Jump to content

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


AI-generated video

[edit]
Trump Gaza.webm

President Donald Trump recently shared an AI-generated music video, and since I'm not familiar with Commons policies on AI-generated media, I would like to know if it's permissible to upload it here. [1] – Anwon (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just from a US copyright perspective, if that video was wholly generated by AI then yes the work is copyright free. But per the recent guidance from the US Copyright Office, there are a range of possibilities that could impact the video's eligibility for copyright. I'd think we'd need confirmation on how exactly the video was created, beyond just "AI-generated", which is clear but not specific enough. Other thoughts? 19h00s (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a music video, we'll have sound, background images and actors. That are three different sets of material to be generated by AI (or directly sourced from existing material). Currently, there's evidence that AI training amounts to copyright infringement, see these articles: https://www.heise.de/en/news/Really-bad-for-the-AI-industry-AI-company-loses-in-first-US-legal-dispute-10279136.html and https://torrentfreak.com/meta-torrented-over-81-tb-of-data-through-annas-archive-despite-few-seeders-250206/ Especially music and depictions of persons would be a liability for us, as there is not enough free (read: freely licensed) training material available. So, I'd say: not permissible for uploading by COM:PRP + COM:DW. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the video has been shared by Trump on his official account and as part of his duties as President. It is in the public domain regardless of the AI status. Bedivere (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does "sharing" constitute "work by a member of US government". Can an "AI" be considered to be a worker of the US government? Would an otherwise protected work become public domain, if it was uploaded to commons by the official wiki account of Donald Trump as part of this duties? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AI-generated works are generally in the public domain because there’s no human author to claim copyright. However, if there’s significant creative input from a human, that could change, and the work could become copyrighted. In this case, since the video was posted directly by President Trump, it’s undoubtedly an official communication tied to his duties as President. Given that context, any creative input would be considered part of his official role, which places the work in the public domain. At least that's how I understand US copyright. @Abzeronow could you please enlighten us? :-) Bedivere (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If all the creative work came from U.S. government employees, then it is in the public domain. Not true, though, if they were contractors or campaign staff. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some media outlets claim that the video long existed before Donald Trump shared it, so it would be wrong to assume it came from him or another US government employee. – Anwon (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times calls it "generated by AI" [2] with an unknown origin. "No quedó claro de inmediato el origen del video ni su autor, y Trump no añadió ningún comentario a la publicación en las redes sociales que lo compartió. En las últimas semanas, habían aparecido versiones del video en redes sociales como LinkedIn, X e Instagram. El video compartido en la cuenta de Trump parecía haber sido descargado de Rumble, una plataforma de video con sede en Florida y popular entre la derecha" ("the origin or author of the video was not immediately clear, and Trump did not add any comment to the social networks posts that shared it. In the last weeks, there were versions of the video on social networks like LinkedIn, X and Instagram. The video shared on Trump's account seemed to have been downloaded from Rumble, a Florida based video platform that is popular among the right-wingers"). Bedivere (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Trump - Long Live the King.jpg is an image of similar provenance. Whatever the consensus of this discussion, it will likely also apply to that image. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just looping back around to say there is still definitively not enough clarity for this video to be uploaded here. NBC has the details on who created the video, but their reporting is not clear on how much of the video/which elements of the work were completely AI-generated and how much was created by human authors. The co-creators of the video are also the founders of a start-up that uses AI as a video tool for commercials, but the company also uses non-AI generated content within those commercials; it's not clear to what extent this particular video used AI vs a human's work. And again, per the recent report from the US Copyright Office (whose jurisdiction this would fall under as it was created and published in the United States), the copyrightability of an AI-generated or AI-assisted work hinges on how much of the work was generated by a model and how much was created by a human. I don't philosophically agree with their guidelines per se, but that's what would govern this situation until a court weighs in. 19h00s (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@19h00s, Bedivere, Jmabel, ChrisiPK, C.Suthorn, and أنون: I just shared the file here. User:RodRabelo7 uploaded it 26 February 2025. The authors of the prompt are wiki notable, en:Solo Avital and en:Ariel Vromen. Trump plan for the Gaza Strip (Q132159574) is among the Wikipedia articles where this could go, and that article exists in several languages. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any evidence that the video was wholly AI-generated with no human-made components including musical or visual elements? I don't think it's responsible to keep it here until that is definitively known. Notability doesn't preclude copyright considerations. 19h00s (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@19h00s: This is what AI is. This video, the song, everything about it, this is AI generated. This is the kind of video which AI generates millions of times a day. I do not think it is reasonable for Commons to take a default position of skepticism when a million to 1, videos like this are entirely AI generated.
You are right to ask questions and I really appreciate your doubt. I think a deletion discussion would be helpful, but it could also be helpful to discuss more here first among people who really care about copyright policy for Commons.
