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.
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.
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.
Hi, This film was published in two parts. The second part was published in 1958. So it seems that File:1944 Иван Грозный.webm, which contains both parts, is in the public domain in Russia (the author died in 1948), but not in USA, according to PD-Russia-1996. Am I right, or did I miss something? Yann (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
De-jure, the author of film is Mosfilm, not S. Eisenstein, so see p.3(b) of {{PD-Russia}}/{{PD-Russia-1996}}. So, the 1st part (created in 1944, shown in 1946) is PD in Russia today (but there are or can be some nuances with the restored versions of 1987 and 2014 years) and not PD in the US (the 1st part was not PD in Russia on Jan.1 1996, it was temporally PD in Russia from Jan.1 1997 to Dec.31 2007 and it is PD in Russia since Jan.1,2017 again). The 2nd part is not PD in any case. Alex Spade (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion at English Wikipedia,[1] did the uploader have the right to offer File:Me at the zoo.webm to the public under the Creative Commons license? Rjjiii (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Updated link to archived discussion. 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh I don't really understand why the CC license would be void if the camarographer co-held rights on a video from the early Internet era, in this case Lapitsky. Even the Wikipedia page says "On Karim's camera" and was uploaded on Jawed's YT channel, it's most likely that Lapitsky informally gave permission rights to publish the video. If this was going to be the case, a lot of YT videos under CC would end up in problems because of "who is the actual owner of the footage" discussions. Hyperba21 (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperba21: I think the concern is that's there is no indication that Lapitsky (who was holding the camera) knew how the video would be used online.[2] In the US, I believe, the owner of the device doesn't affect who holds the copyright.[3] And courtesy pings to the reviewer Armbrust and uploader Tuankiet65. Rjjiii (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the digital version of an old manuscript held by National Library Board Singapore[edit]
I would like to know whether the digital copy of the manuscript (link:https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/book-detail?cmsuuid=53de5273-f8df-4122-b808-8eb33ec61386) from National Library Board Singapore should be considered to be in public domain or not. This is because according to the page "All Rights Reserved. National Library Board Singapore 2006.", however according to the copyright rules in Singapore any works are in the public domain upon the expiry of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the author of the works died. In this case the author Munshi Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir has passed away in 1854, and if we calculate the year that the work should be in public domain is 1927. Therefore, the work should be considered to be in the public domain. However, according to the terms of use at the website held by National Library Board Singapore:
"No part or parts hereof may be reproduced, distributed, adapted, modified, republished, displayed, broadcast, hyperlinked, framed or transmitted in any manner or by any means or stored in an information retrieval system without the prior written permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY. However, you may download and print the Materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only provided you do not modify the Materials and that you retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the Materials. You also may not, without the permission of NLB DIGITAL LIBRARY, insert a hyperlink to this website on any other website or "mirror" any Material contained on this website on any other server."
So I assume that the manuscript although was published in 1880, we still should refrain from uploading the work to Commons Wikimedia because it will be copyright infringement. Is this correct? Hakimi97 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hakimi97: A faithful copy of something in the public domain does not qualify for any copyright of its own. Some courts in common law countries have disagreed, upholding a "sweat of brow" doctrine. Commons, with the advice of WMF's lawyers, has chosen to ignore that precedent, which is certainly not valid in the U.S., where Commons is officially located. - Jmabel ! talk14:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed an interesting thing about the uploads at Discogs, a record collecting site. These are their intellectual property rules:
Intellectual Property Rules
By uploading images to Discogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements:
Image is Public Domain (expired copyright or public from inception); or
You own the rights to the image and agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or
Image is already made available through a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or
Fair Use – any image representing a physical or digital product in the Discogs Database for the purpose of critical commentary or for the purpose of reselling a physical product under the First Sale Doctrine.
