Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

1934 painting by Georgia O'Keeffe[edit]

File:19 - ofty8zO (50062828047).jpg, transferred from Flickr where it was uploaded with a bogus CC licence, is actually a 1934 painting by American painter Georgia O'Keeffe, titled Purple Hills Ghost Ranch - 2 / Purple Hills No II per [1]. I'm not sure, is this copyrighted in the US, or is it some kind of PD-no-notice/-not-renewed? I couldn't find it with a quick search at [2], but would like to make sure if we can keep the file or need to delete it for a few more years. --Rosenzweig τ 21:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for File:64 - YZ9s7jg (50062578451).jpg, a 1939 painting by O'Keeffe titled White Bird of Paradise per [3]. --Rosenzweig τ 21:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue of publication; Regarding the 1934 painting, its early exhibitions were:

1935 New York (An American Place), nos. 27 or 28, as Red Hill form--Bad Lands, New Mexico

1936 New York (An American Place), no. 7, as Dark Hills, Ghost Ranch, New Mexico

1938 Williamsburg ?

1988 Phoenix, no. 22

So if it was not catalogued with a reproduction, it would have to have been exhibited without any steps taken to prevent copying for it to count as publication. Felix QW (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second painting linked was only exhibited once at An American Place in 1940, and then not exhibited again until 2009 (https://collections.okeeffemuseum.org/object/1148/#about-this-object-details).

It seems from the MoMa records of other O'Keeffe paintings as if the "An American Place" exhibitions were not catalogued, and took place in a commercial gallery, so it is conceivable that they were not "published" until after formalities had been abolished.

Indeed, the link posted above from the print shop gives a 2009 copyright date for the White Bird of Paradise and a 1997 copyright date for the 1934 painting, and that does seem plausible to me. In that case, the paintings would be copyrighted until 2056. Felix QW (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying an artwork in a commercial gallery usually means that is being offered to the public for purchase, which makes it an act of publication. Toohool (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I always thought that copies would have to have been offered rather than merely the original, but COM:Publication does mention that sale of the original would be sufficient. @Clindberg: Do you have any insight that could help with this situation? I usually refer to your posts whenever there is a complex question of early US publication... Felix QW (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that these two paintings were sold by Alfred Stieglitz' An American Place Gallery in New York in the 1930s (or 1940), and therefore might be in the public domain (in the US) as I could not find a registration for copyright. So we can probably keep the files. --Rosenzweig τ 20:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid License Template[edit]

I want to upload a portrait from the NPG in London. It if freely available using the license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 DEED Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported If I try uploading the file, the range of licenses to choose from doesn't include this one. If I try to enter my own description of the license I get an error message saying that "The wikitext you entered doesn't contain a valid license template." Can anyone please tell me what I should enter? Jgdc47B (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgdc47B: That is a licence we can't accept. Per COM:L images uploaded here must be available for commercial reuse and also allow derivatives. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgdc47B: What's the URL of the NPG page about the image? The have a habit of applying licences to out-of-copyright artworks, so the image may be PD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp132030/reginald-campbell-thompson Jgdc47B (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As From Hill To Shore says above, we cannot accept the NC-ND license, but if the work is by an author who died before 1954 AND was published before 1929, we can accept it as public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that very useful info. Unfortunately the work was published in 1934. Jgdc47B (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also by Walter Stoneman who died in 1958 so it's not public domain in the UK until 2029. It can uploaded to Commons in 2030. Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgdc47B: See also the justification for this at COM:LJ. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to understand why this image is not copyrighted[edit]

Hi there, I came across a renaming request for this file, and I'm trying to understand why this image would be PD. There's a fair amount of license text, but strikes me as odd that such an image would be released like that. Milliped (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before the U.S. joined the Berne Convention in March 1989, they required a copyright notice to be placed on each distributed copy of a work, otherwise copyright would be lost. While that is a somewhat nervous here given the Smiths are a British band, and Paul Cox is a British photographer, the publicity photo was distributed by Sire Records, a U.S. company. The country of origin is the country of first publication, so unless there was a previous publication of that photo outside the US, it is public domain in the U.S. It is definitely still copyrighted in the UK, and most if not all of Europe. Most of the permission text is not relevant, as it refers to generalities and not specifically why this photo is PD, but the copyright tag does state the only way it could be public domain. You could try to regain copyright by registering the work among other steps, but I don't find a record for this photo (I do see one photo registered by Paul Cox, and a number of registrations by Sire Records Company, but not this one). The file File:The Smiths (1984 Sire publicity photo) 001.jpg, a similar publicity photo, does contain some text which states that a copyright search was done (though does not mention the names searched for); that could be helpful to add here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Milliped Many old Publicity photographs are Public Domain in the USA due to old copyright formalities. Studios / companies didn't tend to put notices on to these photos which were sent out to media organizations to promote a subject. They wanted these photos to go far and wide and were happy to see them re-published in newspapers and such. In this case, Sire Records, an American record label had released these photos of The Smiths to promote one of their albums. Because the photo did not include a copyright notice or registration within 5 years, it fell into the Public Domain in the USA. This was common for music & television publicity photos up until around 1985 when notices really started showing up. You can find some stuff before & after that year which did and didn't include notices. 1985 is just the year where it seems most companies became more aware of Copyright rules. If any evidence can be found it was first published in the UK or was registered, of course then it would change things. Currently there is no evidence of such. I hope this helps to clarify. PascalHD (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"first published in the UK" would have to be at least 30 days before U.S. publication, because otherwise they are considered simultaneous. - Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beach scene - the foreshore[edit]

