Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Kenhub videos

This discussion stems from Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices#Kenhub videos and Commons:Village pump#A dangerous precedent - DMCA after false relicensing, but I think the question of what to do with the other 90 videos is complicated enough to be worth a separate discussion. I would have opened a deletion request, but I'm not sure I actually think anything should be deleted.

The background is that in 2015, CFCF uploaded a bunch of videos from the Kenhub - Learn Human Anatomy channel on YouTube. They can be found with Special:Search/intitle:Kenhub. The uploader tagged them with CC BY 3.0, with a note saying "Licenced as CC-BY as of download date 3/1/15". But most of them didn't have a link to the source video and weren't licence-reviewed. Two of them were taking down in response to a DMCA request recently.

I've found 29 of the videos are still on YouTube and I've added added {{From YouTube}} as their source, which provides convenient archive links. In other cases (an in particular for all the "preview" videos I've checked) the channel has replaced the videos with newer ones at different URLs.

I've looked through the Wayback Machine archives for those videos, and very few of them were archived close to their upload date. But a few had archived versions from 2014 and 2015 and I've also found a few other old videos on the channel with archives from 2014 and 2015. The "show more" link on the archived pages doesn't work, but the licence can be found in the HTML source. This is what I found, sorted by the date they were captured by the Wayback Machine:

Capture	Commons file	Licence
20141009004017		CC BY 3.0
20141101193855		CC BY 3.0
20141106054704		CC BY 3.0
20141209091851	File:Pectoralis Major Muscle - Anatomy and Function - Human Anatomy Kenhub 1.webm	CC BY 3.0
20150116132344		Not stated(?)
20150125135848		Not stated(?)
20150609232518	File:What is the Anatomical Snuff Box - Human Anatomy Kenhub.webm	Standard YouTube
20150826061638		Standard YouTube
20151005221253		Standard YouTube
20151204184225	File:Teres Minor Muscle - Origin, Insertion, Innervation & Action - Human Anatomy Kenhub.webm	Standard YouTube
20151204193311		Standard YouTube
20151231013357	File:Pectineus Muscle - Function, Origin, Insertion & Innervation - Human Anatomy Kenhub 1.webm	Standard YouTube

So all the captures from 2014 show a CC BY 3.0 licence, while the ones from 2015 show either a Standard YouTube Licence or no licence at all. This would be consistent with all of Kenhub's videos being licensed under CC BY 3.0 at the date when these files were uploaded to Commons, and with the channel changing is licensing (including on older videos) in 2015.

So what can we do about this? Presumably File:Pectoralis Major Muscle - Anatomy and Function - Human Anatomy Kenhub 1.webm can be kept, since there's an actual capture of its page with the right licence. Can we keep the rest on the assumption that all the licences on the channel were CC BY 3.0 until some time in 2015? bjh21 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me close to certain that their claim is bogus. The question is: is it worth fighting, especially given that for the files they explicitly named in the takedown notice, our evidence is circumstantial? - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the only way to avoid this problem in the future is to always archive a copy of the page when it is uploaded or licence reviewed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a ping to User:JSutherland (WMF) as this might be interesting to him, in case he hasn't followed the related discussions closely, and User:BChoo (WMF) from the Legal Department as well. As I see it, per bjh21's research, it is most likely that these videos were all originally licensed under CC-BY at YouTube, just as the Commons uploader CFCF claims in the related discussion, and the license was changed later to non-free. As this would make the DMCA request which was grounds for deleting the two files bogus (CC-BY licenses are irrevocable), I would welcome it if the WMF would take a stand against this in some form. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Jmabel points out, it may not be worth pursuing. WMF should consider sending a letter to Pellonia Technologies LTD. demanding a declaration from the author that each of the videos was never released under a CC-BY 3.0 license. Glrx (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that last is a very good idea. Very good first step. If they won't do that, then there would presumably be a basis to object to the takedown notice. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, as bjh21 has shown, we do have evidence that at least some of the videos were originally licensed under CC BY 3.0, as per the Internet Archive's captures. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestumblindi: but not, as I understand it, the ones for which they sent a takedown notice. So all we really have is circumstantial evidence. I think it would be reasonable to press them for an overt statement that they never free-licensed those particular files. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work digging up the table above. I am quite pressed right now, and would not have had the time to go through all the files. I did not even remember uploading all of them. However, this does mirror my recollection - they were all CC-BY at the time of uploading, and later changed to Standard YouTube licences.