— Discogs
Number two is particularly important in the following case. Many times, it is the artists themselves, even labels, who upload the records info and images on Discogs. Given that they explicitly accept those intellectual property rules (they are even prompted when uploading an image), and in the case they are the legitimate owners of the images, they agree to release them under a CC0 license. That means they would be eligible to upload on Commons. Of course this is to be observed case by case, but in any case, it's great news for the Commons. Bedivere (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I came across this local label, they've uploaded a couple of images (five actually). These, if in scope (I could not find an article about these artists), could be uploaded here given the label's express release onto the CC0 license. Here's another, band Zettt, which released themselves some photos of themselves and one of their releases. Another label that has published images of their own releases is Akasa Records [4]. Bedivere (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you've posted above seems to ignore the possibility that the content being uploaded to Discogs was uploaded in accordance of "4. Fair Use". Is it not possible that bands/musicians are uploading their content to Discogs as fair use? If they have done so, then such content wouldn't be acceptable for Commons per COM:FAIR. I'll admit that I don't know much about Discogs and I wasn't able to access the links you provided above, but unless the uploads are clearly licesned as #1, #2 or #3, it seems that you just can't automatically assume they're not#4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC); [Note: Post amended by Marchjuly to add the word "not" to the final sentence. -- 02:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)][reply]
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. I am only referring to works uploaded to Discogs by their legitimate copyright owners, which would then mean they "agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license" as per the intellectual property rules. By uploading a file to Discogs, any user agrees to those rules, either the file will not be uploaded. One could understand, then, that the files fall in any of these categories: if the image is not in the public domain (rule 1), the uploader is not the copyright holder (rule 2) and the file is not released under a CC0 (rule 3), it is available under the fair use doctrine, and so much of Discogs files are not acceptable on Commons. The point I make is that only those files uploaded by their copyright holders are acceptable here because then, rule 2 applies. Bedivere (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get where you are going, but I'm pretty sure you would never get a judge to uphold that understanding. I'm pretty sure a court would say that even with the way those terms of use are stated, uploading something to which you happen to own the copyright would not be an implicit CC-0 release, and that Discogs would be using it on a "fair use" basis. I would not want to see Commons rely on that other interpretation: I think it would put reusers at great risk of being successfully sued for copyright infringement. - Jmabel ! talk05:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also uncomfortable with that interpretation. I'd feel better if users put an explicit license on an image page, i.e. were forced to choose between those four options on an upload, with each image tagged with that choice. The uploader could argue 1) they are providing the images under fair use, to help sell their catalog, or 2) they violated the terms of service (nothing illegal about that) but never actually licensed their image. A photo of an album may be a derivative work of its cover as well, and even if valid the license may only be for the derivative aspect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: That could very well have been the intention of Discogs when they wrote that clause. That interpretation would have more weight if the introductory words were "... you agree that your upload meets...". I.e. the copyright owner's own use of the file. Indeed, logically, copyright owners are not using their own images under the fair use doctrine. However, the words are "... you agree that the image meets...", which can be read as meaning that, once the image is on the website, it is used in fair use by Discogs. Also, that clause seems to have been added to the Discogs upload guidelines in late 2022. It could not be imposed as such to images uploaded by copyright owners before then. One would have to look at the clauses that existed elsewhere on the website. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. The profile image is a standard Unicode character (𝕏, U+1D54F Mathematical Double-Struck Capital X), the "verified" badge has been determined to be under TOO, the other icons are part of the open-source Bootstrap Icons icon set, and the words and phrases in the screenshot are all too short to copyright. Omphalographer (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like that was published in the U.S. in 1985 with no copyright notice, so it is most likely {{PD-US-1978-89}}. There is a small possibility they registered the copyright later to "cure" the lack of notice, but I'd be surprised if they did so, if they generally weren't concerned with holding onto there rights.
Only possible issue is that if they made unauthorized use of a photo or other image, it might not have lost its copyright by being there. But, again, it's hard to imagine the World Bank making unauthorized use of someone else's intellectual property. - Jmabel ! talk04:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did receive email .
here is the image that I need to update with approval. .
Non commercial licenses are not accepted on Commons. In addition, the copyright holder has to send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Best, Yann (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the logo of Shell; this is the logo of the former MonteShell Italian company, a joint-venture between Shell and Montedison. This is a photo of one of the pieces of the Fisogni Museum, that freely allows the diffusion of photos of its pieces. The photo correctly report the "trademark" template. I am totally against cancellation Moxmarco (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
from this pic there have been extracted two images (quality even worse):
Being aware of this, I was able to find the same cover and I made a much better scan of the same page from which I extracted some decent images (here).
Hi Carnby. I'm not sure that would be OK to do because only the copyright holder has the right to release their work (or a version of their work) under a Creative Commons license. Whether they release a high-quality high-resolution version of their work would seem to be entirely up to them; so, if they choose to release a low-quality version of their work under a CC license accepted by Commons for whatever reason, I believe they could still retain more control over high quality versions of the same image. So, I'm not sure it would be OK for Commons to host higher quality versions without their consent, particularly if they come from sources other than the original copyright holder. This and this might be helpful, but they seem to primary reference US copyright law, which might differ from the copyright laws of the country of first publication. Of course, I might be completely wrong on this and am quite happy to be corrected by others; however, I would suggest moving carefully here since there seems to be multiple layers to this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly and Carnby: I believe that is not how we have interpreted CC-BY in the past. Pretty sure I've seen it said several times that if an image is released under such a license, it is on the image as such, not a particular resolution. The only exceptions I'm aware of are certain images released by GLAMs where we have made an overt compromise to get access to a large body of clean, medium-resolution images where otherwise we would have nothing.
