Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C· COM:VPC Welcome to the Village pump copyright section This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives. COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index) Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator 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.

Zoom video meetings

I'm wondering, files of Zoom video meetings like this file. Each part taken by the depicted person. So each part have a different copyright holder.
a. Does the person that catch the whole frame have some copyright?
b. Reusers should give a credit to all of them?
c. This kind of photo can be considered as de minimis? -- Geagea (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Geagea: This has been coming up recently but I think nothing has been conclusively decided. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/06#Who is the photographer in case of a screenshot of video conference?. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I searched the Internet, asked on Reddit, and posted here a few months ago asking this question. It seemed like nobody anywhere was completely sure, but the default answers seemed to be that a Zoom screenshot is typically going to combine the copyrights of each individual webcam. I haven't seen the question of fixation come up, but it seems like a difficult way to argue. The way live broadcasters on television typically satisfy this is by recording the broadcast to tape as it's going out live. Especially with Zoom, one of its big features is its ease of recording. Any of the participants, and especially the host could be creating local and/or cloud recordings of the meeting, and many people record all of their meetings by default (I do). That said, when a broadcaster makes a copy, they already own all of the copyrights involved whereas most Zoom calls aren't going to involve that kind of work-for-hire contract. Since this keeps coming up without a clear answer, I've sent an email to Wikilegal to see if they'd weigh in. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

My first instinct was that each part have the copyright of the depicted person. Exept your post (recordings)I have seen different analysis: Copyright#Fixing, Jumbotron images (broadcast live) (commons), Pre-positioned recording devices. And now I'm not so sure. Anyway I think that if there are many small frames it might considerd as a de minimis. -- Geagea (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I doubt the news media companies are very concerned with the copyright details, since certainly if there is a copyright owned by the person they are interviewing over Zoom, that person is certainly giving them an implied license to use their content by virtue of participating in the interview. copyright occurs when something is placed in a fixed medium, so if you are standing on the street corner making an extemporaneous speech, that is not copyrightable. If someone records a video of you making an extemporaneous speech, that video IS copyrighted. "Transmitting" counts as a "fixed medium" for purposes of copyright law, but I don't know that a private Zoom call itself counts as "transmitting". If that's the case that a private Zoom call itself doesn't count as "transmitting", then whoever first records it or transmits it to the public (in the case of a news media interview) would own the copyright. --B (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that transmitting counts as a fixed medium; see below. Merely making a copy of something or retransmitting it doesn't give you a copyright; it requires creative input by the copyright owner.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Update: Wikimedia Legal wrote back to me to let me know they're adding this to their queue for research. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rhododendrites, but I'm still wondering, can de minimis applay when the file contain let's say 20 parts or 40 parts? We don't need Wikimedia Legal for that. -- Geagea (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Each users stream is owned by the streaming user, so COM:OTRS permission is needed to include any screenshot of streams not yours. De minimis does not apply.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, users don't have a copyright in their own streams because they have not recorded it in a fixed medium; however, in some jurisdictions they may be eligible for neighboring rights. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

So all live TV broadcasts are not copyrighted?--BevinKacon (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Any that aren't being recorded by the creator. In practice none.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

From House Report no. 94–1476:

Fixation in Tangible Form. As a basic condition of copyright protection, the bill perpetuates the existing requirement that a work be fixed in a “tangible medium of expression,” and adds that this medium may be one “now known or later developed,” and that the fixation is sufficient if the work “can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” This broad language is intended to avoid the artificial and largely unjustifiable distinctions, derived from cases such as White-Smith Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1 (1908) [28 S.Ct. 319, 52 L.Ed. 655], under which statutory copyrightability in certain cases has been made to depend upon the form or medium in which the work is fixed. Under the bill it makes no difference what the form, manner, or medium of fixation may be—whether it is in words, numbers, notes, sounds, pictures, or any other graphic or symbolic indicia, whether embodied in a physical object in written, printed, photographic, sculptural, punched, magnetic, or any other stable form, and whether it is capable of perception directly or by means of any machine or device “now known or later developed.” Under the bill, the concept of fixation is important since it not only determines whether the provisions of the statute apply to a work, but it also represents the dividing line between common law and statutory protection. As will be noted in more detail in connection with section 301, an unfixed work of authorship, such as an improvisation or an unrecorded choreographic work, performance, or broadcast, would continue to be subject to protection under State common law or statute, but would not be eligible for Federal statutory protection under section 102. The bill seeks to resolve, through the definition of “fixation” in section 101, the status of live broadcasts—sports, news coverage, live performances of music, etc.—that are reaching the public in unfixed form but that are simultaneously being recorded. When a football game is being covered by four television cameras, with a director guiding the activities of the four cameramen and choosing which of their electronic images are sent out to the public and in what order, there is little doubt that what the cameramen and the director are doing constitutes “authorship.” The further question to be considered is whether there has been a fixation. If the images and sounds to be broadcast are first recorded (on a video tape, film, etc.) and then transmitted, the recorded work would be considered a “motion picture” subject to statutory protection against unauthorized reproduction or retransmission of the broadcast. If the program content is transmitted live to the public while being recorded at the same time, the case would be treated the same; the copyright owner would not be forced to rely on common law rather than statutory rights in proceeding against an infringing user of the live broadcast. Thus, assuming it is copyrightable—as a “motion picture” or “sound recording,” for example—the content of a live transmission should be regarded as fixed and should be accorded statutory protection if it is being recorded simultaneously with its transmission. On the other hand, the definition of “fixation” would exclude from the concept purely evanescent or transient reproductions such as those projected briefly on a screen, shown electronically on a television or other cathode ray tube, or captured momentarily in the “memory” of a computer.

So if it's not being recorded, there's no copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to see if I understand correctly.

• bill = proposal for a law?
• If someone speech in public, he does not own copyright for his own words?
• regarding to musical etc. performance we have in Israel Performer's and Broadcasters' Rights Low -1984. Even though it's not a copyright law you can not record without their permission (performance).