File:Beach scene - the foreshore, © Britten Pears Arts.jpg

What do we make of the above? It's an embroidery by a UK citizen who died in 1943. Is it sufficiently flat to be considered "2D"? It also incudes a frame and the file name incudes "©". Do we need permission from the photographer? Or simply to crop out the frame and rename? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The embroidery would probably be classed as a "work of artistic craftsmanship" (see COM:FOP UK). My view of the frame is that it is rather utilitarian in nature and not subject to its own copyright. The photographer will have a copyright though as they chose the angle at which to shoot the frame and embroidery (which may have produced shadows under different lighting conditions). From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing UK-wise, I think this is fine. The frame seems utilitarian. The photograph appears to not be copyrightable under UK law as stated in Sheridan: it is not the "author’s own intellectual creation"; and it is shot head-on (so I don't see any creative choices being made). The UK copyright of the embroidery itself expired in 2014.

US-wise, I think it's problematic. The frame and photo are both fine. But the embroidery itself is likely still copyrighted until 95 years after publication (so 2027, if we assume the work was immediately published). The only situation where it would be in the public domain in the US now is if it was published in the US within 30 days of publication in the UK, and the US publication failed to comply with the required formalities. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting the question to Is it sufficiently flat to be considered "2D"? - I'd be inclined to say that it is. This work is no more three-dimensional than an impasto oil painting; there isn't any meaningful creative work involved in photographing it. Omphalographer (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saugata Roy MP.jpg[edit]

This isn't {{PD-US}}. Is it {{GODL-India}}, or something else, or a copyvio? (I don't know much about GODL-India, hence my coming here...) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be {{GODL-India}}, which should also make it PD in the U.S., so OK for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be a SD|F1 instead?[edit]

I submitted this [4]on April 13th. The mascot was copyrighted by the Atlanta Olympic Committee. See page 130 of the linked Olympic Report. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: Which "this"? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Jeff G., the DR is above now. -- Ooligan (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the issue you've raised is the possibility that the file is a derivative work of non-free content, the appropriate speedy deletion process for an obvious instance of non-free derivative work would be F3, not F1, except F3 specifically says not to use it for photographs taken in a public place. Choosing to use a DR was the right choice. Due to the current backlog of DRs, it might take a few more weeks before your DR is processed. —RP88 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed explanation @RP88. Best Regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the Title of Images (in the Context of Attribution)[edit]

Pre-version-4.0 CC licenses require the use of the image title as part of the attribution line. I therefore have a question:

What is the "title" of images on Wikimedia Commons?

Consider, for example, this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:61-0324_Boeing_KC-135R_Stratotanker_take_off_March_ARB_020323.jpg

Is the title simply the file name "File:61-0324 Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker take off March ARB 020323.jpg"?

The image was originally sourced from Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kitmasterbloke/52829907803

Here, the title is explicit: "61-0324 Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker take off March ARB 020323" Michael Weinold (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the file name really is the title - is it legitimate to shorten it? Some images have rather lengthy filenames:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EGUN_-_Boeing_KC-135R_Stratotanker_-_United_States_Air_Force_-_60-0344_D_(30333795298).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Weinold (talk • contribs) 05:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 copyright status[edit]

I was wodering about coyright status of postcards published durig the World War 2. For example: a postcard published in the town of, let's say, Třinec that in the early 1939 was a part of Poland, later that year was unilaterally incorporated into Germany during the war, and since 1945 belonged to the Czechoslovakia (now Czechia). Should I apply current German copyright law (70 years since anonymous publication; {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}), Polish, as the annexation was not universally recognised (no clear copyright claim made before 1994: {{PD-Poland}}/{{PD-PRL}}), Czech (50 years since anonymous publication: {{PD-anon-70-CZ}}), Czechoslovak ({{PD-Czechoslovakia-anon}}) or something else? Every possible way indicates that the anonymous postcards will be in the public domaine but I still have to apply one licencing template and I don't know which one. Aʀvєδuι ⁺ 07:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not apply all three? You can add an explanation for reusers about the unusual copyright situation and then show them all three templates to demonstrate it is PD regardless of the European jurisdiction. However, have you considered US copyright? Postcards published in 1945 may have US copyright protection until 1 January 2041. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant copyright law is generally the modern jurisdiction of the place of first publication. In this case, it would have been PD in the Czech Republic in 1996 due to the validity of the 50-year term of Czechoslovak law. This makes it PD in the US. It is presently in the public domain in the Czech republic per {{PD-anon-70-CZ}} (or {{PD-anon-70-EU}} — I am actually not sure why we have a separate Czech template for this). So to me, the correct combination would be {{PD-Czechoslovakia-anon}} and either of the two templates linked above. Felix QW (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} is completely wrong, that is not for random postcards, but only for works "published by a legal entity under public law". Which are not as common as many people seem to think. --Rosenzweig τ 00:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary box with links[edit]

