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.

File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg

Hello,

this image, File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg, is declared as being in the public domain. But it does contain a derivative of a CC-by-SA 3.0 licensed work, File:中華民國第12、13任總統馬英九先生官方肖像照.jpg. I do not think that this mix-up is legally possible. Am I mistaken, or what kind of action is to be taken? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Grand-Duc, you are of course correct that we must honozr the CC license of the portrait when dealing with a derivative work such as this one (unless the portrait falls under de minimis, which I would say it doesn't). Accordingly, the photo should be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Gnom (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the photograph on the wall can be seen as de minimis, but dual licensing is fine as well. Saimmx (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia of India

Hi, I have noticed that some users uploaded insignia of India without information, or with {{PD-India}} without the date of the original. I don't see anything in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India which would indicate that these are in the public domain. I find that there is lack of evidence to be under these licenses:

Uploads by Adiiitya (see also my talk page).
File:Indian Armoured Corps Insignia (India).svg and some others by Jpgibert.

Opinions? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yann: I think DRs are in order. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to SVGs, the question is are they derivative of another graphic work -- the age of general design is not necessarily relevant (see Commons:Coats of arms). If they were copied/traced/extracted from existing drawings, then yes they are a problem, but a new drawing of a general design is often a separate expression of the idea, not a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check this image

and tell if it is licensed properly? The original design is linked in the description. Adiiitya (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notify Soap Boy 1 at the origin of my set of SVG indian insignias. Jpgibert (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these modern insignia are a different case than traditional coat of arms. A coat of arms is usually described by text, without a specific graphic representation, but this is not the case for these insignia, which are very similar if not identical copies on the official ones. Am I right? Yann (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no particular dates of insignias of regiments of the Indian Army but most of the insignias are directly derived from the regiments of the British Indian Army. When India became a republic in 1950, all the royal titles were removed from the name of the regiments and insignias with crown were also altered. Examples -

So most of the army insignias are from 1950 and over 60 years old, hence they are in public domain. Soap Boy 1 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture copyright Q: David Smith, Medals for Dishonor series

Looking for some assistance confirming the copyright status of several sculptures by American artist David Smith. These three sculptures, all owned by the Hirshhorn in DC, were completed in 1940 and do not have copyright notices. They are from Smith's series Medals for Dishonor, which includes 15 small relief medallion sculptures. But I'm a bit confused as to how to assess them as original works vs derivatives of an earlier work. Smith drew detailed sketches for each sculpture, then created dental plaster reverse molds which were used to create a set of master casts in plaster. He completed a bronze edition of the each work in the series in 1940, exhibited them at New York's Willard Gallery, and published a catalogue of the works. They were all subsequently shown in multiple museum settings without photography/copying restrictions in place over the next 10 years. (most of this background detail comes via an article in Art Journal [JSTOR 776184]). The artist's estate claims copyright, with licenses handled via ARS. I would think the works would be public domain, but I could easily be wrong. Any insights? Thanks all! 19h00s (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the sculptures were first displayed in the United States in 1940 without a copyright notice, then they are public domain. If there were previous works done in anticipation of a grand work the grand work would not be considered derivative of those works.

I don't know what to do about the artist's estate, if they make a big stink, even if it is technically Public Domain it might be a fight. 🤷🏼 Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 04:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this! And yeah, I always assume with situations like this that if the estate ever makes a big issue of it, I'd just let it go and allow deletion. Real bummer that even government museums just defer to what estates say and don't check their copyright math (but also that's a lot of labor so I can't be too mad) 19h00s (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Display may not be publication (allowing photography may make it publication). Does the 1940 catalog have a copyright notice? {{PD-US-no notice}}. Was there a renewal around 1968? {{PD-US-not renewed}}. COM:HIRTLE. Glrx (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the catalogue this week, a museum library close to me has a copy of the original from Willard Gallery. And I did find a single renewal for Smith, the catalogue of an exhibition held posthumously by Harvard's art museum (I'm very bad at using the card cat interface and am not sure how to link: time period: 1955-1970; drawer: Smith_Cotton-EC; card number: .0412). I'll check that catalogue as well to see if these sculptures were included (I think they were), but I assume that might impact their current status? 19h00s (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm weak on paintings and sculptures. I do not see a copyright notice on the front of the sculptures, but there might be one on the back. In addition, a nearby separate notice might be enough to claim the copyright (a local library used to show paintings with a nearby card stating the title, author, copyright, and price). If the catalog does not have a copyright notice, then that would be good evidence of publication without notice. Personally, I do not like that technical error losing a copyright, but I have no problem with a failure to renew after 28 years terminating a copyright. Glrx (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Glrx So! I made it to the library with a copy of the original (1940) catalogue published by Willard Gallery. There is no copyright notice located anywhere in the book (more like a pamphlet). But I think if anything the catalogue has just added more confusion for me haha.

Only two of the above sculptures are illustrated in the catalogue (Death by Gas and War Exempt). The third sculpture is listed and described, but with no accompanying image.

But the illustrations don't actually seem to be images of the sculptures themselves, but images of the detailed preparatory drawings. They look basically identical to the small relief sculptures, but they're the pencil/charcoal drawings that served as the model for each sculpture. Which brings me back to my earlier question about derivative works -- it would seem to me that the sculptures are in fact 3-d manifestations of the original drawings, which are visually identical to the final sculptures. The drawings were also sold and now belong to several museum and private collections. So, would the publication of the drawings without copyright notices in this book count as publication of the eventual sculptures, as the sculptures are 3-d copies of the drawings? Any insight welcome. 19h00s (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems messy. Even if the sculpture is a derivative work of the preparatory drawings, the sculpture would have its own copyright. Glrx (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the sculpture would have its own copyright" or, quite possibly under U.S. law from that period, no copyright at all. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on this? Not totally clear what technicality/chain of rules would have resulted in that. For context, these sculptures are medallion sized relief carvings - visually, they just comprise small carvings of the illustrations Smith made and published. Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot sorry forgot to @Jmabel 19h00s (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[I was a bit confused when I wrote the following but leaving it here for reference - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)][reply]

First a disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'm extrapolating from some legal advice I received around 1978 (so right around the time of the first of the major transitions of U.S. copyright law from then to 2003) about songs, rather than sculptures. I had copyrighted (with notice and registration) an unpublished collection of songs I'd written; later I published them, with some minor modifications. I was advised that because the first version had been unpublished and the second was published, any failure to "do it right" would put all rights at risk, because, despite my earlier registration without publishing, this could count as publication without notice.

I guess this is a little different, because those preliminary drawings were published, so the sculptures would almost certainly be defensible at least as derivatives of that earlier published work.