-- Geagea (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

1909 image from Atelier D'Ora-Benda

Is this appropriate for Commons? I Dora Kallmus died in 1963, and Arthur Benda in 1969, but the National Library of Austria only credits it to Atelier D'Ora-Benda, so... there's a little ambiguity there. File in question is at en:File:Alma Mahler in 1909.jpg. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia. Unless you can find evidence of the image being released under a suitable free licence, we will have to wait for the file to come into the public domain for upload to Commons. Australian copyright law is generally life +70 years (though if copyright had already expired before 2005, when a life +50 rule was in force, the copyright would still be expired now). In this case a death date of 1963 would give a copyright expiry of 1 January 2034 and a death date of 1969 would give a copyright expiry of 1 January 2040. While I am not familiar with any exemptions under Australian law, I expect that we can't upload here for another 13 years at the earliest; I'd suggest raising the question again then as to which of the two dates should be considered (the National Library of Australia may have updated its record by then). From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC) Ignore me, I read Australian instead of Austrian. It is 3am here so I'm obviously too tired to give advice. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Time to try again. The first step is to determine which legal regime applies to the photograph. The Atelier d'Ora studio was in Vienna and operated from 1907; it is safe to assume that Austrian law applies to the image. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Austria. As this is a studio photograph, the copyright rule is author's life +70 years; if the copyright is held jointly by two or more authors, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last author. Benda is the credited author and the one who died later, so whether it was his sole work or a joint work, the copyright expires 70 years after his death. That means the Austrian copyright will remain until 31 December 2039. For the US copyright, you are relying on the photograph being published prior to 1925; do you have evidence to support that? If it was a private photograph, it may not have been published until it was obtained by the National Library. The file can't be transferred to Commons until 1 January 2040 and you will also need to demonstrate how the US copyright has expired. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

So, I am right in thinking that it wouldn't come under some published-under-a-collective clause that would make it count as anonymous? Thought so, but wasn't sure. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

As you have a source naming one of the studio employees as the author, it will be difficult to justify a claim of anonymity. You would have to bring in a more reliable source that can explain why the author can't be determined. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I... do? I think I missed something. I don't see anything naming Benda as the author (As opposed to Atelier D'Ora-Benda, his studio with Dora Kallmer), but I have missed things before. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I may be misinterpreting it but I believe the studio is named "Atelier d'Ora" so "Atelier D'Ora-Benda" would mean Benda at the Atelier d'Ora studio. I'm not an expert on the studio as I only heard of it today, so if "Atelier D'Ora-Benda" is just an alternative name for the studio then that introduces a level of confusion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, no, D'Ora-Benda was the name of their collaborative studio. But it's also called Atelier d'Ora, so... Let's call it no commons until 2040. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I honestly have had similar problems trying to clean out Category:PD Austria 1932 (which contains files using {{PD-Austria-1932}}); many of the files have incomplete information over when or whether they were published, so I can't tell when they will safe to keep under U.S. law (until 2073), or even what may fall under the EU's publication right. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If a work qualified for {{PD-Austria-1932}}, then it qualifies for {{PD-1996}}. The PD-Austria-1932 tag I think accurately represented the situation in Austria on January 1, 1996. However just a few months later, Austria implemented the EU directive, which retroactively restored everything, meaning that was no longer valid in Austria itself. However the URAA date had already passed by that point, so stuff restored in Austria a few months later was not restored in the U.S. They only had to be published before March 1, 1989 (without a copyright notice) to still be PD in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I did find this description of the companies:

The founder of the Atelier d'Ora in 1907 was Austrian-Jewish fashion and portrait photographer Dora [=d'Ora] Kallmus (1881–1963), her assistant being the German photographer Arthur Benda (1885–1969). In 1921, Benda became a partner in the studio, which operated a branch also in Karlsbad during the season. In 1927, Kallmus made the Atelier d'Ora over to Benda, who carried it on with his wife Hanny Mittler under the name "Atelier d'Ora-Benda." Kallmus moved to Paris, where from 1925 on she ran her own photographic studio and built up her reputation as a society and art photographer.

And also this take on it:

She soon set her sights beyond Austria, spending her summers in Berlin and Karlsbad seeking out new patrons, before achieving her lifelong dream of opening a Paris studio in 1925 [...]. But her assistant Benda had abandoned her, returning to Vienna to take over her studio and changing its name to Atelier d’Ora-Benda-Wein. Following this betrayal, the two never spoke again.

The latter source says this about the working relationship:

Women were not allowed to complete the most complex technical training so d’Ora employed Benda to focus on the mechanics, while she set the lighting, fixed the poses, obtained the clients and worked on PR.

If the photo was from 1909, it was from well before the second company name existed. It seems doubtful it's a sole credit to Benda... more likely, the Austrian archive used the name of the company as of when the photos in question were donated. Presumably some earlier Kallmus photos like this were still in their possession. Per Austrian law, it would have originally expired long ago (probably 1930), but then possibly revived in 1996, depending on the anonymous question, and their status today would be the same as then. Their article 60 says Where the author of a work has not been designated in a manner that creates a presumption of authorship under Article 12 the work would be 70 years from publication, which would have meant it remained PD in 1996, and today. Article 12 says Failing proof to the contrary, the person designated in the usual manner as the author on the copies of a work which has been published or on the original of a work of art shall be presumed to be the author provided the designation gives his true name or a pseudonym known to be used by him or--in the case of works of art--the artist's known mark. So I guess the question is if whether the company name is enough to qualify as an artist's mark, since it's not really a true name or a pseudonym. By the strict letter of the law, probably not. Though I guess it's possible that versions distributed in 1909 did have an artist's mark -- though that would almost certainly have been for Kallmus, not Benda. I do see the mark "d'Ora" on some of her photos. Not sure knowledge of the working relationship would be enough to give Benda a joint copyright -- sure seems like it would be solely Kallmus or anonymous. I guess I'm not really sure either -- seems likely a version was published at the time with more of an author's mark. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Sir David Edward.jpg

