected by copyright, but content that its copyright holder wishes to make more available for others to use under certain specific terms. There are various types of Creative Commons license, with some being more restrictive than others. en:Public domain is generally content that might have either been once protected by copyright but is no longer eligible for such protection for various reasons, or content that was never eligible for copyright protection to begin with (again for various reasons). Creative Commons content needs to be used in accordance with its license; anything else can be considered a copyright violation. Public domain has no copyright holder or restrictions per se and it can be freely used by anyone for any purpose without worrying about violating someone's copyright or complying with someone's conditions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Argentine laws and PD-AR-Gov[edit]

Hi all,

{{PD-AR-Gov}} currently reads:

This work is in the public domain in Argentina as a law, decree, ordinance or sentence issued by an Argentine state authority or court and published on the Official Bulletin.

Likewise, according to the Law 22,362, article 3, section f: "Letters, words, names, emblems and symbols used by the National Government, as well as the Provinces, Municipalities, Religious and Health Organizations", cannot be subject of copyright.

The National symbols of Argentina are regulated by Decree Nº 10.302/1944.

As an image regulated by an edict of a government, it is also in the public domain in the United States.

I went looking for the details of the edict exceptions in Argentina, and since neither the template nor COM:Argentina contain those or a proper citation I landed at Law No. 11,723 of September 30, 1933 on the Legal Regime of Intellectual Property (Law on Copyright, Modified by Law No. 27,588 of December 16, 2020) on WipoLex. But as far as I can tell, that law contains no special provisions for any kind of government work, and I can't find the … law, decree, ordinance or sentence issued by an Argentine state authority or court … language used in the template.

Further, I checked the cited "Law 22,362" about national symbols thinking perhaps it was there, but Law 22,362 is Law No. 22,362 of January 2, 1981, on Trademarks and Designations (As Amended by Law No. 27,444 of June 18, 2018). That is, it is trademark law, not copyright law, and article 3, section f prevents registering national symbols as trademarks not copyright.

So, either I am very confused (not at all unlikely), or this template is inaccurate on several points. Help?

CC to Fma12 who created {{PD-AR-Gov}} and Aymatth2 that created COM:Argentina. Xover (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed Law 22,362 article 3 "f" refers to national, provincial and municipal symbols as "no subject of registration" whatever they are trademarks or not (this is not specified there). My interpretation is that the law prohibits any person to attribute copyright or attribution over those emblems.
Regarding the national symbols, all of the Argentine national symbols (flag, coat of arms, and anthem) are PD so they were created in the 1800 so PD-old applies as license. Current versions (like the coat of arms) were included at Casa Rosada website which has a Creative Commons 2.5 Argentina License.
Law 11,723 regulates copyright over photographs and other artistic works, and clearly the three Argentine symbols are PD-old-70 (article 5°). Fma12 (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article 1 of Law No. 22,362 says The following may be registered as trademarks to distinguish products and services: … (my emphasis). Article 2 says The following are not considered trademarks and are not registrable: …. Then comes Article 3 which reads (all emphasis mine):

The following cannot be registered:
a) a trademark identical to one previously registered or applied for to distinguish the same products or services;
b) trademarks similar to others already registered or requested to distinguish the same products or services;
…
d) trademarks that are likely to mislead …
…
f) the letters, words, names, badges, symbols that the Nation, provinces, municipalities, religious and health organizations use or should use;

In addition, of course, to the entire law itself being specifically about "Trademark property rights" and not mentioning copyright anywhere in the entire text. In other words, I don't understand the mechanism by which Article 3 f would be applicable to copyrights.
But my main concern was the status of … law, decree, ordinance or sentence issued by an Argentine state authority or court … (I was specifically looking for whether there was an exception for official translations of these). Law 11,723 seems to be the main regulation of copyrights and it does not appear to mention government works at all, so I don't understand our basis for claiming that such edicts are public domain / exempt from copyright in Argentina (these are exempt in the US as edicts, but not in Argentina, and translations are not automatically covered). --Xover (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The portion about government symbols is indeed from their trademark law, and has no effect at all on the copyright. Per article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which is the same thing for trademark as the Berne Convention is for copyright, you can't trademark national symbols -- so that is just their trademark law implementing that aspect of the treaty. It does not belong in a copyright tag because nothing in it references any part of copyright law. I also have not found anything on the text of their laws, at least yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aymatth2 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the symbols, keep in mind there is generally no copyright on a symbol -- there is a copyright on each expression of that idea, i.e. each different drawing. See Commons:coats of arms. Some drawings are old and are PD, some drawings may be newer, and you can always make your own drawing which conforms to a written description. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Argentine laws and PD-AR-Gov – Break[edit]

