Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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 (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

John Jude Palencar's illustration of Eragon

File:Christopher Paolini, Eragon 1.jpg was uploaded by User:Penguin Random House Verlagsgruppe, who has a verified identity, which is why I'm not taking this straight to a DR. But really? Does John Jude Palencar's contract with Penguin Random House really permit them to release his work on the CC-BY-SA? And take credit for it--they didn't credit John Jude Palencar at all on the page. That surely violates his moral rights in the EU. That in and of itself doesn't scream that they crossed the t's and dotted the i's on this. Anyone want to tell me to go for a DR, or to just let it lie?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: My initial impression is that you should go for a DR and ping whoever verified their identity.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: why would their identity be at all in question? DerHexer presumably knows what he's doing.

User:Penguin Random House Verlagsgruppe, can you sort this out without having to go to a DR? Is this just a failure on your part to properly credit Palencar? - Jmabel ! talk 01:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's just a moral rights issue, I would simply add the artist name and be done with it. That is not a reason for deletion. I could easily see publishing houses owning the copyright on cover illustrations -- it would depend on the contract, of course. If they own the copyright they could license it. If this is the account of a different Random House subsidiary than the one which published the original, that particular subsidiary may not own the copyright though. I'm leaning on assuming good faith given it's a verified account, but any clarification would be good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg: correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in Germany they couldn't exactly "own" the copyright for a work by a living author, but they could (and quite likely do) have unlimited rights granted by that author. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

If the economic right has been transferred, I think that is basically what "owning" copyright is. This particular cover was for an American publishing house (Alfred A. Knopf), by an American artist for a work by an American author. This version would seem to be for a German translation and printing, but the country of origin (and copyright rules regarding transfers) would be American. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not that I doubt the identity of Penguin Random House Verlagsgruppe, it's more that I doubt their competence. On one hand, I was looking at this as a potential commercial reuser, and there's simply no way I could trust that license. On the other, I was reading about Bill Willingham's fights with DC over his contract, and it makes me hard to trust a company to follow the contract when they've put so little care as to leave credit off their reuse.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that the account was driven on behalf of the Penguin Random House Verlagsgroup by an experienced person with knowledge about CC licenses. This person also arranged a book scholarship program between Penguin Random House Verlagsgruppe and Wikimedia Deutschland. There is little doubt that they know what they are doing. For example they provided another cover of the novel “Der Hexer” when I kindly asked for that. ;) Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Evolution of the Minden–Harlen tornado.gif (Request for clarification from EN Wiki)

Over on English Wikipedia, there is an ongoing long debate about whether this gif is (1) public domain, (2) CC 1.0 due to public domain data, or (3) not public domain and not free-to-use. To solve the debate, a discussion is being opened here to assess:

1. Whether NEXRAD/radar screenshots are, in fact, free-to-use or not free-to-use?
2. If the answer is not free-to-use, does the U.S. government publishing it make it free-to-use?
3. If the answer to No. 2 is yes, why is some NEXRAD screenshots in the public domain and others not?

Basically, a plethora of questions (policy questions) regarding NEXRAD (Template:PD-NEXRAD) screenshots, most present in Category:Weather radar images.

This image (File:Sulphur Tornado Radar Image.png) was also discussed for it not being in the public domain/free-to-use in the English Wikipedia discussion.

Previous discussions on the commons: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander City Tornado Emergency in 2023.jpg - the only related discussion as to the usage of NEXRAD screenshots as far as I am aware. Image was Kept as being free-to-use. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

English Wikipedia direct requests for clarification on if NEXRAD is free-to-use or not: User:Master of Time & User:TheAustinMan

Discussion

• I personally think it is free-to-use. In that deletion request discussion back in 2023, Jameslwoodward (no-pinged) stated, "The data is clearly PD. While the software which was used to present it is copyrighted, the only human involvement is by the uploader...It is well established the output of a computer does not itself have a copyright unless it is derived from a copyrighted work." An English Wikipedia editor brought up the point that even though Jameslwoodward is a Commons administrator, they are just a regular editor with regards to discussions. However, one should logically assume that an administrator knows the rules enough to make that kind of statement. NEXRAD is owned entirely by the United States government and anyone has access to the data. As brought up by Jameslwoodward, as well as English Wikipedia editors, the software used is in fact copyrighted. However, Jameslwoodward states there is a precedent (one that hopefully can be linked in this discussion as I am not aware of where it is) that output from a computer, i.e., those radar softwares, are just using public-domain and freely available data. That all said, I am just one editor. Hopefully a few experiences Commons editors can chime in and help sort out the policy with regards to this topic. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Could you please give a link to the data on the NEXRAD website? So it would be clear what are the steps between the public domain data and the image? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Yann: Here is the NEXRAD download website. There are three main applications users get radar data: Gibson Ridge products (GR2/GR3), RadarScope, and RadarOmega. The deletion discussion above involved a RadarOmega screenshot for reference.