I'm not sure about the licensing of this file. The photo is probably "own work", but the painting itself might not be. The portrait is of en:David Edward, who was born in 1934 and is still living; so, I don't think it's old enough to be PD just based upon it's age. Another problem might also be that the photo (even if the portrait is PD) is not really a case of COM:2D copying per COM:FRAME since it also shows the frame and some other elements. That can probably be cleaned up by cropping everything else out and the license of the cropped version changed to {{PD-Art}}, but that only makes sense to do if the portrait itself isn't protected by copyright. Any ideas on whether the portrait is protected by copyright? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

COM:FRAME is not relevant because the photo is pretty obviously own work; it only comes into play when we want to assert that photographs taken by other people do not have sufficient creativity to generate copyright. The only issue is the status of the painting, and I agree that it is probably not PD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying FRAME King of Hearts. I'm assuming that the unclear copyright status about this then makes the photo a possible COM:DW. Would this be something better to discuss at DR or is simply adding {{Dw no source since}}. File was uploaded in January 2019 and it was one of only two edits made by the uploader. Uploader has also been inactive on English Wikipedia since June 2019. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As an observation, he is depicted in the robes of the European Court of Justice. If it is an official portrait it may have been released under a free licence. However, I have no evidence to support that. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd do a DR to give people maximal opportunity to find information on the copyright status of the underlying work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you King of Hearts and From Hill To Shore. I've started a DR about this file as suggested above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Vedib

Dear admins (or From Hill To Shore, for example), I am very rarely here, so I would ask you to check these uploads in terms of possible copyright issues. The user is a rookie; he started to contribute on BS Wiki eight days ago. I left him a message there, but, just in case, I am writing to your community here to keep an eye on him because I am not sure that he knows or understands what he is doing. – KWiki (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I spotted this message earlier and flagged up several of their uploads as having unclear sourcing. I noticed that they have gone back in and edited the descriptions, but I haven't had time to review as yet. To clarify though, I am not an admin. (^_~) From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Does cropping create a new copyright?

I happened across a photo I uploaded "in the wild" (off-wiki), and was surprised to see it credited to me and someone else. Looking at the file page, I see it is a cropped version of a photo I uploaded, and the person who did the cropping changed the "author" field from "Rhododendrites" to "Rhododendrites. Cropped by UserX [timestamp]". Since that field is what we assume media users go by for attribution, I was surprised to see anyone change it. For something like a photo restoration or major edit I sort of get it, but does a crop really create a new copyright? Doing a quick search it looks like the same person has hundreds of these credits. (obviously UserX is not the username -- omitting the person's name for now, since I'm unclear on the rules for this). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I found a couple of such edited photos: File:Coney Island Boardwalk 1 crop.jpg and File:Cornell Tech buildings (41991) crop.jpg, maybe there are more. SV1XV (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Almost never, I would say. Extracting material can generate new copyright, as I argued at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/08#Copyright blocker project, but cropping is just too trivial IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You can communicate with the user and check what his intention was. Maybe he did not mean to claim authorship. Maybe he just wanted to add the mention and did not know how. Maybe it was added there by some tool he used. The mention that the image was cropped is useful but it should not go in the author field. It can go almost anywhere else. It can be added with the Retouched picture template. Or it can be mentioned in the description. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes yes and sometime no. Consider the following pair of photos:

• 

  uncropped

• 

  cropped

The uncropped and cropped pictures illustrates different things but the cropped picture is clearly a derivative work of the uncropped picture so the person who did the cropping is justified in naming themselves as a co-editor of cropped picture. There is of course a legal problem about the cropped picture, does the copyright expire 70 years after both of us die or 70- years after I die?

(For the record, the uncropped was actually cropped before I posted it. The chapel is on a river bank and when I was processing the picture, I noticed that I had also photographed a couple kissing and cuddling on the river bank. I cropped them out of the picture in order to preserve their privacy! Had somebody else cropped them out, I do not believe that would have justified a new copyright.) Martinvl (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that generates new copyright, because it merely represents the fairly obvious idea of zooming in on a central window. There are far more ways of designing a stylized apple than of cropping a shot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Is it a simple cropping in the case of Kings College Chapel? It may be an optical illusion (my eyesight isn't the best) but to me the colour balance has been altered on the cropped image. That section of the original file had a yellowish tint whereas the crop version appears to be paler. If they have adjusted the file beyond cropping, that adds a layer of creativity (though perhaps too minor for the threshold of originality).