This probably calls for someone with more expertise than I have. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@19h00s: Still, a question: was that 1940 copyright renewed? Because, if not, as an extinct copyright it is probably not relevant. - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, I feel stupid but: you say the 1940 catalogue did not have notice. So certainly those prelimimary drawings are PD; being derivative from those is irrelevant. The sculpture either was properly copyrighted or it wasn't; and I get back to my "or… no copyright at all". I mean, it might have a separate lack of copyright… - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is super helpful, thank you! I'll try and find/make a scan of the 1940 catalogue, those illustrations are very useful at least, as are Smith's self-written captions for each image. To be quite honest, after staring at those illustrations for quite a while in my camera roll, I think half of them are in fact photographs of the sculptures and the other half are the final charcoal/pencil drawings. There's no real way to know for sure which is which so I'm gonna call that a dead end in terms of figuring out the sculptures' copyright. Will do some digging to find other early publication examples and see what trail of publication I can establish (have found at least one other catalogue - MoMA, 1957 - with no renewal that includes illustrations of two of the sculptures). Appreciate your help here! 19h00s (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ask some detail of Bild 183-14059-0018

(Copy from Help desk thread)

I am checking the copyright information of zh:檔案:Forth generals.jpeg on zh-wiki, but I have trouble checking the picture's detail. The picture was from Reddit. After searching, I got some info from Wikipedia for Schools. According to the site, the identifier is "Bild 183-14059-0018" by Bundesarchiv. However, when accessing the picture on the Commons, the picture was deleted. The deletion log says the picture's copyright holder is TASS instead of Bundesarchiv.

I can't access OTRS, so I want to know details - Is the zh-wiki picture "Bild 183-14059-0018"? What is the copyright status? I think the picture is now (2025) in public domain in Germany (or Russia?) and URAA-restored in the US, but I am not sure. Saimmx (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saimmx: I can't access OTRS, but I can confirm that it is the same photograph (possibly "enhanced" by AI). Because it is apparently a 1945 photo by Soviet news agency TASS, per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia#Durations the photo is probably in the public domain in Russia and also the US, with license tag {{PD-Russia-1996}}. (“The work is an information report (including photo report), which was created by an employee of TASS, ROSTA, or KarelfinTAG as part of that person’s official duties between July 10, 1925 and January 1, 1955, provided that it was first released in the stated period or was not released until August 3, 1993.”) Per the Bundesarchiv description, it was definitely released in 1985 on the 40 year anniversary, but that was most likely a re-release, and it is likely (I think) that the first release was in 1945. --Rosenzweig τ 07:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we undelete File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-14059-0018, Berlin, Oberbefehlshaber der vier Verbündeten.jpg under your statement? Saimmx (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it is on Commons now: File:Forth generals.jpeg. Yann (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. Saimmx (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air traffic control recordings & TOO

I've been editing 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision, and I've uploaded a short sample of the air traffic control audio. I found the original version, and my question is whether the recordings are considered creative works. ATC jargon has very little creativity, but perhaps it's enough. Thoughts? JayCubby (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the recording itself may be copyrighted. Sound recordings in the US are presumed copyrighted. The transcription may be PD. Bedivere (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ATC and military are federal employees, so what they say is probably PD. What the private citizen / pilot says is not clear to me. Glrx (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an aviation staff, but if ATC pilots must follow standardised procedures to describe their situation in recordings, I don't see there will be any creativity or originality in it because every person with following procedures will report almost the same thing. For other people, I mean, if we believe people chatting in terminal is not copyrighted, I don't think people chatting in aeroplanes is copyrighted, either. Saimmx (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to indicate my institution allows use of this image

The image is available in an archive maintained by the institution and use is granted on a web page stating this fact. How do I add this information to wiki commons>? CPViolation (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CPViolation: Could you be more specific? What institution, where is the image hosted, where is the web page stating that the image is available (and under what license)? - Jmabel ! talk 23:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have it fixed. See File:StuartJayFreedman.jpg in wiki commons. Also File:Ghtrilling.jpg and File:JDJ-LBL.jpg. For all three I have given the original file and the URL for the general permission granted by the institution. CPViolation (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CPViolation: I fixed your links here and on the file pages. The page you cite says, "You may use the Image solely for your own non-commercial purposes" and no free license is provided. What is your basis to think these are available under some free license acceptable to Commmons? What license would that be? - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will inquire of the institution (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) regarding free license. CPViolation (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My institution, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is now addressing this issue and will inform me (soon, I think) about their revised policy. I will keep you informed. CPViolation (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manuel "Wowo" L. Fortes, Jr..jpg

File:Manuel "Wowo" L. Fortes, Jr..jpg was originally uploaded without a source under a questionable claim of "own work"; so, I tagged the file for deletion per COM:F5 and notified the uploader of this. An IP address (could be the uploader) just add a URL to an official website of the Philippine government where the image can be seen. Is it OK to relicense this file as {{PD-PhilippineGov}} and replace the "own work" claim with information about the government website per COM:GVT Philippines or is copyright holder consent verification still needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I don't know much about the details of Philippine copyright law, but if inclusion in that gov.ph page is sufficient for us to know that license applies, then absolutely it is OK to make the correction. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Udacity Logo 2024.png

File:Udacity Logo 2024.png is most likely not the uploader's own work as is being claimed, but it's possibly OK as {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO US given that en:Udacity is a US company based out of California, but would like some other opinions. Is the "U" of any concern here? If it is, then en:File:Udacity logo.png uploaded locally to English Wikipedia would also have the same issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file seems fine to me. The U is just a few lines. It is definitely trademarked, but trademarks are allowed here. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LAPD Critical Incident Video Releases

Many, if not all, of the LAPD's Critical Incident Video Releases use Google Maps satalite imagery (like in this one at 1:39). Of course, the video itself is in PD but the map isn't. How should we proceed? I think deleting all files is a bit overkill. I don't know how many of these we have uploaded, but I think there are a few. // Kakan spelar (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI tools?

Is it acceptable to use AI tools to enhance image quality, particularly when the image is blurry, or does this change the integrity of the original content? Lililolol (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI enhancements should be clearly marked as such and uploaded as a separate file to the non-AI enhanced version. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But please note: "Enhancements" on raster graphics (JPEG, PNG, TIFF...) are mostly never possible, be it by AI, classic software or humans, on technological grounds. Blurriness, lack of sharpness and noise must be fixed or avoided BEFORE saving the image to a media. If your image is already noisy or unsharp, then no tool can fix that. You can only fake the appearance, by sharpness filters (unsharp masking, highpass filtering, or the "Clarity" filter in Adobe Camera raw) or by downscaling so that the lack of sharpness becomes less apparent. Sharpness is represented by rapid and small sized contrast changes where the photographed objects do have actual limits or borders. Unsharpness happens when these contrast changes are expanded over more pixels or image areas than necessary or possible. AI tools tend to invent image data that was not there beforehand, that's why these tools do not improve anything. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altamaha

Some times ago my Altamaha.jpg file was deleted because it was too similar to a copyrighted version (here). What about this?-- Carnby (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnby: there was never a File:Altamaha.jpg (and certainly not a Altamaha.jpg, so it is hard to guess what file you are referring to. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel Sorry, it was File:Altamaha-ha.jpg.-- Carnby (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnby: OK, I can see that now, but still not the static.wikia... etc. image. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I click https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/non-aliencreatures/images/f/f1/Altamaha-ha.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20101207104459 I get what seems to be a standard "picture not available" graphic. - Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel The deleted picture was this.-- Carnby (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all I get there is a "picture not available" graphic. Is it the same image shown at https://cryptid-that-you-saw.fandom.com/wiki/Altamaha-Ha?file=Altamaha-Ha.png ? The third image you show is probably a copyright violation of that one. It is almost impossible to imagine that someone drew the postimg.cc one with any other reference than the fandom one, and there is little to distinguish it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel Recap:

Is the second version by me still a copyright infringement of the original image?-- Carnby (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so. If I were the author of the first, I'd certainly consider it to be infringing. But other opinions here are more than welcome. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Самолёт ТУ-104 на площади Новаторов в Рязани

Здравствуйте, пожалуйста подскажите, является ли данное изображение защищённым авторскими правами? (вот сайт с этим изображением) Hello, please tell me if this image is copyright protected? (here is the site with this image) Стыкалин Александр (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Стыкалин Александр: I see absolutely no reason to think it wouldn't be copyright-protected, and no reason at all to think it would be free-licensed. Is there anything you are seeing that gives you any reason to think otherwise? - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. According to this website the photo was the motive of a 1989 postcard. Meaning it's a fairly recent photo. Hardly any chance that it is in the public domain. Nakonana (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

С помощью Google я посмотрел информацию о фотографиях найденных по заданному мной запросу. Именно там я нашёл эту фотографию. Далее я с помощью Инструментов стал проводить Поиск по лицензии. Запрос остался тот же. В итоге ни по лицензии Creative Commons, ни по другим лицензиям не выставлено этой фотографии. Был бы рад прикрепить скриншоты, но к сожалению я этого сделать не могу. Вы можете сами проверить вышеописанное, введя в поисковую строку Google "ту 104 на новаторов рязань", и действуя далее, как действовал я. Пожалуйста ответьте, можно ли после проведения такой импровизированной экспертизы считать, что фото можно загрузить в Викисклад?

Using Google, I looked up information about the photographs found for the query I asked. That's where I found this photo. Next, I started searching by license using Tools. The request remained the same. As a result, this photo is not available under Creative Commons or other licenses. I would be glad to attach screenshots, but unfortunately I cannot do this. You can check the above for yourself by entering “that 104 on innovators Ryazan” into the Google search bar, and proceeding further as I did. Please answer, is it possible after such an impromptu examination to consider that the photo can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? Стыкалин Александр (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Нет в таком случае к сожалению нельзя загружать фотографию Викисклад. Чтобы загрузить фотографию в Викисклад, необходимо, чтобы она была явно опубликована по лицензии Creative Commons или находилась в общественном достоянии. Если невозможно найти такое явное заявление о лицензии, следует предположить, что фотография защищена авторским правом и, следовательно, не может быть загружена. Nakonana (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Это, конечно, печально, но спасибо за объяснение.

This is, of course, sad, but thanks for the explanation.

Стыкалин Александр (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template for US graffiti

It seems the US jurisprudence does not recognize graffiti as legal and copyrightable works. Per Carlisle (2022), two existing case: Cohen, et al v. G&M Realty L.P. (case in New York) and Canilao v. City Commercial Investments, LLC. (2022 case in California) solidified the US perspective on non-recognition of protection for graffiti.

Therefore, would it be wise to suggest creation of {{PD-US-graffiti}}? The template will cite these two court rulings as bases (plus links to articles like the one I gave here), as proofs that such works are indeed in public domain. A separate category can automatically be added courtesy of the template, so that in the event US courts go crazy and submit themselves to the desires of Revok et. al., we can nominate all images (including restored ones) for deletion at once.

Some files at Category:United States FOP cases/deleted may be restored in this case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those cases address the copyright of illegal graffiti. Those were both legally-painted murals, so had a copyright, but the cases were about VARA rights (a form of "moral rights" in the US) where artists might be able to prevent destruction of the work. One did not, and one ... might have not but the owner destroyed the works (had them whitewashed during court proceedings) without giving the artists the opportunity to save them, as hard as it may have been (murals on a building). That act was the one which ultimately violated the law. The illegality of an installation has also been shown in court to prevent normal VARA rights, but none of these really address the question of the regular copyright. Legally painted stuff has a normal copyright, which was the case in both of these. VARA rights are not an issue for Commons at all, so these are not at all relevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible good addition to COM:DM United States

HBO Wins Copyright Infringement Case Over Graffiti Artist Relying On The De Minimis Copyright Exception (by Krista Cox, dated May 2018)

The artist's copyright lawsuit vs. HBO was thrown out of the court, since the graffito that was included in an episode of Vinyl:

only appeared as a "fleeting shot of barely visible graffiti painted on what appears to be a dumpster in the background of a single scene";
only appeared for no more than 2–3 seconds;
"is not pictured by itself or close-up";
had no role in the plot; and
"is hard enough to notice when the video is paused at the critical moment. It is next to impossible to notice when viewing the episode in real time."

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 20:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article further adds:

Examples of court opinions upholding the de minimis use of copyrighted materials abound, often highlighted in uses by the art and entertainment industry. The court in Gayle v. HBO extensively cites Gottlieb Dev. LLC v. Paramount Pictures Corp, a case involving an infringement suit for the depiction of a pinball machine in a particular scene in the 2000 rom-com, What Women Want, featuring Mel Gibson. Similarly, a case brought against the 1995 crime thriller, SE7EN, featuring Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, resulted in a court finding that the use of copyrighted photos that appeared fleetingly and out of focus was de minimis and not liable for copyright infringement.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 20:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gottlieb decision cited repeatedly in the ruling ([1]) would probably be a better addition, as it deals with a less definitive case. Omphalographer (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an obvious decision. It's interesting that one of the factors was that the graffiti didn't have a role in the plot though. I wonder how much weight that was given versus the other points. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that cases involving video are less interesting for us; we are much more interested in cases dealing with photography. Gnom (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom I think one factor that is of relevance for us is the court's opinion if the video is paused (since it is analogous to a still image). Applying the Gayle decision for us, a copyrighted work in a still image (for example, the paused part of a video) is de minimis if it is barely noticeable for the viewer.

The excerpt of the Gottlieb decision mentioned in the Gayle ruling:

The scene in question lasts only three-and-a-half minutes, and the [machine] appears in the scene sporadically, for no more than a few seconds at a time. More importantly, the pinball machine is always in the background; it is never seen in the foreground. It never appears by itself or in a close-up. It is never mentioned and plays no role in the plot. It is almost always partially obscured (by Gibson and pieces of furniture), and is fully visible for only a few seconds during the entire scene. The Designs (on the backglass and playfield of the pinball machine) are never fully visible and are either out of focus or obscured. Indeed, an average observer would not recognize the Designs as anything other than generic designs in a pinball machine.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this – the quote talks at length about the duration for which the work is visible, a criterion that cannot be used in still photographs. --Gnom (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom how about the fifth thing mentioned by Gayle decision? It can apply to still images; the judge discussed the de minimis applicability for the paused scene: the graffito on dumpster "is hard enough to [be] notice[d] when the video is paused at the critical moment." It may be a narrow criterion for DM in still images like paused scenes of videos, though. A work should not be noticeable in paused scenes, which can be extended to still images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this sentence is of course notable, but the usage of the protected work remains one in a film, not in a still photograph, which we need to keep in mind when reading and applying this case as a precedent. Gnom (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By logic, a still image and a paused video shot are identical. A paused video is a still image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course correct. However, the judge was not asked to decide a case about a still photograph, or a still image. The case (only) dealt with a video. Therefore, any part of the judgment talking about still images needs to be seen in the context of a video being the subject of the lawsuit. I am only concerned about our discussion not missing this critical information. Gnom (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to use a copyrighted picture under exceptions