-RadarScope/RadarOmega internally store the archived radar data. So users (1) open app, (2) click which radar site they want (out of the 159 of them), (3) click a “previous time” button, (4) choose data/time, (5) see archived data.

-GR products, a user has to physically download the data to see/open it. So, (1) download data from NCEI website (picking correct radar/date/time), (2) open GR application, (3) click “open file”, (4) open the files, (5) see data.

There may be some other method, however, those three applications probably account for 98% of the radar screenshots on the commons/EN wiki articles. Users also get live-radar feed from any of the 159 radars via those applications or even the National Weather Service website. So, someone can screenshot the live data without any of those download steps, and just open app and click radar = see data. All three applications see the same NEXRAD radar data. Hopefully that gave some guidance as to how the processes work for that. WeatherWriter (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

By all appearances, NEXRAD is entirely owned and operated by the U.S. government, so any expression would be PD-USGov. That's not inherent in any satellite photos, but U.S. federal government ones should be. Are there any examples of NEXRAD images which are not considered public domain? While it's possible to combine PD material in a creative way, to get a copyright on "selection and arrangement", I don't think combining images into a time animation meets that threshold. They are already timestamped so the order is already given, and they are placed on top of each other. The software used to make such animations is irrelevant, unless it adds copyrightable expression visible in the final result (such as maybe a copyrightable logo, which if removed then becomes fine). In particular, algorithms aren't copyrightable, so if passing something through a computer algorithm, the result has the same copyright as the input. If you combine several NEXRAD images from different events, with annotations to point out similarities, that particular combination may get a selection and arrangement copyright. As with anything though, you need to identify copyrightable expression, made by a human, in the final result for there to be a copyright. The satellite images certainly could be, but those seem to be PD-USGov (though definitely not CC0, which is an explicit license by a copyright owner). If a human carefully chose framing from a series of satellite images, such that different people performing the same idea would all come out differently, then *maybe*. If that selection was automated (computing a center for the storm and choosing that), then no. The question is what, exactly, did Mark De Bruin himself contribute to what can be seen in the final result. It may take effort and skill, but "sweat of the brow" like that is not copyrightable -- just the human creative part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, and hopefully there can be firm clarity on these class of images. For context, the National Weather Service's NEXRAD radar data is delivered as binary files encoding raw data (details). This radar data is visualized and plotted independently by a wide range of public and commercial services, including the National Weather Service (example image) and popular paid software suites such as GR2Analyst (example image), RadarScope (example image), and RadarOmega (example image). While it's clear that the National Weather Service's own radar images fall under {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}, potentially less clear are screenshots of radar visualizations produced by non-free commercial software, which may apply their own methods to denoise radar data, smooth it, or correct for potentially erroneous values. On Commons, screenshots in this category (that were not published by the NWS) take a variety of forms. Some are limited to the radar imagery. Others include the entire software visual interface. I'm inherently a little wary of uploading images/screenshots non-free software on Commons, so hopefully those better versed in copyright can provide some clarity on that front. —the•austin•man (works) 14:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

