Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


Beatles US sleeves

[edit]

Hello there. Today I came across the sleeve of "The long and winding road" by the Beatles, first published in 1970 in the US, as seen here on Discogs. The sleeve has no copyright notice. Could this mean the sleeve is in the public domain? Bedivere (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that way to me. More interestingly, I don't see a copyright notice on the record itself either. I'll be interested to hear from others who have more experience with this kind of work. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other pressings ([1] [2]) do not have a copyright notice either. Bedivere (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright symbol for sound recordings (℗) wasn't a thing in US law until 1971. Jarnsax (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Public Library Digital Collections

[edit]

I came across File:"Free Huey, Seize the Time" political button.jpg uploaded under a {{PD-because}} license with the justification being that the work is from the "New York Public Library Digital Collections". There's a "Right's statement" at the near the bottom of [https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/c5b51a80-6be8-0135-c68a-2dfdfd17d363 the file's source page", that begins with the sentence "The New York Public Library believes that this item is in the public domain under the laws of the United States, but did not make a determination as to its copyright status under the copyright laws of other countries." Is this good enough for Commons purposes? If it is, then perhaps a better license than "PD-because" could be created that's specific to the library's collections. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If at all possible, I think we should substitute the actual reason for it to be in the public domain for the library's own determination. In this case, the button is very likely to have been distributed without a copyright notice, and since the party and movement were active in the US, we can safely assume it to be a US work. So I would substitute {{PD-US-no-notice}} for the {{PD-because}} statement. Felix QW (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just need a new template like those in category:No known restrictions license tags for the NYPL. This is the exact type of situation that those templates are for. Jarnsax (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisboa 2011 139 (6474542577).jpg

[edit]

Can anyone determine where File:Lisboa 2011 139 (6474542577).jpg is located? There could be COM:FOP issues depending upon where it's located per COM:MURAL, and it also looks like this might be a case of COM:BASEDONPHOTO. The same mural can be seen [Tupac Wall Mural – divyajanan here], here (where it's attributed to "Tupac Painting by Spray Spotting - Fine Art America") and here (which seems to imply it's in Libson). If this is really located in Libson, then it's not clear whether Portugal's FOP also extends to 2D works of art like this per COM:FOP Portugal. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "Tupac murals in Lisbon" and found numerous different photographs of this same image. That and the image title would affirm that the photograph is in Lisbon, in Portugal Bastique ☎ let's talk! 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reverse image search also consistently points to Lisbon, and one of the websites you linked even specifies the area of Lisbon. Note that the EXIF data also says Lisbon. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there is precedent for keeping 2D FOP images in Portugal. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:RatoMetroLx3.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salgueiro Maia graffiti.jpg Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a good resource from a Portuguese scholar regarding the Portuguese FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it would seem it isn't even a question, 'works' includes anything that could be defined as 'works' Bastique ☎ let's talk! 01:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that opinion is completely unambiguous. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who commented. I've added {{FoP-Portugal}} for the photographed mural to the file's page based on the comments above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New court decision about freedom of panorama in Germany

[edit]

Germany's highest regular court, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), has decided that photos taken from above using a photo drone are not covered by the FOP exception in Germany's copyright law. The case was about drone photos of sculptures placed on colliery spoil tips in Germany's Ruhr area. [3], [4]. Discussions (in German) at Commons:Forum and at de.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 07:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an expected ruling since publicly available views rather than public spaces are what German FOP is about. Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were conflicting decisions by lower courts (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/05#New case law about freedom of panorama in Germany), so the case was not immediately obvious. I personally expected a decision like that from the BGH, they're usually quite protective of author's rights. With some exceptions like the wallpaper cases below. --Rosenzweig τ 09:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig@Abzeronow: here is the English-language article on the court ruling. The logic is that the FoP privilege given by Sec. 59 of the German copyright law only applies to photographing of copyrighted pieces of buildings and artworks from the ground or street level where the public has 100% access. It is obvious that airspace is not publicly-accessible: you still need some forms of clearances to access the air, like airplane documents (ticket/visa/passport etc.), balloon tickets, et cetera. Drone is also a special device to allow photographers to illegally gain enhanced but non-public vistas of such works, on the same German legal logic as helicopters, ladders, et cetera. On their Facebook post, Freelens has adviced website developers and multimedia or photography creators to remove drone photos of copyrighted buildings and artworks, as a precaution (to prevent more needless lawsuits from architects and sculptors). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Canadian North Airlines