What sort of check might we do to determine if such video uploads to commons contain copyrightable components? Bluerasberry (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this seems straightforwardly AI-generated and straightforwardly copyright-free - but as someone who made my way to Commons copyright discussions from the visual arts side of the IP world, straightforward is not the same as evidence. And this is where I'm stumped. I just don't know how one can prove - or disprove - that a work contains no human-generated content. I'm not even sure how the Copyright Office itself is going to enforce their own standards when they're assessing attempted copyright registrations; you basically have to rely on the word of the creator and the few limited tools that work well for spotting wholly AI-generated content (would welcome folks to chime in with examples). In this case, I think we can run a basic search of the song to be sure it didn't exist before this video. Beyond that, I really don't know how to assess this; I raise my concerns both due to the precautionary principle and because I think this merits a broader conversation about how Commons should assess or accept authorship claims when it comes to AI-generated material. Undoubtedly there will be corporations, organizations, and individuals who will claim that their work is copyrighted when it was actually just AI-generated; and there will be those on the other end of the spectrum who may try to pass off human-made content as AI-generated for any number of reasons (including to make the content ostensibly allowable on Commons). This high-profile case feels like a decent example of the grey areas that will be popping up more and more. I'd welcome folks with more AI expertise to weigh on the technical side of spotting/assessing AI-generated material, as my knowledge of that side of this issue is pretty limited. But obviously if the group and Admins think this is an overblown concern, I'll gladly let it go :) 19h00s (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@19h00s: The surest test in Commons is to nominate a file for deletion. Normally I would encourage anyone to nominate anything questionable for deletion simply to advance conversation, but in this case, it might be good to discuss a little more so that a deletion conversation starts with good arguments. Some things are already covered at Commons:AI-generated media. From my perspective, you wrote 5-10 arguments which could justify a deletion argument. All of your points are valid and I am not sure how to react.
I am enjoying this conversation and thinking about this though. It is a wild test case. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An additional element I hadn't thought about before - if the two creators did any amount of editing to the video even beyond adding music/visual components, the result of that editing and arrangement could also constitute a copyrightable work. So beyond the specific imagery/sound, we also have to consider if they spliced up the original AI-generated video or added digital filters/effects. Or possibly they combined several different short AI-generated videos together into a longer, edited video - essentially a compilation which could earn its own copyright. I don't mean to overcomplicate but technically these could all constitute actions that make the resulting work copyrightable in some way. 19h00s (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged here, but having heard this described, I have no intention of watching this. To paraphrase Mark Twain on reading Poe, I might be willing to do it on a salary. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This video, the song, everything about it, this is AI generated." - At this point, I don't think we have enough evidence that it is indeed the case, and not AI working over an elaborate screenplay with more than trivial edit work afterwards. I have considerable doubt that we can keep such stuff here with such precarious information. Darwin Ahoy! 12:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DarwIn: Is this video unusual in that respect? I feel that it is common knowledge that there are countless videos of this sort on the Internet - are we agreed on that point? Should Commons doubt all such videos, or does this video have particular characteristics which make it different from the majority of other ones? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry I don't think we can presume it was kind of spontaneously generated by IA when we have no idea of its origin before being repassed by Trump. Darwin Ahoy! 14:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DarwIn: I am asking if this video is special. In general, do we never know if AI-videos are spontaneously generated, or is this one special in some way that makes us uncertain in this case when usually we accept AI videos?
Also, in the metadata, we know the people who wrote the prompt, and the AI tool which generated the video. We have journalism telling how the video was made. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Separate from Darwin's response, I think your question is at the heart of this. How can we - or should we need to - prove that a work which is obviously at least AI-assisted contains no human-made elements, editing, or arrangement? I don't know enough about the actual look of AI-generated material to begin to answer that with any level of expertise, but it's the theoretical question at the core of this issue. The USCO's guidance has, from my vantage point, opened a gaping hole in the logical process for assessing AI-generated material, in that there are few techniques available to confirm or deny whether an individual work contains significant human-made elements or edits. From my perspective, Commons should probably go with the more dire of the two options: we must have confirmation that AI-generated material - particularly material like this which contains enough detail and material to easily have necessitated human edits - was truly generated by AI with no or few enough human edits/additions that it would not receive copyright. When dealing with visual art and copyright in the U.S., Commons has generally taken the position that we need hard evidence of a work's original publication in order to prove it is not in copyright; this is an extremely arduous task a lot of the time, which could easily be avoided by just making "assumptions" about the work's original publication that are probably true. But instead of making those assumptions, we have to dig through catalogues and newspapers to prove publication. I would argue that the situation here is analogous; we could certainly assume that this work was wholly generated by AI, but that would be an assumption without evidence. Even a work like this which looks, candidly, like unedited AI slop, could have enough human authorship or arrangement to merit copyright in the U.S. Obviously this would be a huge decision with huge implications, but I think your questions get to the heart of the matter. 19h00s (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way this is different is that usually if any human edited the AI-generated video (or other AI-generated work), that is the uploader, and if they don't want any credit for their own work, that's their issue. Once they have uploaded their edit of an AI-generated work and said it is all AI, it is almost unimaginable they could pursue someone for a copyright violation for taking them at their word. But here, it could easily be someone other that either the uploader or (almost unimaginable that he knows how to edit video) Donald Trump. They could come forward and possibly sue. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point on the uploader front - most uploaders in this kind of situation would be submitting their own work, so to speak, so they'd basically be giving up any potential copyright by saying the material was fully AI-generated. It gets sticky when we move to a situation where someone is uploading material they did not prompt themselves. 19h00s (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry Thanks a lot for the link, I didn't knew the source of the video had been established so well. Well, in this case, and with the information provided, I've not the least doubt it is under copyright. Avital and Vromen sa6y they took about 8 hours producing it with the help of AI, and they certainly consider it an original and copyrighted production of artistic merit: "“Trump has stolen our content because this was made by artists,” Vromen said. “The Gaza Strip movie is perfect, unique original content that was taken out of context and published by the president of the United States.”". I'll nominate the video for deletion.
This whole situation is also a show case on why we should never blindly accept this kind of content here. Darwin Ahoy! 17:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is, to anyone interested: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Gaza.webm. Darwin Ahoy! 17:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beverly J. White portrait.jpg