In the later case, the software interface should be cropped out. Yann (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Any automated processing like de-noising I don't think would create a copyright. Software interfaces can often include copyrighted elements though, so usually best to crop to just the images themselves. A specific visualization done by a human, if it adds a lot of elements over the original, may be enough for a copyright -- but automated ones less likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that {{PD-NEXRAD}} was created by WeatherWriter. In addition, radar images are freely available via the NWS website and through other venues, e.g. the Weather and Climate Toolkit, and numerous such images are on Wikipedia (so the "90%" figure is not valid). And the vast vast majority of radar images on Wikipedia that were created using privately-created software are not via RadarScope or RadarOmega -- the only private radar application that is significantly present on Wikipedia is GR2Analyst (and to a lesser extent the other Gibson Ridge variants). RadarScope and RadarOmega have a distinct "stylized" presentation so can easily be identified. Now, on the argument that you can grab a random person's hand-coded radar loop from Twitter and call it PD, with not so much as attribution required -- as far as I know, no software will follow supercells or supercell mesocyclones for you. That requires a unique measure of work to program. Whatever you think of the applications mentioned previously, I don't think it's fair to say that just because something was created using PD data, every single thing deriving from it must also be PD. And on the bit about satellite, those are largely created using U.S. government-provided tools anyway (or by Wikipedia/Commons users who publish it here under a free license), not private software, so not really a good comparison. Master of Time (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether you think that or not, that is not how the general law works. As seems to be the nearly-overall consensus from Commons editors not apart of the EN-wiki discussions (like myself and you), the radar screenshots are public domain as there is no human interaction involved besides the screenshot/upload process. Humans do not have any creativity in terms of what the data says. The fact the same identical screenshot could be pulled up on GR2/GR3/RadarScope/RadarOmega is a huge indication that it is, in fact, nearly no outside copyright reasoning. RadarOmega was already determined by a community consensus to be in the public domain per that deletion request. A seems to be the case here as well, the lack of human interaction/creativity between the radar taking the image and not taking the image is near 0, aka, not creative enough to consider it copyrightable. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

To pose another question: Since you do say everything can be pulled up via a NWS/.gov process, could you upload a duplicate of File:Radar image of the 2023 Amory EF3 tornado.png or even File:NEXRAD loop of the Rolling Fork EF4 tornado.gif? That first screenshot was nominated for a FPC at one point and that gif is of the strongest and deadliest tornado of 2023 (w:2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado). Both were from GR2, however, in mere minutes, RadarScope/RadarOmega duplicates (that look identical) could be uploaded. Since you say all the stuff is truly available via a NOAA-provided tool (i.e. .gov website), uploading duplicates of either of those would help support your point. Right now, I have no idea how you could do that, as NWS-radar gifs (as far as I am aware) can only be created via the last like 30 minutes worth of data, i.e. archival data is impossible except by those applications, which all use the same data. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyright is not the same thing as "commercially valuable". Also, at least in the U.S., a "recognizable style" is not copyrightable either -- that is more of an idea, and copyright does not protect that, just specific expressions of an idea (and expression made by a human). (It may be more in the realm of a trademark, if any protection exists). Such software is certainly valuable, and the software's own source code (and binary) has its own copyright, but it cannot claim copyright of any expression that passes through it. Photoshop may have blur filters, and de-noise filters, but Adobe does not get a copyright of any image made using them -- they are just applying the functionality to an input image, and the artist is using them as a tool, and owns the entire copyright to the resulting image (if they started from scratch at least). When you make a photograph, you don't own any copyright over the photographed subject (unless in a studio and you are arranging the content too). The copyrightable expression is based on the framing, angle, timing, and other elements under control of the photographer. There's probably not a lot copyrightable in a satellite photo (the angle is too obvious, and the timing is "always"), but likely enough.

The Copyright Office does say (in a guidance paper around AI) In the Office’s view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. In their Compendium (Chapter 3, they reiterate To qualify as a work of “authorship” a work must be created by a human being. They further state Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author. They give some examples of non-copyrightable situations, such as A photograph taken by a monkey, Reducing or enlarging the size of a preexisting work of authorship, Declicking or reducing the noise in a preexisting sound recording or converting a sound recording from monaural to stereo sound, or Medical imaging produced by x-rays, ultrasounds, magnetic resonance imaging, or other diagnostic equipment. So the question really is what elements did the human user add themselves, and is that creative enough to support a copyright.