Can someone who has been more involved in past discussions about CC licenses and image resolution please weigh in? - Jmabel ! talk03:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I did a bit more Googling and most of what I've found seems to support what you posted above (this is interesting even if it's just a blog which looks to be based out of India and there's also this from the Creative Commons website) in that the CC license applies to the image itself and not a particular version (e.g. resolution) of an image. So, as long as the higher quality image is exactly the same image (i.e. a case of COM:2D copying and not COM:DW) and not licensed under a more restrictive license, the license chosen for the lower quality version seems to also apply to all enhanced versions, at least under US copyright law. I guess it could be possible for a copyright holder to try to release multiple versions of the same image under different CC license in an attempt to individually license different quality images, but I'm not sure that works as they think it works due to the nature of CC licenses. They could also try to place their own restrictions on the higher quality versions through separate individualized agreements with re-users, but that would seem to be a type of COM:NCR that wouldn't be a concern of Commons unless Commons was party to said agreement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to draw attention of users who may be interested to an undeletion request discussion: File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg, which is remaining undecided for an unusually long time. More opinions may be useful. Although the request is technically about one file, the issue is broader and can potentially affect a large number of images and I guess that's probably one reason why administrators hesitate to close the request. C:VP/C would probably be a better place for the general discussion, if it hadn't started at C:UDR. I suppose that comments can be made here or there. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick overview:
What BCS is:
"Beni Culturali Standard" (BCS) is a tag placed by entities of the Italian government (e.g. the ministry of Culture) on some images (e.g. photographs of old objects). Essentially, the BCS tag:
1) states that the image has "no copyright", referring to this statement, and
2) describes some non-copyright legal requirements for some uses of the image.
The description of the BCS tag can be read in Italian there.
Example:
The source of the file discussed at UDR can serve as one example [5]. Other examples can be found on the same source website. Or on Commons.
What the question is not:
There is no problem with the non-copyright requirements (for which Commons uses the template MiBAC).
There is no question about the copyright status of the pictured objects. They are old enough to be out of copyright.
There is no problem with images that are obviously old enough to be tagged on Commons with PD-Italy, PD-1996, etc.
What the question is:
The question arises with images that look recent enough and would normally be considered copyrighted in the United States. The problems are to determine who owned the copyright on an image, by what rationale the entity tagged the image as uncopyrighted (BCS), and if that assessment of public domain can apply outside Italy.
Possible solutions:
There may be other solutions but, to keep it simple, there are at least these possibilities:
A) except where evidence suggests otherwise, it cannot be safely assumed that the recent BCS-tagged images are in the public domain in the United States, therefore such images cannot be hosted on Commons, or
B) except where evidence suggests otherwise, it is assumed that the Italian government somehow owned the copyright on the recent BCS-tagged images, and that tagging with BCS constitutes a valid statement by the Italian government that those images are in the public domain worldwide, therefore such images can be hosted on Commons.
Scope of the problem:
At present, Commons has many files sourced from catalogo.beniculturali.it. At the source, many of those images are tagged BCS.
Also, apparently many, or most, of those files are mistakenly tagged on Commons with CC BY. That mistake is probably caused by the fact that, at the source, the descriptive notices ("metadati") are visibly tagged with CC BY, but to view the status of the image itself it is necessary to click on the image.
Review:
Whatever decision is taken, whether such files are accepted or not on Commons, a major review will be needed to assess the status of all those files and to tag them correctly.
The UDR has not budged and nobody commented here either. To try to make this progress a little, here is a suggestion for a Template:BCS, which might look like this, which is only a rough draft, of course. It can be refined and someone who knows how to format templates would need to format it in all the rules of the art. Other than that, perhaps there's a way to identify the relevant beniculturali files and to group them in a maintenance category to be reviewed for proper tagging. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to this website, Greenland is not part of the Berne Convention. Does that mean any photograph that is (i) taken in Greenland and that (ii) has its copyright in Greenland expired, can be uploaded, as {{PD-1996}} only applies to members of the Berne Convention? I also don't see Greenland on the member list provided by WIPO. FunnyMath (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: That's what I thought as well. But if you look at the territorial information for Denmark provided by WIPO, it says "Accession to the Berne Convention (1886) included the Faroe Islands", and the Faroe Islands, like Greenland, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but it says nothing about Greenland. FunnyMath (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the original Berne Convention document. It says Denmark's membership "comprend le Royaume de Danemarke et les Îles Féroé, avec exclusion de l'Islande, du Grœnland et des Antilles" (emphasis mine). So it looks like Greenland is indeed not part of the Berne Convention. So does that mean {{PD-1996}} does not apply? FunnyMath (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf doesn't mention Greenland one way or the other. I've sent the US Copyright Office a question asking whether the US has copyright relations with Greenland; they say they will respond in 10 business days. I would note that D. Benjamin Miller is correct; anything published outside of Greenland would be copyrighted, so you're looking at things published for Greenland itself. With a population of 60,000, back 70 years ago (as Greenland is life+70), I'd be surprised if that was much more than a local newspaper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Copyright rules - Files uploaded to Commons should be free both in the country of origin (as defined by the Berne Convention) and in the United States of America.
