Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Hello guys. From the past few days I am seeing an increase in number of files upload under GODL-India where source is some or other Official Twitter handle of various agencies under Govt of India. This includes PMO, ministries, armed forces and others. Can someone clarify if files imported from Twitter are allowed? Bcoz as far as I understand there is nowhere stated that files published there falls under GODL. It is never published like that. Pinging @Yann who too said that we don't have permission for files coming from official social media handles of different agencies of the Indian government. Please correct me if I am wrong. ShaanSengupta^Talk 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think we should not accept files from any social media, including Twitter. Yann (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Yann. Anything from Facebook is an automatic speedy for me. (On reflection, It does seem that burden of proof has shifted from the up loader/keep voters to the person nominating for deletion/deletionists.) All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that point@Alachuckthebuck I would like to ping @King of Hearts for his input. Bcoz in past I nominated some files taken from Twitter uploaded under GODL. He advised against speedy and told me to go through DR. I would love to hear them. ShaanSengupta^Talk 10:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a possibility that the file is under a free license, then go for a regular DR, but we still need either a source from a government website, or a permission via VRT. Yann (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and Twitter are platforms, so being hosted on those websites says nothing about the copyright status of such images (for example, US government agencies may post images there). In general, I just treat them as any other website and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. @Alachuckthebuck: The burden of proof is absolutely on the deletion tagger in the case of speedy deletion. If the tagger is not sure, then they can raise any reasonable suspicion at DR, and then the burden of proof shifts to the uploader. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in and clarifying burden of proof. The main reason we don't like facebook is they remove all EXIF data from photos, and they don't have a mechanism for releasing work under a free license on their site. Additonally, an issue with the license terms in meta's TOS causes all photos uploaded to the site to not be free, but it's rendered moot by the prior point. For our purposes, almost anything above TOO uploaded to Facebook is unfree. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alachuckthebuck: " For our purposes, almost anything above TOO uploaded to Facebook is unfree." I believe that is false, and if you believe it is true I would like to see you cite policy to that effect. Some things that seem to me like obvious counterexamples:

• A well-known person or organization places an image or a set of images on a public-facing Facebook post and says explicitly that they release this material under an appropriate free license (e.g. CC-BY 4.0).
• The work is obviously old enough to be public domain (e.g. a Facebook post would be a perfectly acceptable source for a painting by Winslow Homer; we don't really care where it came from).

And, no, Meta's terms do not make content on Facebook unfree. They grant Meta a license to reuse the materials; that in no way interferes with granting other licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel That's why I said almost. Those are definitely exceptions to the rule. But the vast majority of files from Facebook that get uploaded to commons aren't in scope and/or unfree (I have probably tagged 350 copyvios from Facebook in the last 6 months) . Your counterpoints are perfectly valid, and I wish they happened more often. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yann & King of Hearts going for DR instead of Speedy is when you are unsure about the licence. Here the issue is different completely. How can a file which mentions X (Twitter) as a source come under GODL-India? Even if it is free we need to cite the source which says so. We have never recieved permission which states that images coming from X or any other social media website even if from official govt handles are covered under GODL. Comparing it to US Federal copyright law doesn't make sense to me. These are Indian Govt works. And the only way we can use it here is when it is uploaded on govt websites under that license. ShaanSengupta^Talk 05:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  GODL-India because its from Indian Gov account. Platform could be any. Be it website, Twitter, Facebook, PIB, Koo etc. Its not which platform the images are published, but who is publishing it. In this case the Govt of India. Mifiin (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please show where in the licence it is mentioned that it can used through any platforms. Learn COM:Licensing first. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is censorship in Wikipedia or Govt account being open in any platforms. So as long as they are not censored by Wikipedia, and are listed as Govt accounts, then its good to go. Some of the arguments like "increase in number of uploads" etc is absurd and should not have been brought in. And sad part is that Admins went for removal and literally approved censorship of images from govt accounts. I would request that the Admins restore those images. Thank you.Mifiin (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly this is not Wikipedia. This is a sister project of the WMF. And we are not censored. But WMF is very strict regarding copyvios. Removing a blatant copyright violation isn't censorship but just the right things to do. If @you think that the community was wrong in deleting those files, go an file an undeletion request. It will be dealt by someone uninvolved. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann, @King of Hearts & @Túrelio if you could plz deal with this. You can explain this better than I can. Also plz care to see this thread on my talk page to see what Mifiin says. Please don't bring in Admins. They have no clue about most of the things and will delete what you point to them. Probably did not even check or consult anyone. It just shows they are not for Commons. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 08:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mifiin: Social media, including Twitter/X, are not reliable sources. We need some evidence that the pictures are taken by government employees, and publish under the GODL. This can only be done on a government website. Yann (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann in any case, we have too many images coming from social media accounts of Philippine government sites, that are blanketly tagged with {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. The Indian case may also be the case of alleged "government images" from social media accounts of government agencies, even if many of the social media account administrators of Philippine government socmed pages are contractual employees. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading this, a question struck my mind. Are the U.S. terms applicable to non-U.S. sound recordings, like those from the Philippines? Uruguay Round Agreements Act already complicates works like public monuments, old photos, and several other works of non-US countries; is the sound recording modernization act of 2018 also governing non-U.S. sound recordings? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that RIAA would like to think so.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Office Circular 38b says "Although sound recordings fixed before 1972 were not then protected by federal copyright, those sound recordings will receive the remainder of the term they would have received had they been protected by such copyright when published. For example, a sound recording published in 1925 will be protected until 2020." Unless they were in the public domain in their source nation, they'll get 95 years. The Music Modernization Act doesn't mention foreign works; I'd assume it applies to all of them, or at least all of them restored by the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Are the U.S. terms applicable to non-U.S. sound recordings, like those from the Philippines?