File:LakeMohonkTennis.jpg This image is used in the WP article "Paul Martin (illustrator)." I wrote all of the description's text. Is it correct how the image from Wayback Machine is in the slot "Other versions." Its purpose is as a backup. Also, is it correct how the "Vintage postcard" was inserted in the author line. It shows just how the tennis courts looked when the photo was originally taken. The same footbridge is in both at the far left edge (hard to spot). Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for uploading this image! I rearranged it a bit to where I would have put that information; feel free to revert if you prefer your previous arrangement. Felix QW (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW: Okay, but I don't spot any changes. The reason that the last part in Author is put in that spot is because of the tie-in to the word "footbridge." For simplicity. I wonder if that URL link in "Other Info" would be more complete in the long version.
Namely, https://web.archive.org/web/20220104054623/https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51835959831_9b5a50b086_h.jpg JimPercy (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have forgotten to submit the changes. I would not have put the additional information in the author field, but it is absolutely no big deal. I'd say, if you think it makes sense there, just leave it where it is. Felix QW (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for looking at it. I will leave it as is (with those changes). Oh, I was just guessing what you might want to change (re: author field extension). JimPercy (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW: Update. I made a couple adjustments. I think, as was suggested. JimPercy (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I verify that a Wikimedia Commons image is public domain and freely licensed?[edit]

I wish to use this Wikimedia Commons image File:Battle-of-Ager-Sanguinis.jpg on the cover of my forthcoming book. The publisher requires me to verify that this image is in the public domain and freely licensed. The above web page says that the image was uploaded by Asta at Russian Wikipedia and transferred to Commons by nettadi. However, Asta does not seem to have a public talk page or an e-mail address and nettadi’s talk page has a single message to him from an editor. Any assistance you may be able to offer will be greatly appreciated. Groucho777 (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Groucho777: Hi,

This artwork was created in the 12th century, long before copyright came to exist. So it is in the public domain, and creating a copy of a 2D artwork doesn't create a new copyright. So you can use it for your book. Yann (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a painting from 1337 and therefore definitely public domain. If you would want to have a proof that the file uploaded to commons is the actual one form the book you would have to ask the French National Library. GPSLeo (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No bearing on the copyright question but: if it is claimed both as 1337 & 12th Century, something is wrong and should be fixed. - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 12th century line was added today. @Yann: Did you mean 14th century here or do you have a source placing this in the 1100s? From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fixed. I suppose that the date in the French description was wrong. There was a confusion between the date of the event and the date of the artwork. Yann (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird set of license tags: to review[edit]

Someone with a better knowledge should take a look at these images:

First of them has three different PD templates, which is too much to my taste.

The second is claimed CC, while looking exactly the same. Without advice, I'm not sure vectorization (possibly even automatic) is above TOO who-knows-where.

Gabuxae (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, These are fine with {{PD-textlogo}}. I removed the non necessary licenses. Yann (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As an offtopic note, current PNG version is converted from SVG, making it short of no-use even as reference original. Should it be reverted? - Gabuxae (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. pre-Berne ad question[edit]

As I understand it, in the U.S. before March 1, 1989, an ad in a newspaper needed a copyright notice of its own independent of the copyright notice for the newspaper. But what if the ad was for something in the same newspaper?

I recently had a chance to photograph a copy of the launch ad for the Friday Foster comic strip in the January 15, 1970 issue of the Chicago Tribune. The newspaper had the usual copyright notice on its masthead, but there is no copyright notice on the ad. Would the ad therefore fall into the public domain for lack of notice? Or does the newspaper copyright cover the ad because it is (presumably) from the same rights-holder? And (given that the ad is illustrated by the comic illustrator) does a copyright by the illustrator figure anywhere in here (I would think not, because this is clearly authorized use, so if it fails to do what is needed to retain copyright, that counts for the illustrator as well). - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyright Compendium says "A general notice for a collective work as a whole covers the separate contributions that it contains (regardless of ownership), except for any advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner for the collective work." If the newspaper owns the ad, then it doesn't need its own copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, but there we are. - Jmabel ! talk 03:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Hollywood Stars cards[edit]