[edit]

User:Pinkturkeys uploaded some photos and claims to be White's granddaughter. I find this very believable since none of these images show up in any image search and they have a collection of White's documents and images. How can this situation be fixed so that the images remain up? Wouldn't she hold some right to the copyright as a descendant of White? Jon698 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the portrait looks professionally made. So, the copyright belongs to the photographer, not to White or her descendants. 14:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 (talk • contribs)
Given that this is U.S. circa 1970, what the previous user (who did not sign) says would not be true if the photo had been published at that time without copyright notice: that would have placed it in the public domain. Given that this was a political officeholder, it is likely that she did not just have this for her personal use, and under the common practice of the time, it is unlikely any copyright notices were involved when it was distributed.
We should at least ask the uploader if they know anything about whether this was a personal or public-facing photo. - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Thank you for bringing that up. I asked that question on Wikipedia and she answered it here. Jon698 (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon698: One other thing is that since this is a photo of a photo, it might be a good idea to use the wrapper {{Licensed PD-Art}} once you get the copyright licensing of the original photo sorted out. Even though a copyright license for only the original photo itself is probably more than sufficient for the US, some other countries (I think one is the UK) might also consider the photo of the photo to be eligible for copyright protection; so, the {{cc-zero}} license the uploader chose for their photo would take care of that. The wrapper just basically "wraps" everything together to make things a bit clearer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I have made an edit here to add that license you were talking about. Does that fix the issue? Jon698 (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this photo is {{PD-old-100}} and not sure why you did that. I think it's more likely to be {{PD-US-no notice}} as opined above by Jmabel than "PD-old-100". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Thank you for noticing that error. Jon698 (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Would it be fine for me to remove the alert on the page now? Jon698 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Commons administrator so can't say one way or the other. If, however, you feel the issue that led to the file's tagging has been addressed, you can convert the speedy deletion template into a COM:DR to seek wider community input by clicking on the "Challenge speedy deletion" button right below the speedy deletion notice. This might seem odd because you're seemingly nominating the file for deletion yourself, but you'd actually be contesting the speedy deletion and explaining why the file should now be OK to keep in your post on the DR page. Other users will then give their opinion and eventually an admin will assess everything and decide what needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Wikipedia user talk page discussion, and "that is a family portrait she had done" doesn't seem to definitively state that the photographer didn't retain the copyright. I'm a retentionist and like to keep any photo that might be useful, if possible, but Commons is very particular about protecting copyrights, and not remembering who the photographer was doesn't mean they or their heirs couldn't have retained the copyright. Please address that question, User:Jon698 - if not here, in the deletion requests thread. I'll bring it up there if it isn't addressed in either place within a day or two. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Thank you for bringing that up. Would a photographer give up the copyright for images like family photographs since they are being paid for their service and have it fall under the copyright law of work for hire then?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon698 (talk • contribs) 13:38, March 5, 2025 (UTC)
I don't think such a thing can be assumed just because physical copies of the photo were paid for or otherwise given to the subject. Generally, there needs to be some sort of en:copyright transfer agreement or en:work-for-hire arrangement made between those taking the photo and the subject of photo in which the transferring of copyright authorship is explicitly mentioned. Back before digital cameras and the Internet, I believe many photographers and photography studios retained negatives as a way maintaining control over their photos and asserting copyright authorship; subjects would pay for the photo to be taken and for a certain agreed upon number of copies, but not necessarily for the rights to the photo and there was typically a fee for any additional copies that might subsequently be requested. Many photos were watermarked with the photographer's or studio's name also as a way of protecting their rights. Those buying the photos may have agreed to terms so as no-commercial reuse or limited distribution to others as part of their agreement with the photographer. The same pretty much applies today except only in that most things are digitalized as files; for example, many wedding photographers retain the rights to their photos and those paying for them basically enter into a user agreement with the photographer. This, however, seems to be more of a case of professional photographers and their work since they tend to be more assertive of their rights than perhaps a friend who takes your photo at a party and sends you the file just because they're your friend. The principle of the photographer being the copyright holder of their photos is still the same now as it was back then as can readily be seen by those selling copies of their images or user licenses via agencies like en:Getty Images, en:Alamy, en:Shutterstock, etc. Anyway, when it comes to Commons, COM:PCP and how it should be applied often determines whether a photo with somewhat questionable licensing can be kept, and those discussions can be a wikt:crapshoot depending on who's able to make the more convincing argument. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the other images uploaded by Pinkturkeys are unfortunately copyrighted and held by other people. Such a shame since they are all nice looking images. Jon698 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchinson's Story of the Nations

[edit]

Hi, We have many illustrations from this book, especially about India. Some of these illustrations are credited to Category:Harry Marriott Burton (1882-1979), but he seems to be only the publisher. The chapter about India seems to be written by James Meston (1865-1943). Also there is no publication date at the source. Duplicate category says 1915, which looks plausible. Are these illustrations OK for Commons? If yes, with which license? Yann (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When searching, I see publication dates from 1913 to 1932, mostly 1924 and before. There were likely multiple editions. The introduction in your source link references a battle from 1918, so that edition was obviously later than that. Many illustrations seem to be credited. The U.S. copyright is fine for any editions before 1930; the UK copyright would depend on each arists. Anonymous ones are fine. I'm sure most are OK, though a few may not be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carl Lindberg: Thanks. I worried that the first edition would be after 1930. But later editions do not create a new copyright, so PD-UK-unknown + PD-US-expired would be fine then? Yann (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, only new material in the later editions would have a longer copyright. That is probably the most reasonable license though many paintings did seem to be credited. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carl Lindberg: I found that some drawings are signed, i.e. lower right p.188. I can read "H. M. Burton", so these are not in the public domain yet. Yann (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I have searched for more signatures. In some cases, I don't see one, so are these OK, or should we consider that they are all by the same artist (the style seems the same, but that seems to be a requirement from the publisher: p.342, lower left, signed Stanley L. Wood, died 1928)? Yann (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say any not signed or credited would be anonymous. But when I was looking, quite a few were credited in the caption in the book. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review of COM:FOP Malawi