Certainly, anyone involved in the creation should be credited. No reason to hide any of that. If the particular framing of each satellite photo was chosen by that person to "follow" the storm, that is arguable as a copyright. The framing may not be entirely creative, but there could be enough -- anyone else doing the same idea may end up with a slightly different expression. It would be a thin copyright -- you can't prevent anyone else from using the same idea to make their own version that looks very similar -- but it may be enough to prevent exact copying. If someone comes up with an algorithm to automate it, then those choices are not creatively being made by human, and they would cease to have copyright (they would have a copyright to their hand-written computer code, but not expression which passes through it). If that was a manual process, there could be an argument there. If there is really only one or a very few ways of doing it such that the framing is obvious, that can be a place where the expression and idea "merge" (called the merger doctrine) and there is no copyright either. But if not, and that rolling framing was done by a human, it's possible there is a copyright there, and I may tread carefully. The details on how it was made become very important. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• To add one other note for this specific gif: At the top left is the attribution watermark, “Via Mark De Bruin, AWS, NOAA”. This has a direct U.S. government, attribution watermark on it “NOAA”. Shouldn’t that help indicate this would be in the public domain, especially since the only reason to indicate a possible copyright is strictly judging how the gif was even made? WeatherWriter (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • If you alter a public domain work (or arrange public domain works), provided the additions or arrangement is more than the threshold of originality, then you get a copyright on your additions. This is what is known as a "derivative work"; adding new expression to an existing work. If the original is copyrighted, you need the underlying author's permission to distribute it. If the original is public domain, then the only copyright is on the additions. They may just be crediting the public domain part (which actually they should do, per 17 USC 403), while noting any additions are their own. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is in fact copyrighted, then there is a ton of deletion requests that need to occur, as that would mean w:NEXRAD radar loops would be copyrighted as it isn't just a single screenshot and involves too much originality. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It would not be radar loops in general which are a problem. Taking a series of timestamped images and putting them together in an animation is not creative and would not support a copyright. The only possibility here is the specific framing of each image to follow the storm as it moves across territory -- the framing is different than the original. Even there it may not be enough, but it's at least a little bit arguable. It matters, in each case, what expression was added to the satellite images (by a human). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Sint Maarten Government Images

I have reviewed the Commons copyright rules of Sint Maarten and the Netherlands. As I understand it, copyright in Sint Maarten is governed by the Auteursverordening (Author's Regulation).

Are the images produced/provided by the Government of Sint Maarten or the Parliament of Sint Maarten subject to any copyright restrictions? As far as I can tell there is no coherent copyright policy on either site.

I did find this advisory report that makes mention of creative commons licensing. It says, "Government produced video, photographs and other material are the property of the government." But I can not tell if they are talking about Aruba or Sint Maarten.

Sint Maarten had a recent change in government and I would like to understand what I am allowed to upload. For example, is the image found on this press release available to upload on Commons or English Wikipedia?

As far as I can tell, the absence of copyright details probably means: no, it can not be used.

Thanks in advance for your help. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

COM:NOP Sint Maarten also makes mention of what has been made public by or on behalf of the public authorities, apparently governed by Art. 11 (2) of the copyright law, but I cannot actually find a second sentence of Article 11 in either the Dutch or the English version of the law as on WIPO or at File:Dutch copyright act 2006-06-22.pdf. Very strange. Felix QW (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Felix QW, I finally found this page on a Sint Maarten hosted website, which does have Art. 11 (2). It states,

"Evenmin bestaat auteursrecht op hetgeen verder door of vanwege de openbare macht is openbaar gemaakt, tenzij dat recht, hetzij in het algemeen bij wet, besluit of verordening, hetzij in een bepaald geval blijkens mededeling op het werk zelf of bij de openbaarmaking daarvan, voorbehouden is."

Same language can be found here too.

What is your interpretation of that? Are images hosted on the Government of Sint Maarten or the Parliament of Sint Maarten subject to any copyright restrictions? Thanks, Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

from my understanding as a law student, if the image is published by the government then its public domain. the tricky part is the type of image published. the sourced image you mentioned from the government site is public domain. CharlesViBritannia (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It does make an exception for cases where rights are explicitly reserved, and to me the footer line Parliament of Sint Maarten - All rights reserved at the parliament website would be enough to put its public domain status in doubt. On the government website you linked I cannot find such a statement, so images from there could be fine. Felix QW (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Classicwiki The legal text is a good find, by the way! We should probably link to it from COM:Sint Maarten. Felix QW (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@CharlesViBritannia, @Felix QW, yes I am concerned about the all rights reserved on the parliament website's footer.

Second Marlin cabinet image exists on English Wikipedia under a non-free use rationale. Might be the best route, but would prefer to upoload to Commons.