I'm not sure what the ideal way forward is, or what the legal implications would be of raising this as a case. I can restate, that I do not see myself in a position to counter the DMCA-notice, but if anyone else would do that, or if the WMF would see it fit to do so, I do not object. What is dangerous in not acting is that we open for others to do the same, and defending the CC-BY licensing process is certainly within the realm of what is important for the WMF. It would be very helpful to have a response from User:BChoo (WMF) or User:JSutherland (WMF) on this matter. Even if the WMF would choose not to prioritize this issue, I think the community would be quite happy with an acknowledgement that false relicensing followed by DMCA-takedown is an issue that is popping up. CFCF (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who has standing to contest a DMCA takedown notice, but I think what we (for variable values of "we") should do is to ask them to assert overtly that the files were never licensed CC-BY 3.0, and present our circumstantial evidence. I would hope they would be hesitant to stick their neck out and make a claim that is almost certainly false and could eventually somehow be proven so. (E.g. if this went to court, YouTube quite likely has backups that would prove the matter.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for a third party to file a counter-notice to a DMCA takedown. It is uncommon, though, since the party filing the counternotice must be pretty confident that the permission was right. Platonides (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

en:File:John Noel with filming equipment, 1922.jpg

Hi, I don't understand why this would still be under a copyright. The author can't be Noel, as he is on the picture. Whether the author is Bruce or unattributed, it is out of copyright in UK and in USA. Please see also en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#File:John Noel with filming equipment, 1922.jpg. Yann (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the file can be moved to commons. The description says that it was simultaneously published in the US and UK, so its "country of origin" under the Berne definition is the US. prospectprospekt (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~@Yann: Of course Noel could be the author and be in the picture. In fact, that's the most likely scenario here, since he was undoubtedly alone. Even in 1922 technology was advanced enough to use camera equipment on a delay or via a wired remote the same way we do it today to take selfies at a distance. As Noel died in 1989, it would still be under copyright in the United States. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 02:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only way for the photo to still be copyrighted is if its publication in The Assault on Mount Everest was unauthorized. I'm not sure if this is a significant or theoretical doubt, but the photo's transition between being unpublished and published probably involved the photographer giving the photo to/allowing it to be copied by someone else, if that can be considered granting permission for its further distribution. prospectprospekt (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works that were published more than 95 years ago are out of copyright in the United States, no ifs, ands, or buts. All works published before 1929 (1930 in January) are out of copyright in the US. I don't find it worth considering that this was an unauthorized publication without it having been previously published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make it clear that it was entirely possible that Noel is the author of this photograph, contrary to the assertion in the OP, especially given that he has credit for it, regardless of the provenance of its copyright. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I did some research. The earliest "selfie" was also the earliest photographic portrait, taken in 1839 by daguerreotype, by Robert Cornelius, who was himself standing away from the camera. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 02:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it was published at the same time in UK and USA, so it could be considered a US work for our purpose. Yann (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Commons policy take cognaissance of it being reasonably possibly still be in UK copyright under UK law when first publication was UK? Photographer possibly John Noel (who was also the subject)[1] who died 1989. The US publication was slightly later but de jure "simultaneous". Clearly it is out of copyright in US. Thincat (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a work was published concurrently in more than one country, the Berne Convention stipulates that the source country is the country with the shortest copyright term. This means that the copyright has expired in the source country if the copyright has expired in at least one of the countries in which it was concurrently published. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Out of copyright for Commons (and, seemingly, UK). I had been wondering if this was a case of US exceptionalism but no. Thincat (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite: still in copyright in the UK, but we don't care, because we don't treat that as source country for this. So UK doesn't matter any more that the probably dozen-plus other countries where this was simultaneously published. - Jmabel ! talk 15:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  So with all this information, we can be confident that this photo can be transferred to Commons. I believe Noel should receive credit as author, especially as he has always had credit for it as author. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I copied it to Commons. Yann (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. SwiforD (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

SwiforD (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media without author's death year/date

Are images/videos that could possibly be in the public domain, though the author's death date is unknown or uncertain, permitted on Wikimedia Commons? I have this image from here (full size [2]) that I want to upload on Wikimedia Commons though I couldn't find any information on the death year of its authors (J. Kaufmann and F. Hösick) RandomGuy3114 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomGuy3114: If it's from 1862, it should be fine. {{PD-old-assumed}}. - Jmabel ! talk 07:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And {{PD-US-expired}}, to cover the U.S. side of things. - Jmabel ! talk 07:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-old-assumed-expired}} combines both in one template. --Rosenzweig τ 14:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue Star Donuts.jpg