So, we have something like {{PD-RusEmpire}} - if Greenland is not party to the Berne Convention (it is not country of Union for the protection of the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works), then Greenland is not the country of origin in any case and its copyright law and term of protection are unimportant.
Further, it is unimportant, where photo was taken - it is important, where photo was published (was made public at the least), and besides possible simultaneous publication within 30 days in any other countries of the Union, there are 3 cases after that possible event, when other country of the Union will be country of origin:
in the case of cinematographic work the maker of which has his headquarters or his habitual residence in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country,
in the case of of architecture erected in a country of the Union or other artistic works incorporated in a building or other structure located in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country,
in the case of other works if the author is a national of a country of the Union¹, the country of origin shall be that country (¹ - Author who is not a national of a country of the Union but who has his habitual residence in a country of the Union, be assimilated to national of that country).
So, for example: some German photographer took a shot in Greenland: if he published it firstly in Greenland and the UK simultaneously (within 30 days), then the UK is the country of origin, if he published it firstly in Greenland only, then Germany is the country of origin. Alex Spade (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flugblatt der Sowjetunion aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg[edit]
Kennt sich jemand mit dem Urheberrecht an den Flugblättern der sowjetischen Armee oder Regierung aus (genauer Urheber ist nicht angeführt), die an deutsche Soldaten verteilt wurden mit der Aufforderung sich zu ergeben bzw. zu desertieren. Welches Urheberrecht gilt hier oder sind diese Flugblätter (damals "Feindproaganda") als Werke der sowjetischen Regierung gemeinfrei? Asurnipal (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn sie vor 1943 auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Russland ausgegeben worden sind, stehen die Chancen m. E. nicht schlecht, dass sie als anonymes Werk bereits vor der russischen Urheberrechtsreform von 1993 gemeinfrei waren und daher auch nicht von der Wiederbelegung des amerikanischen Urheberrechts 1996 erfasst worden sind. Dann könnten man sie mit der Lizenzvorlage {{PD-Russia-1996}} hochladen. Felix QW (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leider kann ich zum Zeitpunkt der Ausgabe nichts sagen, weil diese nicht vermerkt ist. Dort, wo das Flugblatt gefunden wurde, war ein ehemaliger Wehrmachtsangehöriger ansässig, der so ziemlich überall im Zweiten Weltkrieg war. Ich habe das Flugblatt mal unter (Kennelbach-Soviet army Flyer (pamphlet) to German soldiers to surrender or desert-01.jpg) und (Kennelbach-Soviet army Flyer (pamphlet) to German soldiers to surrender or desert-02.jpg) hochgeladen (unter {{PD-Russia-1996}}). Vielleicht meldet sich ja jemand, der es näher identifizieren kann. Asurnipal (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia noch einmal durchgesehen und es scheint, als würde die anonyme Veröffentlichung vor 1946 tatsächlich ausreichen. Da es ja dem Inhalt nach vermutlich an Soldaten unmittelbar an der Ostfront verteilt worden ist, ist das heutige Staatsgebiet als Ursprungsort ja zumindest plausibel. Felix QW (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wobei Veröffentlichung nach 1942 wiederum hieße, dass die Flugblätter in den USA noch geschützt sind, 95 Jahre ab Veröffentlichung (COM:URAA). Und Wikimedia Commons will nur Werke, die sowohl im Ursprungsland als auch in den USA frei sind (COM:Licensing). --Rosenzweigτ19:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das dachte ich zunächst auch, scheint aber tatsächlich nicht der Fall zu sein. {{PD-Russia-1996}} sagt eindeutig, dass anonyme Veröffentlichung vor 1946 genügt, um nicht vom URAA erfasst worden zu sein, und in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia steht, dass die Verlängerung auf 70 Jahre im Jahre 2004 erfolgte, also nach der URAA-Wiederbelebung von 1996. Die eigenartige getrennte Auflistung von vor 1943 veröffentlichtem Material scheint daher zu kommen, dass in 2008 die Urheberrechtsfrist für all diejenigen Werke auf 70 Jahre verlängert worden ist, deren Urheberrecht in 1993 noch nicht abgelaufen war. Felix QW (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mercy for grandma's photo wallpaper at Cologne District Court[edit]
That is a well-written article. Strange system of competition between courts, where the complainants choose the courts likely to favor them, thus favoring most extreme judgments. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That strange system is a big nuisance which politicians/lawmakers would have needed to address many years ago by clarifications in the relevant laws. So far, they didn't. --Rosenzweigτ11:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking the article. I feel for the granddaughter. German courts appear to need reform, and I'll definitely take it into account with Germany's already strict de minimis standards. Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded File:Interior of Asda, Barrhead.jpg from Flickr to Commons under CC-BY 2.0 license, but I noticed that the copyright details are on EXIF metadata:
@Xeverything11: It appears that Flickr user James MacDonald (jimmy_macdonald, 49703429@N00) wrongly appropriated it from photographer Ian Georgeson, we should not host it, and we should not trust James MacDonald. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I nominated two Twitter screenshots for cv before finding Category:Screenshots of Twitter and Category:Tweets looking not very free. Please excuse my poor understanding of copyright regulations. Some are marked with own work, some with PD-ineligible -- are they even applicable? What would happen if I were cought copypasting those Tweets into Wikipedia? This and this even show the design of the whole window. I'm really confused. Tried searching for COM:Tweets but found nothing. cc@Shinohara Chihiro: --魔琴 (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploads of Samarthisliveyo7x11 (talk·contribs) are map images which, as can be seen from their watermarks, were created at iipmaps.com[6]. The FAQ[7] of that site says:
Can I use the maps created with iipmaps free version for any purpose?