I'm having trouble figuring out if these cards are in the public domain. I don't see a copyright notice anywhere and, because they were published in 1957, that would mean they're in the public domain. But how does one confirm that there was no notice. What if there was some packaging for these cards that contained a copyright notice that wasn't printed on the individual cards? And if there was a notice, how would I be able to tell whether that copyright was renewed? The copyright renewal log is not the most intuitive, user-friendly site. Any advice would be appreciated. Denniscabrams (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! Well it seems to me that you've already done a lot of due diligence even just by asking here. Since these were published in 1957 if we operate under an assumption that they were properly copyrighted and registered that would mean their renewal was due around 1984-1986 with 1985 being exactly 28 years later. This was required for all works published up through the end of 1963 since renewal became automatic in 1992, or 28 years after 1964. To search those logs you would need to check out the Official Public Catalog on copyright.gov. Currently there are two versions of it, but since the original version tends to be easier for finding renewals and not just new claims we shall start there.

The items appear to be called Hollywood Stars, so I just went ahead and looked up that keyword on the logs and sorted by date. The only items returned under this query from the 1950s are for film related pieces by Columbia Pictures. In the 1984-1986 section we have fresh registrations for home media releases of said films, and one brand new for some art and other visual pieces. When I looked on the newer edition of the site I was not able to find any hits for the 1957-1959 period when these would have been originally registered.

I would say those cards are fairly safe to be considered public domain since we've looked and not found any renewals or original registrations. SDudley (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Denniscabrams and to help out a bit I uploaded the first image on that page of Jim Baumer. SDudley (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of Raising a flag over the Reichstag[edit]

The English Wikipedia article says that the famous photograph Raising a flag over the Reichstag is "public domain in Russia since January 1, 2019", although this is marked as dubious. Our file page says the photograph "was in the public domain in its home country (Russia) on the URAA date (January 1, 1996)". The photograph was published in the Soviet Union in 1945. My questions are:

When did the photograph's copyright expire in Russia?
When did the photograph's copyright expire in the United States? (and was it restored by the URAA?)

Nosferattus (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Did you read the details about the copyright status on File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag - Restoration.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg? Yann (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Yes. Neither of those directly address the 2 questions above. I believe the photo falls under condition #4 in {{PD-Russia-1996}}, so I'm pretty sure it's PD in Russia. The law that {{PD-Russia-1996}} cites is from 2006, however, so I'm not clear on when the copyright actually expired. I'm asking so I can fix the info in the Wikipedia article (and update the File page with more specific info), not so I can nominate it for deletion. Nosferattus (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the template this photo was always public domain as made by an employee of a Soviet Union state news agency. GPSLeo (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: I don't think that's accurate. The dates in that section of the template are calculated using {{CURRENTYEAR}}-70 implying that such works have a copyright term of 70 years from publication, in which case it would have expired on January 1, 2016 (which disagrees with both English Wikipedia and the Commons file page). However, I read through the translations of the laws cited in the template and at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia and they don't mention anything about works created for state news agencies (or any terms based on creation date for that matter). I can't figure out where this stipulation comes from or if it's accurate or not. Nosferattus (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clindberg has clarified things below! Nosferattus (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosferattus the passage at enwiki appears to be a translation of w:ru:Знамя Победы над рейхстагом (фото Халдея)#Вопросы авторских прав. Even the citation is a translation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the older discussions was that the copyright got restored in Russia to 70pma, and that mil.ru released it under a CC license in 2019. Because there was a CC license, not sure we tried to hunt around for an actual PD reason. Answering the questions directly is hard, because not sure there was a Soviet copyright on it when created; it was only later laws which gave it a copyright. Things have been retroactively restored to 70pma for the most part now, which would mean it could still copyrighted in Russia, but there can be all sorts of edge cases, and maybe TASS is one. @Alex Spade: usually knows those reasons inside and out. As for the U.S., it may have entered into the public domain immediately if it was published without notice (and the U.S. did not have copyright relations with the Soviet Union until the early 1970s). The question then is what was the copyright status in Russia on January 1, 1996, when they still had their older 50pma law in place. If public domain then, the U.S. copyright would not have been restored. It's also possible the "country of origin" could be difficult to determine, if it was published in other countries within 30 days of it being published in Russia. If the U.S. was one of those countries, that means the URAA wouldn't restore it regardless of status in 1996. Given the translation of TASS situation (item 4 in PD-Russia-1996), it sounds like they determined that TASS owned the copyright (makes sense), and moreover the term was limited to 70 years from publication (and not 70pma). In 1996 that term would presumably have been 50 years from publication. Not sure what the 2019 public domain date was about though, if published in 1945. But it sure looks like section 4 of PD-Russia-1996 was added after the court case in question, so it probably applies directly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense as item 4 in PD-Russia-1996 isn't actually mentioned in any of the laws cited in the template. Nosferattus (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if the copyright term in 1996 was 50 years after publication, it would have expired in Russia on January 1, 1996, the exact day the URAA went into force. Thus it would not have been renewed by the URAA (assuming that was otherwise possible). If the copyright was retroactively set to 70 years after publication it would have expired again on January 1, 2016 (in Russia). So the 2019 CC license was probably unnecessary, but I won't complain. Nosferattus (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your explanation, I've updated the text in the English Wikipedia article so that it is more accurate. Nosferattus (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1936-1937 works had not received prolonged 70y term (they became PD on Jan.1, 1993). The right time limit for TASS works by Khaldei is clear - it is no later than Jan.1, 2019. The left time border is very complex - there were 4 possible copyright terms in this case: old Soviet unlimited term^1st for TASS works, but it was repealed in 1992-1993 and was replaced by 50y term^2nd, then 50y term was replaced by 70y non-retroactive term^3rd (in 2004), then 70y non-retroactive term was replaced by 70y retroactive term^4th (since Jan.1, 2008). Alex Spade (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URAA-effects for Russian works are described here (in Russian). Alex Spade (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That is very helpful! Nosferattus (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the detailed information in this thread. Is this already mentioned in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia? If not, could you please write a summary there? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! Also ping @GPSLeo@Yann the case file is this. Unfortunately, I cannot read Russian. Tedious to do direct translations using Google Translate mobile app. Perhaps Russian-speaking users may help here? @A.Savin and Rubin16: for comment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's about a court decision on 14 Sep 2015 which rejected an appeal and confirmed the previous lower-instance decision. But there are no further documents available. --A.Savin 08:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find decision in more suitable form here (in Russian). This database has free access on every working day since 20:00 to 23:59 MSK and on every holiday (May 4-5, 9, 10-11, etc.) all day long. Alex Spade (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With Google Translate, seems to say that the copyright was owned by TASS (the court case was the photographer's heirs trying to claim a 70pma copyright, but the older laws took precedence). The original copyright expired after five years in 1950. The 2008 law restored the copyright, though apparently the legal entity term was for 70 years from publication, so it ruled the copyright expired after 2015. The term would have been 50 years on the URAA date (and may have been simultaneously published anyways, but that is a moot point). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scinde house[edit]