File:Blue Star Donuts.jpg looks suspicious, because the metadata says the author is Michael Romanos and the uploader's name doesn't resemble this. Also, the link in metadata shows Michael is a professional photographer. It is suspicious per the clues given about professionally taken photos and ambiguous claims in Commons:How_to_detect_copyright_violations. It's also unnatural that a professional photographer would only upload one image. Overall, I suspect it's the act of publicist for a donut company uploading a professionally taken photo as their own. Graywalls (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Yeah, Google Lens turns up uses of it all over the place, so it's probably a stock photo. I've tagged it as a copyright violation. --bjh21 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21@Graywalls still one more instance of copyvio uploaded through "Cross-wiki upload from en.wikipedia.org" method. It appears this is Justjessk (talk · contribs)'s last remaining upload; their talk page shows another image file that was deleted due to being a derivative work of packaging (I suspect it may be a stock photo too, since it's a photo of "blue donut", so the associated DR should have a note if ever this is true). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted file is definitely a promotional image Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 03:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21: , Well, allegation based on that website you tagged with is a weak one, because I couldn't verify that it existed prior to the update date. However, I think the stronger evidence is the photographer's website and name being in the meta data. Graywalls (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Good point. I've been dealing with newly-uploaded images lately and didn't think to check the dates. I've removed the speedy deletion tag because the copyright violation is no longer obvious, but I think it would be quite reasonable for someone else to tag it with different rationale or to open a full deletion request. --09:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC) bjh21 (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Corps War Memorial

Are we sure that this famous U.S. monument is PD-not-renewed? The website of the National Park Service claims it is protected by copyright, but does not give the name of the current copyright holder, unlike the other entries listed by NPS, which show the names of the artists or the current holders of sculptural rights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a copyright notice on the pedestal to "Felix W. de Weldon", and under it "Sculp. 1945 - 1954" . He made a small statue of it right after seeing the photograph, which eventually led to his being commissioned to make the large one. There is something to the copyright notice rules which may use the 1945 date (with two dates the earlier is used), but realistically it would be 1954 when the larger statue was completed. There would need to be a copyright renewal from Mr. de Weldon -- if we find that, then it's still under copyright. But we'd need to find a listing. Since for a 1954 date the renewal would have had to be in 1981 or 1982, which is after 1978, any such renewal should be online at www.copyright.gov. It's possible the NPS simply doesn't want to rely on a search, or maybe there is something we are missing. There is mention that de Weldon did visit the US Copyright Office in 1977 -- perhaps it was registered then. That would have been too early to file a renewal though (and too late to register and renew for a 1945 date). He did renew a couple of 1965 inaugural medals in 1994, but I can't find anything else online. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg sounds interesting. The Copyright Office article, though, sounds like the late renewal made by Mr. de Weldon was "valid". More details may be needed, though.

For other users, here is the relevent excerpt from the source Carl provided:

There is no way of knowing how many claims to copyright in a sculpture have been registered. But registration applications for many well known sculptures, as well as the sculptors themselves, have passed through the Copyright Office. Among these works are the Marine Corps War Memorial statue by Felix de Weldon, who visited the Office in 1977.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note a registration is not renewal. In 1977, it would have been in its first copyright term. He needed to file a renewal a few years later. It was not PD before then. A 1954 work would have become PD in 1983 without a renewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SVG Recreation

If I create a recreation of an image that doesn't have a .svg equivalent, should I upload it as "my own work" or not? Dentsinhere43 (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There can be tons of work involved (unless some automated process is used) but one can argue that it is just a different format. Like changing a "jpg" into a "png". So I think you should not. Alexpl (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not that easy. Converting from PNG to JPG is a solely technical conversion process performed by a program. A manual conversion of the raster file to an SVG could make the underlying SVG code copyrightable --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pathé News 1923

There is a frame from a Pathé newsreel filmed in 1923 that I would like to upload. Before I spend the time, can I verify the copyright status?

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom doesn't seem to address rights vested in companies. The identity of the cameraman is stated but I doubt that this makes it "anonymous" for legal purposes. There is no way of knowing whether they were employed or commissioned, but the former is more likely.

Any advice? (and can the rules article be updated to address company ownership, please?) JMF (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IMO the copyright holder is/was either the director or the company, not the cameraman. Yann (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to w:Copyright Duration Directive#Films and photographs, Films are protected for 70 years from the death of the last of the following people to die [Art. 2(2)]: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work. To my knowledge, the UK has not changed this since leaving the EU, so the term should still apply.

I assume that no screenplay or dialogue was written or that music was composed, so the only person who potentially exists is the principal director. If the cameraman acted alone and didn't receive directions from anyone else, maybe the cameraman would legally be the principal director, or no one is the principal director.