I have noticed that copyrighted material may be used under strict/limited and specific conditions, i.e., the photo of a person (portrait style) must be used for identification purposes and be of low resolution. Is this correct? If so, what is an acceptable low enough resolution? Are there any other restrictions that I need to be aware of? Is there a wiki page that contains this information (from a quick google search I could not find the relevant info). Please note that I do not frequently upload pictures/photos so I am asking for help to make sure I am doing things right (which label to use etc). Specifically, I am interested in one of these photos [2] [3] to use to identify George Koskotas since is no picture on Wiki-Commons. Thank you in advance.A.Cython (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to speak about "fair use". "Fair use" is not allowed at Commons at all. However some projects have a rule, that allows and describes "fair use" in that project. One of these is the english language wikipedia. You should find the information you are asking for at the english language wikipedia if you search there for "fair use". C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, en-wiki's preferred term is "non-free use". Pinging @A.Cython en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. - Jmabel ! talk 05:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest to type entry policy there is en:WP:F AKA en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! This was very useful. A.Cython (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stadeln_Wappen_2024.svg und File:Wappen Stadeln.png

In beiden Fällen hege ich den Verdacht, dass es sich nicht um offizielle Gemeindewappen, sondern um Erfindungen jüngeren Datums ohne offiziellen Charakter handelt. Die Schöpfungshöhe ist m. E. gegeben, somit gilt Urheberrecht. Die bei einer der beiden Dateien bereits abgeschlossene LD ist vermutlich falsch entschieden worden, siehe Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stadeln Wappen 2024.svg GerritR (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hier ist das Alter egal, wenn es sich um ein offizielles Gemeindewappen handelt; der korrekte Lizenzbaustein ist dann {{PD-Coa-Germany}}. Gnom (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bezweifle aber, dass es sich um offizielle Wappen handelt. ich vermute PR-Wappen, die wie Logos zu behandeln sind. GerritR (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gem. [4] wurde das Wappen 1963 verliehen und ist anscheinend auch im Werk Stadler, K. : Deutsche Wappen - Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Angelsachsen Verlag, 1964-1971, 8 Bände, enthalten. Aus diesem Werk dürfte auch ngw.nl seine Grafik haben, so war es zumindest in diversen anderen Fällen. Stadeln war 1963 noch eine eigene Gemeinde. --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory

Can someone explain how an explicit copyright statement and an "all rights reserved" go together with a CC 1.0 license ("no copyright", work dedicated to public domain)? I don't get this. --2003:C0:8F34:BD00:49D6:E4D9:E9EC:DD8 23:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has a VRT permission ticket @Martin Urbanec: . The VRT permission is more important than the metadata. Abzeronow (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. But I have also seen a number of VRT permission tickets in the past that the copyright holder knew nothing about. I hope that this one is based on communication with the copyright holder and not on communication with the paid editor of the image subject. --2003:C0:8F34:BD00:49D6:E4D9:E9EC:DD8 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a VRT member, but that seems kind of implausible because VRT is only supposed to verify a license if it receives a COM:CONSENT email from the copyright holder or someone officially authorized by the copyright holder to act in their stead. Of course, a mistake isn't out of the question, but it seems such a mistake would most likely be on the copyright holder's end, e.g. they misunderstood what releasing their work under a COM:CC license meant and wanted to undo what was done on their behalf. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, if you have an issue about VRT, please bring it to Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. No one but VRT members can see VRT tickets, so anyone else trying to tell you what happened is guaranteed to be just guessing. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Antiguo Rutaca Airlines

Buenas ,se puede publicar el logo antiguo de Rutaca Airlines como este (https://vectorseek.com/vector_logo/rutaca-airlines-logo-vector/) si el logo es simple se puede publicar con {{PD-textlogo}}? AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22: No estoy suficientemente familiarizado con la ley venezolana como para decirlo; seguramente Vd. debería estar más familiarizado con eso que yo después de subir tantos logos venezolanos. No hay ningún problema desde el lado estadounidense. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel:Que dice la ley estadounidense este logo de Rutaca Airlines es simple? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh (again)

Continuing the discussion from here and here. Pinging @User:JWilz12345.

In our previous discussion, @User:JWilz12345 mentioned a Daily Star article from Mar 29, 2024. Our team took time to take professional legal opinion. We found out that the author of the mentioned article, now a lecturer in law and justice at a university, is connected to our Wikimedia and open source network. Our team showed him the previous onwiki discussion and requested to clarify the current law. In response to our request, he published another column solely focusing on the FoP in Bangladesh. We can probably restart the discussion from here.

He is not a wikimedian and I'm afraid he might not be comfortable in mediawiki syntax and replying here. But our team can forward the questions to him that will be raised here and take his opinion. He is also available over email, not mentioning the adrress here to avoid spambots - not sure how the email discussion can be coordinated with this thread in that case. -- Mrb Rafi (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrb Rafi as I understand the article, we may need to rely on court decisions to confirm if Bangladeshi FoP remains valid after it was removed from the law. That may not be reliable for Wikimedia Commons, unfortunately. Since the law has been patterned after US fair use system, we can assume that the Bangladeshi courts will rule similarly to the US jurisprudence. US does have existing court casefiles concerning uses of copyrighted works: for some like Leicester v. Warner Bros., free use of architecture and architectural elements (like sculptures that serve as décors of the original architectures) do not constitute copyright infringement, but that is because the US law does contain a broad exception for buildings – Sec. 120(a) of the US Copyright Act, as amended and codified by Title 17 US Code. For some reason, the Bangladeshi legislators did not adopt this provision for free uses of buildings. Other US casefiles are less lenient for the public: there exists Gaylord v. United States, in which the US Postal Service's free use of Washington DC's Korean War Veterans Memorial in their 2003 commemorative stamps was found to have infringed the sculptor's copyright, and the courts there denied fair use defense by USPS (since any lucrative use is not fair use).

Assuming the Bangladeshi courts will adopt fair use doctrine in judging cases concerning free uses of buildings and monuments in Bangladesh, we hope that Bangladeshi courts will judge that free uses are "fair", but as we have seen in several US casefiles (Gaylord v. United States; Davidson v. United States, the cases concerning Wall Street Bull in New York, and the infamous Kapoor vs. National Rifle Association concerning Cloud Gate), I may expect that Bangladeshi courts will rule any lucrative use of copyrighted buildings and monuments as not fair use.

Files on Wikimedia Commons are licensed under commercial-type licensing. {{CC-BY}}, {{CC-BY-SA}}, {{CC-zero}}, and {{PD-user}} are all commercial-type licenses. If the Bangladeshi courts will rule free uses of copyrighted Bangladeshi monuments and architecture as not fair use (which I assume the most likely), then all post-September 2023 freely-licensed images are all infringements and must be deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diario VI Región

Hello there. I am a bit doubtful about this one. The Diario VI Región of San Fernando, Chile, does not have a copyright notice in their editions. It rather states: "Se autoriza la reproducción total o parcial de la información de este medio, escrita o visual, indicando la fuente", which translates as "The partial or total reproduction of the information of this newspaper, be it written or visual, is authorized, as long as the source is credited". To me that seems a clear copyleft notice, but I want to be sure it could eventually be uploaded here. See for instance, page 2 of the 1 February edition [5] Bedivere (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: Yes, that sounds like a clear {{Attribution only license}}. We might want to make up a specific template for that source, with that template making use of {{Attribution only license}} with the correct parameters.