Yes. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller do the terms also encompass works already in PD in the Philippines etc.? Or, just like URAA, only affects works that were still in copyright as of the 2018 law? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those terms encompass all sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972. Maybe you should read the law (starting on page 54/3728 of this PDF). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inputs. Perhaps will share these facts to the FB group Philippine Wikimedia Kapihan Network (the FB group of w:en:Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines), to give them attention. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing your own interpretation of the law is always a little sketchy. I think there's at least a case that Congress didn't intend to change the status of foreign works left in the public domain after the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosfilaes Point taken, but I don't think this is supported by the text of the actual statute, nor by some external principles. Here is an article about the subject (not written by me), for your reading pleasure. To make things clear, for @JWilz12345 too, we can go over a bit of the history.

1. In the US, there are both federal and state copyright laws. (State copyright laws incorporate common law copyright.) Federal copyright law preempts state copyright law wherever federal law creates a right equivalent to one that exists within state law — only the federal law applies. (State copyright laws now mostly don't matter, because the Copyright Act of 1976 preempted state laws with respect to unpublished works (which was the area in which state copyright law was most important — but that's a different subject.)
2. Until February 15, 1972, US federal copyright law did not apply in any way to sound recordings. Only state law applied. States often gave a perpetual copyright in sound recordings (though some states modified this). # In 1971, Congress passed a law which made sound recordings subject to federal law, but only those which were made on February 15, 1972, and later. Any recording made before February 15, 1972, was subject only to state copyright law. The law passed at that time provided that state law should not be preempted for any sound recording made before that date until February 15, 2047 (extended to 2067 with the CTEA in 1998).
3. In 1994, the URAA was passed, which provided a new federal copyright for "restored works," including works which were not in the public domain in the source country on the URAA date, and where "[were]" in the public domain in the United States due to […] lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972." The term of copyright is "the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain in the United States." The sensible interpretation of this is to treat eligible foreign recordings as published works at the time of their publication abroad, and to extend to them (accordingly) copyright protection for 95 years from that publication.
4. In 2018, the MMA/CLASSICS Act was passed, which provided for the preemption of state copyright law for sound recordings made before February 15, 1972. The CLASSICS Act does not actually make pre-1972 sound recordings subject to the same copyright regime as normal works (as the URAA did for eligible foreign recordings). Instead, there is a special (17 USC § 1401) set of provisions defining both what uses are unauthorized and what the terms of protection are. Notably, the term of protection is for not only a flat 95 years, but a longer period (taking into account the transition period based on date of publication).
5. With the CLASSICS Act, state law on use of recordings was finally preempted. Accordingly, 17 USC § 301 (c), which previously read "With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15, 2067. The preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to any such rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising from undertakings commenced on and after February 15, 2067. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067," was changed to read "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, and in accordance with chapter 14, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title. With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, the preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to activities that are commenced on and after the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to affirm or negate the preemption of rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising from the nonsubscription broadcast transmission of sound recordings under the common law or statutes of any State for activities that do not qualify as covered activities under chapter 14 undertaken during the period between the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act and the date on which the term of prohibition on unauthorized acts under section 1401(a)(2) expires for such sound recordings. Any potential preemption of rights and remedies related to such activities undertaken during that period shall apply in all respects as it did the day before the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act."