It seems that the EU didn't realise that some of those people might be anonymous and so only the 70 years from death term is listed in the directive. Probably they only thought of expensive films which cost millions of euros to produce and involve a lot of people and didn't realise that there are simple films too. The EU also forgot to list a copyright term if an author (i.e. copyright holder) exists but none of the listed people exists. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything to say that the 70 year from publication term does not apply to cinematographic works if the authors are in fact anonymous. Those terms can apply to all works. If there was no director etc. named, I would say they are anonymous. For something from 1923, the human author(s) would have needed to be named before 1994, else it became PD then. The UK copyright chart pretty much says the same. The copyright holder would be the company, but the term is still based on the human authors, or the anonymous term if not known. The UK law specifically says that the term is based on the lifetimes of (a) the principal director, (b)the author of the screenplay, (c) the author of the dialogue, or (d)the composer of music specially created for and used in the film. If none of those are known, the term is explicitly 70 years from making available to the public. It sounds like there is no screenplay, and no authored dialogue, and no music author. If the cameraman is named, if they count as the director, the term is based on their lifetime, otherwise it is {{PD-UK-unknown}}. I couldn't quite tell if the cameraman was named by the description, and also not entirely sure if they would count as the director in a case like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. The film in question is a newsreel, essentially a documentary. No screenplay, no music, no dialogue, no overt creative input.

I'll upload it and see what happens. I had hoped that there would already be Wikimedia "case law" for Pathé, but it seems not. JMF (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss-klingenberg-003.jpg

Nach einem abgelehnten Löschantrag bleibt die Kernfrage unbeantwortet: Könnten diese Wappendarstellungen möglicherweise neueren Datums sein und somit urheberrechtlich geschützt? In Frage kommt zum Beispiel ein Rekonstruktionsversuch oder sogar eine eigenmächtige Ausschmückung des Kamins. GerritR (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are these coats of arms really as old as they look?--GerritR (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are these comics in public domain, if so, could you export them?

I was looking up info on what comic books and characters are in public domain for Commons:Character copyrights, and some say Namor is in PD because he was created for Motion Picture Funnies Weekly #1 before the wide release of Marvel Comics #1, and the former book didn't have its copyright renewed. But while many people claim the former book, and by extension Namor, is in PD because he first appeared in Motion Pictures Funnies which didn't have its copyright renewed, this link disputes this, saying that it may have been distributed after Marvel Comics, if at all. Do you think Motion Pictures Funnies is in PD, should the pictures on its Wikipedia page be exported to Commons? After all, the ashcan copies of Flash Comics/Thrill Comics/Whiz Comics #1 are also on Commons.

Moving on to Fawcett, Quality and Charlton. I'm led to believe that some comic covers up on English Wikipedia that are claimed to be non-free are actually free. Since the site Public Domain Super Heroes claim the issues are in PD, they have been up on https://comicbookplus.com/ for decades without problems (while DC has asked them to take down some comics many of them are still up) and these comics have also seen physical reprints from Gwandanaland Comics. Not only were copyrights not renewed, I've read that Charlton failed to put proper copyright notices on most of their comics in the 50s-60s to begin with. So if PDSH, CBP and GC are correct with their selections and assessments, it would be real helpful if someone with experience in exporting files could export the older pics at Captain Atom, Peacemaker (character), Question (character), Hoppy the Marvel Bunny, National Comics (series), Uncle Sam (comics), Doll Man, Firebrand (DC Comics) and Ray (DC Comics) to Commons. Grey ghost (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could use more help than I purported. As helpful as PDSH is, they're a wiki but they have few to no sources in their pages, so they're not completely reliable. And I'm still not sure if Motion Picture Funnies Weekly would be in PD since it was hardly distributed. Not sure either if Charlton put proper copyright notices on their comics. While they're up on comicbookplus.com at the same time digitalcomicmuseum.com say they cannot host some of the same comics. And some Gwandanaland books were taken out of print like this one with Ludwig von Drake. Grey ghost (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Character copyrights can be tricky. Each work that makes use of a character may add more details to that character; that effectively makes the character in that book a derivative work (expression added to an existing work). That additional expression may not be expired even if an early version was. For example, the first Mickey Mouse movie is now public domain, but any later additions to the character (such as a change in drawing style or backstory) remain copyrighted. A character copyright therefore often expires slowly, bit by bit. If the first publication of Namor did not have the copyright renewed, that particular comic is fine, but using any aspects of the character first added in later, still-copyrighted works is not OK. Works published *later* which were not renewed can still be derivative works of earlier works. When it comes to exporting, you have to go by the laws in the country of intended use. Many countries will protect a work for 70pma or other term regardless if copyright was renewed in the US or not. Per Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, that may have never been actually published, or maybe not published until the 1970s, so those may not be OK at all. One case that gets into a lot of details in this area is Warner Bros v. Avela, about reprints of publicity materials involving The Wizard of Oz, Tom and Jerry, and Gone with the Wind. Publicity material published without notice before the movies/cartoons were published were OK (but were not enough to create a character copyright), while ones from later were not. Even adding a (famous) quote from the movie to an otherwise PD print was enough to evoke the character copyright from the film (though characters from the book were public domain, the aspects added in the film are not). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong "Public Domain" for movie