  • In light of the above, it appears there simply isn't a "PD-AR-Gov", and hence no legitimate use for {{PD-AR-Gov}} which should consequently be deleted. This affects 2067 files according to Jarry1250's tool, all of which will have to be checked and either tagged with an alternate license or deleted (but it looks like a lot of these are national and subnational symbols which have good chances of having other paths to either public domain or other compatible licensing). --Xover (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There may be copyright on a symbol image, such as File:Ciudad de San Juan (Escudo).gif or File:Escudo de la Ciudad de San Juan.svg, although anyone can make another image with the same description. So we should check the images to see when they were made.
    • Maybe an approach would be to rename {{PD-AR-Gov}} to {{PD-AR-Gov-Symbol}}, add a tracking category to the template, change the wording so it just applies to government symbols, emblems etc., then delete all the files that are obviously not symbols, and perhaps start review of the symbol files, changing from the redirect to {{PD-AR-Gov-Symbol}} for the ones that look ok. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Seems like a lot of work, although the overwhelming majority of uses seem to be emblems of some sort. For those, one would have to track down the individual sources, as most seem not to have been redrawn but taken from somewhere. Felix QW (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      It would be a lot of work, and even where an emblem image is a copyright violation it unlikely to be challenged. That is why I said "perhaps start review". The first steps: rename, reword and delete non-emblem files would not take long. If there are no objections, I could start that. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Insignia This is an image of a coat of arms or other emblem or insignia of Argentina or of a national or local government entity of Argentina. Images such as these are often protected by copyright. See COM:Argentina.
Dialog-warning.svg Another tag such as {{PD-old-70-expired}} or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} must be supplied to explain why this file may be freely used.
Would prefer a template name not start with "PD-" if it's not a PD license tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Er, yes. Maybe {{Argentina-Gov-Symbol}}? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aymatth2: I would prefer that it display nothing and just assign a category. That would have the best chance of helping people understand that the template is not a valid license template. My second choice would be to just display a clear warning message with red text and an alert icon. The content that you have proposed looks just like a real licensing template, which I'm afraid will confuse people. Nosferattus (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Invalid or obsolete templates are usually tagged with the {{Deprecated}} template, such as {{PD-Spain}}.
Fma12 (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about displaying the following, plus adding the file to Category:Argentina gov symbols for review, a sub-category of Category:Commons maintenance content?

Insignia This is an image of a coat of arms or other emblem or insignia of a national, regional or local government entity of Argentina. Images such as these are often protected by copyright. See COM:Argentina. Please replace this tag with another tag such as {{PD-old-70-expired}} or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} that explains why this file may be freely used.

That way anyone looking at the file can immediately see it is problematic, and the maintenance category can be used for systematic clean-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymatth2 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 December 2022‎ (UTC) Once the files have all been reviewed, template becomes obsolete and can be deleted. @Xover, Clindberg, Felix QW, Fma12, Nosferattus, and Fma12: Any objections to this approach? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aymatth2: That looks great to me! Thanks for your work on this. Nosferattus (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a very sensible approach! I am happy to help out with the clean-up efforts after I whittled away at enWiki's "disputed licenses" backlog a little more. Felix QW (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is probably a good idea. Using {{Deprecated}} is done once the files have been processed, so as to not suddenly have bots tag all the files with "unlicensed" if we are going to be doing it manually. If we nominate the template for deletion, I think it gets a warning added to indicate it's not a good idea to use it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good to me, go ahead. Fma12 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo of highpoint marker - ok to upload?[edit]

I recently took a photo of the National Park Service highpoint marker at Point Reno, the highest natural point in DC. Is this OK to upload even though the marker itself isn't my own work? Thanks for advice in advance. Supervocalic15 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's PD-US-Gov and PD-text; not anything I'd worry about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos of members of the first Knesset[edit]