Now, there are some problematic aspects of how this is written. In particular, the URAA's applicability to pre-1972 sound recordings is a bit odd, since I don't think it is quite accurate to say that pre-1972 sound recordings were really "in the public domain in the United States" at the time of the URAA's coming into effect, which is one of the requirements to be a "restored work" to begin with. But since subject-matter eligibility is defined to include those recordings, they have to assimilated to the copyright scheme somehow, and the 95-year term seems to be the way that makes the most sense. The question is (as addressed in the paper), whether, for restored works which are pre-1972 sound recordings, protection is given:

• According to 17 USC § 1401 (Unauthorized use of pre-1972 sound recordings) only, overriding the provisions of 17 USC § 104A (Copyright in restored works)
• According to 17 USC § 104A (Copyright in restored works) only, with those restored foreign works already eligible for federal copyright being excluded from eligibility for 17 USC § 1401 protection, despite no indication in the text of the newer 17 USC § 1401 that there is any such exclusion
• According to both, with such works both having a federal copyright (lasting 95 years) under § 104A as well as protection under § 1401.

I think there is a legitimate debate to be had there as to what provisions are really meant to be applicable. Since § 1401's remedies for unauthorized use are almost identical to § 104A's for infringement, the question really is one of term (i.e., whether or not these recordings should be protected for a term exceeding 95 years). Since the WTO/TRIPS agreements require national treatment (i.e., no country may provide preferential protection to domestic sound recordings over foreign ones), I think it's pretty clear that § 1401's terms need to apply to foreign recordings (whether instead of or on top of § 104A's provisions, I cannot say). Ochoa agrees (in the paper I linked above) that finding that only § 104A's terms apply is the least likely option for a court to pick.

But, more importantly, we must not ignore the bounds of § 104A to begin with. § 104A only applies to foreign works whose protection in the source country hadn't already expired by the restoration date (generally January 1, 1996). Any work whose source-country protection had already expired could not be a restored work to begin with. In the case of books, musical compositions, etc., US federal copyright law had already preempted state copyright law, and so items which had already entered the public domain in their source countries remained in the public domain in the US (and were not subject to state copyright law). Foreign recordings which were no longer protected in the source country would not receive a federal copyright either. But there is no reason to believe that these recordings, which were outside of the scope of "restored works," were supposed to be removed from state protection either. Instead, we need to split things up:

• Recorded before February 15, 1972, and PD in source country on URAA date — State law only preempted with CLASSICS Act, and subject to protection under CLASSICS Act.
• Recorded before February 15, 1972, and not PD in source country on URAA date — State law preempted with URAA, and might be subject to only URAA protection (for 95 years), or perhaps CLASSICS Act protection (for longer).