@Felix QW, where do you think I should put the link? Background or Not protected section? -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think updating the link in the background section would make most sense. Felix QW (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Alfredo Di Lelio

Can we use this image free of restrictions? It is (said to be) of Alfredo Di Lelio, the originator of w:Fettuccine Alfredo, in front of his Roman restaurant. I would estimate that it was taken c. 1910-1920. It can be found here, here, and here (as well as other places). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: , For Italy, photographs would either have a copyright term of creation plus 20 years if it is a simple photograph or life of the author plus 70 years for artistic photographs. I'm inclined towards believing this photograph to be a simple one. @Ruthven: @Blackcat: for a second opinion from Italian administrators. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: If that photograph, being clearly not-artistic, was taken before 1977, the photo is in public domain both in Italy and the US. In this case can be published on Commons with licences {{PD-Italy}}{{PD-1996|IT}} in the permission field of {{Information}} template. -- Blackcat 19:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with Blackcat. Use both templates. Ruthven (msg) 05:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Abzeronow, Blackcat, and Ruthven: Does the same logic apply to this version (sharper looking image and slightly larger file)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with the upload of the first of the two possible files. Please let me know if the other is okay, and I'll add it too. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0 As long as it is a PD file, there are no issues. Ruthven (msg) 23:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

From the same source as the second upload (above), there are two other images that could help improve the article: a menu from the 1920s; and a post-card from the same era. Are these acceptable on Commons, and if so, what criteria/licences need be applied? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: , the menu image is {{PD-ineligible}}. For the postcard, do you have access to the backside of it? It might be OK, but I want to make sure the photographer is not credited on the back. Abzeronow (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: This is the only source I know of, and it only shows the one side. The postcard does contain a partial (cropped) version of the same photo that's already been uploaded and is said to be of Di Lelio in front of the restaurant circa 1914 (left image), if that's any help. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

PD-old-assumed when date of birth is known

I was wondering about how we handle situations where the date of birth of an artist is known, but not their date of death. Cecile Pfulb-Kastner is a botanical illustrator some of whose illustrations would be very valuable for Wikimedia projects. It is known that she was born in 1874, but her date of death seems to be unknown. She would have to have reached the age of 80 for her works still to be under copyright in France, which I find not unreasonable. Is there some consensus on this somewhere? Felix QW (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It's like any other author whose death date we don't currently know, their works before 1904 can be uploaded, and we would have to wait for the later ones. Pablo Picasso (born 1881) lived to be 91 and his works are copyrighted in the EU until at least 2044; Henri Matisse was born in 1869 and died in 1954, his works will enter the public domain in the EU next year. There are plenty of examples of artists who lived past 80. Abzeronow (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I was initially thinking that too, but it seems strange to treat pre-1904 and post-1904 works differently if their copyright term depends only on the (unknown) date of death of the same individual. In my mind, to would make more sense to say that once the date of birth is known, we take, say, dob + 90 or so as a credible upper bound. Felix QW (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

According to idref, she was divorced in December 1940, when she would have been 66. Living another 14 years is plausible, assuming she wasn't caught up in the war. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Per the records of Cimetière de Montmartre in Paris a woman named "Guillo nee Kastner, Marie-Cécile" died at the age of 92 on April 11, 1966. Given the age at death and date of death, this makes her year of birth 1874, matching the illustrator. The spousal surname of "Guillo" matches the surname of the illustrator's second husband (following first husband Pfulb). It seems very likely that this is the date of death of the illustrator Cecile Pfulb-Kastner. Per the illustrator's marriage record to her first husband, we know her given name is Marie-Cécile, which also matches. We might have to delete the images at Category:Cecile Pfulb-Kastner, to be undeleted in 2037 (1966 + 70 + 1). —RP88 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@RP88 I added {{NoUploads}} to the author category. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

DR is now at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cecile Pfulb-Kastner. —RP88 (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the impressive (and fast!) research on this, and for opening the DR. Felix QW (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I did some research too at FamilySearch but found nothing about her. Great work RP88! Bedivere (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

File:1OhitRcopyright.jpg

What's written in the description for File:1OhitRcopyright.jpg is directly contrary to the way the file's been licensed. Assuming that the uploader is the same person who created the image, they might not fully understand what releasing the file as licensed means. Does the file's description need to be changed because it's obviously not in accordance with COM:L? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the issue has been resolved in Commons:Deletion requests/File:1OhitRcopyright.jpg and the file deleted.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

photo of a gallery exhibit?