File:Scinde house.jpg was tagged as own work by User:DeletedUser93348383211, which is clearly incorrect. It may have come from here at en:MTG Hawke's Bay, where it is marked as public domain. Is that enough information to tag the image as public domain rather than own work? According to the website the photographer was Frank L Moodie (Francis Lizars Moodie), architect, and the date 1926-1931. There is more information about Moodie here. TSventon (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update this is public domain in New Zealand per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand as Moodie died in 1967 (born 1884) per this so I have corrected the attribution. I don't know whether it is PD in the US. TSventon (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was published before 1929, it clearly is PD in the US. However, the date range goes until 1931, and if it is from 1931 it could be copyrighted in the US until 2026. Felix QW (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, hopefully the file is now as up to date as it can be, given the available information. TSventon (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is any file from BHL (biodiversity heritage library) eligible for uploading on commons?[edit]

There are several figures from BHL that I want upload. Can I, or it is against the rules? Uploader1234567890 (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on who the author of the figures were since European authors would be subject to copyright terms that would require them to have died before 1954. Generally anything published before 1880 will be OK, and we do have PD-old-assumed for either unknown authors or named authors that death date information cannot be found for works published before 1904. For works by American authors, works published before 1929 are all OK. Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Jude Palencar's illustration of Eragon[edit]

File:Christopher Paolini, Eragon 1.jpg was uploaded by User:Penguin Random House Verlagsgruppe, who has a verified identity, which is why I'm not taking this straight to a DR. But really? Does John Jude Palencar's contract with Penguin Random House really permit them to release his work on the CC-BY-SA? And take credit for it--they didn't credit John Jude Palencar at all on the page. That surely violates his moral rights in the EU. That in and of itself doesn't scream that they crossed the t's and dotted the i's on this. Anyone want to tell me to go for a DR, or to just let it lie?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosfilaes: My initial impression is that you should go for a DR and ping whoever verified their identity. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosfilaes: why would their identity be at all in question? DerHexer presumably knows what he's doing.