Since almost all non-US countries provided only for a relatively short period of protection for sound recordings when the URAA came into effect — 20 to 50 years — any sound recording which had the ability to become a restored work, even if only protected for 95 years from publication, would still not be in the public domain now. For example, a recording from 1960, which was still under protection in its home country (with a 50-year term), and which could thus be a "restored work," is protected until either 2056 (under the URAA alone) or February 15, 2067 (if the CLASSICS Act's provisions apply). But it will be decades until the answer becomes relevant. Any recording made in, say, 1925 (which would be protected under the CLASSICS Act despite being over 95 years old) wouldn't have been subject to the URAA anyway due to ineligibility for restoration due to a lack of protection in the source country. I'm not aware of any countries which had even a 70-year term of protection for sound recordings in 1996.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: Thank you for that detailed examination. I had to deal with this subject matter almost two years ago in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conservet Deus su Re.ogg, and it was really complicated. --Rosenzweig τ 09:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And then of course there was the case of Capitol Records v. Naxos, which was about some 1930s UK recordings marketed in the United States after the URAA, and was ruled to still be under New York common law copyright (which Capitol had a license for, and Naxos did not). They determined the URAA did not apply since the recordings were already PD in the UK before 1996, thus the US common law copyright continued (until the CLASSICS act, presumably). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Commons. This comes from a comment (on en:Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors) that we have a photo of Oscar The Grouch from Sesame Street on he front page of English Wikipedia. File:Carroll Spinney and Oscar the Grouch 2014.jpg. It is on Commons and is cc-by. Commons has a category of images Category:Oscar the Grouch. File:LBJ Foundation DIG14086-069 (34650875314).jpg is PD and on Commons. These aren't unrestricted though, are they? I'd like your collective advice as I suspect these aren't actually that free images. Thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant page: Commons:Character copyrights. Yann (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street is not on there but I am going to presume these are still in copyright. Secretlondon (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to upload some images of living Izithunzi silvicola to illustrate the genus article on Wikipedia with an image of the living habitus. They are part of this guide which is listed as CC 4.0, but I am not sure if that license includes the images used within the guide. In particular, the photos in question are on page 8, by Esther vd Westhuizen and David Wildeman. The photographs are taken by someone other than the authors of the guide, and have been used in it with permission, but I do not know if that permission extends to others who wish to use the images. I cannot find them posted elsewhere online with an image search or by searching for the photographer's work.

Do these images have the same license as the rest of the guide, and are they thus acceptable to use, or not? Thank you in advance, Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the authors of the photographs are different than the author of the guide itself, we would need some evidence that the images are properly licensed. It is fully possible that someone can grant permission for an image to be used in a particular work without agreeing to the terms of the CC license, even if (for example) the text of that work is released under a CC license by the text's author. In light of the COM:PRP, we'd need more than what has been described here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a bit more reading and it seems that the images are from the SANSA Virtual Museum, a website part of the South African National Survey of Arachnida and run by the Agricultural Research Council which is part of the South African Government. The photographers upload these images and allow them to be published in field guides, taxonomic papers (including in paywalled journals), and in books. This seems like it would be listed under CC by 4.0?

In an article that uses images taken from this database, the figure caption states that the photographers retain copyright of their images though, so does that mean that they aren't under CC?

Edit: Images from these guides have been uploaded to Commons without issue before: here and here but by a different photographer, the photograph similarly didn't have a clearly stated license in the document but was still okay to use. Would uploading the Izithunzi silvicola images be okay under that precedent? Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mediocre.marsupial "This seems like it would be listed under CC by 4.0?" you cannot make an assumption like this. A license needs to be explicitly granted. Licenses are legal contracts, you can't say "this looks kinda like that other thing". They might still be licensed like CC-by-4.0 or be allowed as some type of other permission type, but proof is needed. As for the images by Peter Web, it seems here photographer and author of the paper are one and the same, so I guess the idea that these 'might' be CC-by-sa 4.0 is slightly stronger, but personally I'd like to see even better proof of those two. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Peter Webb is listed as an author of that paper, he is not on the list of authors as part of the citation on page 2. Fair point that I can't make an assumption like that, I'm just wondering where I could actually find the license for these images then? Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to contact the photographers and ask them. The authors of the guide might be able to help put you in contact if you can't find them by yourself. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why the Land Rover logos are uploaded locally (e.g. here and here) but there is a Land Rover logos category with files like this:

• 

-- Carnby (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly don't have any way to prevent en-wiki from uploading files locally. This question would better be asked on the relevant sister project(s).