In 2013, the Lillstreet Gallery replicated feminist cartoonist Nicole Hollander's living room for an exhibit they called "Will You Step Into My Parlour?" I attended and took several photos and was going to post them to Wikimedia Commons in order to add at least one to the Nicole Hollander Wikipedia entry. However, I paused on the question that asked whether the work of others was visible in the photo. Because it recreated her living room, the walls include some of her "Sylvia" cartoons as works-in-progress. Don't want to fall afoul of copyright issues. What do you think? Engmaj (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Engmaj: At worst, copyrighted material can be covered by a Gaussian blur. Take a look at what I did to the paintings in File:Georgetown Rainier malt house interior 02 - blurred.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, the whole recreated living room might be considered a copyrightable work of art, in which case you would be out of luck. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe I will give the gallery a call. Appreciate the input. Engmaj (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure I have the technical skills or software to do that, but I appreciate the suggestion. May reach out to you again if I want to try it. Much appreciated. Engmaj (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Crown copyright and ID cards/passports

Would someone mind taking a look at File:Gibraltar ID Card (Front).jpg, File:Gibraltar ID Card (Rear).jpg, File:Series C Temporary Passport (UK) - Data page.jpg and File:Series C Temporary Passport (UK) - Cover.jpg because these don't seem to be covered by the license {{PD-UKGov}}. It might also be a good idea to check some of the other recent uploads of this user given the number of licensing related notifications on their user talk page and that many of their uploads are sourced to edisontd.nl. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please help: Is this photo in the public domain? What template?

If I correctly understand this document from the U.S. copyright office, works unpublished as of 1978, with an unknown author, that are at least 120 years old are in the public domain. However, I do not find a template here that exactly matches those conditions; {{PD-old-assumed}} explicitly does not cover U.S. copyright.

This photograph of an American founder of the Washington (USA) city of Centralia is listed as circa 1890. Washington died in 1905, so the latest it could possibly be would mean 120 years is a year or so from now; however, I think the source is reliable for an estimate within a few years. (And the subject does not look to be in his mid-80s.)

So: (1) Assuming the asserted facts (including creation prior to 1904), am I correct to understand it is in the public domain in the U.S.? (2) If so, what template should I apply when uploading it? And (3) Is the assumption in (1) safe from the perspective of Commons policy? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Without knowing the publishing history, this could run afoul of some quirks in U.S. copyright law. As I understand it:

• If (as I suspect) it was published more or less contemporaneously, it is PD. In particular, if it was published no later than the end of 1928, it is PD.
• If it was first published 1929 through 1977 without a copyright notice, it is PD.
• If it was first published 1929 through 1963 with a copyright notice, but copyright was not renewed, it is PD.
• If it was first published 1978 through 28 February 1989 without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years, it is PD.
• If it was not published until 2003 or later, given that even due diligence will not tell us who took the photo it would be in the public domain 120 years after creation, which seems safe. However, if the photographer can be determined, it would be p.m.a. + 70: if the photographer was alive in 1954, it would still be copyrighted.
• If it was first published 1929-1977 with copyright notice, and copyrights were properly renewed as relevant, then it would still be copyrighted.
• If it was first published 1978 through 28 February 1989 with notice/registration it is copyrighted at least until 2049.
• If it was first published 1 March 1989-2002, it is copyrighted at least until 2049.

(Someone actually expert is welcome to edit the above if I'm wrong; please use strikethrough for deletion & bolding for addition to make your edits clear.)

So if we can find it published before 1929 our life is a lot simpler. - Jmabel ! talk 05:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with your analysis, this matches my understanding. The one little detail I'd add is that, as I understand it (and as I believe is stated on the copyright.gov page I linked), everywhere you say published is more precisely stated as legally published with the consent of the copyright holder. So for instance, if somebody came into possession of a box of photos and donated it to the historical society, and the historical society published it or loaned it to somebody who published it without doing an extensive search for any heir etc., that would not establish a copyright date.