Commons hosts a number of portraits of members of the first Knesset which were made between 1949 and 1952 (see Category:Members of the First Knesset). All those images have a PD-Israel tag, but no PD-US tag since their Israeli copyright episode expired between 1999 and 2002, and thus too late to escape URAA restoration. Any opinions on what the best way forward is with those images? Many of them are in use on enwiki, for instance, to illustrate those politicians' articles and could be employed under fair use there if one would transfer them. Felix QW (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They might be OK to use as non-free content on English Wikipedia (please understand that en:fair use and non-free content aren't the same thing when it comes to English Wikipedia), but only if it can been demonstrated that their use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. The two criteria that probably are going to be the hardest to satisfy are criterion #1 and criterion #8. If any of the members of the first Knesset (sorry I didn't check) are still living, then that would pretty much make any non-free image non-policy compliant and unable to be used per criterion #1. If none of the members are still alive, a free image would still be preferred to a non-free one even if it means using a lesser quality image. Obviously, you can't take a new photo of anyone who has died, but a reasonable search should be made for a previously taken photo which has been already released (or could possibly be released) under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder. If such a search is made and no free image is found, then perhaps a non-free one could be uploaded and used instead. If the non-free image is being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of one of the member's stand-alone biographies, then criterion #8 shouldn't be a problem. If, however, the image is to be used in another way or in another article (e.g. to illustrate an entry in a list article), then it's going to be hard to argue that criterion #8 is being met and that the use is policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the detailed answer! Of course enWiki have to see what they do with the non-free images. I was rather wondering if there was any chance to keep them here by some copyright exception I was not aware of. This does affect quite a number of images taken in early postwar Israel, including a recent picture of the day that originally brought the issue to my attention.
For instance, according to our template, in the UK, Crown Copyright expires globally, not just in the UK and seemingly regardless of American copyright law.
If perchance the same holds for Israeli government photos and the Knesset portraits can be considered government works, they may be fine.
Not that I believe this to be the case, I would just like to make absolutely sure before I start a DR and cause needless disruption if everything is in fact fine. Felix QW (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Details at COM:Cyprus[edit]

Our treatment of the copyright situation in Cyprus seems a bit thin; in particular the terms mentioned there are pma+70, but the English translation of the 1993 version of the Copyright Act gives pma+50 as the applicable term, with the next amendment (from which point onwards the text is only available from WIPOLex in Greek) only in 1999. This would have an impact on URAA copyrights, even if term lengths were increased retroactively, since for that calculation the situation on January 1, 1996 is relevant. Could someone perhaps give this reasoning a sanity check before I make a mess at COM:Cyprus from my limited understanding? Felix QW (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty much. Looks like the 1976 law was 50pma, but some things were 20 years from publication. In 1993, those certain things got moved to 50 years, but I don't think it was retroactive (the law did not explicitly say). The 2002 law, effective July that year, retroactively went to 70pma as they were about to join the EU. So yes, on the URAA date, Cyprus was 50pma, with a couple types of works being a bit shorter. en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights has the 50pma, but has not been updated to note 70pma today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and National Ignition Facility images need to be deleted[edit]

There are a few hundred images in Category:Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Category:National Ignition Facility, and their subcategories so I'm not sure how to nominate them all for deletion. The problem is that they were almost all created by Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, not by a government agency or employee. Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC runs the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and National Ignition Facility under contract from the U.S. Department of Energy. They release all of their images under a CC BY-NC-SA license, which is not compatible with Commons. According to their disclaimers page:

"LLNL-authored documents including, but not limited to, articles, photographs, drawings, and other information subsisting in text, images, and/or other media, are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. Accordingly, the U.S. government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. government purposes. All documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws. Permission to reproduce may be required."

It looks like this was previously discussed back in 2009, with the conclusion being that the images can't be hosted on Commons. However, no action was taken at the time other than the deletion of a single image. Could someone who knows how please nominate all of these images for deletion (with the exception of any images created by 3rd parties). Thanks! Nosferattus (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some are copied from Flickr where the source mentioned is U.S. Department of Energy, e.g. File:SF 11 151 (26405483030).jpg from [1]. Yann (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: I have no idea why that image is in Category:Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Nothing at the source says anything about LLNL or related facilities, and it's tagged "Oakland", which is not where LLNL is location. Are there other examples? Regardless, anything actually created by the U.S. Department of Energy should be fine. Most of the images I've looked have been attributed to either Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or Lawrence Livermore National Security. Nosferattus (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seen from here, Oakland is quite close to Livermore. :o) And since, according to WP, LLNL is "primarily funded by the U.S. Department of Energy", it is not surprising this mistake was made. Yes, there are several like this one. They should be removed from that category obviously. And yes, the permission from LLNL is not sufficient for Commons, so we can't keep the files coming from LLNL. Yann (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright issues with User:Rikster2's uploads[edit]