Even under UK's tight TOO the Land Rover logo as such is probably below the threshold. The Jaguar one is not, but I don't know how old it is. - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The company was founded in 1935, so unless the jaguar design is much older, we will have to delete it. Gnom (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel The fact that the Land Rover logo was upload locally made me think it was considered unacceptable for Commons. Weird, because this logo seems to be {{PD-simple}} o {{PD-textlogo}} in my opinion.-- Carnby (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnby: What makes you think the person who did the local upload had expertise about copyright? - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My further comments on the transcluded file are at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jaguar Land Rover 2022.svg. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like File:FenerbahceKadınVoleybolTakimi 1960larda.jpg could be a case of an uploader mistaking physical possession of a photo for meaning they are the copyright holder of the photo. This photo seems to be signed by each of the players pictured in it and appears to be quite old; so, the "own work" claim seems very questionable at best. The team en:Fenerbahçe S.K. (women's volleyball) is from Turkey and COM:Turkey states that states Turkey allows works to be protected by copyright for 70 years p.m.a.; so, if this photo was taken in 1960 and the person who took died that same year, the photo would be under copyright protection until January 1, 2031 at the very least. Even if it was signed on March 20, 2021 (the date given in the file's description), the original photo without any signatures would still be under copyright protection until at least 2031. So, I'm not seeing how Commons can keep this, at least not a licensed, but perhaps someone else feels differently. Finally, just going to add that all of the licensing related notifications on the uploader's user talk page isn't really a good sign and seems to be another indication that the claim of "own work" for this image is invalid. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a draft copyright guide similar to the Hirtle chart, but putting into consideration the copyright laws of both the Philippines and the United States to serve as a guide on uploading to Commons. Not sure about its accuracy, but does the guide help? --Aristorkle (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Пишу українською, бо англійською не можу повноцінно висловити своє запитання.

Отже, питання таке (це більше стосується України, де нема Свободи панорами, але, може, це і в інших країнах діяти):

• 1) чи є порушення авторського права у файлах, де самі митці (художники, скульптори, майстри фольклорних виробів) представляють фотографу власні твори? (example1 ; файл для прикладу — у цьому випадку надіслано дозвіл)
• 2) чи є порушення авторського права у файлах, де митці (художники, скульптори, майстри фольклорних виробів) позують фотографу на фоні своїх творів? (example2)
• 3) чи є порушення авторського права у файлах, де митці (художники, скульптори, майстри фольклорних виробів) позують фотографу на фоні своїх творів у день події (виставки, концерту чи іншого заходу) не під час самої події (виставки чи іншої події), а одразу після її завершення чи пізніше в той самий день? (example3); хоча в Законі України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» зазначено наступне (Стаття 22. Загальні випадки вільного використання творів. (...) 2. Без дозволу суб’єктів авторського права і безоплатно, але із зазначенням імені автора і джерела запозичення, допускається: (...) 6) доведення до загального відома публіки творів, побачених або почутих під час перебігу поточних подій з метою висвітлення таких подій, в обсязі, що відповідає інформаційній меті;), але це вже не сама подія, а час після події, або навіть, якщо і в час самої події (але не за програмою події), коли окремо позують фотографу?

Прошу коментувати щодо окремих пунктів нижче. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Google translate): So, the question is as follows (this applies more to Ukraine, where there is no Freedom of Panorama, but maybe this applies in other countries as well):

• 1) is there a copyright violation in the files where the artists (painters, sculptors, masters of folklore products) present their own works to the photographer? (example1 ; example file - in this case permission is sent)
• 2) is there a copyright violation in the files where artists (painters, sculptors, craftsmen of folklore products) pose for the photographer against the background of their works? (example2)
• 3) is there a copyright violation in the files where artists (painters, sculptors, craftsmen of folklore products) pose for the photographer against the background of their works on the day of the event (exhibition, concert or other event) not during the event itself (exhibition or other event), but immediately after its completion or later on the same day? (example3); although in The Law of Ukraine "On Copyright and Related Rights" the following is stated (Article 22. General cases of free use of works. (...) 2. Без дозволу суб’єктів авторського права і безоплатно, але із зазначенням імені автора і джерела запозичення, допускається: (...) 6) доведення до загального відома публіки творів, побачених або почутих під час перебігу поточних подій з метою висвітлення таких подій, в обсязі, що відповідає інформаційній меті;), but this is no longer the event itself, but the time after the event, or even if during the event itself (but not according to the program of the event), when the photographer poses separately?