Derivative works under UK law are treated as joint creations; copyright will expire 70 years after the last author dies. However, the issue could be complicated further a subsequent author created the derivative work in a different country, which would add another layer of copyright rules. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say that for UK law? They define joint works where the contributions of each author are indistinguishable. It seems, like the U.S., that the derivative work (or adaptation) would simply be its own work, with the copyrightable additions being owned by the second author. To use the derivative work, you might need a license from both authors though. The underlying work will expire on its original schedule, at which point only the new content would have a copyright (if it still does). The derivative author does not get any ownership of the expression of the original though, unlike a joint work. I'm not sure the crop (and possible changing of tones) would count under UK law though -- their "adaptation" definitions are a bit stricter than the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Your wording probably explains it more clearly but that was my meaning. In a derived work if the second author dies first, the copyright of the underlying work will remain in place for a longer period. You have to determine the copyright status of the original before you can say the derived work is free of copyright (so original author +70 years). If the author of the original work dies first, the copyright of the derivative elements will last longer (so second author +70 years). The original author doesn't gain a right to the derivative elements but neither do they lose their rights to the original elements included within the derivative work. The more levels of derivation and the more countries are involved, the more complex the situation becomes. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside, for simplicity, the minor color differences between these examples, I wouldn't see a new copyright there, either. It's about added creative work. There's no creativity in displaying just a piece of a work. There are [tenuous] arguments to be had about, say, appropriation/conceptual art or other forms which repurpose an image with little alteration, but they at least have artistic narratives to go along with them and thus an argument for original authorship. Here it's just "I only wanted to show part of it". Seems like how excerpting is different from abridgment, which requires the author to contribute "a sufficient amount of creative authorship in the form of edits, revisions, or other modifications to the preexisting work" rather than just copy/pasting a chapter on its own. Or the difference between remixing and just playing a segment of a song. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the information page on {{Information}} is enlighting: "This field should not be used to specify the name of the person who is the scanner, finder, or uploader of the image – these things do not make that person the author." It does not refer explicitly to "cropper" but I believe it is somehow covered by "scanner" as you may scan part of an image. However the uploading forms are not so clear about these issues, althought they have been improved in recent years. SV1XV (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It is an interesting guideline but as with all guidelines there will be valid exceptions. It is possible to manipulate images with the scanner hardware or software, so there could be an element of creativity involved, though that would be an exception rather than the rule. Most users would choose the default settings for the type of image they are scanning and even some of the options that could be selected may not be sufficient for Commons:TOO. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's probably possible -- framing a photograph is one of the copyrightable aspects. However, the crop itself would have to exhibit enough creativity to support a copyright on its own, which would likely be rare. There was one (district level) case which suggested they could. However, simple crops like the one on the stained glass window example above, almost certainly not -- that is a fairly obvious framing if you wanted to focus on the window. And it's still just depicting the building as the original photo does, not really transforming it in any way. I don't think stuff like that would amount to a copyright, or even close really. I just ran across one recent Copyright Office ruling, when Chick-Fil-A wanted to register a special crop of their logo as a derivative work -- they were turned down. CFA argued that simply cropping a preexisting image amounts to sufficient creative authorship. The Board finds that to be contrary to the principles enunciated in established precedent and Office policy. [...] It is conceivable that a photograph could be cropped in such a way as to “recast, adapt, or transform” it, resulting in a protectable derivative work. In this case, however, the cropping results in only minor, de minimis changes to the original designs, and does not transform the source works in any meaningful way, and therefore does not contain authorship that is separately protectable from those underlying works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• If any of these examples concern my actions, I had no intent to claim a new copyright, simply to provide information as to who altered the image. You'll note that none of the images I've cropped appear in my personal collection Category:Images by Beyond My Ken. If there's a better field to add the "cropped by" info to, please let me know on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think any discussion about it should be public. I'd tend to put my name as cropper in that spot as well; it makes it clear that this is a modified version of the original uploader's vision, and if anyone has complaints about it, it's possible I'm at fault instead of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Thinking about it again, I think it does make sense to include the cropper's name in the author field, even if the cropper is not entitled to any new copyright. After all, at COM:CONSENT we tell our licensors: "I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder." If information about the crop is omitted, then it may falsely imply that the original author is responsible for or endorses the crop of their work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  The wording of the attribution (or lack thereof) is the copyright owner's call to make, not the cropper. So maybe there are cases where the author hates someone's crop and wants to change that field, but it's their call, not the cropper's. If there's a worry that some copyright holders won't notice a crop that they may find objectionable, that sounds like a good use of a different field. According to the "author" field of the template documentation, it's for the "original author of the file". — Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  File:HSH 1882 Hyatt at Parowan Gap.jpg is one of my photos under the CC-BY-SA. I don't see anywhere on the page that says that the author field has anything to do with the attribution. If it is only for the original author of the file, then it's not appropriate for attribution; by default, all copyrightable changes have a right to be attributed. We're unfortunately not explicit on how the CC-BY licenses should be attributed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be more of a question about the definition of the "author" field. Agree with Carl, any straight edge crop alone is purely a mechanical endeavour per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation. The croppers name does not belong in the authors field but can instead be added in the source or description. I would fully support Rhododendrites' right to move the croppers name from the authors field to the description \ source field of their own works which are CC licensed.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Because authors have the right to be attributed in the way they desire per the CC license, I think this is the way it should be done: Editors may append their name to the author field of a derivative version. In fact, this should probably be the default action unless the original author is known to prefer otherwise. (I, for one, do not want poorly modified versions of my works attributed solely to me.) However, if the original author removes the editor's name, and the edit was below TOO, then the editor's name should not be reinserted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This only makes sense to me if objectionable crops were more common than acceptable crops, which doesn't seem likely. It seems more sensible to say that in those less common scenarios when the creator doesn't like the crop for whatever reason, they can change the author field to include the name of the cropper as they see fit.

Regardless, media reusers do use that author field for attribution purposes, whether that's its intention or not, and the potential damage of unintentionally adding a new copyright holder/author/person who receives attribution by default seems to outweigh the bad feelings (does this fall under moral rights?) someone has when someone credits them for a bad crop.

The more this goes on, the more I'm thinking I may whip up some custom templates... — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: That appears to go against the terms of the Creative Commons licence (though the wording varies between licence versions). According to the Creative Commons FAQs, anyone who alters a licensed file has to make clear that the file has been altered (though there is no requirement to give their name). They must also avoid wording that implies the licensor endorses the modified work. The licensor may choose to waive their right to attribution on the modified work, or they may ask for their name to be removed entirely.[1] It does not give the licensor the right to change how the licensee describes the work on a broader basis.

As an example, if I wrote a book and included a cropped version of an image you made, you can ask for the attribution to be removed. However, if my text talks about the image and says that it is a crop I made from a larger image (without claiming ownership of the original) you have no right to edit the text of my book as I have not breached the licence conditions.