FWIW, nowadays in virtually every country of the world, absence of an explicit copyright notice means nothing. In all signatories of the Berne Convention, which is now close to universal, work is automatically copyrighted on creation. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Jmabel. Yeah, I just noted the absence of a copyright notice ("all rights reserved" or the like) in light of the very evident copyleft notice. Have a great day! I will restore the template and previously deleted files accordingly. Bedivere (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:London Square - Caledonian Road.jpg

Are artifically generated images allowed on Commons? I am sure this was created by the user as part of their work for the property developer in question. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine: There is no blanket ban on AI-generated images, though (1) they must be identified as such and (2) most are out of scope. In most countries, the visual (or textual) product of generative AI is in the public domain, except insofar as it infringes someone else's copyrights as derivative work.

If this is a rendering from a CAD system, there is certainly no problem with that as such, and my remark above about public domain would not apply. In copyright terms, there is not a lot of difference between making a drawing by hand and making a model in a CAD system and then rendering it.

The one question I would have is whether this individual retains copyright over a rendering that they presumably did in a work-for-hire context. - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Short TV advertisements

This webpage (and 17 U.S.C. § 202(c)(8)(ii)) say(s) that short (i.e. 60 seconds or less) television advertisements/commercials do not need to display copyright notices to the general public, just to the broadcaster (after December 1, 1981, anyway). While this does seem to be correct, I want to make sure my understanding is correct; this may very well end up affecting certain commercials that have been uploaded on this basis (such as the Energizer Bunny's debut). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a Bolivia tea product label

Can someone tell me if I can upload this photo I took of a product? As the photo content is mostly showing the product label, it makes me quite unsure.

Windsor-Mate-Coca-Bolivia-tea.jpg

Thanks! -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that nearly everything of interest there comes from content copyrighted by someone else. I don't see how that can be anything but a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Daewoo Electronics

Buenas, se puede publicar el logo de Daewoo como este ,si el logo es simple se puede publicar con {{PD-textlogo}}?? (Daewoo fue creado en Corea del Sur). AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue Taiwan and possible copyright washing

Vogue Taiwan publishes videos on YouTube under a CC-BY license and English Wikipedia editors have been posting screenshots of those videos under those auspices. The problem is that many (if not all) of these videos have first been published on the Vogue YouTube page as all rights reserved. Commons has been lax in the past regarding these, although I think the discussions haven't gone through enough scrutiny (yes, I was involved in a later delete). I think we need to make an official decision. Are the editors at the Vogue Taiwan YouTube site copyright-washing, since Condé Nast is clearly not releasing them. or is the release legitimate since they are a subsidiary of Condé Nast?

Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging people involved in the previous discussions: @Verbcatcher, @Bettydaisies, @P99, @The Squirrel Conspiracy, @Krd, @Brainulator9, @King of Hearts, @RevengerTime, @Günther Frager, @1989, @Rangel's Version, @TheLoyalOrder, @Aafi, @Adry9509, @Tanbiruzzaman, @Bjh21, @Nakonana. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I got a 3 day block over a CSD tag on this topic, so clarification would be nice. Definitely my fault, but clarity would be nice. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to ping @GRuban: as well who helped develop the consensus for the images over at enwiki. PHShanghai (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for the list: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kourtney Kardashian 2019.jpg - Deleted. --bjh21 (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Delete them all, per my rationale in the first nomination. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

just adding there's a whole category of potential images to delete Category:Screenshot images from VOGUE Taiwan YouTube account TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be very cautious not to delete any image which originated on the Vogue Taiwan YouTube page. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 04:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be underestimating the amount of work deleting 100+ images is going to take, especially spread across multiple A-list BLPs. If a deletion happens, there has to be a process for replacing all of the lead articles affected so they don't just end up red links. PHShanghai (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost certainly some kind of mistake on Vogue Taiwan's part, there's no way Condé wants their content licensed like that (as evidenced by the numerous other listings of the same content with broad restrictions). OR, it's a very smart marketing move by a savvy digital editor at Vogue Taiwan who realized releasing images of celebrities under CC licenses would inevitably mean stills from their content would be the default images for those celebrities on the internet once celebrity-oriented Wikipedia editors spotted the videos as ostensibly eligible for use on Commons. But either way, it doesn't seem like a legit license for the content. 19h00s (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Bedivere as he was involved. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 02:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I had to look up what exactly happened back in June [6]. So yeah, I might have been wrong on that one, or maybe not, who knows, after all Vogue Taiwan is owned by Condé Nast. Maybe asking them would clear up many things. Bedivere (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion also happened at enwiki, over here PHShanghai (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just think about this for a moment- is Conde Nast as a company so incompetent that it cannot see one of their official subsidiaries has been publishing celeb content under CC for 6-7+ years now? To the point where even content of one of their biggest executives is also released as CC-BY? To have a CC license on *one* official video might be a mistake. To have a CC license on hundreds of videos spanning more than six to seven years is clearly not a mistake on Conde Nast's part. This is precautionary principle for the sake of precautionary principle.

Are we also implying that not a single person from Conde Nast corporate has ever visited a Wikipedia article as research for a video, let alone Wikipedia articles of some of the most famous people in the world, like Billie Eilish, Adele, Kendall Jenner, and Ariana Grande? I agree with Bedivere on asking Vogue Taiwan themselves as an explanation. But Wikipedians speculating that the biggest conglomerates in fashion have zero control over the release of their own content is speculatory at best. PHShanghai (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CN and their subsidiaries have indeed made mistakes of this magnitude in the past. I would strongly caution against discounting human error as the source of this licensing choice until it can be proven that the licensing is correct. Just because a company is large & long-lasting does not mean they don't make huge mistakes that can be overlooked for quite a while. And sure, if someone wants to reach out to Condé, more power to them, but I can imagine that probably won't produce a satisfying reply. 19h00s (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@19h00s: The issue is not whether it is a mistake, but whether the license is valid. Speculating over the marketing strategy of some company is IMO complete nonsense. It is not for us to decide if the free license is intended or not. There is still a free license on YT, so how can you say it is not valid? Saying that a free license posted by a big company is not valid is undermining the very concept of a free license. So a free license by a small company is OK, but by a big company, it would not be? Yann (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can say it is invalid because Vogue Taiwan does not have the legal authority to release that content under those licenses; they do not own the content, Condé Nast does, and if Condé is not allowing other subsidiaries to release the same content under CC licenses, then why in the world would they want Vogue Taiwan to do it? I think editors on Commons put way too much stock into the choices digital editors at publications/organizations make when they upload content to third-party sites; there's literally no way to know if the license choice was made by a staffer who didn't know better or due to the company's actual policy of CC licensing. Regardless of how y'all feel about my conjecture re: the possible aims of whomever chose that license, I don't think it's responsible to trust the CC licenses when there are multiple examples of the same content being uploaded by other Condé entities without free licenses. 19h00s (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Vogue Taiwan does not have the legal authority to release that content under those licenses" "Condé is not allowing other subsidiaries to release the same content under CC licenses" What evidence is there for these statements? How do we know they don't give the right to all subsidiaries to release as CC and only Vogue Taiwan chooses to do it, or the contract for Vogue Taiwan is different for some reason, especially if these videos have had the license for years?