Please comment on the individual points below. Thank. --Микола Василечко (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Микола Василечко, your questions are very clear. In all three cases, we would need a permission from the artist. Merely posing or making available their work during an event is not sufficient. Also, the legal exception that you are quoting does not apply to Wikimedia Commons, but only to journalism. I am sorry that I have no "better" answer for you. Gnom (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom I know. But I wanted to clarify in order to have reasonable grounds to nominate these and other files for delete. Because uploaders obviously do not know or do not understand that they are infringing copyright. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also comment other user. And, are there any examples of other discussions on this questions? --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to upload some public documents that would add value to an existing wikipedia page. But I am stuck at the stage where I need to describe the license of documents. Because I don't know them. These documents were first published on a website; it was available to everyone to see/download. I downloaded them to my computer. After sometime, the website took those documents down, so it is no longer available. So, my intention is to make those public document accessible again to everyone by uploading them on a related wikipedia page. I am hoping that somebody can guide me how to upload the documents successfully. Thanks Tuxedo007 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some general advice, if you don't know the copyright status, don't upload it. Also publicly available doesn't mean public domain. Which country are these documents from? What is the nature of these documents? Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with User:Abzeronow. Try to get the original source of the documents and take it from there. Martinvl (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxedo007 what is the source of the files? If you provide it we could offer better advice, too. Bedivere (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or just link from here to the documents and someone can give you a more specific answer. But well over 95% of what is on the Internet is not eligible for Commons, because it is copyrighted and the copyright-holder does not offer a free license. Asking how you can license it legitimately is like asking how you can legitimately drive your neighbor's car. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a Myanmar public document based on this comment of Tuxedo007. Out of the COM:Myanmar I'm not sure documents of the general elections are in the public domain, but they might be ("procedures, rules, directives, notifications, explanations from a ministry, government organisation or regional or state government"). Bedivere (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for replying. Yes, the documents are detailed election results of 2020 Myanmar general elections. It shows number of votes that each candidate received at each constituency in both union-level and state-level elections. Those data were made publicly available by the then-Union Election Commission as part of their election result announcement procedure. It was available for anyone to view or download freely. As you might probably know, the military staged the coup on 1 February 2021 claiming that there was a voter fraud without any concrete evidence. But both international and local election observers recognized and acknowledged 2020 Myanmar general elections as free and fair and that the results represented the will of the people despite some historical legal shortcomings. Since the coup, the military has been systematically destroying evidence of 2020 election results. One of them is taking down those publicly available detailed election results of 2020 general elections. And, the junta also installed a new Union Election Commission handpicked by them. Fortunately, I managed to download those detailed election results before they were taken away. So, my intention is to make those public data publicly accessible again and to uphold the validity of 2020 Myanmar general elections. These detailed results will also add value to the existing wikipedia page on 2020 Myanmar general elections and anyone who is interested in studying Myanmar elections. Could you all please suggest me how I can go about this mission of upholding democracy and respecting the will of the people of Myanmar? Tuxedo007 (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would be fine as they are "procedures [...] from a [...] government organisation" as per COM:Myanmar. But I'd rather have you upload one of these files (elsewhere, like on Google Drive) and link it here so we can provide a better and final opinion. Bedivere (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Here is one of the documents that I like to upload on wikipedia. When I try to upload it on Commons, it asks me about the copy rights questions which I do not know how to answer. Thanks in advance! Tuxedo007 (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are in Burmese. Tuxedo007 (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow access to the file! Bedivere (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are 3D models of architecture created by someone else considered derivative works? And if so, can they be considered copyright violations if the buildings themselves are still under copyright(in cases where there is no FoP exception)? --Aristorkle (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least where the buildings themselves are stil protected, the model is a derivative work and therefore requires the permission of the original architect. Gnom (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