The movie File:Der letzte Mann (1924) by F. W. Murnau.webm is incorrectly tagged as "Public Domain" in almost any country, because one of the authors is missing: Cinematographer w:Karl Freund had the most important role in creating this movie (see w:The Last Laugh (1924 film). Freund died only in 1969. I don't know for which country the movie is then in Public Domain, but it is definitely not the European Union as stated on the movie's page. --178.9.54.185 00:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German law on films is a little unusual from what I recall. For the whole film, Freund would not be considered an author, but for stills from the film, Freund's authorship would apply. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cinematographer is not one of the four persons used to determine the copyright term duration for a film in the EU countries. These persons are director, composer of film music, screenwriter, dialog writer. --Rosenzweig τ 00:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be very careful when determining the copyright status of a film in the European Union. 2006/116/EC has these rules:
- Article 2.2: The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work.
- Article 10.1: Where a term of protection which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive was already running in a Member State on 1 July 1995, this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State.

Article 2.2 means that you have to verify that four people have been dead for at least 70 years. In many member states, Article 10.1 means that you will also have to determine that a bunch of other people associated with the film have been dead for a long time, if the film was made before 1 July 1995.

For example, in Sweden you have to verify that the four people in the directive have been dead for at least 70 years and that virtually everyone else whose name appears in the credits has been dead for at least 50 years (possibly excluding actors, camera men and sound recording people as they would only create related rights which are subject to shorter terms).

I don't know how it works in Germany, but it's possible that the list of people whose death year you have to consider is much greater for pre-1995 films. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rosenzweig. Let's have a look at the four creators that determine the duration of copyright in EU / German law: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music. The copy used here is silent (without music), so I suppose we can disregard the composer, Giuseppe Becce who lived to a very old age and died only in 1973 (besides, any new recording of the music would be protected separately). The principal director was F. W. Murnau who died in 1931; the screenplay is by Carl Mayer who died in 1944, and there seems to be no separate author for the dialogue (the film doesn't even have the usual intertitles). The cinematographer Karl Freund doesn't count for the movie as a whole, but, as Rosenzweig says, due to the peculiarities of German law, film stills (not moving pictures) would be protected until 2039 (70 years after Freund's death). Furthermore, as the file is a modern restoration, there is the question whether it might enjoy separate protection as a "scholarly edition". Related discussions for another Murnau movie: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nosferatu (still open), Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nosferatu (1922).webm and this discussion in German-language Wikipedia. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA "Weather in Focus" photo contest 2015 submissions

In 2015, the NOAA ran a "Weather in Focus" photo contest. The terms of submission included:

"NOAA will have unrestricted use of all submitted photos and accompanying material." and
"Additional NOAA websites may also consider publishing these images."

However, there was no suggestion that copyright in the submissions would be surrendered, or that anyone other than the NOAA would be licensed to use the images.[3] When the contest was judged, and the winners announced, the contest main page stated

"Photo Usage: The winning photographs are the property of the photographer who took them. For usage agreement, please contact the photographer."[4]

Since then, the NOAA migrated at least some of the submitted images to their other image repositories, including the NOAA Digital Collections and the NOAA Photo Library Flickr stream. From there, some of these images have found their way to the Commons.

Note that the NOAA Digital Collections purports to only host PD images: "Images in the NOAA Digital Library are in the "public domain" and cannot be copyrighted." At the same time, every image I've seen in the NOAA Photo Library Flickr stream is published under CC-BY (even ones clearly created by NOAA employees in performance of their duties).

Here's an example of the problem I'm seeing:

This photo was taken by Ken William, Clio, MI and won second place in the "Weather, Water & Climate" category of the competition. This is a subpage of the main contest page that carries the notice "The winning photographs are the property of the photographer who took them. For usage agreement, please contact the photographer." The results page was published by [5]
On June 27, 2016, it was uploaded to the NOAA Flickr account with the CC-BY licence.[6]
The image was also uploaded at some point to the NOAA Digital Library[7] without a proximate copyright notice, but under a general notice that all site contents are public domain
On July 12, 2016, it was uploaded here, sourced to Flckr.[8]

It looks very much to me like we have good reasons to question whether the photographer ever surrendered the copyright to his image or released it under a free license.