[edit]

Buenas,se puede publicar el logo de Canadian north (aerolínea canadiense) es simple o complejo? si es simple ,se puede publicar a Wikimedia?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian North
Definite no for the 2003 polar bear logo.
The current logo suggests a man and is not a common stick figure; it may be above COM:TOO.
Glrx (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Por ejemplo:https://canadiannorth.com/) se puede publicar el nuevo logo?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No to the upload. Given the American Airlines logo ruling, I think the man is not clearly below the threshold of originality in the US. Glrx (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mira (File:First Air logo (2017).svg) el usuario público con SVG y {{PD-textlogo}}. AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Bastique:cual es tu opinión, es posible abrir el DR? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: File:First Air logo (2017).svg has been nominated for deletion. Glrx (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AbchyZa22 No estoy aquí todos los días. No me necesitas pingar cada vez, hay otros administrators 😉. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 16:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the AA logo, courtesy link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:American Airlines logo 2013.svg (fair use image for context: on enwiki). See Commons:Threshold of originality#Logos and flags and for some US examples see Commons:Threshold of originality#United States of America and COM:TOO Canada. I find the issue perplexing. Commander Keane (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Limón NASA poem -- Europa Clipper plate

[edit]

Slightly unique situation I just noticed, wondering if anyone has any insight here. Ada Limón, the US Poet Laureate, wrote a poem for NASA for the Europa Clipper space probe -- the poem was etched into a metal panel and attached to the probe before it was launched. NASA uploaded a photo somewhere of the panel, someone then uploaded the image to Commons because it's ostensibly copyright-free. But the image also technically contains copyrighted material - Limón's poem. She doesn't give up possible copyright just because she's fulfilling a task for the government, correct? AFAIK she wasn't a paid employee of the federal government, but rather an independent contractor creating a work that she gave to the government (NASA). Would this mean that the poem is still under copyright, and thus a picture of the etched metal panel would be a derivative work?

LOC claims the work is copyrighted, wondering what more informed folks think about this. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. Gnom (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the LOC is an authority so I see no reason to not take their word for it. Rather than deleting the files, I suggest blurring the text on the four images that contain the poem. I'd be happy to handle this and hide the originals if there is agreement for this route. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blurry part of the text would be a solution. But isn't there a better source than Facebook? Yann (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. I've searched for alternatives and, bizarrely, it appears that image was only published on social media. That said, the account is JPL's, so I wouldn't think there would be an issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this version: File:Europa Clipper commemorative plate 2.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blurring makes sense to me! 19h00s (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blur has been applied to File:Europa Clipper commemorative plate 2.jpg, File:Europa Clipper commemorative plate 2 (cropped).jpg, File:Europa Clipper commemorative plate.jpg, and File:Europa Clipper vault plate obverse and reverse.jpg, and previous versions hidden. Please let me know if anyone finds additional files that need redacting. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of originality: Gradiometer survey

[edit]

Are there any opinions on whether File:Magnetic image of council circle.jpg passes the US threshold of originality? At the original source, it is under a non-commercial educational use only license, so it could only be kept if it is below the threshold of originality. If people believe it to be copyrightable, I'd open a DR. Felix QW (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James, do you have any thoughts? I don't think this is a ToO Issue, because this isn't an artistic work, this is scientific data, and the rules around data representation are very confusing. I think there was a similar discussion around some data from the New York Times, but I can't find the exact case. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Felix QW, after further investigation, this appears to be a copyrightable image. I think a DR is in order. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 18:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plots of some data are not copyrighted. However, I would say this image should have at least the same copyright protection as an aerial photograph. Given the NC nature of the website, a DR is appropriate. Glrx (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medical imaging is not copyrightable in the USA as it is simply recreating what is there with no originality applied to it. Do not know about this image. One could always upload it to NCCommons.org however not sure if any wikis have adopted this yet.[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James, I don't think this is medical imaging, this looks like land survey data. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 17:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never stated it was. Just mentioning the copyright rules around medical imaging in the USA. The Commons community can decide as they wish. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! Any further input is welcome at the deletion request page. Felix QW (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work of Ihor Hordiy

[edit]

Пишу українською мовою, бо не можу чітко висловити своє запитання англійською мовою. Прошу перекласти, якщо хтось достатньо володіє обома мовами.