[edit]

I suggest we review again our interpretation of Malawian FoP as per COM:FOP Malawi (latest version of the law as per WIPO Lex is from 2016). Based on my understanding, there is partial FoP only for buildings, and the non-commercial restriction only applies to "works of art":

Reproduction and making available to the public by photography, cinematography, drawing or similar means of depiction of an artistic work is permitted when the work is
(a) included in the picture or recording by way of background or as incidental, to the essential matters represented;
(b) a work of architecture in the form of a building; or
(c) a work of art permanently located in a place outdoors where it can be viewed by the public:
Provided that pictures or recordings in which the work of art clearly is the principal motif, shall not be commercially exploited without the consent of the author.

My reading of the clause: it is allowed to create images (like photos and videos) of artistic works in the three cases mentioned above, as long as images of works of art cannot be used commercially if those are the main subjects. Note that the non-commercial restriction applies to "works of art" that is applicable to the third case (for "works of art" permanently located in public places). The second case is specifically for the buildings, and I don't think the NC restriction applies to the buildings. If the buildings were to be included in this restriction, the term that should have been used is the same term as used in the first part of the clause: "artistic works".

This is based on my reading/interpretation. However, I won't make any changes for COM:FOP Malawi unless there's a consensus to do so. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I was the one who decided the entire Malawian FoP as NOT OK, but if more users agree that the non-commercial restriction only applies to "works of art" as opposed to "artistic works" (and therefore we can host modern Malawian buildings), we can change FoP-Malawi as partially OK in the similar manner as Denmark, Taiwan, Russia, and Japan (partial FoP countries). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, while the "P" in "provided" in the NC restriction is capitalized, it is preceded by a colon (:) that is found at the end of the third case (c). This means the third case is connected to the NC restriction, and the restriction is for the third case (works of art) only, not including buildings. Perhaps, Malawi is yes-FoP only for buildings, but no commercial FoP for works of art, similar to Denmark, Japan, Russia, Finland, and Norway.
Ping @Clindberg and Aymatth2: for comments/perspectives. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree. Clause (b) is about a "work of architecture", and clause (c) distinguishes those from a "work of art", and the non-commercial clause references "the work of art" specifically, so I think that clause refers to part (c) alone. It can't apply to all three since applying it to part (a) is nonsensical. So yes, I think this is building-only FoP (well, building-only commercial FoP). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised COM:FOP Malawi accordingly. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agrees that Malawi's Commons-acceptable FOP cover building. Thanks for clarification. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand differently the law excerpt that was provided by JWilz. It first says the depiction of "an artistic work" is permitted when the work ("an artistic work") is... and goes to enumerate such artistic works. "Works of architecture" are then, by definition, "artistic works" and conversely "works of art". Although it's not the exact wording, it is very evident to me that "an artistic work" is "a work of art" Bedivere (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere have you noticed the colon punctuation mark at the end of (c)? It denotes that it is accompanied by the NC condition sub-clause. Note that since the "work of art" has been mentioned by (c), the article "the" is used in the next mention of "work of art" in the said sub-clause. The FoP clause made specific distinction between artistic works that are "buildings" and artistic works that are "works of art". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may be right after all. Didn't see the ":". Then went and had a look at the law as published in the official gazette and it is very likely they meant that condition only for c). Or the lawmakers meant the condition for all artistic works. Remember, it's Malawi, they could have inadvertently messed up. We could just assume they meant that only as a condition for c, but I'd be calmer if there was access to the legislative discussion so we could know their intentions
Just for the record, the act defines: ""artistic work”, irrespective of artistic quality, includes__(a) etchings paintings, drawings, sketches, lither crafts, woodcrafts, engravings, etching, products of photographs andprints;(b) photographs;(c) maps, plans, charts or diagrams;(d) sculptures;(e) work of architecture in the form of buildings or models;and(f) work of applied art, whether handicraft or produced on anindustrial scale". Bedivere (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are "lither crafts"? You also mentioned etching(s) twice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, lithographs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took that from the act itself Bedivere (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading goes: a "work of art" is an "artistic work". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the other uses of the colon (":") in that law, it is clear to me that it is a subpoint of c) and only applies to that paragraph. That is, the non-commercial restriction only applies to works of art which are not buildings, or other types of works of art appearing incidentally or in the background. Darwin Ahoy! 12:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DarwIn I have already modified the guideline at COM:MALAWI. Are there any corrections or none so far? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also suspect that the freedom only applies to "buildings". This means, the architectural elements that aren't buildings like gargoyles and statues don't benefit from this exception (unlike the lenient American FoP). Also, the definition part of the law mentions "(e) work of architecture in the form of buildings or models", yet the unrestricted use only applies to "a work of architecture in the form of a building", excluding models. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 I agree with your interpretation as well, only buildings seem to be covered by FOP. Also, apparently works of art in general seem to have considerably more freedom under the Malawian Law there than what we use to France or Dubai, as they seem to be allowed (even if they are very visible there) as long as they are not the main subject of the photo. Darwin Ahoy! 15:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catastrophe de Thumeries du 17-02-1948 (Article VDN 21-02-2022).jpg

[edit]