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 13:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm done here tbh. Sent an email to Condé's licensing team, will update if I hear anything. But I don't really feel like getting into a deep argument about the nature of corporate subsidiaries and media conglomerates. 19h00s (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging that it appears at least two of the videos referenced in the first deletion requests listed above have now been changed to NOT include a CC license. No response yet from Condé but I included a link to this thread in my message, so those would have been the first examples they saw if they checked out this conversation. But I have not been following this for very long, so I don't know whether the disappearance of those CC licenses happened before today or if the licenses are just being hidden from view (tried in several browsers to make sure I wasn't missing them somewhere).

Live link for Kendall Jenner video (no license listed, default to standard YouTube license), vs Archived link for Kendall Jenner video (CC license)
Live link for Cindy Crawford/Kaia Gerber video (no license listed, default to standard YouTube license). Wayback Machine didn't archive but clearly it used to have a CC license visible if it was uploaded here.

19h00s (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to here an example of a mistake of this magnitude on Conde Nast's part, purely out of curiousity. Human error is a problem yes but "human error" across hundreds of videos for 6-7 years is a clear systemic issue on CN's part if this is a mistake by the uploaders on the VT youtube channel. PHShanghai (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not interested in delving into a debate over the technicalities here, and tbh there's more than enough info on Condé's various mistakes in a basic Google search. I emailed CN's licensing team and added an update based on what seems to be a change to the licensing in the two videos I linked above. If I see another update to a license or hear from Condé, I'll circle back. Otherwise, I leave it to other editors and advice from WMF. Enjoy your weekend! 19h00s (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agree with PHShanghai, Yann, and everyone else. When an agent of Condé Nast puts a license on a video owned by Condé Nast, we should take their word for it. That's called Apparent authority: "a situation where a reasonable third party would understand that an agent had authority to act". https://www.youtube.com/@voguetvtaiwan has 1.14M subscribers, and 10K videos, this is not a small channel that no one has noticed. They've been licensing videos this way for years, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KH9gcoV8u4 is one from 5 years ago, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I2ZmpJ8DO0 is one from 3 days ago. This is not just a mistake that might have slipped through. They're not all indiscriminately licensed Creative Commons either, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIICchcwZdg, 1 day ago, isn't. Every sign points to this being both intentional and authorized.

We are at a busy intersection. The official crossing signal above the crosswalk says "WALK". We should walk. "But the signal could be broken." "The signal could have been put up in error." "The signal could have been forged and put up by a troll." "The signal was put up by the town Public Works Department, and intersections are under the jurisdiction of the town Traffic department." "Another intersection on this same street doesn't have a signal, or it isn't saying WALK, so this one must be wrong." Yes, all these things are possible. (The sun might not rise in the morning; there could be an eclipse. The most powerful country in the world dedicated to the rule of law might elect a recently convicted felon to lead it. Naah, that last one is just ridiculous!). But they aren't reasonable. We can't live by assuming that everyone is either evil or an idiot, only that some people are. We need to take reasonable care, but this is beyond that. Sure, feel to write for clarification. But they put up the sign, it's a very clear sign, it's not drawn on a piece of cardboard with a crayon, and they have the authority to put it up; so until we actually have clear evidence that the crossing signal is broken, we should walk. --GRuban (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have asked Joe Sutherland from WMF. Yann (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly put. And very funny poignant commentary. PHShanghai (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status for contents of U.S. newspapers

Kieronoldham, Counterfeit Purses, RAN and others are currently trying to sort out the correct copyright status on some uploads by Kieronoldham. Let me preface this by saying that Kieronoldham's intentions have clearly been entirely good, but that they uploaded a lot of content from U.S. newspapers without being sufficiently diligent about for checking thoroughly for copyright notices (not that they did nothing, but they didn't do enough); also that among the people working on sorting this out we don't really have a clear consensus on the interaction between wire service (especially AP) copyrights and what happens when a newspaper with no copyright notice prints a wire service image.

Prior discussions: User talk:Kieronoldham#Question about your uploads (permalink), Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Kieronoldham's "public domain" uploads (permalink).

We are concerned here only with U.S. copyright. I'm writing this as mix of statements and questions; sorry if this is confusing but consider the statements all to be implicit questions (i.e. someone should speak up if they think I got something wrong).

Anything initially published in the U.S. before 1930 is now in the public domain.
Anything initially published in the U.S. 1930-1963 but where copyright was not renewed is now in the public domain.
- Few newspapers renewed their copyrights, but if the work was initially copyrighted in this period, then in order to claim that it fell into the public domain we do need to demonstrate that it was not renewed.
In general, publication without copyright notice in the U.S. before 1978 placed the work in question in the public domain. Ditto through 28 February 1989 unless there was subsequent registration within 5 years.
Few, if any, newspapers took advantage of that option of subsequent registration but, again, if we are relying on lack of notice during this period we need to establish non-registration.
To establish whether a newspaper article had a relevant copyright notice it should suffice to examine the page with the article plus page 1, page 2, the last page, and the editorial page. There is no need to examine every single page of the paper. If there is a masthead, it will be in one of those locations, and pretty reliably a copyright notice will be either on page 1 or on the masthead.
If the content was original to that newspaper, the considerations above suffice. If the newspaper was always in, or has fallen into, the public domain, then all of its original content is in the public domain. This would include even, for example, previously unpublished family or school photos of a crime victim.
What is less clear, at least to me, is the status of wire service material. (Let's keep this to AP; the issue would presumably be analogous for UPI, Reuters, etc., but please say if something would have been different.) Assuming that first publication consisted of AP sending our a wire service photo, and that AP used appropriate copyright notices when doing so, what is the situation that arises when a newspaper then published that photo and did not do what they needed to retain copyright?
- Scenario A (I think this is what Counterfeit Purses is arguing, but they can correct me if I'm wrong: the publication without notice by the newspaper without notice (or no renewal, or no registration; I'll stop reiterating that) is completely irrelevant: AP's copyright remained intact.
- Scenario B (what I thought coming into this, but I'm not confident): there's no problem reprinting the entire page from the newspaper that published without notice, but cropping out just the photo might violate an existing copyright. I'm completely uncertain about the status of re-publishing the wire service story, with picture, but without the rest of the page.
- Scenario C (I think this is what RAN is saying, but again they can correct me if I'm wrong):
  - Most AP content was never copyrighted in the first place
  - For content that was copyrighted, they wouldn't have lost that copyright if the occasional newspaper slipped up a few times in terms of copyright notice, but tolerating any newspaper doing this repeatedly over time means they lost their copyright.
- Does it matter in any scenario whether copyright existed initially and was lost due to non-renewal vs. if the newspaper was never copyrighted in the first place? It doesn't seem likely to me that AP would have been expected to police copyright renewals by each newspaper that used its materials.