User:Penguin Random House Verlagsgruppe, can you sort this out without having to go to a DR? Is this just a failure on your part to properly credit Palencar? - Jmabel ! talk 01:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just a moral rights issue, I would simply add the artist name and be done with it. That is not a reason for deletion. I could easily see publishing houses owning the copyright on cover illustrations -- it would depend on the contract, of course. If they own the copyright they could license it. If this is the account of a different Random House subsidiary than the one which published the original, that particular subsidiary may not own the copyright though. I'm leaning on assuming good faith given it's a verified account, but any clarification would be good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in Germany they couldn't exactly "own" the copyright for a work by a living author, but they could (and quite likely do) have unlimited rights granted by that author. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the economic right has been transferred, I think that is basically what "owning" copyright is. This particular cover was for an American publishing house (Alfred A. Knopf), by an American artist for a work by an American author. This version would seem to be for a German translation and printing, but the country of origin (and copyright rules regarding transfers) would be American. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I doubt the identity of Penguin Random House Verlagsgruppe, it's more that I doubt their competence. On one hand, I was looking at this as a potential commercial reuser, and there's simply no way I could trust that license. On the other, I was reading about Bill Willingham's fights with DC over his contract, and it makes me hard to trust a company to follow the contract when they've put so little care as to leave credit off their reuse.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evolution of the Minden–Harlen tornado.gif (Request for clarification from EN Wiki)[edit]

Over on English Wikipedia, there is an ongoing long debate about whether this gif is (1) public domain, (2) CC 1.0 due to public domain data, or (3) not public domain and not free-to-use. To solve the debate, a discussion is being opened here to assess:

Whether NEXRAD/radar screenshots are, in fact, free-to-use or not free-to-use?
If the answer is not free-to-use, does the U.S. government publishing it make it free-to-use?
If the answer to No. 2 is yes, why is some NEXRAD screenshots in the public domain and others not?

Basically, a plethora of questions (policy questions) regarding NEXRAD (Template:PD-NEXRAD) screenshots, most present in Category:Weather radar images.

This image (File:Sulphur Tornado Radar Image.png) was also discussed for it not being in the public domain/free-to-use in the English Wikipedia discussion.

Previous discussions on the commons: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander City Tornado Emergency in 2023.jpg - the only related discussion as to the usage of NEXRAD screenshots as far as I am aware. Image was Kept as being free-to-use. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia direct requests for clarification on if NEXRAD is free-to-use or not: User:Master of Time & User:TheAustinMan

Discussion[edit]

I personally think it is free-to-use. In that deletion request discussion back in 2023, Jameslwoodward (no-pinged) stated, "The data is clearly PD. While the software which was used to present it is copyrighted, the only human involvement is by the uploader...It is well established the output of a computer does not itself have a copyright unless it is derived from a copyrighted work." An English Wikipedia editor brought up the point that even though Jameslwoodward is a Commons administrator, they are just a regular editor with regards to discussions. However, one should logically assume that an administrator knows the rules enough to make that kind of statement. NEXRAD is owned entirely by the United States government and anyone has access to the data. As brought up by Jameslwoodward, as well as English Wikipedia editors, the software used is in fact copyrighted. However, Jameslwoodward states there is a precedent (one that hopefully can be linked in this discussion as I am not aware of where it is) that output from a computer, i.e., those radar softwares, are just using public-domain and freely available data. That all said, I am just one editor. Hopefully a few experiences Commons editors can chime in and help sort out the policy with regards to this topic. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give a link to the data on the NEXRAD website? So it would be clear what are the steps between the public domain data and the image? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Here is the NEXRAD download website. There are three main applications users get radar data: Gibson Ridge products (GR2/GR3), RadarScope, and RadarOmega. The deletion discussion above involved a RadarOmega screenshot for reference.

-RadarScope/RadarOmega internally store the archived radar data. So users (1) open app, (2) click which radar site they want (out of the 159 of them), (3) click a “previous time” button, (4) choose data/time, (5) see archived data.

-GR products, a user has to physically download the data to see/open it. So, (1) download data from NCEI website (picking correct radar/date/time), (2) open GR application, (3) click “open file”, (4) open the files, (5) see data.