I was looking at File:Mike Gminski Duke.jpg and was surprised to see that it was uploaded by someone besides myself from a Duke University yearbook, as I thought I had thoroughly searched all the Duke yearbooks from the 1960s and 70s and grabbed every useful sports image from years that didn't have a copyright notice. Turns out, the Gminski photo was from the 1978 yearbook, which, as I've noted in the description of Category:Duke University yearbooks, includes a copyright notice and thus has not entered the public domain.

The copyright notice in that yearbook is hidden way at the back, so maybe they just missed it. But on a whim, I checked out a few of Rikster2's other uploads. File:Richard Washington UCLA.jpg came from the 1976 edition of UCLA's "Southern Campus" yearbook. The copyright notice in that yearbook is right on page 4 and is pretty hard to miss. Then I checked File:1973 Virginia Tech basketball team.jpg, and again, a copyright notice on page 15 (page 25 by the PDF's count) of The Bugle (1973).

I'm not sure what to do at this point. Not all of their uploads are copyright violations – I checked File:Zaid Abdul-Aziz ISU.jpg, and I could not find a copyright notice in the 1968 "Bomb". It's rather tedious to check them all, as Rikster2 never included links (and I think some of them might not be freely available to the public – I've noticed every time I google one of these, a link to the paid site e-yearbook.com comes up, so I suspect Rikster2 may have gotten them from there). Any suggestions on how to handle this would be appreciated. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken a look at some of the uploads made by the user, and I don't believe he deliberately ommited the copyright notices. In some cases such as the Chanticler 1978 Yearbook the copyright is almost "occult" (p. 270) and can be easily missed if you don't go through the entire book.
To be frank, I don't see bad faith in his contributions so they are not obvious copyvios. Fma12 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly I didn't intend to accuse Rikster of acting in bad faith, but a copyright violation is a copyright violation, even if the uploader thought they were in the clear. You have to be pretty thorough before you can claim something is {{PD-US-no notice}}; I always check for many pages at both the front and back of a yearbook, and probably look at 40+ pages before I determine that it's probably public domain. My feeling is that we need to either individually check every photo or we need to consider mass deleting them, because if 3 out of 4 of someone's uploads is a copyright violation, that's too high of an error rate. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing was an intentional copyvio and none came from pay sites (I google “<University name> yearbook>”). Do what you like but it does seem like you shouldn’t mass delete because not every picture I have uploaded has come from a yearbook (including a number I took myself so I know those aren’t Copyvio) and not every yearbook is under a copyright notice. You may not have meant to accuse me of bad faith but it kind of came across that way. Rikster2 (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rikster2: Not all yearbooks have copyright notices, but some do. Before upload, we need to show some evidence that there was none. Did you check for any, or just uploaded under the assumption there was none? Obviously photos you took are fine; this is just about the ones taken from yearbooks. We need to give potential re-users some evidence of that status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ultimately, the burden for establishing that a file has been released as licensed falls upon the file’s uploader per COM:EVID. Of course, it’s not always easy to narrow down a photo’s en:provenence and check whether it was ever published with a copyright notice or whether it was renewed if it was. So, good-faith assumptions are often made based on other similar content either from the same sources or similar sources from the same time period. This, however, means good-faith mistakes are also made and these should be dealt with when they’re found later on. In a case like this, it would seem to be a big help if the uploader would revisit their uploads and start separating out files for which the copyright status might have issues with COM:PCP. Any files that can’t be clearly demonstrated to be PD for a lack of notice should be reexamined and clarified. Perhaps by doing this, the uploader can narrow down the number of files needing reassessment and prevent any ones that are clearly OK from ending up discussed in a DR. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restorations and copyright[edit]