Ситуація така: архітектор Ігор Гордій завантажив у Вікісховище серію власних архітектурних проєктів, які в більшости реалізовані в місті Тернополі (Україна), зокрема, завантажив цю світлину каплички (саме зображення вже збудованої споруди, а не ескіз твору), яка збудована 2013 року (також інші зображення будівель за його проєктами: File:Ресторан у с. Підгородньому.jpg, File:Тернопіль - Будинок по вул. Митрополита Шептицького, 5-а.jpg, File:Житловий будинок по вул. Липова в м. Тернополі.jpg, File:РТОК по вул. Кульчицької в м. Тернополі (2016 р.).jpg, File:Автосалон «Міцубісі», «Сузукі», «Ніссан» по вул. Микулинецькій в м. Тернополі (2009 р.).jpg, File:Торговий центр по вул. Оболоня в м. Тернополі (2016 р.).jpg).

Питання: в Україні відсутня Свобода панорами, але, якщо сам архітектор, який створив реалізовані в натурі (збудовані) будинки, завантажив на Вікісховище зображення цих будинків (споруд) під ліцензією CC-BY-SA-4.0 , то чи означає це, що він надав згоду на фотографування і завантаження зображень цих самих будинків іншим фотографам? Микола Василечко (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Summary of auto-translation: UK Architect Ihor Hordiy uploaded photographs of his own projects to Commons under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Does that CC-BY-SA license transfer to other photographers who wish to upload photographs of the same projects by Hordiy, even as there is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 18:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason it would. He didn't free-license the building, he free-licensed the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The CC license applies to "Licensed Material" --- defined as "the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License." Insofar as it is such a work, and given that there is no notice that it is excluded from the scope of the license, the appearance of the building embodied in the photograph should be included within this license grant. The "Licensed Rights" are defined as "the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license." "Adapted Material" according to the CC license is any material that is "derived from or based upon the Licensed Material […]" — but not necessarily from the Licensed Material in the particular form it takes in the photograph. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they uploaded photographs, I would assume the license would just apply to those photographs. We have to give authors that option -- licensing the building appearance so far as it is seen in those photographs, but should not assume more. I would simply consider the photograph itself the "Licensed Material" and I'd prefer to see a court case before aggressively assuming anything beyond what we actually need to host. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the images uploaded by the architect himself (or his camp/representatives) are the only images with legal licensing, since only the architect has the right to share and distribute the photos on the Internet. The uploaders can only have the right to freely share their photos here if they had prior permission from the architect, which should be made through COM:VRTS correspondence (like an email from Ihor Hordiy). The best option is to convince him to finally allow the free licensing of all images here as well as future uploads of his buildings, in a one-shot correspondence of authorization. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller: by way of a thought experiment here: if I paint an oil painting, and then free-license a macro image of one particular brush stroke (or a few such images), would you say I have thereby free-licensed the oil painting? Presuming the answer is "no," then how is what you are arguing different from that? - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very different. In your hypothetical, the copyrighted work (painting) is not substantially included within the image. Here, the copyrightable work (the design of the exterior of the building) is substantially included, and the license should be taken to apply to what is actually conveyed in the image. It is 100% kosher for someone to draw a picture of the building at a different angle — and it would also be allowed to take a photograph of a physical building to yield a similar result. In fact, the images posted by Hordiy tend to include most of the external appearance of the building; the other parts are generally similar to the parts included, to the point where they may include minimal (if any) separate originality constituting an independent copyrightable work from the portions actually shown.
The contrast between these scenarios is that in your hypothetical almost none of the hypothetical painting is shown, whereas these photos show almost all of the copyrightable elements of the exterior design.
As for what @JWilz12345 says, anyone who receives the license certainly has permission to depict whatever copyrighted work is fully contained within the picture from a different angle, and whether this is done via drawing or via photography is irrelevant. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gor Igor: Чи можете дати відповідь, як автор проєктів будівель? --Микола Василечко (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Написав також листа через електронну пошту до автора. Якщо зрозуміє про що мова, відповість і надасть дозвіл, то це буде позитивне вирішення. Інакше, доведетьсмя вилучати деякі завантажені зображення його проєктів будівель, завантажених іншими фотографами, наприклад зображення каплички у цій категорії.--Микола Василечко (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello, could anyone see if they're able to see this specific issue of Texas Monthy and check if there is any copyright notices for it? As well as to see if it applies for this image? reppoptalk 03:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The January 1977 issue of Texas Monthly was registered for copyright with the USCO on December 16, registration number B288604: Catalog of Copyright Entries 1977 Part 2: Periodicals, page 385. Registrations of collective works covered all contents. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! reppoptalk 19:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli logos