Recent upload met at Commons:Photo challenge/2025 - March- Newspapers. Is this content free or derivative? Source: French Newspaper La Voix du Nord. Date: February 2022. Ping @Pierre André Leclercq: are you the author of the print? What about the text? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin  Thank you. thank you for your comment. To avoid any confusion I downloaded the article from the Nord-Eclair newspaper dated February 18, 1948, replacing the one written on February 21, 2022 in memory of the Béghinettes by La Voix du Nord. This tragic accident, supported by press articles, was explained to our group of hikers by a retired professor. Best regards Pierre André (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the photomontage. Now it is a completely different image than the one I was talking about. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin I restored the first version published in Voix du Nord, and I downloaded a new version published in Nord-Eclair on February 18, 1948. Which removes any ambiguity about the legitimacy of the photo. Best regards Pierre André (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pierre André Leclercq, for the notification. I see the new file uploaded here, which I think, is fine. Then I will nominate the other one for deletion. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC) updated comment per Yann's remark below, and in French here. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin  Thank you. Thank you, I understand, have a nice day, best regards --Pierre André (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This file may be OK, at least regarding French law, but we still need an author and a valid license. There is a mention below the picture. Is it the photographer's name? Yann (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Yann is right. As the picture is not public domain. Retouched template added. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi all

I'm pretty confident that the book cover of The Climate Book is CC BY 4.0 based on the guidance on Commons, I started a discussion on English Wikipedia about it. Please could someone confirm I'm correct or highlight any issues on the disucssion on Wikipedia please?

Thanks :)

John Cummings (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there. Gnom (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Can anyone help me find the source for this image? The provided link is dead and wayback machine only has 1 snapshot from 2024 (also dead) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Spaarnestad Photo, according to the URL. Over 30.000 photos were donated to Commons in the past years. -- Spinal83 (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the link? When I try to input what's listed in the image description, nothing comes up Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a different archive (World War 2 related). This would be the proper link, but I can't find it there either. -- Spinal83 (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I try emailing nationaalarchief? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linnea Quinley - Source image was deleted

[edit]

In File:Linnea Quigley (2007).jpg there is a note stating “The source image was deleted for reasons that do not affect this image”. However, in the deletion request the reason given was “Sent by fans is not a valid source.” Doesn't that mean the release was invalid and the derivative work must also be deleted? --Karrenberger (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, deleted now Bedivere (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long-standing problem with the {{Extracted from}} template, which automatically inserts {{Extracted from deleted}} (making the "... for reasons that do not affect this image" claim) if the source file has been deleted. This really shouldn't be automatic; someone should have to manually allow it. Omphalographer (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Yes, it seems like complete nonsense that this just happens automatically. I mean, it's certainly helpful if there's an automatic notification that the original photo has been deleted, but why claim out of the blue it doesn't affect the derivative work. This part of the notice should get deleted.
There's a lot like this:
And so on. Maybe it would be better a bot message would notify the admin about derivative works after deletion. Karrenberger (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually restored Donnieyen and Secretary Gutierrez as these seemingly are okay. Bedivere (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. --Karrenberger (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open AI logo - U.S. ToO

[edit]

Posted this a while ago but it was archived without a response, hoping for additional insights. Someone uploaded a png version of OpenAI's logo with a CC license, which was then imitated in drawing form and uploaded by a different editor as an svg file with a CC license. Another editor recently changed the licensing on the svg version to match what OpenAI says about the logo, which is that it is copyrighted but freely usable for any purpose under certain conditions. a) Are the nonstandard "licensing" terms listed for the svg version valid for Commons and b) Do we think the logo actually passes the threshold of originality for copyright in the US? Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put the logo right at ToO. It is a thin line, a fat line, and a fat arc rotated six times. Simple geometry but it looks interesting. It is more complex than the SVG logo. COM:PCP delete. Glrx (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.

[edit]

Hi, We probably need a template to explain this case. Yann (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.}}
Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but according to my understanding the ruling says that the photographer has created a copyrightable photograph of a bottle, even though the design of the bottle is not copyrightable. If this is the case, I fail to see why we would need to create a template as these photographs are copyrighted and therefore not suitable for Commons. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this concerns pictures with a free license but with some complex design. The ruling says that if the objective is a picture of the whole bottle, then it is OK. Please see [3] and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-02#File:Fanta Fruit Punch_(37211095091).jpg for earlier discussion. Yann (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure we should name a template after the case. It's more a parallel to {{De minimis}}, which could be used as it's mostly the same situation but a little different reasoning (and can apply to a prominent item), but if you want to call it "incidental" I guess I could see that. There is a French court case which ended up with a similar result, and another US case which said pretty much the same though the core ruling ended up being via the contract wording. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we shouldn't name the template after the case. I'm not even sure we even need a template instead of just changing the wording on COM:PACKAGING to make it clear that photographs which show the entire object should be okay, even if the label might be copyrightable. It is similar to COM:DM and we don't have a template for that either. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The audio of "Steamboat Willie"

[edit]

"Steamboat Willie" has been in the public domain since last year, since it was first published 95 years ago. However, I'd like to ask about the copyright status of the associated audio. The Music Modernization Act says that sound recordings published between 1923 and 1946 are copyrighted for 100 years instead of 95. Does this apply to the music of "Steamboat Willie"? If so, would that mean that File:Steamboat Willie (1928) by Walt Disney.webm would need to be modified? JJPMaster (she/they) 02:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sound associated with Steamboat Willie was under the copyright of the film which is now expired. Film audio is not considered a sound recording (which is also why File:Singin' in the Rain (The Hollywood Revue of 1929).webm is public domain, it's part of the Hollywood Revue of 1929 and the composition is public domain ). Abzeronow (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct, despite Disney releasing the film audio on vinyl and digital platforms as a "song" (which it somewhat is, but that's another discussion). Bedivere (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of the Lehi movement.svg

[edit]

File:Logo of the Lehi movement.svg, File:Flag of the Lehi movement (white on blue).svg and File:Flag of the Lehi movement (blue on white).svg seems unlikely to be the uploader's COM:Own work, but I'm wondering if there's some way to relicense it per COM:Israel. The en:Lehi (militant group) was found in 1940, and anonymous works under Israeli copyright law apparently are only eligible for copyright protection for 70 years after creation. The two flags as essentially nothing but the logo on a plain background, and the logo seems pretty complex; perhaps too complex to be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO US but Israel's TOO is unclear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text logo copyright

[edit]

Hello!