I think that's it. I know it's a lot. - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also ATTN: @Yann. - Jmabel ! talk 22:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping track of what newspapers had a copyright notice in the masthead and which ones did not will save a lot of time in the future since it is so time consuming to search and requires a paid subscription. See: Category:Lincoln Journal Star for one that was part of this week's discussion. Maybe we can have a formal template that harmonizes the wording. I have also been doing the same for publicity images from TV and movie studios to try and nail down a date for when a copyright notice was in place or was not in place. --RAN (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Scenario C here. The Copyright Office Reference Guide says https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap2200/ch2200-notice.pdf "Prior to March 1, 1989, when a copyrighted work was published with the authority of the copyright owner in the United States or elsewhere, the copyright law generally required that a notice be placed “on all publicly distributed copies from which the work can be visually perceived.”". It gives some exceptions for 1978 on, but if you dig around, you'll find the older rules tacked on as Appendix A: https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap2100/doc/appendixA-noticerequirements.pdf for pre-1978 works. It says

a. If the Office is informed that the great bulk of the published copies of a work bore an appropriate notice, but that the notice was accidentally omitted from a very few of the published copies, registration may be made. In such cases, if the deposit copies do not bear the notice, copies with the notice will be requested.

b. If a considerable number of copies have been published without notice, registration will be denied.

c. If the entire first edition of a work was published without notice, registration will be denied even if the first edition consisted of a relatively small number of copies.

There's no way that "one single newspaper" counts as "the great bulk". Even if the AP is the "first publisher", it seems clear that all the published copies count, not just the first edition, and these were generally published within 30 days of each other, which is usually considered simultaneously for copyright purposes. I'd say that the requirement that the notice be "accidentally omitted" is problematic for AP, as well; they knew or should have known that certain newspapers didn't have a copyright notice, and continued to license material to them.

As for Bastique's argument that this only applies to AP's publications, copyright holders rarely publish their own works. To grab a book at hand, it's by John D. Dixon and it lists the copyright as (c) 1967 John D. Dixon, but it's published by Dover and was originally published by Blaisdell. There's specific cases about this that I'll look up later where licensers dropping a notice lost the copyright for the original copyright holder.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am mostly with scenario C, but I don't think a repeated failure of one newspaper to put in a copyright notice is meaningful. Publications still needed notice, regardless who the copyright owner was. But if that newspaper was still within a "relatively small number" of copies published without a copyright notice, I don't think copyright was lost. This is the primary risk, to me, of using AP/UPI images from that time period. I don't know what the contracts said for all customers of their service, or how many clients ignored that, or what a court would say. Obviously, if something was published without permission in the first place, it can't affect the copyright, and it's possible the client contracts did not give permission without a notice being in place. Relying solely on the lack of a copyright notice in one particular newspaper, I don't think we should do. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to unpack on this topic, but Scenario C is pretty much right. Wire services distributed almost all photos with no copyright notice and with no requirement for their member newspapers to attach a copyright notice.

There were occasional exceptions, usually where a member newspaper attached a copyright notice to a photo provided to the wire service because they knew it was something special (for example, the famous photo from the Kent State massacre). These would be distributed by the wire service with the copyright notice, with the expectation (implicit, at least), that members would retain the notice when publishing the photo. On average, only about half the newspapers would do so. These photos can't safely be considered PD, even though more than a "relative small number of copies" were published without notice, because those publications without notice may be considered unauthorized.

So how do we know if any given wire service photo was distributed without copyright? Finding one example of it without copyright notice may not be sufficient, because that could be one newspaper that just neglected to reproduce the notice. My best practice has been to find several (preferably 5 or more) newspapers that published it, and ensure that none of them included a copyright notice. (And particularly for 1978-1989 photos, to find several examples where the newspaper as a whole had no copyright notice.) Examples: 1 2 3

One caveat though on the question of family photos of a crime victim: It matters how the wire service obtained the photo, because copyright notice was only required if publication was authorized by the copyright holder. If the family provided a photo directly to the press, then it's safe to say they authorized (implicitly or explicitly) its publication. But suppose a family gives a photo to the police to aid the investigation, and then the police provide that photo to the press. The family may not have intended for that to happen, so the publication couldn't be considered authorized. It may be stretching the limits of COM:PCP to presume that such photos are PD. Toohool (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have glanced in most pictures uploaded by Kieronoldham. FWIW usually pictures of victims do not have any mention. The pictures of crime scenes or of the criminals are often by AP or UPI. Yann (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: not sure what you mean by "pictures… do have any mention" here. The sentence doesn't read as grammatical English, and I can't confidently guess the sense. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS, sorry. Typing to fast. I mean do not have any mention. Yann (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why PD-Afghanistan is "invalid"?

Category:PD-Art (PD-Afghanistan) is a child of Category:Invalid PD Art categories, and has been since its creation in 2013. Does anyone know why this license would be "invalid" with PD-Art? Optimistically pinging the creator User:Foroa. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved it up for now. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about publicity photos and the location where they were taken.

So I just found some publicity photos distributed in the US by A&M Records of the Japanese electronic band Yellow Magic Orchestra, A&M records didn't copyrighted any of their publicity stills until the 90's, but here's the catch. When checking on Discogs their japanese releases, the Japanese release of the album BGM has a similar but slightly different photo in Color of the same photoshoot. (Notice the pose of Takahashi's arm). The Album back cover and Discogs page credits Kenji Miura as photoghrapher, but he also didn't register any of photos. So here's my question, What happens if a Photo was taken in another territory (in this case likely in Japan), but was only published in the US without the copyright registry formalities? Hyperba21 (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 1981 pictures under a copyright worldwide, except a few exceptions. I don't see why it would not be here. Yann (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was wondering because I didn't knew if Japan had a different "work for hire" situation, but since the photo was most likely taken and waived for the Record Labels (Alfa for Japan and A&M for US) and was only used in promotional material ONLY in the USA that wasn't copyrighted. So was wondering if it is PD worldwide or just PD-US. Hyperba21 (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I believe there are a few misunderstandings in the reasoning here. Here's how I see it:

Beginning 1 March 1989 it was not possible to "not copyright" a work in the U.S. Beginning that date, all copyrightable work is copyrighted at creation.
Prior to that, it matters tremendously whether the U.S. was the first country of publication. (For simplicity's sake, I am assuming the U.S. and Japan are the only countries involved.)
- If first publication occurred in the U.S. (or if U.S. publication occurred within 30 days of first publication, which we can consider simultaneous publication), and if they did not give notice (or, for 1978 or later, remedy that by registration within five years), then the work is in public domain in the U.S. and we can consider the U.S. the country of origin, so Japan does not enter the picture, and we can use this. This seems to me to be the relevant case for 1981 material published only in the U.S. @Yann: if you disagree with that, please elaborate on your reasoning.
- If first publication occurred in Japan, and it was more than 30 days until U.S. publication, then (1) Japan is the country of origin, so we cannot use it on Commons because it is copyrighted there and (2) U.S. copyright was restored by the URAA in 1996, so even without that Commons policy about country of origin, it is simply copyrighted in the U.S.

Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We have to assume a 1981 picture is under a copyright unless proven otherwise. Yann (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Insight JMabel, and yeah I was checking Discogs, Ebay and also Yahoo Auctions Japan if that Specific A&M picture was also published in Japan by Alfa during that period and I couldn't find any that was the exact same picture. Again, similar photoshots are in the BGM LP album, which also got a re-issue by A&M in the US and I also noticed there's an additional picture on the backsleeve, but if you look closely it is a mirrored version of the first picture I sent. Not the exact same one that A&M distributed in the Press Kit. I think this could make the case of this being a PD-78-89 picture. Hyperba21 (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperba21: for copyright purposes, a mirror image is the same image. - Jmabel ! talk 22:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the color picture is the mirrored one, not the one on the A&M press kit, sorry about the confusion. Hyperba21 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General advice on personality rights, assessment of specific images

Hello all. I have recently taken a street photography image of eight amateur musicians playing in Berlin as part of the crowd at a large public‑interest demo and march (as it happen, against the normalization of far‑right politics in Germany under this category). The musicians are clearly playing outside in an organized fashion for the enjoyment of spectators but were not among the sponsored artists that played on the official stage. Some individuals are clearly recognizable (even at ISO 6400). So two questions: 1: is there some background on personality rights that I can study? 2: is there a place where I can discuss an individual image without needing to upload that image to the public space on Wikimedia. I think I am probably more cautious than most about personality rights and individual privacy. TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos taken at public protests in Germany are generally fine from a personality rights perspective, see sec. 23(1)(3) KUG. Exceptions apply, as always, but you should be good here. Gnom (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom: many thanks (and it is a nice image too) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom: While you are here (?), I have photographed 13 Fridays for Future strikes in Berlin in total. Does age play a role? Some participants are very young, one holds a banner reading "I am 11 years old". She and others are later talking to established media crews (such as KenTV run by Ken Jebsen). I guess there are exceptions related to young age? How might these apply to me? TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We would need to determine if the photos depict the younger participants in any kind of 'compromising' way. If they don't, then you are good. Gnom (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to include the Template:Personality rights in photos of this kind. Gnom (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Ken Jebsen and his KenTV are correctly described as an "established media crew" is at least debatable, I'd say... Gestumblindi (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison: "Personality rights" are often treated as COM:NCR and are further explained in COM:BLP. For the most part, it depends on the copyright laws of the country where they're taken, but the use use of such photos could, however, also be subject to other local laws. Those are things that you probably would be better off discussing with a lawyer or someone capable of giving you legal advice because Commons can't really do that per COM:DISCLAIMER. Commons can most likely tell you whether the content is OK for it to host per COM:L, but it can't really say it's OK for all other reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody! Yes, I am well aware of the status of KenTV but took some shortcuts here! Thanks too for the COM references, I will study them. Best, ~ RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just added the image under discussion, now to included that template, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Personality rights template for public figures

To split off a theme from the previous topic. Do public figures, like Luisa Neubauer from Fridays for Future (see right), require Template:Personality rights templates? Luisa is pretty well known in Germany at least. TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it for you. Abzeronow (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my take on {{Personality rights}}: there are potential personality rights issues in using any picture of a living or recently deceased person, whether we add the template or not. Reusers are responsible for a certain amount of diligence in using images, and would be well advised to know the laws of the country in which they are publishing. I tend to add {{Personality rights}} for (1) pictures with nudity; (2) pictures showing anyone doing a performance with a significant visual component; (3) pictures that could potentially be embarrassing if context were missing; (4) not a whole lot else, because any issues the image raises are completely par for the course. - Jmabel ! talk 08:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow and Jmabel: Thanks both. (On a more general note, I am very happy that Wikimedia exists and provides a good outlet for historically significant images.) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

German copyright length for screenshots of films

When does the copyright expire for a German film?

According to Section 65 of this law, it is 70 years after the death of:

The director
The author of the screenplay
The author of the dialogues
The music composer

In the case of Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari, the first three died 70 years ago, but the composer didn't die until 1973. Nonetheless, Category:Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (film screenshots) has a bunch of screenshots.

Most of us might assume that the music composer's date of death has no bearing the screenshots. But that's not strictly what the law says - it says the copyright remains on the film. The law often turns on technicalities!

I believe the issue is murky enough that a German court might rule either way. Is there any case law that addresses this subject? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: Curiously, German copyright law actually treats film stills differently from the film itself (or parts thereof). Gnom (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: Actually it's even more complicated for German films from before July 1995, see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/01#Composers for silent films. --Rosenzweig τ 10:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gromit unleashed

I have some concerns on all images under this category. While COM:FOP UK allows free uses of monuments and sculptures meant for permanent location in public spaces, the sculptures under the said category appear to be part of a sculptural exhibit (w:en:Gromit Unleashed), and many of the said sculptures have been sold in auctions (possibly ended up in private collections or residences). Intervention from other users/admins needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to determine which ones are still in permanent public places and which have ended up elsewhere, but yes, if it's not permanent, it's copyrighted. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 04:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is permanent, it's copyrighted. That's not the issue. FoP doesn't remove copyright, it just allows you to publish pictures. You cannot, for example, duplicate the sculpture. - Jmabel ! talk 08:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Contents

File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg

Insignia of India

Sculpture copyright Q: David Smith, Medals for Dishonor series

Ask some detail of Bild 183-14059-0018

Air traffic control recordings & TOO

How to indicate my institution allows use of this image

File:Manuel "Wowo" L. Fortes, Jr..jpg

File:Udacity Logo 2024.png

LAPD Critical Incident Video Releases

AI tools?

Altamaha

Самолёт ТУ-104 на площади Новаторов в Рязани

Template for US graffiti

Possible good addition to COM:DM United States

How to use a copyrighted picture under exceptions

File:Stadeln_Wappen_2024.svg und File:Wappen Stadeln.png

Contradictory

Logo Antiguo Rutaca Airlines

Bangladesh (again)

Diario VI Región

File:London Square - Caledonian Road.jpg

Short TV advertisements

Photo of a Bolivia tea product label

Logo Daewoo Electronics

Vogue Taiwan and possible copyright washing

Copyright status for contents of U.S. newspapers

Any idea why PD-Afghanistan is "invalid"?

Question about publicity photos and the location where they were taken.

General advice on personality rights, assessment of specific images

Personality rights template for public figures

German copyright length for screenshots of films

Category:Gromit unleashed

Navigation menu

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg

Insignia of India

Sculpture copyright Q: David Smith, Medals for Dishonor series

Ask some detail of Bild 183-14059-0018

Air traffic control recordings & TOO

How to indicate my institution allows use of this image

File:Manuel "Wowo" L. Fortes, Jr..jpg

File:Udacity Logo 2024.png

LAPD Critical Incident Video Releases

AI tools?

Altamaha

Самолёт ТУ-104 на площади Новаторов в Рязани

Template for US graffiti

Possible good addition to COM:DM United States

How to use a copyrighted picture under exceptions

File:Stadeln_Wappen_2024.svg und File:Wappen Stadeln.png

Contradictory

Logo Antiguo Rutaca Airlines

Bangladesh (again)

Diario VI Región

File:London Square - Caledonian Road.jpg

Short TV advertisements

Photo of a Bolivia tea product label

Logo Daewoo Electronics

Vogue Taiwan and possible copyright washing

Copyright status for contents of U.S. newspapers

Any idea why PD-Afghanistan is "invalid"?

Question about publicity photos and the location where they were taken.

General advice on personality rights, assessment of specific images

Personality rights template for public figures

German copyright length for screenshots of films

Category:Gromit unleashed

Navigation menu

Search