There may be some other method, however, those three applications probably account for 98% of the radar screenshots on the commons/EN wiki articles. Users also get live-radar feed from any of the 159 radars via those applications or even the National Weather Service website. So, someone can screenshot the live data without any of those download steps, and just open app and click radar = see data. All three applications see the same NEXRAD radar data. Hopefully that gave some guidance as to how the processes work for that. WeatherWriter (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By all appearances, NEXRAD is entirely owned and operated by the U.S. government, so any expression would be PD-USGov. That's not inherent in any satellite photos, but U.S. federal government ones should be. Are there any examples of NEXRAD images which are not considered public domain? While it's possible to combine PD material in a creative way, to get a copyright on "selection and arrangement", I don't think combining images into a time animation meets that threshold. They are already timestamped so the order is already given, and they are placed on top of each other. The software used to make such animations is irrelevant, unless it adds copyrightable expression visible in the final result (such as maybe a copyrightable logo, which if removed then becomes fine). In particular, algorithms aren't copyrightable, so if passing something through a computer algorithm, the result has the same copyright as the input. If you combine several NEXRAD images from different events, with annotations to point out similarities, that particular combination may get a selection and arrangement copyright. As with anything though, you need to identify copyrightable expression, made by a human, in the final result for there to be a copyright. The satellite images certainly could be, but those seem to be PD-USGov (though definitely not CC0, which is an explicit license by a copyright owner). If a human carefully chose framing from a series of satellite images, such that different people performing the same idea would all come out differently, then *maybe*. If that selection was automated (computing a center for the storm and choosing that), then no. The question is what, exactly, did Mark De Bruin himself contribute to what can be seen in the final result. It may take effort and skill, but "sweat of the brow" like that is not copyrightable -- just the human creative part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion, and hopefully there can be firm clarity on these class of images. For context, the National Weather Service's NEXRAD radar data is delivered as binary files encoding raw data (details). This radar data is visualized and plotted independently by a wide range of public and commercial services, including the National Weather Service (example image) and popular paid software suites such as GR2Analyst (example image), RadarScope (example image), and RadarOmega (example image). While it's clear that the National Weather Service's own radar images fall under {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}, potentially less clear are screenshots of radar visualizations produced by non-free commercial software, which may apply their own methods to denoise radar data, smooth it, or correct for potentially erroneous values. On Commons, screenshots in this category (that were not published by the NWS) take a variety of forms. Some are limited to the radar imagery. Others include the entire software visual interface. I'm inherently a little wary of uploading images/screenshots non-free software on Commons, so hopefully those better versed in copyright can provide some clarity on that front. —the•austin•man (works) 14:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the later case, the software interface should be cropped out. Yann (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any automated processing like de-noising I don't think would create a copyright. Software interfaces can often include copyrighted elements though, so usually best to crop to just the images themselves. A specific visualization done by a human, if it adds a lot of elements over the original, may be enough for a copyright -- but automated ones less likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that {{PD-NEXRAD}} was created by WeatherWriter. In addition, radar images are freely available via the NWS website and through other venues, e.g. the Weather and Climate Toolkit, and numerous such images are on Wikipedia (so the "90%" figure is not valid). And the vast vast majority of radar images on Wikipedia that were created using privately-created software are not via RadarScope or RadarOmega -- the only private radar application that is significantly present on Wikipedia is GR2Analyst (and to a lesser extent the other Gibson Ridge variants). RadarScope and RadarOmega have a distinct "stylized" presentation so can easily be identified. Now, on the argument that you can grab a random person's hand-coded radar loop from Twitter and call it PD, with not so much as attribution required -- as far as I know, no software will follow supercells or supercell mesocyclones for you. That requires a unique measure of work to program. Whatever you think of the applications mentioned previously, I don't think it's fair to say that just because something was created using PD data, every single thing deriving from it must also be PD. And on the bit about satellite, those are largely created using U.S. government-provided tools anyway (or by Wikipedia/Commons users who publish it here under a free license), not private software, so not really a good comparison. Master of Time (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you think that or not, that is not how the general law works. As seems to be the nearly-overall consensus from Commons editors not apart of the EN-wiki discussions (like myself and you), the radar screenshots are public domain as there is no human interaction involved besides the screenshot/upload process. Humans do not have any creativity in terms of what the data says. The fact the same identical screenshot could be pulled up on GR2/GR3/RadarScope/RadarOmega is a huge indication that it is, in fact, nearly no outside copyright reasoning. RadarOmega was already determined by a community consensus to be in the public domain per that deletion request. A seems to be the case here as well, the lack of human interaction/creativity between the radar taking the image and not taking the image is near 0, aka, not creative enough to consider it copyrightable. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To pose another question: Since you do say everything can be pulled up via a NWS/.gov process, could you upload a duplicate of File:Radar image of the 2023 Amory EF3 tornado.png or even File:NEXRAD loop of the Rolling Fork EF4 tornado.gif? That first screenshot was nominated for a FPC at one point and that gif is of the strongest and deadliest tornado of 2023 (w:2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado). Both were from GR2, however, in mere minutes, RadarScope/RadarOmega duplicates (that look identical) could be uploaded. Since you say all the stuff is truly available via a NOAA-provided tool (i.e. .gov website), uploading duplicates of either of those would help support your point. Right now, I have no idea how you could do that, as NWS-radar gifs (as far as I am aware) can only be created via the last like 30 minutes worth of data, i.e. archival data is impossible except by those applications, which all use the same data. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sint Maarten Government Images[edit]

I have reviewed the Commons copyright rules of Sint Maarten and the Netherlands. As I understand it, copyright in Sint Maarten is governed by the Auteursverordening (Author's Regulation).

Are the images produced/provided by the Government of Sint Maarten or the Parliament of Sint Maarten subject to any copyright restrictions? As far as I can tell there is no coherent copyright policy on either site.

I did find this advisory report that makes mention of creative commons licensing. It says, "Government produced video, photographs and other material are the property of the government." But I can not tell if they are talking about Aruba or Sint Maarten.

Sint Maarten had a recent change in government and I would like to understand what I am allowed to upload. For example, is the image found on this press release available to upload on Commons or English Wikipedia?