[edit]

Even though COM:TOO Israel says Israel's threshold of originality has moved closer to the US's in recent years, I'm not sure File:Logo of Agudas Chasidei Chabad.png, File:Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch logo.png, File:COLEL-CHABAD-LOGO v1 current-1024x278.png, File:Logo of Devar Malchut.jpg, File:Living archive Jem.jpg and File:Aleph Institute Logo.jpg are even simple enough for the US's TOO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cosplayer of Rin Tohsaka from Fate-stay night at Comic Market 82 20120821.jpg

[edit]

Watermark shows "2chコスプレ写真うpスレ転載禁止" This file seem like copyvio, but probably needs a Japanese speaker to say for sure. Do we have anyone who speaks Japanese here?--125.230.85.49 12:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of person, taken by a professional photographer

[edit]

Hello, I am sure this has been answered before, but I was unable to find the info, sorry. I have created a new article about a person. I want to add their photo. They provided the photo, which was taken by a professional photographer. All parties agreed to the use of this photo. It has been widely published on the internet before. Shortly after adding it to my wikipedia article, the photo was taken down. Reason: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images. I have then tried to upload it again, which was denied. I now want to try uploading the same or a similar photo, but I want to get it right this time. Not sure how to proceed. The upload wizard always ends with "Don't upload this photo". I am located in Germany, if this matters. Thank you for your help. Roeckelsemm (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC) This is the article in question: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rabe[reply]

@Roeckelsemm: Have the photographer contact COM:VRT to confirm permission. Abzeronow (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or the photographer can post the photo on a web site or public-facing social media page clearly under their control, indicating the granted license, and you can then cite that as the source. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free or non free image subject? (Australia Local Govt public information sign)

[edit]

I asked this at Commons helpdesk, a responder suggested I post it here for an appropriate answer...

In 2023 I photographed and uploaded my image of this information sign (includes some text) in public view (attached to the street frontage of a Council building) in my home town, Lismore in Australia, but am now wondering whether maybe the content would be non free to do so - advice appreciated... File:Lismore flood levels to 2022.jpg - Regards, Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This question concerns the w:threshold of originality at which a work becomes eligible for copyright.
In Australia, that's a low bar! The Copyright Act (1968) makes specific references to charts and diagrams. Australian case law touching on the threshold of originality has focused on whether a work was created by humans or just a mechanised compilation to which humans have contributed along the way (eg, a TV guide or phone directory). I think a chart or diagram like this would be eligible for copyright in Australia. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "low bar" that means "really strict", right? As an alternative would it be ok for someone to create a diagram based on the photo, with the years and flood levels, or would that be a derivate work of something under copyright. I am thinking it is just data, but not sure. Commander Keane (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Low bar" means that there doesn't have to be much to a design for it to be eligible for copyright -- even a really simple design like the Aboriginal Flag is eligible for copyright in Australia. This sign is considerably more complex than that, including its stylised water droplets.
But the factual information in the sign is not copyrightable, so I don't see why anyone couldn't make a diagram based on that. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to responders, it sounds to me like this information sign would be copyrighted as human-created, in which case I will request Commons admins to remove it and remove the links to it in Wikipedia (2 places). The same information can probably just be presented as an external link to something published elsewhere: a shame because I rather liked the presentation effort that had gone into making this sign. I am guessing that displaying it in a public place does not simply mean folk like myself can take a photo and put it on Commons as a copyright free image. Thanks - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it didn't have the graphics (water drops), there would be no issue IMO. No different to the manual flood gauges. Bidgee (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony 1212 -- Not in the case of a 2D work like this, no. (3D works like sculptures, buildings, models of buildings, and craft works on permanent public display are different). However; let me have a go at creating a free alternative :) --Rlandmann (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! Tony 1212 (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may find this graphic helpful as well - if readable :) https://www.lismore.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/1/2.-community/7.-emergencies-amp-disasters/images/flood/history-of-lismore-flood-events.png?w=902&h=609 Tony 1212 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem -- ideally, what would you like the graphic to represent? The original file has just the 4 biggest since 1974. Did you want any others included too? --Rlandmann (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlandmann: This https://www.lismore.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/3/2.-community/7.-emergencies-amp-disasters/documents/flood/history-of-lismore-flood-events.pdf is a good source for data of every recorded flood in Lismore. Gnangarra 11:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlandmann I'm not sure - whatever has the most impact I suppose (which would be the major floods; there are a lot more minor ones). In case it helps, the context for the original graphic is being affixed to the pump station itself, per this Google street view - link ... I quite like the juxtaposition of the building with the flood markers. If it helps, I could photograph the building myself on Friday and you could re-use that as a backdrop (or something), although it is rather ugly... but any other thoughts are welcome! Tony 1212 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow the people vs flood height pic in the link is remarkable! Reminds me of File:Human-brachiosaurus size comparison.svg ;-)--Commander Keane (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Commander Keane, @Rlandmann Yes, and the pavement is already 9.5 meters above the AHD (Australian Height Datum). The river normally sits at around 0.5 m above AHD, current plot here... http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDN60231/IDN60231.058176.plt.shtml Tony 1212 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more flood data here, excluding the 2022 event which was unprecedented: https://rous.nsw.gov.au/cp_galleries/flood_mitigation/master/Lismore-moderate-to-major-flood-peaks-1880---2017.PNG ... up to creative users what would be a good visualization of some of this data! Tony 1212 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Commander Keane, @Rlandmann Well I put up the image for deletion and @Infrogmation of New Orleans opined that it was not a copyvio; perhaps this diversity of views should be discussed further... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can a letter from a French Govt official be added as a source?