en:File:No name Brand Logo.svg

This file does not meet the threshold of originality in its country of origin or the United States AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AuroraANovaUma: Yes, this is fine on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marked Move to Commons template. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wir haben hier schon eine Entscheidung, die Datei zu behalten; aber ich kann sie nur bedingt nachvollziehen. Die Historie des Hochladers zeigt, dass da auch schon mal was gelöscht wurde - wohl auch wegen Copyright etc. Zweifel sind daher nicht ganz unbegründet bzw. das bei der Behaltensentscheidung vorgebrachte Vertrauen nicht bedenkenlos hinzunehmen. Siehe https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jakobo GerritR (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You began the discussion. The uploader responded the next day. The discussion was open for three months. You added nothing to your original statement. It's really a bit late to respond now. - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Für die Frage, ob man dem Hochlader bedenkenlos trauen kann, ist das aber ziemlich egal.--GerritR (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: you closed the discussion in question. Anything to say beyond what I said? (I take it GerritR did not contact you directly before discussing here.) - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geht es hier um das korrekte Benehmen von mir oder um die Sache?--GerritR (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not contacted. The uploader promptly answered that the work was their own work, and the uploader doesn't have a history of copyvio, and the drawing and text appear plausible as own works. I would need evidence that this is a copyvio. Abzeronow (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the proper licence in this case CC0 ? - All photographs (from 1920-1930) of the described collection do not have individual licence restrictions and the authors are unknown. The photo in question is item 29. The source page is sponsored by the Polish Ministry of Culture. Regards Henry39 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Poland}} is OK. Yann (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. Henry39 (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henry39: by the way, absolutely not CC-0. That means someone held a legitimate copyright and has explicitly granted a CC-0 license as a means of effectively releasing the content into the public domain. That does not fit any of the facts here. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought so but wanted to be sure. Thanks. Henry39 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Figure 1 image in the following webpage a Wikipedia image? (https://www.nataliescasebook.com/tag/cardiovascular-reflexes). I have tried to find out from the author of this article without success. If the image is a Wikipedia image, I would be grateful if you were able to please send me the webpage details on which it appears so that I may acknowledge its source in my work. Thank you for your assistance. Jennifer Jilowry (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It doesn't seem to be an image from Wikimedia Commons, but there is a copy on [1]. Yann (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt and helpful reply. 2001:8003:8403:1E00:D855:A09A:A777:2CD8 12:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was made aware of this issue through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oshi no Ko taxi head 20240810a.jpg. Category:Itasha has a red note warning not to upload photos from Japan showing artistic works ("unless they are old enough to be in the Public Domain", which I suppose will almost never be the case in this category). The deletion request was about a photo from Taiwan; per COM:FOP Taiwan, Taiwan also has no suitable freedom of panorama for artistic works in public spaces (on vehicles), so I deleted the photo. User:Solomon203 argued "no valid reason for deletion" referring to that category without further elaborating, but as I see it, the category is full of pictures that probably should have never beeen uploaded to Commons in the first place. Many of these are from Taiwan. I'm not hell-bent on deleting all these pictures, so I would welcome good arguments why we should be able to keep them, maybe Solomon203 can explain. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment {{Useful-object-US}}? Though, if their source country of origin against this, then we can nuke such images as they are not free outside of US. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Outside of US" is too broadly spoken. We need to assess the copyright status individually for every country, depending on their freedom of panorama regulations. For example, these Itasha pictures would probably be absolutely fine if taken in Germany, as Germany's Federal Court of Justice ruled in 2017 that works of art on means of transport that are visible for longer periods of time in public space (such as a cruise ship) are considered "permanently" located in public space, so freedom of panorama is applicable, if the cars are regularly used in public. {{Useful-object-US}} doesn't seem fitting to me for this case, neither in the US. This is about the objects as such. The small print in the template says "A two-dimensional painting, drawing, or graphic work is still capable of being identified as such when it is printed on or applied to utilitarian articles such as textile fabrics, wallpaper, containers, and the like". Gestumblindi (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buenas, administradores, la simbología Anti Comunismo esta en el Dominio Público como este simbolo? AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that symbol is below the threshold of originality. Gnom (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom:Osea {{PD-shape}}? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds good. (The original design is PD-old.) Gnom (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editors. I am currently creating an article about an art critic and I need to add some images, the problem is that all images except for one are protected by copyright. I have reached to a photographer that has several images belonging to him on Getty Images and I have asked him, through mail, for permission to use them on Wikipedia. He has said that I can use them, however, I have read somewhere that I need to prove that the owner granted the permission to use his photos. What should I do before uploading the images to Wikimedia Commons and putting them on the article? LIUCDigitalMaster33 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCDigitalMaster33: Hi, Please ask the photographer to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCDigitalMaster33: Permission to use on Wikipedia only is going to be insufficient for Commons' purposes, particularly if Getty Images is involved. What's going to be needed is for you to get the copyright holder's COM:CONSENT (or en:WP:CONSENT). Basically, the copyright holder is going to need to release their work under a license that's free enough to satisfy Commons:Licensing; any license that places restrictions on commercial reuse or derivative use is going to be too restrictive for Commons' purposes. The fact the photographer/copyright holder is involved with Getty most likely means their trying to make some money off their photos and also possibly limit how others may reuse them commercially; that's perfect fine when it comes to Getty, but they can't expect to do the same when it comes to Commons. Uploading their work to Commons or Wikipedia under an acceptable free license means they're agreeing to allow others to download their photos at any time for any purpose with only some basic restrictions in place; it doesn't mean they're giving up their copyright ownership over the photos, but it doesn't mean they're making their photos really easy to reuse without someone needing to ask separate permission each and every time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See related discussion: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/02#URAA on WWII photos of Nazi extermination camps