Before I drag this, and at least another 17 images (see below) through DR, can anyone spot anything I'm missing here? Specifically, does anyone think we can take the NOAA at their word here (and if so, which word? PD or CC-BY?)

Affected files

--Rlandmann (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

You can always relicense a PD-file as CC-BY, it just doesn't hold up unless there have been modifications. It is bad practice, but it isn't wrong.
If NOAA published the images as either PD or CC-BY on Flickr we must assume that they did arrange for the copyright to be transferred. I don't think we should question NOAA, as it would open to questioning anything published by an American governmental agency, if there isn't explicit authorship, and proof that the author was employed at the agency at that time. CFCF (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "we must assume...." The argument above reasonably suggests that the image licenses were laundered. We need not assume the government is infallible. We can take license claims on good faith, but circumstances can arise when we need to question that good faith.

Fundamentally, this issue should be raised at NOAA so it can fix its archives.

Glrx (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, on "You can always relicense a PD-file as CC-BY": the otherwise meticulous Seattle Municipal Archives do this all the time. They don't really worry about whether they still have copyright on an image when they post it to Flickr, they just mark it CC-BY whether copyright persists or not. They are very careful about whether someone else owns a copyright, and always mark those few items in their Flick stream as "All rights reserved". - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that attaching a CC-BY license to a PD file is meaningless and nonsensical at best, and fraudulent at worst. (Even for a person/entity who originally owned the copyright before releasing it into the PD) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of the Seattle Municipal Archives, I gather it is by way of saying: we own or owned the rights to this, we are granting a license, and who knows what actions would or wouldn't count as possibly having published it at some point. - Jmabel ! talk 08:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Besides, CC-BY is a global licence whereas PD is based on national law. By licensing it as CC-BY, anyone can use it anywhere in the world whereas a person relying on PD would be limited to certain countries only. Of course, if it is several centuries old, then it should be PD everywhere and then CC-BY is pointless. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all; the situation seems murky enough that I will start to assemble the evidence and open DRs as needed. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo de Harold Foster

Une photo de Harold Foster publiée dans l'album Spirou n°166 au 2e trimestre 1983 et photographiée avec mon smartphone est-elle publiable dans Wikimedia commons ?@ Cinokat (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinokat: Non, pas sans l'autorisation du détenteur des droits, probablement le photographe. Yann (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.

Hi, s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. is not mentioned in COM:PACKAGING. I think that more information is needed in our policy about when this applies or not, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg. This has recently come into several DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heinz Yellow Mustard packet (20213949971).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg, etc. Yann (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably should be. That is saying that if the point of the photo is a larger subject, and the copyrightable element is incidental, i.e. unavoidably there but not the main focus, then the photo is OK. This is mentioned in Commons:De minimis although not really actually de minimis. The ruling is pretty much directly on point for copyrightable labels on otherwise utilitarian products. It can be difficult if the entire packaging is copyrightable, though. It's also still a problem if the photo is focusing on the label. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing of Salome - simultaneous publication

We keep the score of Archibald Joyce's Passing of Salome, which was published in 1912. One can see the title page here: https://musescore.com/user/64608175/scores/10757761. Archibald Joyce died in 1963, so it will still be in copyright in the UK. On that title page, both London and New York are named as places, although it is "printed in England". What are peoples' opinions on whether this is "simultaneous publication" and allows us to keep this image? Given that this is more about Commons policy rather than copyright law, I am not entirely sure if the legal 30 day window or the simultaneous publication doctrine are even relevant. Felix QW (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons policy is that we use the copyright term in the U.S. and the Berne "country of origin". The "simultaneous publication" and 30-day window is straight from the Berne Convention on how to determine the country of origin. Why do you think those are not relevant? It should be relevant in any country (which is not the country of origin itself, or the country of the author) which uses the rule of the shorter term, even if the "country of origin" result can seem illogical. As for this... unsure the mention of a New York office directly means it was definitely published in the U.S. within 30 days, but it is suggestive that it's very possible. They have a copyright notice on there, which (particularly for 1912) means they were intent on maintaining U.S. copyright protection specifically. It does appear that other copies were printed in the U.S. as well.[9]. (The 1909 Copyright Act had a "manufacturing clause"[10] that put some limits on copies made outside the U.S. but distributed to the U.S., so there was an incentive to actually manufacture copies in the U.S. as well.) I see U.S. registrations for it -- [11] has:

7945: Passing of Salome; waltz by Archibald Joyce; pf. © Apr. 3, 1912; 2 c. Apr. 4, 1912: E 282740; Ascherberg, Hopwood & Crew, ltd., London.