I don't know a whole lot about this particular photograph, nor am I deeply invested in uploading it; rather, it's an interesting case to zero in on your fifth bullet point. That's the part I'm interested in; you're absolutely right that this photograph might have been published somewhere, and I'd be hard pressed to prove that it wasn't. But, for a photo that wasn't (e.g., if its provenance is pretty well known, and basically consists of "lived in a shoebox for over a century"), what is the Commons template that would reflect the 120 year rule, with regard to U.S. copyright? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, We usually assume that old pictures were published at the time of creation, as leaving the photographer's custody constituted publication. You can use this version, which also covers the US copyright: {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Or you can use {{PD-US-unpublished}}, which covers unpublished images from before 1904. Yann (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Yann! Appreciate the explanation. I've uploaded the file here. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think what Yann says is a little over-strong, but reasonably applies here. We would not make that assumption about amateur work by someone photographing their own relatives, nor about work of a known individual who is known to have kept massive files of work they did not publish. This looks like professional work intended for sale or publication. - Jmabel ! talk 22:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: That makes sense, I'll keep it in mind. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

1930s (and circa) photos by Bassano Ltd

I have seen various images uploaded, such as File:Bassano_Ltd_-_Pamela_Jackson_(née_Freeman-Mitford).png and File:Bourdillon1932.jpg, under a UK unknown license, yet the author is clearly stated as Bassano (1901-62) and using a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template which says it is not valid for post 2012 uploads (the two examples were uploaded recently). This leads me to some confusion around whether this photo is or is not protected by the same author and from around the same time. I'd appreciate if someone knows whether the fact of Bassano Ltd being active until 1962 means the UK-unknown template is invalid, both in terms of authorship and date (post 1954); or, would UK-unknown be valid if the actual individual themself as part of the group is unknown? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The PD-UK-unknown template would be valid for Bassano works that were published or revealed to the public before 1954. However, anything from Bassano from the 1930s that was uploaded after 2012 would be subject to deletion due to URAA. In the specific case of the GB Stern, you have a 1939 date of creation, and that it was a half-glass negative that was acquired in 1974 (which might be the relevant date as far as publication/reveal to the public) and therefore wouldn't be PD in the UK until 2045 and in the US until 2070. Abzeronow (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll need to double check but I think the UK copyright rules extended from 50 to 70 years in 1988 or 1989. Any anonymous works created and published before 1938 should have become PD on 1 January 1988 and wouldn't be affected by URAA in 1996. Anything created and published in or after 1938 will probably have URAA issues.

There are more complex issues around anonymous UK creations before 1938 that were published after 1938. We would have to investigate those cases to see if URAA restore US copyright in 1996.

In terms of the initial question, the author is normally unknown as the credit line usually gives "Basano," which is not an identifiable person. If the credit line gives "Jon Doe at Basano" then it is no longer anonymous. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that as in most (all?) of the EU countries, the UK had a retroactive copyright extension to 70 years before 1996, so any post-1928 images would still be copyrighted in the US. Felix QW (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that. The copyright was extended when it was still valid. If the copyright expired, it wasn't renewed. Yann (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The details are in Art. 16 of these regulations; since there are EEA countries that already had a 70 year term and do not implement the rule of the shorter term (e.g. Germany I believe), this encompasses practically all works that would still be protected by the new rules in the first place. Felix QW (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, the details depend from country to country, since the copyright terms were different. At least, that's the case for France. Yann (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The EU restorations were retroactive -- they brought back into copyright expired works. However some countries did that before the URAA date, and some did it after (meaning the previous law matters for the URAA). The UK did it on the URAA date itself, which unfortunately means the longer, restored terms matter for URAA calculations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