Yes, you can use the maps created with the free version of iipmaps for any non-commercial purposes. However, they will bear a watermark indicating that they were created with the free version.
Since we don't allow any of the NonCommercial CC licenses, this seems like a possible licensing issue. I don't know the first thing about Indian copyright law, though. Apocheir (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dzień dobry, opracowuję biogram jednego z żyjących profesorów. Chciałabym umieścić Jego zdjęcie, otrzymane e-mailem. W jaki sposób sprawić, aby to zdjęcie znalazło się w domenie publicznej?Pozdrawiam Ledowiczka Ledowiczka (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate: "Good morning, I am working on a biography of one of the living professors. I would like to post his photo, received by e-mail. How do I get this photo into the public domain? Ledowiczka" - Jmabel ! talk17:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that translation is accurate, I think there is a misunderstanding here. You cannot turn someone else's copyrighted material into public-domain material.
What we need is for the owner of the copyright (typically the photographer) to offer a free license (in Polish: Commons:Nadawanie licencji) such as {{CC-BY 4.0}} or {{tl|CC-BY-SA 4.0}; if their intention is actually to place it in the public domain, and they do not care about attribution, they can use {{CC-zero}}. There are two ways they can do that:
The owner of the copyright (not you) can go through the email-based process described at COM:VRT (COM:VRT/pl in Polish). Do have them cc you on the email. NOTE that the license must allow commercial reuse and must allow derivative works (so no "NC" or "ND" licenses).
If the photographer still owns the copyright themself, they can shortcut this by posting the image on a web page clearly under their control (e.g. on their professional site as a photographer, on their account at Flickr or a similar photo site, in a public post on social media, etc.), with an indication of what free license they are offering. Then you (or anyone) can cite that as a source when uploading, using that same license.
چرا ویدیویی که در ویکی پدیا بارگذاری و منتشر کردم حذف شده است[edit]
ویدیویی با عنوان سکانس خواستگاری پیرمردها برای مقاله خود استفاده و بارگذاری کردم که حذف شده است این ویدئو حق نشر دارد زیرا قسمتی از فیلم پیرمردها نمی میرند است که مالک اصلی آن رضا جمالی است که خودشان اولین بار این ویدو کوتاه را نشر کرده و جهت معرفی فیلم در اینترنت گذاشتند و سپس پیج ها و سایت هایی نظیر
aparat - hashure- you tube
@Aden-9023: Hi, You are not allowed to copy images and videos from the Internet without a formal written permission from the copyright holder, unless this content is licensed under a free license, which should allow any use by anyone for any purpose, including commercial ones. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright link to my website in the attribution[edit]
Hi Community!
Is it possible to have a hyperlink to my website in case somebody uses and attributes my image?
Currently, this HTML attribution looks as following if placed, and links to the Wiki page:
- https://example/, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Is it possible to have a link to my website instead? Even if both Wiki and Website are displayed, it's fine. For example:
- Example.Com (links to my website), CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
or
- https://example/ (links to Wiki), Example.Com (links to my website), CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Also, how do I set it up by default without editing the file data every time? Even if what I'm asking is not possible, where do I set up the default attribution data?
In the {{Self}} template, you can explicitly set author and/or attribution.