If a user has included descriptive text here to say they have cropped an image from the original, they are meeting the conditions of the licence by saying that the work has been modified. The trouble comes where users try to place their name as a second author, which can cause confusion about ownership of the copyright. I believe we can set guidelines to help users to present the information in as clear a way as possible, but an author doesn't appear to have the "right" to do as you suggest under the licence terms. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying the author has the right to change license compliant attribution in a work that uses an image (whether or not it's cropped). I'm really only concerned with how we frame this on our file pages and the implications that has for how people connections between our various fields and what people use when deciding how to attribute. Saying that an image has been cropped on the file page is different from adding a new name to the author field, and the different approaches have different implications for how it will be attributed down the line. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• King of Hearts, when we release one of our images so it can be re-used for any purpose, haven't we agreed that a re-user could add devil horns to our selfies? Haven't we agreed that lame and incompetent re-users are free to put lame and incompetent derived images up for others to see? Geo Swan (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, but they cannot claim that I made the version with the devil horns. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've brought this issue up multiple times, over the years. I used to perform a google image search, every six months or so, to see how often images I took were being used by third parties. Occasionally was the answer.

But the disturbing thing I found was that good faith third parties were also routinely re-using images I hadn't created, images I had only uploaded, and mistakenly crediting those image to me.

It is a human factors issue. Our default information pages are poorly designed, so those good faith third parties routinely mistake who is the author of images' intellectual property rights. When I have raised this in the past quite a few people have said something like. "So, people are stupid. Those third parties are stupid. We can't do anything about stupid."

No, even smart people make mistakes when using interfaces are poorly designed, and our information pages are demonstrably poorly designed, since this mistake is common. Yes, we can do something to help prevent our good faith re-users making this mistake:

1. Render the IP rights owner in a larger font.
2. Change where we render the IP rights owner. Movie makers know that pride of place, in the order of a movie's stars is the first credit. We put the description first. The second best place to credit an actor is last place. When a movie has a cameo of a big star, they are typically listed last. We put the uploader last.
3. We could put the commons uploader's name in a smaller font; we could put it in a different place; we could require the re-user to click on a button to see the commons uploader, and give an explicit instruction they are not the rights owner who deserves credit.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The {{Credit line}} template in conjunction with the other fields parameter of {{Information}} seems to work well for this. As far as I can tell, if that template is present, the Media Viewer extension uses that information instead of the author field when generating an attribution statement for reusers. clpo13_(talk) 21:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Canadian photograph from 1946

Hello -- I've been trying to decide whether a particular image could be uploaded to the Commons, but I'm a little dazed by the various copyright rules and would like some advice. After some research, I've confirmed that this photo of Dr. Frances McGill [2] was originally published in the RCMP Quarterly (a Canadian magazine) in July 1946. As far as I'm aware, the image was never published outside of Canada. From what I understand, a Canadian photo created before 1949 meets Canadian public domain criteria -- but would this photo also meet U.S. public domain criteria? Should I upload it? Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If it is Crown Copyright (was the magazine a government publication at the time?), then it would be OK. Otherwise, no -- the cutoff was photos created before 1946, since 1946 photos were still under copyright in Canada on January 1, 1996 (they did not expire until 1997) as such got restored in the U.S. The en-wiki en:Template:PD-Canada template documents the U.S. interaction better than the one here. I guess if it was created before 1946 but only published later, it would also be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm -- the crown copyright angle might be a possibility. Prior to 1999, the RCMP Quarterly was published by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the national police force). Do you think that counts as a crown/government entity? Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This article seems to credit it to the National Film Board. Which makes sense. It was the mission of the "still photography division" of the NFB to create photographs like this. It may have been first published by the NFB itself or by the RCMP magazine. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Asclepias: I've tried to trace the photo long distance via Library and Archives Canada (which now holds NFB photo archives), but I've had limited success -- COVID-19 is making it really difficult for archivists to access their full holdings and respond to queries. The 1946 RCMP Quarterly magazine is the earliest publication of the photo that I've been able to locate so far, and it doesn't credit an author/copyright holder (alas!). Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The 1921 Canadian copyright law stated (much like the UK at the time): Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work. So being first published in a government publication would seem to make it Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have suggested that we lobby all the big Canadian archive sites, and request they waive the US intellectual property rights they retain for all images that are in the public domain in Canada.

In theory, they could try to tap another revenue stream by seeking income from individuals who require permission to use these images in the USA. In practice I suspect this would be a huge headache for them, and they would be better off earning the limited bit of goodwill by waiving those rights. Geo Swan (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

another copyright claim on PD images...

I spent some time improving our coverage of guy who took a lot of excellent photos of Canada's north, Emrys Jones. He took these photos in 1928. Later he became a highly respected Professor. He donated his photos to his University when he was in his sixties.

January 1, 1949, is the date when images start to be protected by copyright, in Canada. So, I think these images, taken in 1928, should be unambiguously in the public domain.

However, this page, from his University, says:

Copyright / Use Restrictions: Access to these photographic images and the technical capacity to download them does not imply permission for re-use. The images available here are for scholarly and personal research purposes only. Permission to reproduce i.e. publish or publicly display any image from this collection must be requested in writing. Such requests must be sent, faxed or e-mailed to...

I downloaded some of these images, and it looks like other contributors downloaded some dozens of his images.

Okay, should we ignore this claim as too questionable? Geo Swan (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Their copyright status in the United States depends on when they were first "published", under the U.S. definition. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I agree that per {{PD-Canada}} and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Canada photographs taken in 1928 are PD in Canada. However in the US they are most-likely still copyrighted. I do see a lot of files with PD statement only from the source country, like files in Category:Works_copyrighted_in_the_U.S. or using {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, so I am not sure if we are still following PD in source country and in the US policy. However if we still do such files might be challenged and deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

COM:L is still official policy and still says that "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (Emphasis in the original.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

COM:DW#Maps used to argue that most maps are public domain

The summary in the guideline appears misleading. It is currently being used at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haplogroups europe.png to argue that all maps must be public domain if the elements within in consist of boundaries and relief details. The map in question has no source, unknown author, unknown date, unknown country of publication and unknown copyright status.

More views would be welcome on this reading of COM:DW, as I feel the guideline itself is the problem as it is misleading and hard to interpret compared to the reality that modern maps are copyrighted and for Wikimedia Commons cannot be released as public domain. For example in COM:DW#Maps it says that copyright ineligible are maps that use standard cartographic conventions, like a survey map, which is bonkers advice, as literally all Ordnance Survey maps would be public domain using this guidance.

Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: That verbiage was added in this edit 00:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC) by Afil in reference to US law, and later extended to the rest of the world. I understand UK TOO is lower than US TOO, so the extension makes no sense.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As this is actively misleading, I have gone ahead and boldly removed the section and created a guideline discussion about it at Commons_talk:Derivative_works#Maps_section. Hopefully nobody will just re-add it without investing time in writing it from scratch; it's not a question of simple amendments to update it. --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fæ the claim that "all maps must be public domain if the elements within in consist of boundaries and relief details" is the basis of {{PD-map}} template. I do not know if that is correct or not. My understanding was that if you get your polygon point coordinates from PD source you are OK, but if the same identical coordinates come from copyrighted source than it is not OK. However, we do have many PD contour maps, like File:Blank political map Europe in 2006 WF.svg or File:European Union Ukraine Locator.svg, so anybody can use them as a basis of their map and be OK. Is that your understanding as well? --Jarekt (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

PD-map is fine, but your statement is a misquote, it actually states "because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." It should not be used to justify the uploading of copyrighted maps, regardless of them looking 'simple'. The case for justifying that copyright claims are ignored for maps which include complex boundaries or complex relief detail, has not been made, and even under US law, I doubt that kite will fly without multiple difficult to understand exceptions. --Fæ (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Fæ, I agree that if you create your map starting with copyrighted input data then the output will be derivative work and the {{PD-map}} will not apply. However it is very easy to pick public domain data as your starting point, since we have plenty of it. My quote was not from {{PD-map}} but from the text you wrote in your opening message. I should have made it more clear. --Jarekt (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Coordinates are OK regardless of whether they come from a PD or copyrighted source; they are simply facts and no creativity is involved in assigning them. Tracing streets on a grid from Google Maps is also OK, since a straight line is nothing more than an instruction to connect two coordinates; tracing curved roads may or may not be OK. However, more complicated things like coastlines are drawn subjectively and may generate copyright. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This is false and misleading. If we allow any image of coordinates, then you can claim that an image of 1,000,000 coordinates joined by simple coloured polygons cannot have copyright. In this way any map, or indeed any frame from a film, would be public domain.

There are limits, and blindly quoting the Feist case, does not actually address the international interpretations of copyright that we have to encompass. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, joining them together creates copyright when there are enough coordinates. However, a mere mapping of 1,000,000 coordinates to the locations they are meant to represent is not copyrightable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Therefore there is no such thing as database rights. --Fæ (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the country. Database rights do not exist in the US. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

So, in contradiction, you are allowing Ordnance Survey to copyright their data, which is literally just sets of coordinates? Hence, say, 1000 coordinate data points from the OS API which might define the polygon for a postcode area, is copyrighted, and is 1000x smaller than your initial response.

Starting to feel the DW guideline was misleading yet? --Fæ (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that "sweat of the brow" data is definitely copyrightable outside the US. I am saying that "sweat of the brow" data is definitely not copyrightable in the US, and the situation in other countries can vary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about "sweat of the brow". Please stick to relevant and actually published copyright law. The OS publishes in the UK and correctly copyrights its maps and digital maps. At no point does the OS rely on extra-legal claims about "sweat of the brow" and neither should we.

For any later reader not getting the example, UK postcode maps may be relatively simple polygons, but are copyrighted in UK law with the OS being the official provider of postcode maps and data. Consequently you cannot see a free postcode map on Google maps, even though if you put in an address, it will tell you the postcode. --Fæ (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do you keep on going back to the UK, when I am qualifying my statements by saying I am only speaking for the US? I am not making any claims about the copyrightability of maps in the UK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The first thing to realise in this discussion is that facts are not copyrightable. 1 coordinate is not copyrightable, 100 coordinates is not copyrightable, 1 googolplex coordinates are not copyrightable. There are database rights, but just like trademarks, pattents, and other restrictions, it is important to differentiate them from copyright. Adding a line between two adjacent coordinates is definitely not copyrightable, but if somebody can show that they were selecting which coordinates to link with a line, that is where copyright gets created. Now, since UK has been mentioned, this gets much more complicated, because sweat of the brow copyright is not anything "extra-legal" there, but it is the law. There is another more difficult question, for which I do not know the answer: Let's say I were to create something that has copyright protection in the UK, but is not protectable in the US; after that another person in the States would take my work and modify it. Would the courts in the US say that this is a derivative work, even though this is something that is not copyrightable in that country to start with? And I do not know the answer to that. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"Sweat of the brow" is UK copyright law? Link please, preferably to that part of the revised copyright act so we can all quote it exactly. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Choice of jurisdiction is a thorny issue whenever multiple authors are involved (especially when the original author isn't aware of / doesn't consent to the derivative work). COM:FOP generally considers only the country where the object is located or the country where the photograph is taken (sometimes they are different!), rather than the nationality of the photographer, nationality of the architect, location where the sculpture was made, etc. But it is not an absolute rule, or you'd end up with silliness like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aboriginal Flag 01.jpg. What jurisdiction do we use for maps? The country/countries featured in the map? The country of the creator? This is a moral issue rather than a legal one, since legally Commons is only required to ensure that files are free in the US. The whole "source country" bit used to have a legal meaning in US copyright law (see COM:HIRTLE), but nowadays copyright exists independent of country and so the question we need to answer first is: why do we require works to be free in the source country? Is it out of obligation to the author? Our treatment of FoP seems to contradict that interpretation. Is it to protect the most likely reusers of the work? That would explain both our normal FoP procedures, and why we don't allow FoP-Israel for the Australian aboriginal flag: because people were primarily using it as a loophole to illustrate Wikipedia articles on the flag rather than as an illustration of the zoo exhibit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) held that in order to count as a derivative work under U.S. law, the underlying work must be eligible for copyright. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Letter from the White House

My family was provided with a letter from the White House (President Reagan) honoring the 100th anniversary of a family member's birth. I would like to link this to my family members' Wiki page and my question is: What is the appropriate copyright (if any) citation that I should use.