The National Gallery in London just completed a major restoration of The Nativity by Piero della Francesca. I know that we can use {{PD-Art}} for reproductions of public domain artworks (despite UK law differing), and we have a scan of the pre-restoration version here on Commons under that. However in the restored version there are quite significant changes, most notably the faces of the shepherds. Do we consider those significant enough to create a new copyright? Or do restorations not meet the threshold of originality since they are attempting to recapture the original PD work? the wub "?!" 22:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logo presumed to be PD[edit]

Would some others mind taking a look at File:Animal liberation.png? It's licensed as {{CC-zero}}, but I'm unable to verify that license. It's sourced to vegansymbols.com which basically states that the logo is presumed to be PD clip art, but offers nothing in support of such a claim. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly: I found a similar design as far back as 2006-05-16 at http://web.archive.org/web/20060516095559/http://www.idealshop.com.br/loja/images/AL.jpg , which had a copyright notice as of http://web.archive.org/web/20061222103438/http://idealshop.locaweb.com.br/loja/ (http://www.idealshop.com.br/loja/ redirected there at the time). Adobe stock has the raised fist at https://stock.adobe.com/images/Raised-fist-on-red-fabric/336467988 and Alamy had it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like it probably needs to be deleted. Nosferattus (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image should be deleted unless free versions of the paw and fist images are found. The non-free Adobe Stock image may be a derived work from a free fist, but it may also be the original work. If we do not know, then we should delete the image. Glrx (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Animal_liberation.png Glrx (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Argentine architecture now object of copyright[edit]

The current version of the Argentine law, Ley N° 11.723 de 30 de septiembre de 1933 sobre el Régimen Legal de la Propiedad Intelectual (Ley sobre el Derecho de Autor, modificada por la Ley N° 27.588 del 16 de diciembre de 2020)seems to contradict what is stated on COM:FOP Argentina. Architecture is now explicitly listed as among the works of copyright. According to Article 1 of the current law (emphasis added): A los efectos de la presente Ley, las obras científicas, literarias y artísticas comprenden los escritos de toda naturaleza y extensión, entre ellos los programas de computación fuente y objeto; las compilaciones de datos o de otros materiales; las obras dramáticas, composiciones musicales, dramático-musicales; las cinematográficas, coreográficas y pantomímicas; las obras de dibujo, pintura, escultura, arquitectura; modelos y obras de arte o ciencia aplicadas al comercio o a la industria; los impresos, planos y mapas; los plásticos, fotografías, grabados y fonogramas, en fin, toda producción científica, literaria, artística o didáctica sea cual fuere el procedimiento de reproducción.

English translation:

For the purposes of this Law, scientific, literary and artistic works include writings of all nature and length, including source and object computer programs; compilations of data or other materials; dramatic works, musical compositions, dramatic-musical; cinematographic, choreographic and pantomimic works; works of drawing, painting, sculpture, architecture; models and works of art or science applied to commerce or industry; forms, plans and maps; plastics, photographs, engravings and phonograms, in short, all scientific, literary, artistic or didactic production whatever the reproduction procedure.

If architecture is indeed copyrighted in Argentina as opposed to what is claimed at COM:FOP Argentina, which states "neither are buildings mentioned among works to which copyright apply" (I presume older versions of Argentine law did not protect buildings), then perhaps Argentina is a no-FOP country after all? After all, the legal opinion by a scholar dates to 1999, perhaps the time architecture wasn't one of the protected works. Perhaps {{FoP-Argentina}} either becomes invalid (if the current law is retroactive) or must be renamed to {{PD-Argentina-architecture}} (if the current law is not retroactive, since it is clear that the professor's opinion applies to the time Argentine architecture is not among copyrighted works). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mention people who participated at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 5#Argentina for this new discussion on Argentine FOP: @Manuelt15, Patricio.lorente, Eusebius, LPfi, Nard the Bard, Cambalachero, Alakasam, Alpertron, Elekhh, and Clindberg: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo of text[edit]

As far as I understand, in a photo such as 1912 Locomobile Model 48 Torpedo (3829580618).jpg, not only the photograph, but the written work being photographed, must be released in the public domain. While it being publicly displayed might be a factor in fair use consideration, I am pretty sure it has no bearing on copyright ownership. Would it be correct to request deletion of a file such as this where we lack an appropriate license for the underlying written work, or is there an existing policy that permits us to keep such images? Josh (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=718349284"