I don't think the Upload Wizard lets you take control of this, but you can switch over to using Special:Upload; just copy-paste from the wikitext of an existing file page of your own and edit accordingly for the description, date, categories, etc. - Jmabel ! talk21:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I upload a Twitter profile picture that has no other search returns on image search?[edit]
So I need an image of a politician, and I found one on his personal twitter account that when I searched the image, there was only where I found it from as a result. I can't find any other images that aren't copyrighted of him, so can I upload this image, or not? Wheatley2 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatley2: unless I completely misunderstand you, no. Are you saying you have some reason to think that image isn't copyrighted? Why wouldn't it be copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk21:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is automatically given to a creative work when it is fixed in a tangible medium, per the Berne Convention. Copyright has to be explicitly waived for it to be public domain, or given an explicit free license. COM:LAbzeronow (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In der Zeitung "Junge Welt" (DDR) erschien im Juni 1987 ein Kommentar zum Album "Casablanca" der Rockgruppe City. Dieser Kommentar hatte Einfluss auf den offiziellen Umgang in der DDR mit diesem Album. Auch verdeutlicht er auch das Klima und die staatliche Sicht.
Ich habe eine Kopie dieses Artikels und würde diesen gerne bei Wiki-Commons zugänglich machen. Da ich keine Rechte an dem Artikel habe, frage ich ob das urheberrechtlich möglich ist. Intermerker (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass das etwas anderes als ein urheberrechtlich geschützter Artikel sein könnte. Also, es ist nicht möglich. - Jmabel ! talk19:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ein "Kommentar" zu einem Musikalbum wird urheberrechtlich gesehen de:Schöpfungshöhe haben und damit urheberrechtlich geschützt sein, und zwar zu Lebzeiten des Urheber (= Autors) sowie weitere 70 Jahre nach seinem Tod. Selbst wenn der Autor noch im selben Jahr gestorben wäre, wäre der Text in Deutschland noch bis Ende 2057 geschützt. Und Wikimedia Commons (wie auch die deutsche Wikipedia) will nur urheberrechtlich freie Werke (Commons:Licensing/de). Das ginge also nur, wenn der Urheber des Textes bzw. ein Rechteinhaber (bspw. ein Erbe) eine entsprechende Freigabe (COM:VRT/de) schickt und diese auch akzeptiert wird. --Rosenzweigτ19:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1: Do logos found on buildings of government institutions fall under FOP the following image was taken by me from my car of a governemnt building. File:CES CACES Logos.jpg if I edit this image to cut out the logo, can I use said logo to replace this image : File:CES Ecuador.gif?
Question 2: If an institution has awards permanently on display, would a picture of said awards be considered FOP? What about government medals?
HarveyPrototype (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations, which is binding on Ecuador, provides for freedom of panorama as follows: "Without prejudice to that put forth in the Chapter 5 and in the previous article, it will be legal to realize, without authorization from the author and without the payment of any remuneration, the following acts:...h) undertake the reproduction, transmission by broadcasting or cable distribution to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of fine art, photographic work or work of applied art located permanently in a place open to the public".[351/1993 Article 22(h)]". If they are permanently on display in a "place open to the public" then they could be uploaded here. Bedivere (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is whether the logo separated from the picture has a copyright. I don't remember how we interpret this. Some laws expressly forbid extracting a copyrighted work even if the picture itself is OK. Yann (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article Article 369.- Use of the trademark by third parties for informational purposes.- As long as it is done in good faith and does not constitute use as a trademark, third parties may, without consent of the owner of the registered trademark, use in commerce your own name, address or pseudonym; a geographical name; or, any other certain indication regarding the species, quality, quantity, destination, value, place of origin or time of production of its products or the provision of its services or other characteristics thereof; provided that such use is limited to identification or information purposes and is not capable of misleading the public about the origin of the products or services.
Would the Use of logos for wikipedia not be covered under the previous article?
Further, "open to the public" is problematic until we know how the country's courts have interpreted it. For example, if a space is open in the daytime but closed at night, some countries have said that is sufficiently "open" to qualify here, some that it is not. - Jmabel ! talk14:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the following article some IP laws were modified in 2018. Including el "proyecto instaura la denominada libertad de panorama, establece la legalidad de la copia para uso personal y elimina las sanciones penales para las infracciones al derecho de autor que se realicen sin fines de lucro" translates to: The project establishes the so-called freedom of panorama, establishes the legality of copying for personal use and eliminates criminal sanctions for copyright infringements carried out without profit.
"Se habilita la disposición de obras a través de Internet con fines de investigación y educación, sin fines comerciales."which translates to "The provision of works over the Internet is enabled for research and educational purposes, without commercial purposes."
Anyone have a quick opinion on whether this leaflet is derivative of the movie it accompanies? The 1933 movie S.O.S. Iceberg is still copyrighted in the US since I actually located its renewal registration, so while the leaflet clearly does not bear a copyright notice (I uploaded all pages, so one can check), it just occurred that it could perhaps be regarded as derivative of the film. Felix QW (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Movie documents (trailer, poster, cardboard, etc.) have a separate copyright that the movie itself. If this was published without a copyright notice, or if the copyright was not renewed, then it is in the public domain. Yann (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change of License - Edit Message to say "less restrictive" (not "more restrictive")[edit]
I want to change the license of some of my uploads from CC-BY-SA-4.0 to CC-BY-4.0, thereby making them less restrictive.