Use {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Don't trust White House publicists as to what rights you have to repubish the letter. One of the most famous photos of 2011 showed President Obama, and senior members of his cabinet, sitting in the situation room, with their aides in the background, listening to the SEAL team raid Osama bin Laden's hideout. It was taken by an official photographer, so it was public domain.
• A small newspaper, whose readership were all members of an offshoot of Judiasm which prohibited pictures of women, retouched the image, airbrushing out Hilary Clinton, and the one female aide in the background. The retouched image stirred some controversy. White House publicists weighed in, and issued what looked like legal threats to that small Jewish newspaper, claiming they had violated some kind of agreement.
• The threats from the White House publicists struck me as ugly bullying. I thought that since it was a public domain image the White House couldn't complain if someone drew mustaches on everyone's faces, or devil horns. Geo Swan (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's not how it works; PD means nobody claims copyright, not that reuse is a free-for-all. Under US law (which is what we're talking about here) publicity rights restricting commercial reuse and modification of an image of recognizable people don't stop just because the image is in the public domain. Commons and the rest of the WMF ecosystem aren't affected because we're non-commerical and (theoretically) using every image for a genuine educational purpose, but the moment it appears in something commercial like a newspaper, the subjects of that photo can complain about what you do with it, even if there's no copyright on the photo. There's a fairly good briefing note on the intersection of PD and personality rights in US law here. — iridescent 07:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Within this correct issue of personality rights, one should judge whether the derived works cause harm or damage the reputation of the person.

For extremely well known public figures, it's invariably fine to create parody, but not attacks on the person like fake porn images, even for someone like Trump.

Lastly this is Commons, user created fluff, like Trump with a badly drawn on moustache, are likely to be deleted per COM:HOST. --Fæ (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent thanks for the link to http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/rights-of-publicity-and-privacy.html . I don't think it is relevant to my specific White House exxample, because it says:

While copyright is a federally protected right under title 17 of the United States Code, neither privacy nor publicity rights are the subject of federal law. Publicity and privacy rights are the subject of state laws, and the laws vary from state to state.

Washington DC, where the White House is located, is Federal territory, so no state laws, thus no personality rights.

So, I still think the 2011 White House publicists were wrong to bully the Jewish newspaper for its airbrushing. Geo Swan (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

US Bureau of Mines, 1938

Would a map of coal fields published in 1938 by the United States Bureau of Mines be public domain? - TimDWilliamson ^speak

• Some US Federal agencies publish material, like research papers, that they paid for, but where the authors were academics, paid by a research grant, or contracted out to a think tank. It is my understanding that it doesn't matter if they sponsored the research on which the paper, or map, summarizes. Professors paid for by a research grant aren't "employees". So I think their work is not public domain. Geo Swan (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• This map was produced at the USBM Southern Experiment Station in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, so it wouldn’t have been farmed out to academics. - TimDWilliamson ^speak 01:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If it was released as such, there's no copyright notice on it, so it went into the public domain immediately. There's really no chance that it wasn't PD-USGov as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

File:SarahKnauss1979.jpg

En:wp:File:SarahKnauss1979.jpg What can we say about the copyright of this file? In general what we can do if we don't know whether it was published or not, and wheter with a notice or not. Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 21:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @NowIsntItTime as uploader of en:File:SarahKnauss1979.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with copyright status of Special:Contributions/Alhadramy_Alkendy's uploads

Hi folks, I was alerted to the questionable copyright status of many of the images uploaded by Special:Contributions/Alhadramy_Alkendy, but I'm not sure what the best way forward is so I'm asking here for help. I see two main problems: first, they've tagged everything as "own work" and "CC-BY-SA 4.0." Okay, that's a common enough mistake. The bigger problem is that I'm not sure what the actual copyright status of these flags is, nor whether they're copyright violations. I'm sure that many of the designs are old enough to be out of copyright, but I don't know how to approach the more recent flags, especially things like File:Emblem_of_the_Holy_Capital_(Makkah_City).png (which looks to my untrained eye like a fairly modern design). Would appreciate suggestions on how to proceed. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC) (please ping in replies, I'm not watching this noticeboard)

Grim Reaper

Any idea where this image comes from?

This image was first copied to Commons from English Wikipedia back in 2007 but it's never had any useful source or author information. At this point, it has been copied all over the internet, so tracking down the original source may be difficult. Anyone have any clues? Kaldari (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably a scan from an old book. It was copied from the French Wikipedia, where it was uploaded on 2005-07-13 by a user who hasn't been seen since 2010.[3] --ghouston (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status of an Indian government seal

File:Seal of Jharkhand 2.png is currently marked as own work. That's pretty unlikely to be the case for a government seal. That raises the question, is the seal copyrightable in India and did the state that made it claim copyright on it? I am not so sure about the copyright of Indian sub-national entities. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Urheberrecht, wenn Erbe der Staat ist oder nicht bekannt ist

Hallo, mein Anliegen ist: Ich möchte ein Wiki über die Kunstmalerin Magdalena Klett (1901-1973) schreiben, natürlich mit Wiedergaben von Gemälden der Künstlerin.. Sie hat keine natürlichen Erben, weil sie als Säugling ausgesetzt wurde (man weiß also nicht, wer die Eltern waren), kein Kind hatte und nicht verheiratet war. Da sie am Ende verarmt war und mindestens zum Teil von Sozialhilfe lebte, dürfte sie kein materielles Erbe und somit wohl auch kein Testament hinterlassen haben. Ganz sicher kann man Letzteres nicht wissen. Kann in einem solchen Fall erklärt werden, dass Erben des Urheberrechts trotz Recherchen nicht ermittelt werden konnten? In welcher Art wird dann die Lizenz formuliert?