[edit]

If a person received a letter from a French Govt official on a official ministerial letter head with a Govt. Document number. Can it be added to support a fact regarding that ministry. From what I have seen online, this document is in the public domain. Is that correct? What criteria need to be met? Measureonce (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Measureonce: You seem to be asking several separate questions:
  • Is a letter from a French government official inherently in the public domain?
    • French copyright law is rather different from Anglo-American copyright law, in that it separates droit d'auteur (which is about attribution) from patrimonial rights (which are more about the right to reproduce the document and who is entitled to compensation). The former is clearly satisfied by correct attribution to the author. Can you tell me what basis you have to think the latter does not prevent publication of this document? Certainly not everything produced by an employee of the French government is effectively in the public domain. "From what I have seen online" is not exactly a citation for your claim.
  • Is a document like this within Commons scope?
    • Quite likely, but really no one can tell you that without seeing the document, or at least having a good description of the document.
  • Can this document be cited to "support a fact"?
    • This is not something Commons can help you with at all, but most likely placing it on Commons does not in any way make it more citable. Documents need not be online to be cited (certainly not for Wikipedia, and I've never really heard of any other site having that as a standard), though of course it is convenient to be able to link a copy. If it is already online somewhere, adding a copy to Commons is of literally no advantage in this respect.
Jmabel ! talk 19:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I see there is a lack of photos of the chinese military, i found quite some photos on the Chinese MOD website and can also possibly get some screenshots on the official CCTV channel 7/Chinese military youtube channel(idk which one owns it, I see some videos from the chinese military and some from channel 7 there); May i ask if i'm allowed to upload them and what extra procedures do i need to go through? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom of the site reads, Copyright © Ministry of National Defense of the People's Republic of China. All Rights Reserved, so the answer is no. Gnom (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay thank you. How about youtube? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac: I am afraid but those videos are also all copyrighted. Gnom (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your information. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InAudio/Infraction

[edit]

I was just listening to the outro music in the video when I found it using Audile. Infraction made it that is a part of the InAudio music library. Regarding the InAudio licensing terms, can anyone assess whether it is eligible? - THV | ♂ | U | T - 03:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC); edited: 03:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the use of the music is limited, which makes it non-free. Gnom (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to blacklist it. Plus, the terms "no copyright" and "copyright-free" are probably problematic and misleading. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 08:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC); edited: 12:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do CC BY-NC-SA licenses pertain to PD-scan artworks?

[edit]

Many institutions own artworks that are in the public domain, but claim copyright whilst allowing noncommercial reproductions of what are scans of these artworks under a CC BY-NC-SA license. Wikimedia does not allow reproduction for commercial use, but does allow "faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art" with the PD-scan tag; an apparent contradiction. Files of this sort have stayed up for more than one year on Wikimedia Commons.