10320: Passing of Salome; Evening news waltz no. 2 by Archibald Joyce; band. (Boosey's supplemental military journal, no. 103.) © May 18, 1912; 2 c. May 20, 1912: E 286042; Ascherberg, Hopwood & Crew, ltd., London. [Copyright claimed on new band arrangement.]

10321: Passing of Salome; valse by Archibald Joyce; orchestra. 4to. © Apr. 24, 1912; 2 c. May 2, 1912; E 281442; Ascherberg, Hopwood & New, ltd., London.

14681: Passing of Salome; the Evening News waltz No. 2, by Archibald Joyce, [arr. by J. Old Hume;] band. 4to. (In Boosey & co.'s brass and reed band journal, no. 524.) © July 27, 1912; 2 c. July 29, 1912: E 287776; Ascherberg, Hopwood & Crew, ltd., London. [Copyright is claimed on new band arrangement.]

The "2 c" means the date two copies were received at the U.S. Library of Congress (another condition for full protection). I think the "pf." means pianoforte. There is no mention of an "ad interim" copyright, which was needed for books or periodicals first published abroad but which would be manufactured in the U.S. later and needed protection between those two dates (and should give the publication date in each country), though I'm not sure that was needed for musical compositions. That basically says though that the U.S. publication date was April 3, 1912. I can't find exactly when the UK publication date was, but your source says "April 1912" which would seem to indicate it was first published in the U.S., or very very close together at the very least. We would probably need evidence it was published before March 4, 1912, in the UK I think, to make the UK the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed reply and diligent research! I was mainly aware of the Berne Convention from URAA considerations, so I was unsure whether we use the same standards for our own Commons policy (especially since the UK will presumably still treat it as copyrighted regardless). Felix QW (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we use it primarily because becoming PD in that country *should* mean it also becomes PD in a good number of other countries (rule of the shorter term ones). But yes, a country will always give its own nationals the full copyright term so the rule of the shorter term would not apply in the UK in a case like this. It would not have been public domain anywhere in the EU either before Brexit; that could be an interesting question there as well (although many EU countries had old copyright treaties with the US which mandated they protect US works for those countries' own full terms so that may still apply here too). I'm not sure there has really been a test court case anywhere which involved the Berne "country of origin" when it comes to simultaneous publication for situations like this, so the best we can do is go by the letter of the Berne treaty (though, once we pick a country of origin, that country may have special-case longer terms). US law explicitly does not use any text from the Berne Convention as being legally effective; the URAA though uses the Berne definition of "country of origin" to maximize the number of works which are "United States works" and avoiding the need to restore those. When it comes to picking a "source country" between multiple non-U.S. countries a in a simultaneous publication situation though, they do not use Berne's definition but rather a more common-sense definition. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish cartoon

This cartoon of late Bulgarian violinist Michail Boiadjiev was apparently given to him by a fan after a 1968 concert in Goteborg; he did not get the fan's name. He subsequently gave the cartoon to his friend, user:CorosanD, who uploaded it after Boiadjiev's death.

I reasonably anticipate that the image is still under copyright; when is the earliest that the copyright will expire on a cartoon drawn by an unidentified Swedish citizen in 1968? DS (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess 70 years from then -- 2039. That would be the date if the 1968 act counted as "making available to the public", or it never gets legally published before 2039. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot more complicated.

First, there's a signature in the bottom right. If it's a famous illustrator, this could be a well-known signature. In that case, the author isn't anonymous, which means that the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author.

Secondly, Commons requires PD-US in addition to PD-Sweden. PD-US means 120 years from creation (assuming not published within 25 years from creation), or, if not anonymous, 70 years from death (if not published before 1978).

Third, the standard term in Sweden is 70 years from creation, if the author is anonymous and the work isn't published within 70 years from creation.

Fourth, Article 10.1 of Directive 2006/116/EC states that Where a term of protection which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive was already running in a Member State on 1 July 1995, this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State. According to the old law, the copyright to an anonymous work expires 50 years after publication. If the work is unpublished, it is my understanding that the copyright expires 50 years after the death of the anonymous author. This means that you won't know if it has expired or not until you are sued by the heirs of the anonymous author. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are pictures from this California local government website in the public domain?