However, using the Change-of-license template, the following message is rendered on the page:
Please note: This image was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons licensed as noted. The copyright holder has since changed the licensing to be more restrictive. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. See the Creative Commons FAQ on revoking licensing.
That template doesn't apply here. It is intended for when someone off-wiki tries to change to a more restrictive license.
When adding an additional license for your own work on Commons, don't remove the one that is already there. It's fine to give reusers a choice of licenses.- Jmabel ! talk14:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current license is almost certainly incorrect and most likely this would fall under COM:SCREENSHOT and COM:NETCOPYVIO in that the COM:CONSENT of the X account holder would be needed for this to be kept. The quoted text itself could be really old (i.e. from a publication published prior to 1929), and the X account holder simply didn't attribute it; however, the other elements seem too recent to be not eligible for copyright protection simply because of their age. My personal opinion is that whomever uploaded this file probably did so to prove a point and it's copyright status was the last thing they were worried about. They could've simply just provided a link to the tweet in whichever discussion wherever they were discussing this, but perhaps seeing it would be better. I'm also guessing the the X account holder also possibly wasn't too worried about the copyright status of the "quote" and properly attributing it (if it's indeed the words of someone else); they most likely also didn't worry about whether it would be en:fair use (even though it probably would be). Those things, however, are not really issues for Commons and the only thing that matters is the licesning of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you see these 2024 uploaded flickr images from the Museo del Oro in Colombia, they are free for you to upload under a {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} license...and they are own work. The problem is I have no knowledge of South American art. Only Egyptian art...that I already uploaded here File:Tutankhamun’s wood, ivory and box chest.jpg and here: File:Tutankhamun’s stool 2020.jpg from this person's flickr account. Can you ask someone with knowledge of these beautiful gold images to upload them with the right title? This is an unusual request but I don't know what culture these objects belong to....whether its Sican or Aztec or something else.
Here are the links for the flickr images below. Unfortunately, the photographer did not give a clear title for these objects and say if they are Sican, Aztec, etc HarveyPrototype, Bedivere or Poco a poco. The photographer's image resolution from her Nikon camera is INCREDIBLE...but the problem is identifying the objects. The so called Gold Museum, Bogotá or Museo de Oro in Bogota, Colombia definitely exists as there is a wikipedia article on it and here is the old Wikimedia Commons Category on its Collection. These set of images by Sarah Murray are really New 2024 uploaded images as it has less than 75 views on flickr only.
Ecuador has passed a new law in 2016, and made significant revisions to many provisions, one of which is the FoP provision, now found at Article 212(7) and reads:
La reproducción, adaptación, distribución o comunicación pública con fines científicos o educativos y para garantizar acceso a las personas con discapacidad de las obras arquitectónicas, fotográficas, de bellas artes, de arte aplicado u otras similares, que se encuentren situadas permanentemente en lugares abiertos al público, mediante la fotografía, la pintura, el dibujo, la filmación o cualquier otra técnica o procedimiento similar, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor de la obra original, si ello es conocido, y el lugar donde se encuentra.
Which translates (using Google Translate) as:
The reproduction, adaptation, distribution or public communication for scientific or educational purposes and to guarantee access to people with disabilities of architectural, photographic, fine arts, applied art or other similar works, which are permanently located in places open to the public, through photography, painting, drawing, filming or any other similar technique or procedure, provided that the name of the author of the original work, if known, and the place where it is located are indicated.
In the link given by HarveyPrototype above (the article), there was a draft bill in 2013 that also included FoP exception which, according to the linked article, "establishes the legality of copying for personal use and eliminates criminal sanctions for copyright infringements that are carried out without profit." It is not certain if the draft bill was one of the bases for the current, revised copyright law. It should be noted that, even in the now-repealed I.P. law of 1998–2014, the indicated FoP provision at Article 83(f) is "strictly the dissemination of art, science and culture", so may not be possibly free even from the beginning.
Per the FoP section at the CRT page of Ecuador, the Andean Community's Decision 351 is claimed to override all local laws. But according to a Colombian court in the only real-life FoP case in Colombia (another Andean Community member; in English translation), "it is noted that the previous provisions enshrined in the community standard, being so general in terms of procedure, leave open a great margin for the internal regulations of the Member Countries to regulate the procedures and processes based on the community standard, in accordance with the principle of indispensable complement." (refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sculptures in the Museo Botero (Bogotá)).