Example 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Hugard_de_Latour.png This file was sourced from the website of Bibliothèque de l'Observatoire de Paris. (https://cosmos.obspm.fr) It is a painting by Claude-Sébastien Hugard de LaTour who died in 1886,[6] thus the artwork is in the public domain. The terms on the Paris Observatory Library website state however [7] "L’utilisation de ces reproductions à usage privé ou public non commercial est autorisée et gratuite, dans le respect du droit d’auteur." Transl. "The use of these reproductions for private or public non-commercial use is authorized and free of charge, in compliance with copyright law."

Example 2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_Ash%C3%A1ninka_settlement_along_the_Chuchuras_River.png This file was sourced from the website of Die Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. (https://smb.museum-digital.de/) It is a photograph taken by Charles Kroehle who died in 1901,[8] thus this artwork is also in the public domain. Similarly, this work was released under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. [9]

What is the consensus regarding scans of public domain artworks which were released under a CC BY-NC-SA license? Are they eligible for the PD-scan and similar tags? Endebyrd (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added PD-Scan to Example 2. If the source uses a noncommercial license but it's a faithful reproduction or scan of a 2D public domain work, we use PD-Art (artwork) or PD-Scan (documents, photographs, etc.). Abzeronow (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the PD-scan/art tags effectively overrule the noncommercial license? Endebyrd (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Commons made a community decision to apply the Bridgeman decision to non-US works so we ignore that for 2D works. Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Endebyrd (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shortest, standard and language-agnostic license statement for social media posts

[edit]

Hi! I started a discussion elsewhere about what would be the shortest, standard and language-agnostic license statement for social media posts that we as Wikimedia Commons community would feel comfortable enough with. I was suggested to move the discussion over here:

I'm interested in providing simple ways for people to share their photos to Wikimedia Commons. In particular, I'm interested in ways how they can share their Instagram posts. I have already read this, this, this and this and found them all very interesting and useful.

What do you think may be the shortest text they may add to their post that acceptably communicates their will to release it under a CC license? I'm trying to find something as short, standard and language-agnostic as possible, as I think something like that may (1) make it easier for authors to add it, (2) make it easier for everyone to search such freely-licensed content on Instagram, and (3) make it easier for us to confirm (even automatically) that the post has been licensed appropriately.

Ideally, I think a hashtag such as #CC_BY_SA_4_0 would meet all the criteria above. Do you think this would be clear and unambiguous enough? It does not include a link to the license, but the examples provided here don't include them either and seem to be OK.

Consider also this previous thread for additional context.

Maybe we could come up with some guideline or policy? Maybe something like Commons:Flickr files? And maybe update Commons:License review and Commons:Where is the license on various sites? accordingly? Diegodlh (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I (insert name here) do Hereby release my work under (insert free license here)." in the caption. The image still has to be within scope. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that e.g. simply adding "CC BY-SA 4.0" to a photo is already enough. Gnom (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think there needs to be some statement of who took the photograph. A hashtag or licence mention could also mean that they're reposting a CC-licenced image they found online, and (wrongly) believe that it's enough to mention the licence type, without naming the original photographer. (eg. https://www.instagram.com/p/Bn2EqKxlmHi, which looks more like someone using a free stock photo.) Belbury (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about a guideline on Commons similar to that on Wikipedia, but to extend the guidelines to include publicists and agents. Of course we would have to call it Commons:Publicists, Agents, and You (COM:PAY). 😅 Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
com:PAY should be the paid editor page. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 23:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

COM:CRT/Malaysia used to contain contradictory information on whether the 1987 copyright act was retroactive. However, the section cited both for and against retroactivity seems clear to me in stating that expired terms would not be revived:

[T]his Act shall apply in relation to works made before the commencement of this Act as it applies in relation to works made after the commencement of this Act: Provided that this section shall not be construed as reviving any copyrights which had expired before the commencement of this Act.

I edited COM:CRT/Malaysia accordingly; however, since the previous copyright terms for photographic works were 25 years from publication, this seems to place all pre-1962 photos first published in Malaysia into the public domain, regardless of the life dates of the author, and also avoids URAA restoration for those works.