I've recently uploaded this logo of the TV show Severance by autotracing a PNG logo.

However, I recently found better, more professional vectorizations by Sean Grady from Valency Graphics.

I wanted to upload this, but I saw the following notice on the page:

These assets are not for redistribution or for commercial use and are owned by Red Hour Productions and Apple Video Programming LLC. All of these logos and graphics are unofficial and are not affiliated with the show. These are re-creations by myself from the show and subsidiary materials. Severance® and all of the subsidiary designs mentioned in the program are registered trademarks of Red Hour Productions © 2025 and Apple Video Programming LLC © 2025. All rights reserved. All other copyrights and trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Since this is a text logo from the US, and he, as far as I can tell, is also American, can he just bar people from redistributing it and from using it for commercial purposes? Because the logo itself is under the American TOO.

I am aware that the code of the files is under a seperate copyright than the graphics, but I cut out a part of the EPS file and converted it to SVG.

Thanks, QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 14:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably legally in the wrong, but I can't see any reason we should push it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuickQuokka: I think the copyright status of svg/vector files can be murky depending upon which side of the fence you fall on per COM:SVG#Copyright. My guess is that in this case the logo is probably PD, and probably could be kept. However, there's probably no encyclopedic need to do so given that the statement you posted above says "All of these logos and graphics are unofficial and are not affiliated with the show". Unofficial user-created logos of TV shows are of very little value to Wikipedia's readers regardless of how the creator has licensed them. A screenshot of the title logo might be just as good if not better than any fan-art possibly COM:LL svg if it's simple enough to be uploaded to Commons without any other coprightable elements. Anyway, the version you replaced came from File:Severance typography.png that you uploaded. Is a better vector version really needed anyway? Can't a better vector version be created from that? Maybe try asking at COM:GL/I if you're not sure you can do so yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I wanted to upload this specific version because it’s a very high-quality professional vectorization of the logo, in contrast to the autotrace I made. I even reached out to CHIPS, the original logo designers, to request the vector files, but they politely declined.
In my opinion, a vector version (like this logo) is almost always preferable to a raster image (such as a screenshot of the title card).
Please note that the SVG code I want to upload isn’t entirely Valency’s work, because I had to edit and convert it from EPS to SVG. I also worry that if I ask GLI, I might receive another vector autotrace. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question, still learning

[edit]

I am still trying to figure out how to upload a picture. Last time I tried to upload a picture of w:George Koskotas but because he is still alive, I had to remove it; it is difficult to be approved on fair use grounds, obviously the photo was a copyrighted. This time before I try to upload, I would be grateful your thoughts. Specifically, it is for another Greek politician, w:Pavlos Bakoyannis, he died in 1989. Now I have found a picture/portrait see here. At the figure caption, it says "Public domain." Does this mean that the picture can be uploaded here without issues? If so which exact licence should I use? Thank you in advance. A.Cython (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Cython: some of this sounds like you are confused about some things, so let me try to address them one by one:
  • "Last time I tried to upload a picture of w:George Koskotas but because he is still alive, I had to remove it." You have no deleted images on this site (Wikimedia Commons). Is this about en:File:Koskotas.jpg on the English-language Wikipedia (en-wiki)? If so, you'd have to take this up there, not here.
  • Commons never allows images on a "fair use" basis. Dead or alive has nothing to do with it.
  • Offhand, I have no idea why greekreporter.com considers that image to be in the public domain. They may simply be lying. Normally copyright in Greece lasts for the author’s life plus 70 years after his death. I cannot see how any Greek photo from the 1980s can be in the public domain, and it cannot be older than that based on his apparent age in the photo. I do not see how this image can be uploaded to Commons.
  • In the absence of a free image, en-wiki allows one non-free image of someone who is no longer alive. However, it is also necessary to indicate who owns the copyright. Since greekreporter.com don't seem to give a trustable description of the source of that photo, we probably fall between two stools in this case.
  • However, surely there is a copyrighted image of the late Mr. Bakoyannis where we know who took it (and hence can appropriately indicate an author) and where en-wiki will therefore allow non-free use. Note, however, that approach does not involve Wikimedia Commons at all. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: You are correct, and I apologize for not being exact regarding the description of the previous events. Your answer also addresses my question of whether the photo of Bakogiannis is copyrighted or not. My only suspicion, maybe hope, was that this may have been taken as part of his duties in the Greek Parliament. Perhaps that's why the Greek Reporter says it is in the public domain. This was a speculation of mine, but I have no idea how to confirm this nor do I have experience. As I said, I am slowly learning. However, from your answer, I understand that the figure caption "public domain" is insufficient without identifying the actual source. Again, thank you.A.Cython (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Cython: Commons is, admittedly, uncommonly strict about claims of public domain, in that we always want to see the specific rationale. There are a few authorities where we'll take their word if they asserted that an image they used is PD (see Category:PD per authority), but it's not really clear who greekreporter.com even is (at least not to me) and whether they should be trusted. Outside of that, we need the rationale: e.g. photo taken by such-and-such person who died more that 70 years ago (so public domain in its home country, Greece) and published before 1930 (so public domain in the U.S.).
In Greece most government photographs are not in the public domain. Note the very narrow wording of Template:PD-GreekGov: it only covers texts. - Jmabel ! talk
@Jmabel: Got it. That's why I asked to make sure before going through the process of uploading and then being rejected. Thank you. A.Cython (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About Template:PD-KosovoGov

[edit]

I don't think this template is valid anymore. The current (2023) law of Kosovo does not include works of government (that are not of textual/documentary nature) as works that don't enjoy copyright protection, unlike the repealed 2011 law.