Oder nimmt man besser an, der Staat sei Erbe, und kann man der zuständigen staatlichen Stelle einen Text vorschlagen, in dem sie zustimmt, dass Bilder per CC BY-SA 4.0 veröffentlicht werden? Mit bestem Dank im voraus,--Der Kurt2 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

PHL buildings from August 1951–November 1972

Perhaps this might be an extension of Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/08#Philippine buildings before 1972, but this is a good venue (suggested by King of Hearts at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files in Category:Exterior of the Cathedral of the Holy Child (Aglipayan), Manila). The current statement at Commons:FOP Philippines considers Philippine buildings between August 1951 and November 1972 as "maybe" OK, but it causes a 50-50 probability, with uncertainty. One global decision is needed on whether to fully or mainly accept Philippine buildings at that particular period at Commons, and perhaps change the word to either "probably" or "probably not," depending on the outcome of the consensus. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, right now it's stuck in a limbo-like state just like COM:GRAFFITI, COM:COSPLAY, and COM:URAA, where some admins generally choose the keep them and some admins generally choose to delete them. We can't have a situation where the decision depends solely on which admin happened to close the discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Paging @Clindberg: for some input. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know. There was one article which said the issue of formalities was also in question for that period, because Berne does not allow them but they were still in their copyright law for that same duration. Technically Berne does not mandate that a country do anything with works by their own authors, just the works from other countries, but it would be odd not to apply that. Architecture may be something of a special case as well since those are generally not imported :-) It seems as though there are still questions on how treaties become operative law in the Philippines, though (given that the Philippine Senate did concur to the Berne Convention in 1950, effective 1951) it would be reasonably valid law. That link is a presidential proclamation from March 1955, which states that every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof. So maybe the really binding effect did not happen until 1955, but not sure. The Berne Convention does state though that it's matter for domestic legislation on how photos of architecture etc. would be protected, and that legislation did not exist until 1972. I'm not sure that the question of photos of buildings has ever come up in court there, so I'm not sure what the de facto treatment is -- it's possible photos of buildings are simply used without consequence there, so far. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, Clindberg: Based here, can it be considered as "probably OK" (not "maybe") for Aug 1951–Nov 1972 buildings? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

To add, the relevant template {{Probably}} seems plain (no check, no cross, no circular notice, or any indication). 08:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Update this discussion might be affected by an ongoing discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Application of recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions on mere allegations of copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Using passport photo.

I thought I'd message as I'm unable to find clear information on this. I'm planning to use an old passport photo in a Wikipedia article I've significantly expanded. I'm aware that in the US, passport photos are considered as created by Gov. employees, so are ineligible for copyright protection, and are under PD. The page "Category:Passports" also definitively states that all "Passport photos, while taken by a third party, are taken to government specifications and have no artistic merit that would transfer the copyright to the person operating the shutter.". Which PD tag should the photo be put under when it's submitted? Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Not so clear, actually. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Janisjoplin.png was deleted even though it was a US passport photo. --GRuban (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There's an old discussion on enwiki about this, though opinions were mixed: en:Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Passport photos. The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, third edition, section 909.1, says this about photographs:

As with all copyrighted works, a photograph must have a sufficient amount of creative expression to be eligible for registration. The creativity in a photograph may include the photographer’s artistic choices in creating the image, such as the selection of the subject matter, the lighting, any positioning of subjects, the selection of camera lens, the placement of the camera, the angle of the image, and the timing of the image.

Most of these are indeed subject to government specifications. There isn't much room for creativity on the part of the actual photographer, but there may be enough to satisfy the originality requirement since the photo requirements are not that exacting. clpo13_(talk) 00:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. While I believe the US passport photos taken by gov't officials are PD, as per a link on en:Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Passport photos, I'm unsure about other nations. Is this the same for either Sri Lanka or the United Kingdom? I believe Sri Lanka mentions nothing on the matter, so "Commons:Threshold of originality" may apply. In this case, I'm not sure a passport photo would fit. At the time of this passport photo, they would've been taken by unknown government employees to a government standard (hence, nothing deviates from the norm). Thanks, SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Vito Esposito

Vito Esposito (talk · contribs) seems to have a number of uploads, all with copyright concerns as they are claiming "own work" on all of them. Can someone take a look? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have flagged up some images as having no source, corrected the PD licence of one file claimed as own work and reported a few copyright violations. As a general question to other editors, File:Bear Flag Revolt Flag.png appears to be a PNG version of File:1stBearFlag.svg, where the user has again claimed own work. Should this be flagged for deletion or is it worth it to correctly attribute the original author and retain it? From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth keeping a .png generated from a SVG that we already have. That is basically a duplicate. PNGs which are the source which someone created an SVG out of should be kept, but not the other way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Carl. Also, png files on WMF projects look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) and jaggy when scaled up.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Hominid models in Museo de la Evolución Humana (Burgos)

All the images in this category are of sculptures by Elisabeth Daynes houses in the public Museo de la Evolución Humana, Burgos, Spain. FOP Spain only applies to "works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares", so does a public museum interior count as "other public thoroughfares" or should these all be deleted? If no, does the FOP of any country extend to models displayed in public museum interiors? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You may be right. Ruslik0 (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

© The Trustees of the British Museum, released as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Is this actually free or not? --Palosirkka (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons does not recognize copyright claims over slavish copies of public domain works. Ruslik0 (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Using contents from Government of Maldives website

According to the copyright policy of the official website of Government of Maldives, contents produced by the Government on that website is in the public domain and that submitted content is released under an Attribution 4.0 International License. So I contacted them to clarify how we can identify and categorize the contents that belong to them and third parties. According to them, any picture of media content appearing on their site, if provided with a courtesy statement or credit has been given to an individual person or a media agency, shall be licensed for reuse "through the independent consent of the original content owner". However, the rest of the contents including the pictures, that is if no credit is given to anyone, it is to be understood that those pictures are captured by their own staff and produced by themselves and so no consent is required for reuse. Hence, I would like to confirm if it is permissible to upload an image provided in this link to Wikipedia and if so, which license to use? ShappeAli (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)