Does anyone see a fault in this chain of thought, and if not, should we perhaps create a template to reflect this? Felix QW (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My read of it is that all works that were in copyright in 1987 had their terms extended, while all works that were expired in 1987 did not have their copyrights extended so pre-1962 published photos are PD as far as URAA as well as all works by authors who died before 1962. Abzeronow (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to Abzeronow. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of it is similar to Abzeronow's interpretation, but I also see that regarding licenses, exceptions etc. the current law applies. The retroactivity part applies to such things as licensing, copyright exceptions, and penalties, while the non-retroactive part is for works that are already in PD in Malaysia by the time the law took effect. We may need to take into account two aspects of retroactivity in copyright laws: retroactivity regarding uses/licenses/exceptions and retroactivity regarding copyright terms. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I am a bit confused about using National Portrait Gallery images, I know there has been some disputes about usage and I'm unsure of the rules. I want to upload this image from 1922. The photographer is unknown but it is by Bassano Ltd. I have seen some other NPG Bassano Ltd images on the Commons from the same year. Would this particular image be ok to upload and under what license? Spiderpig662 (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this is a negative that was acquired in 1974 might mean it's still under copyright in the U.K. (and thus the U.S.). Abzeronow (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phi Kappa Hall plaque, Athens, GA.jpg

[edit]

Since the text on the plaque shown in File:Phi Kappa Hall plaque, Athens, GA.jpg seems to be nothing more than factual information and not really creative prose and the plaque's design appears to be fairly utilitarian, it seems like all that's needed here is a {{PD-text}} license. Am I missing something? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Well, the text is PD, but the photographer holds a copyright in their work. Gnom (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The license provided by the uploader (assuming they're also the photographer) is fine, but it isn't applicable to the plaque. My apologies if my question was unclear, but basically it is whether a separate license (e.g. "PD-text") should be added for the plaque in addition to the one already provided for the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly you can freely add the PD-text template if you wish, or if you want reusers and readers to be more literate in the concept of derivative works. Both the PD-text and the uploader's licensing can be embedded within the {{Licensed-PD}} template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading image posted by a government "head" on IG

[edit]

hello there! The Vice prez of India uploaded this image on the official Instagram account of VP. Are such images considered public domain under GODL.? Can we upload such images to commons? What are the guidelines? ~redmyname31~💬 05:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files created by SantanaZ and Minorax

[edit]

Buenas administradores, estos logos deberían ser removidas (delete) o quedarse (kept)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a case of limited publication?

[edit]

Here's an interesting one from my ongoing review of images uploaded from National Weather Services webpages: File:Sayler Park - Bridgeport tornado.jpg The story goes:

  1. In 1974, Frank Altenau, a resident of Cincinatti, Ohio, took two Polaroid photos of a tornado
  2. He showed his photos to one of his co-workers, Martha Metsch, who happened to be a volunteer weather observer for the NWS and who took the readings at the Cheviot Weather Station. Such weather stations are not offices, but simple collections of instruments distributed across thousands of sites across the US to enable volunteers to take readings to submit back to the NWS. We have photos of a few here. There is no indication that Mr Altenau was also an NWS volunteer, and we have no idea of who his and Ms Metsch's joint employer was. (That is, we have no reason to think that Mr Altenau was a federal employee performing his duties when he took these photos).
  3. Ms Metsch mailed photocopies of Mr Altenau's Polaroid photos to the NWS regional office at Cincinnati. You can see a copy of her letter here -- https://www.weather.gov/media/iln/events/19740403/Metsch.pdf . Ms Metsch's letter contains no statement about limiting further circulation of the images, and the copy published on the web includes a hand annotation that suggests that her letter was posted somewhere (a notice board?) for staff of the regional office to see.
  4. Many years later, a scan of one of those photocopies was published on the NWS website: https://www.weather.gov/iln/19740403 and eventually made its way here to the Commons.

It seems probable that Mr Altenau was aware that Ms Metsch was (a) making copies of his photos and (b) intended to submit those copies to the NWS; and we can infer that this happened with his consent.

My analysis: pre-1976 US courts sought to avoid accidental divestiture of copyright by developing a doctrine of "limited publication" to distinguish circulation of a work from general publication. Such limited publication was to a select group of people (not the general public) and for a specific purpose. I think that the facts we know or can safely infer fit that.

If so this image remained unpublished (as far as we know) until posted on the web, post 1989, and copyright belongs to Mr Altenau (or his heirs or estate).

Question: Does anyone think that the facts as we know them suggest general publication (which would put this image into the public domain for want of a copyright notice) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=951811762"