For comparison:

2011 law, Article 12

1. Legal protection of the copyright shall not include:
1.1. ideas, principles, instructions, procedures, discoveries or mathematical concept as such;
1.2. laws, sub legal acts, and other regulations;
1.3. official materials and publication of parliamentary bodies, government and other organizations which carry out public functions;
1.4. official translations of regulations and other official materials as well as of international agreements and of other instruments;
1.5. submissions and other acts in administrative and judicial proceedings;
1.6. official materials published for public information;
1.7. folkloric expressions;
1.8. headlines and different information of media of ordinary reporting nature.

2023 law, Article 6

1. Copyright protection shall not extend to official texts of a legislative, administrative and judicial nature, and the official translations of such texts.
2. Copyright protection shall not extend to:
2.1. ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such (but only to their original expressions);
2.2. expressions of folklore;
2.3. news of the day, mere facts and data as such (but only to their original presentation); different information that have the character of ordinary media reports can be reproduced only after at least twelve (12) hours have elapsed from their publication.

I suggest the template should be replaced by {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}}, in the similar ways as {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, {{PD-ROC-exempt}}, and {{PD-Philippines-exempt}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this retroactive? - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general laws are not retroactive unless they explicitly state so. I did not find that by reading the law. All materials until 12 October 2023 should be fine. Bedivere (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we would still need {{PD-KosovoGov}}, but it would only cover works from a certain period, and should be edited to say that. - Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The law doesn't appear to guarantee non-retroactivity. According to Article 144, the transitional provision part:

1. Regulation No. 20/2018 on the right to special and reprographic compensation applies until the approval of new tariffs in this area.
2. Normative acts of organizations for the collective management of rights apply even after the entry into force of this law and must be harmonized with the provisions of the same, within a period of twelve (12) months from the entry into force of this law.
3. Protection under this law as regards copyright shall also be available in respect of databases created prior to 1 January 1998 which on that date fulfill the requirements laid down in this law as regards copyright protection of databases. The protection provided for in this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any acts concluded and rights acquired before 1 January 1998.
4. Protection pursuant to the provisions of this Law as regards the right provided for in Article 78 of this law shall also be available in respect of databases the making of which was completed not more than fifteen (15) years prior to 1 January 1998 and which on that date fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 78 of this Law. The protection provided for in this paragraph shall be without prejudice to any acts concluded and rights acquired before 1 January 1998.
5. In the case of a database the making of which was completed not more than fifteen (15) years prior to 1 January 1998, the term of protection by the right provided for in Article 78 of this Law shall expire fifteen (15) years from 1 January following that date.
6. With the accession of the Republic of Kosovo to the European Union the exhaustion of right of distribution, referred to in the Article 23 sub-paragraph 1.2. of this Law, shall apply to any first sale or other transfer of ownership in an original or a copy of a work, made anywhere in the European Union or in the European Economic Area.
7. The provisions of Chapter on Multi-territorial licensing of online rights in musical works by collective management organisations shall enter into force with the accession of the Republic of Kosovo to the European Union.
8. When Marrakesh treaty is signed or when Kosovo Republic becomes member of the EU, an authorised entity established in Kosovo Republic may carry out the acts referred to under Article 49 paragraph 2. of this Law for a person with a visual impairment or reading disability or another authorised entity established in any Member State of the EU or any contracting party of Marrakech Treaty adopted on June 27th, 2013. Likewise, a person with a visual impairment or reading disability or an authorised entity established in their territory may obtain or may have access to an accessible format copy from an authorised entity established in any Member State.
9. Agreements on the exercise of copyright and related rights relevant for the acts of communication to the public of works or other protected subject matter, by wire or wireless means, and the making available to the public of works or other protected subject matter, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, occurring in the course of provision of an ancillary online service as well as for the acts of reproduction which are necessary for the provision of, the access to or the use of such online service which are in force on 7 June 2021 shall be subject to Article 29 of this Law as from 7 June 2023 if they expire after that date. Authorisations obtained for the acts of communication to the public falling under Article 28 of this law which are in force on 7 June 2021 shall be subject to Article 28 of this Law as from 7 June 2025 if they expire after that date.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro

[edit]

Montenegrin copyright law was recently updated last year (2024) as per the online article. But do not expect substantial pro-Wikimedia changes. In particular, the non-commercial FoP clause still exists, unchanged.

Djela koja se nalaze na javnim mjestima
Član 55​​

Dozvoljeno je, bez sticanja odgovarajućeg imovinskog prava i bez plaćanja naknade, koristiti djela koja su trajno izložena u parkovima, na ulicama, trgovima i drugim javnim mjestima.​​
Djela iz stava 1 ovog člana ne smiju se umnožavati u trodimenzionalnoj formi, koristiti za istu svrhu u koju se koristi izvorno djelo i koristiti radi postizanja neposredne ili posredne imovinske koristi.​​

Translated (by Google) as:

Works located in public places
Article 55​​
It is permitted, without acquiring the appropriate property right and without paying compensation, to use works that are permanently exhibited in parks, streets, squares and other public places.​​
The works referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article may not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, and used for the purpose of achieving direct or indirect material benefit.