The Colombian court's statement means that the member states of the Andean Community are open to regulate the procedures of the generalized provisions in Decision 351. Colombia did by not allowing FoP in public indoors, although still adequate enough for purposes of Wikimedia Commons. Peruvian FoP is also regulated but still acceptable here. As there is no explicit FoP in the copyright law of Bolivia, it can be assumed that the Andean standard still applies until that country introduces the FoP clause. As for Ecuador, the regulation seems far-reaching. The 1998 (repealed) law regulated FoP to art/science/culture dissemination. The current law only allows uses of public landmarks and monuments for educational and scientific purposes, so unlikely to allow commercial uses (post cards, web development, mobile applications, tourism souvenir items, et cetera).
This matter on the Ecuadorian FoP/Andean FoP difference should be addressed. If the Ecuadorian FoP is found to be the prevailing law for FoP and not the community standard (since, as said above, the FoP was regulated by Ecuador), then Ecuadorian FoP is Not OK since 1998 – since the beginning of available WIPO Lex documents.
The aformentioned Article 212 is part of Section VII Of the limitations and exceptions to economic rights of Chapter II Generalities of Title II COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS.
I wish to draw attention to two aditional incisions Article 212.1 and 212.4 which may help this discussion.
Article 212.1 : La inclusión en una obra propia de fragmentos breves de obras ajenas de naturaleza escrita, sonora o audiovisual, de carácter plástico, fotográfi co, fi gurativo o similares, siempre que se trate de obras ya divulgadas, que su inclusión se realice a título de cita o para su análisis, comentario o juicio crítico, con fi nes docentes o de investigación, en la medida justifi cada por el fi n que se persiga, y siempre que se indique la fuente y el nombre del autor, y que en ningún caso constituya una explotación encubierta de la obra. Las recopilaciones periódicas efectuadas en forma de reseñas o revista de prensa tendrán la consideración de citas;
Which translates (using Google Translate) as:
The inclusion in one's own work of short fragments of other people's works of a written, sound or audiovisual nature, of a plastic, photographic, figurative or similar nature, provided that they are already published works, that their inclusion is made by way of quotation or for analysis, commentary or critical judgment, for teaching or research purposes, to the extent justified by the purpose pursued, and provided that the source and the name of the author are indicated, and that in no case constitutes a covert exploitation of the work.
Periodic compilations made in the form of reviews or press reviews will be considered citations;
Article 212.4 : La reproducción, traducción, distribución y comunicación pública con fines informativos de artículos, comentarios, fotografías, ilustraciones y obras similares sobre sucesos de actualidad y de interés colectivo, siempre que se mencione la fuente y el nombre del autor, si el original lo indica, y no se haya hecho constar en origen la reserva de derechos;
Which translates (using Google Translate) as:
The reproduction, translation, distribution and public communication for information purposes of articles, comments, photographs, illustrations and similar works on current events and of collective interest, provided that the source and the name of the author are mentioned, if the original indicates it, and the reservation of rights has not been recorded in origin
@HarveyPrototype in that case, the images can be hosted locally on local Wikipedias that allow fair use (does Spanish Wikipedia accomodate fair use rules of Spanish-speaking jurisdictions like Ecuador)?
Article 212.1 is for uses in typical fair use-type situations like in research, dissertations, theses, and criticisms. Article 212.4 does appear for uses in reporting, in sharing current events, and in informing the public. Local Wikipedias that can host FU-type media are welcome to such provisions, but English Wikipedia has a lex loci protectionis-based policy of only respecting the U.S. law, and not all foreign laws like the Ecuadorian law. U.S. copyright law does provide both fair use rules and architecture-only Freedom of Panorama. In the event the Ecuadorian FoP is unacceptable here, a few images (not all because of w:en:WP:NOTFILESTORAGE) of Ecuadorian buildings can be transferred there even in their fullest and highest-quality resolutions, courtesy of U.S. FoP (w:en:Template:FoP-USonly).
Wikimedia Commons has a strict licensing policy that does not permit non-commercial licensing. Yet the current trend in Ecuador seems to not allow commercial uses of their public spaces. I think, perhaps, to safeguard their "private" cultural heritage over the Internet. So there is nothing we can do. Unless, someone contests the Colombian court's statement over the Andean standards with other sources stating Andean standards prevail over the local laws of four member countries. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there is nothing we can do. That's essentially my opinion. Although the images can be hosted locally on local Wikipedias as fair use if they agree to it. But it's kind of out of our hands otherwise since we don't allow for things that can only be used non-commercially. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article 212 needs to be read in accordance with the article 211. They both refer to fair use possibilities, and so, they are not usable here on Commons as it cannot be a "covert" use of the work in a way that could cause "unjustifiable prejudice" to the rights holder. Bedivere (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think that's how we interpret CC licenses. I uploaded the larger version over. Yann (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Not OK since 1998 – since the beginning of available WIPO Lex documents.