I would like to add a picture from this website in United States, California, San Mateo County to Wikimedia. Are the images here in the public domain? https://www.smcsheriff.com/sheriff-christina-corpus PacificDepths (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The website is claiming "© Copyright 2024 by San Mateo County Sheriff's Office" at its very bottom, but that won't matter if this falls under {{PD-CAGov}}. Whether a local sheriff's office is considered one of the "Agencies permitted to claim copyright" is unclear. Even if it is, however, it most likely would only be so in the case for 100% original content created by the sheriff's office, and not for anything hosted that was created by a third-party. I tried Googling "Are sheriff office websites protected by copyright in California?" just to see what came up, and it appears that quite a number of sheriff office's are claiming some form of copyright ownership over their official websites. For example, this one appears to allow for non-commercial reuse (which is too restrictive for Commons) except when clearly indicated otherwise, with the same applying with respect to this one as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old maps of Dili

In this book (Dili's Architectural Heritage of Portuguese Origins) there are a number of map images from very old (centuries) maps. Is screenshotting these and uploading them acceptable under Public Domain, or is this affected by the republishing? (I don't think the full maps are on Commons, if anyone knows how to get them that'd be great.) Also double checking if the US army maps at this page can be uploaded. Best, CMD (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I can't access the first link you give. What is the publication date of this book? All works by the US government are in the public domain, so maps from the 2nd link (CIA maps) should be OK. Please check first that they are not already on Commons. Yann (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I seem to have the same situation. I am told "Publication access is currently limited" and "Limitation will be handled by the publisher, and the publication may be accessible again later.", and strangely, I am not allowed to copy that text. However, according to https://issuu.com/incidentaldoc if I search for the text "Dili's Architectural Heritage ..." (which hides "Dili's Architectural Heritage of Portuguese Origins"), I see that it was published October 14, 2015. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, it was working before. I checked the Commons maps before asking this question, although no guarantees I didn't miss it I suppose. CMD (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image can be seen here, but there is no information about it. Yann (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few maps, or parts of maps, within the book with captions. Page 14 has "Dilly's Port and City Plan, Second Edition, 1895. © IICT". Page 18 has a map just called "Dili map © AHU", but it's possibly the 1834 plan discussed in page 19 or otherwise a map from that period. Page 24 has "Dili's Urban Plan, 1972 © IPAD", probably too new for our purposes. Page 26 has an unfortunately low resolution scan of "Hidro-topographic Plant of the city and port of Dili and surrounding area of Timor" 1841, made by the Lte Coronel and Governor of the Province of Timor Island Frederico Leão (1839-1844). © SGL". The front cover you link is a part of that image (although in much higher detail). Page 29 has "Schematic plat of Dili, 1942. © Isabel Boavida." Page 56/57 has a detailed scan of "General Urban Plan of Dili, 1951. © IPAD." Page 59 has "Schematic plat of Dili, 1975. © Isabel Boavida.", again possibly too new. As can be seen, it looks like they listed copyright by whoever provided the image, not the original artist. (There are some old images and drawings as well, but the maps are easier to start with.) The overall book is © Copyright Secretaria de Estado do Turismo, Arte e Cultura Timor-Leste, 14 de Outubro de 2015. CMD (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:CUR Macau

I have not exanimated the referred Decree-Law No. 7/95/M of January 30 completely, but it was repealed and replaced by the Law no. 10/2023 (Chinese version & Portuguese version) thus has no legal status (regarding copyright) any more. Furthermore, on the website of AMCM there is a reproduction guide(Chinese version & Portuguese version) stating that it is exempted to request for presenting Pataca images on a electronic monitor/screen and shall deemed to be approved. Hence, I wonder would this means it is now ok to upload some Pataca images here? — An Macanese 08:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of scans of installation media

Hi! I would like to know if files like this Windows 1.xx disk, this Windows 3.11 diskette, this Windows CD, or this CD fall under PD-scan?

Thanks and regards --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Gnom (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die prägnante Antwort :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit too wordy. How about ✓ ? ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or "1" as binary sequence :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closely traced species plate artwork

Hello, I've been looking for images of a species for a while (Dactylomys boliviensis) and have come up with nothing. A book I have, Handbook of the Mammals of the World Vol 6, has plates that show a nice illustration of each species (see example in this book preview). Would it be an acceptable "derivative work" to copy individual species by hand in grayscale, possibly in different positions, similar to this work File:Dactylomys dactylinus.JPG? Reconrabbit (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work carries the copyright of the underlying work plus the copyright of the person making the derivative work, so if the book in question (or, more precisely, its illustrations, which could be older) is in the public domain or (very unlikely) free-licensed, you can do this and then license your work in a way acceptable to Commons. However, if the original illustrations are still copyrighted, then you cannot upload your tracing, because it would be derivative of a copyrighted work. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]