For the law in Serbian language, see this. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this photograph of Sir John Tresidder Sheppard in public domain?

[edit]

Is this photograph of Sir John Tresidder Sheppard in public domain? ([4]) It dates to 1922 and was taken by Lady Ottoline Morrell (died 1938); 103 years ago and 87 years ago respectively. The photograph comes from a a personal collection therefore I doubt it was ever published. Am I right in thinking this would fall under public domain and therefore suitable for upload here? (Regardless of what the NPG try to argue). Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is from a print. The photograph would appear to be public domain in the UK (unpublished UK works might not fall out of copyright until 2040 though but I think since it was a print that it probably was published around 1922) and would be public domain in the US as Morrell died in 1938 and the two most likely scenerios are publication in the 1920s or unpublished until now where Morrell's death date would matter. Abzeronow (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper clippings etc.

[edit]

I came upon this bunch of uploads, mostly older newspaper clippings - but not old enough to assume public domain. They were uploaded as "own work" which we may safely assume they are not.

Now I know how to mark one image as possible copyvio, but I am a bit out of my depth handling a whole bunch of these. Can someone help? Thanks, --87.150.12.160 11:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VFC is a good tool for this, but I believe you may have to be logged in to use it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, it seems you do have to be logged in. Well, that leaves doing it individually I guess... --87.150.12.160 20:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting of Flickr user

[edit]

Hi!

It seems that uploads from "J.M Executive" on Flickr are falsely claimed as Public Domain (like here File:Mark Carney - November 2, 2023.jpg). Maybe this user should be blacklisted for uploading to Commons --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Converting a deletion request to speedy

[edit]

Greetings! I opened Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by User:Kingmidas911 back in December. The 19 images described in the first set (of 2 sets) are, I believe, unambiguous copyright violations. I believe I should have tagged these as speedy deletions in the first place, and would like to go back and change them. However, I did not want to mess up the existing DR process and thought I should ask first. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyrofrog: Given that there has been no comment there from anyone else, I think you can go ahead and do that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea images by Dprk48

[edit]

These are 2000s images of various locations in North Korea originally uploaded at English Wikipedia by Dprk48 (talk · contribs), and were later imported here. However, the enwiki user implied they just acquired many of the images from their acquaintances, as seen at w:en:User talk:Dprk48#North Korea pics: "I visited DPRK on 2005 and I have a strong interest on it. So I asked some of the members of my trip to mail me the images. I also look for images (as well as information) in the "official" NK media: www.kcckp.net."

Can we accept these old North Korea images, roughly 15–20 years old now, despite seemingly-questionable statuses and the statement from the uploader themself? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

foto di opere di un artista, come caricarle?

[edit]

Ciao! Ho creato una voce su un pittore e vorrei caricare delle foto di sue opere in accordo con gli eredi. Come devo fare? Grazie mille! Alice Zampa (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: @Blackcat: who can help answer this question in Italian. Abzeronow (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alice Zampa Ciao, gli eredi devono dare l'autorizzazione scritta alla pubblicazione con licenza libera. Se le foto rappresentano unicamente i quadri (senza cornice, oslo la tela), allora puoi dire agli eredi di scrivere al servizio COM:VRT, in particolare a permissions-it@wikimedia.org, elencando le opere e la licenza con la quale le vogliono pubblicare (fatti mettere in copia delle mail - una per erede e devono scrivere tutti). Sarà risposto, dopo verifica, con le istruzioni per il caricamento. Infine, una volta caricati i file, dovrai rispondere alla mail di VRT indicando il nome dei file caricati. Tutto chiaro? Ruthven (msg) 20:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Wouldn't most of these items [5] be copyrighted due to the design/artwork on the ceramics. Artistic works are life+50 in New Zealand I don't see how these wouldn't qualify as artistic works. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those may qualify under {{FoP-New Zealand}}, provided that the ceramics are permanently located in publicly-accessible premises. Those are obviously "works of artistic craftsmanship", and assuming COM:FOP New Zealand has similar/identical definition to COM:FOP UK, museum indoors qualify "premises open to the public". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photos appear to be from the museum's collection rather than an exhibition. These ceramics are not on permanent display at the museum either. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found this: [6] which makes the claim the works at the museum were purchased from a private collector by the company that originally made them, which then donated the collection to the museum. I'm not sure if this would have an any bearing on the copyright status. I'm not even sure if copyright is held by the artists or the (now defunct) company. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing used by the museum for the photos is valid. For the ceramics themselves, if you said those weren't meant to be permanent, then we have some problem. But yes, it isn't clear if the donation of the works to the museum includes stipulation of copyright transfer. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Utilitarian objects do not get a copyright, but this may be an issue, if FoP doesn't apply (I didn't check). But it seems that the copyright of this expired too. Yann (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does NZ copyright law treat utilitarian objects as unprotected works? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrightability of generic photographs of objects

[edit]

Hi. It appears that @Nutshinou: has been systematically nominating hundreds (if not thousands) of non-original photographs of statues and the like for speedy deletion due to copyright concerns. Admittedly I haven't looked into every single file, but from what I can tell most of the statues in the photographs are PD to begin with. File:Cecil Brown - 386432591a.jpg being one of many examples. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought a photographic reproduction of an otherwise PD object can't be copyrighted because it's not technically an original work. So does anyone know exactly what the policy is in instances like this? I'd hate to see hundreds of photographs of statues get deleted if they aren't actually copyrightable. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Statues are not 2D works, so we need a permission from the photographer, which is lacking here. Yann (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sucks. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: What about something like coins? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We usually require a license from the photographer. Please see Commons:Currency. Yann (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1008752606"