As far as I can tell, the absence of copyright details probably means: no, it can not be used.

Thanks in advance for your help. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:NOP Sint Maarten also makes mention of what has been made public by or on behalf of the public authorities, apparently governed by Art. 11 (2) of the copyright law, but I cannot actually find a second sentence of Article 11 in either the Dutch or the English version of the law as on WIPO or at File:Dutch copyright act 2006-06-22.pdf. Very strange. Felix QW (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo de Lelio[edit]

Can we use this image free of restrictions? It is (said to be) of Alfredo de Lelio, the originator of w:Fettuccine Alfredo, in front of his Roman restaurant. I would estimate that it was taken c. 1910-1920. It can be found here, here, and here (as well as other places). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0: , For Italy, photographs would either have a copyright term of creation plus 20 years if it is a simple photograph or life of the author plus 70 years for artistic photographs. I'm inclined towards believing this photograph to be a simple one. @Ruthven: @Blackcat: for a second opinion from Italian administrators. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0: If that photograph, being clearly not-artistic, was taken before 1977, the photo is in public domain both in Italy and the US. In this case can be published on Commons with licences {{PD-Italy}}{{PD-1996|IT}} in the permission field of {{Information}} template. -- Blackcat 19:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Blackcat. Use both templates. Ruthven (msg) 05:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Abzeronow, Blackcat, and Ruthven: Does the same logic apply to this version (sharper looking image and slightly larger file)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead with the upload of the first of the two possible files. Please let me know if the other is okay, and I'll add it too. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0 As long as it is a PD file, there are no issues. Ruthven (msg) 23:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of originality question[edit]

Hi, can someone check this logo for threshold of originality? It has already been speedy deleted at least twice on the German WP for copyright reasons, and now I find that it has the "no threshold of originality" tag here. Though I do not quite understand where that tag came from, since apparently no one except for the uploader themselves has been working on that page.

If this is really considered "no threshold of originality", we could encourage the user to reupload a proper version instead of this fuzzy 5 KB version. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F11:C600:E9AB:92C7:7CF1:8B1A 09:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IMO this is OK. From what I can see on Google cache, the deleted version was bigger. Yann (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was.

What I still don't quite understand is where that tag came from, since no one else had been working on that file up to that point, and there is no ticket of any sort. Did the uploader themselves place it there? Do uploaders get to decide for themselves if threshold of originality is an issue? --2003:C0:8F10:A100:A476:A5D8:2034:6E85 23:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-old-assumed when date of birth is known[edit]

I was wondering about how we handle situations where the date of birth of an artist is known, but not their date of death. Cecile Pfulb-Kastner is a botanical illustrator some of whose illustrations would be very valuable for Wikimedia projects. It is known that she was born in 1874, but her date of death seems to be unknown. She would have to have reached the age of 80 for her works still to be under copyright in France, which I find not unreasonable. Is there some consensus on this somewhere? Felix QW (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's like any other author whose death date we don't currently know, their works before 1904 can be uploaded, and we would have to wait for the later ones. Pablo Picasso (born 1881) lived to be 91 and his works are copyrighted in the EU until at least 2044; Henri Matisse was born in 1869 and died in 1954, his works will enter the public domain in the EU next year. There are plenty of examples of artists who lived past 80. Abzeronow (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially thinking that too, but it seems strange to treat pre-1904 and post-1904 works differently if their copyright term depends only on the (unknown) date of death of the same individual. In my mind, to would make more sense to say that once the date of birth is known, we take, say, dob + 90 or so as a credible upper bound. Felix QW (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to idref, she was divorced in December 1940, when she would have been 66. Living another 14 years is plausible, assuming she wasn't caught up in the war. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the records of Cimetière de Montmartre in Paris a woman named "Guillo nee Kastner, Marie-Cécile" died at the age of 92 on April 11, 1966. Given the age at death and date of death, this makes her year of birth 1874, matching the illustrator. The spousal surname of "Guillo" matches the surname of the illustrator's second husband (following first husband Pfulb). It seems very likely that this is the date of death of the illustrator Cecile Pfulb-Kastner. Per the illustrator's marriage record to her first husband, we know her given name is Marie-Cécile, which also matches. We might have to delete the images at Category:Cecile Pfulb-Kastner, to be undeleted in 2037 (1966 + 70 + 1). —RP88 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RP88 I added {{NoUploads}} to the author category. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DR is now at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cecile Pfulb-Kastner. —RP88 (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the impressive (and fast!) research on this, and for opening the DR. Felix QW (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research too at FamilySearch but found nothing about her. Great work RP88! Bedivere (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1OhitRcopyright.jpg[edit]

What's written in the description for File:1OhitRcopyright.jpg is directly contrary to the way the file's been licensed. Assuming that the uploader is the same person who created the image, they might not fully understand what releasing the file as licensed means. Does the file's description need to be changed because it's obviously not in accordance with COM:L? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]