Currently there is uploaded many documents from Arolsen Archives (previously International Tracing Service - ITS) in Bad Arolsen, Germany - about Nazi collaborates and Nazi victims of World War II.

Thus, if I am not mistaken, this can be considered that these documents are in the public domain (with requirement on providing of Digital Document Number)? If I want to make a separated license marker template for this archive, do I need to rely on {{PD-GermanGov}} or {{PD-EU-anonymous}} or some other template? --Kaganer (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: @Gnom: pinging two of our German copyright experts. Abzeronow (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kaganer, we can actually ignore everything that any of the terms on the website are saying, and need to make our own individual assessment for each of the files that are being uploaded. This means that we need to individually determine the identity and life span of the photographer/author, or the duration of the statutory terms for any anonymous works. This is because the Arolsen Archives do not hold any own rights in their holdings. (I know it sounds a bit weird when I am telling you to actually ignore all the seemingly important legal texts on the website, but that's actually how copyright law works.) --Gnom (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my first day on Wikimedia Commons, this approach is familiar to me. When I said "archive documents", I mean questionnaire/recordsheets with or without personal photos. The photos in these documents are anonymous "document photos" (in 99% cases). We can further refine the wording so that it doesn't apply to other types of photos. So, I suggest that in this thread we do not individually determine the identity and life span of the photographer/author," and discuss the entire class of such documents. --Kaganer (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would help if we could pick two or three specific files that we should discuss here to avoid any misunderstandings. For example, File:Emmerich Wenger Dachau Arolsen Archives.jpg is {{PD-text}}. Gnom (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  #1 - Text only
• 
  #2 - Text with personal photo
• 
  #3 - personal photo only (cropped from #2)

--Kaganer (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. These documents may be created on territory of various contemporary countries, but firstly published in Bad Arolsen. --Kaganer (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get an opinion on a "restoration" copyright claim regarding File:Le Chaudron infernal (Georges Méliès, 1903).webm. The original is a 1903 hand colored film [2][3]. Our copy is a restored version, and according to This source link (see the last frame) there is a restoration copyright claim. I found This Commons discussion regarding film restoration and copyright, and according to the discussion, I very much doubt that there is much originality in our restored film, which means no copyright and public domain. I don't have much experience in copyright and hope someone with experience can opine on this. FYI, this came up in a featured picture nomination on English Wikipedia Here. Thanks. Bammesk (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]