At least France didn't restore expired works when it passed the new law. That's why French anonymous works published before 1936 or whose authors died before 1936 were not restored by URAA. Yann (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, France did, but in 1997. In the law implementing the change, Article 16, they say: The provisions of Title II of this Law shall not have the effect of reviving rights in works, performances, fixations or programs that passed into the public domain before July 1, 1995, unless they were still protected on that date in at least one other Member State of the European Community. I don't think we have identified any type of work which was not protected in the European Community on that date, less than the current EU norms. Several countries had been 70pma for a long time before that (and Spain had been 80pma). The EU directive forced the restoration; that wording is right from the directive. The French law goes on to list limitations of owners of revived rights, so some works certainly were brought back from expired status. The timing matters for the URAA, so any works still expired by the old law on the 1996 URAA date remained PD in the US. France did have the wartime copyright extensions so their terms were more like 58 years and some months on the URAA date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The original UK term was 50 years from creation, regardless of author. The UK extended terms at one point, but did not extend expired works. But they then implemented the retroactive EU extensions on January 1, 1996 itself. That meant that the retroactive terms were active on the URAA date (which was the same day). So on that day, the image got restored in both the UK and the US. Alexander Bassano died in 1913 (and retired in 1903), so anything with only a corporate credit is basically anonymous (Bassano Ltd is a company, not a person, and 70pma terms are based on the human author's life). The term for those is 70 years from publication, or 70 years from creation if not published in those first 70 years. The NPG collections are a bit problematic if they are from glass negatives (like these two), since we don't know they were published at the time. If not, they may have only been published upon donation in the 1970s and the 70 years may run from then, so there might be a UK copyright still. The NPG also has images made from silver bromide prints; those were obviously published at the time so ones done in the 1930s would be PD-UK-unknown now (even if restored by the URAA in the US). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on this. I still remain a little unsure, especially as this was a 1939 creation, but that without evidence of publishing before the NPG got it in 1974, would we have to work with the latter date? In which case, in the UK, are we looking 1974+70yrs because it may just slip out of the URAA exception by a year or so? It sounds like we'd have to go with an unknown author if we only know the group of photographers rather than individual, but I can't discern if this means we're talking about a now PD image or not. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we have deleted several Bassano images on that reasoning in the past. I'm sure we have also kept many under the PD-UK-unknown hope they were made available to the public at the time (which is the term in the UK law, and is easier than attaining "publication"). Most works were made to be published, and we often assume they were, but photo negatives from an archive make me nervous. If Bassano took 4-5 photos but only actually marketed 1-2, then the others remained unpublished. Which ones did the NPG then put on their website? It is somewhat of a judgement call, if we think this doubt rises to "significant", per COM:PRP. Anything less than 95 years old is almost definitely not OK in the U.S., so should also be deleted on those grounds, though that has also been inconsistent in the past. Lots of gray area when it comes to negatives from photo archives, unfortunately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

CCTV screenshots and US copyright law

Does anyone know anything about the copyright status of CCTV and security camera screenshots under US copyright law? There's discussion on going over at English Wikipedia about the copyright status of en:File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg and whether the file should be relicensed as {{PD-automated}}. The image seems to have been made public by the en:FBI, but it doesn't seem to have originated with the FBI. It appears to have come from footage taken by a privately installed camera that was subsequently passed on to the FBI. Has there been any US case law related to this type of thing? If there has, then perhaps that information could quickly resolve the English Wikipedia discussion about the file one way or the other. Would this file end up being deleted if it's relicensed as PD and then moved to Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it has been tested in court, so no case law. It's arguable either way, and it may depend on the particular details of each situation. As with anything, there has to be human creativity in the U.S., which in these situations is probably limited to the angle and framing chosen (but which may be enough, much like photo snapshots). Whether a camera is CCTV or not is irrelevant in and of itself. In Commons:Deletion requests/File:CCTV video of Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse.webm (still ongoing but that one involves a camera that is actively pointed and zoomed by humans, so a far more likely case of being under copyright), I did find that there is a copyright registration for this video (PA0002103805). So, it is possible it would seem. I'm not sure there is any guidance from the Copyright Office. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue I see with something like this is how exactly to determine the amount of human interaction involved. Since a lot of CCTV systems can be remote controlled and there's no way to know that information with any specific image. I don't see why a CCTV image that was intentionally taken by a control room operator controlling the camera wouldn't be copyrighted though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The question has never been tested legally either way in the US. The general copyright rule is it must require a human creator and creative input to be copyrighted. So I would say, probably not. IMO, if it is positioned for a particularly artistic purpose, then there is a copyright in the US. If it's just smacked on a building for security purposes and then never moved again probably not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"Fair Use" photo

I'd like to upload a photo to wikimedia commons to use in wikipedia. The photo is owned by the Oklahoma Historical Society and available on their website as part of their digital collections. They mark it as "Fair Use", and I contacted them and they explicitly gave me permission to upload it here and link on wikipedia as long as I cite them.

The photo was taken in 1981 and published in a local newspaper.

Best way to proceed? Not sure how to mark this when uploading, as we have explicit permission but they haven't signified a specific CC license.

• Photo: https://gateway.okhistory.org/ark:/67531/metadc748905/
• Copyright/licensing info for the photo: https://gateway.okhistory.org/ark:/67531/metadc748905/citation/#licenses-permissions

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Not possible. The photo is not theirs in the first place, but of that local newspaper. You should contact them and ask them to follow the steps at COM:VRT. That way, the file can be uploaded. Bedivere (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the quick reply! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wikipedian-in-Waiting: Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type per COM:FAIR; so, if you try to upload the image under such a claim, it will almost certainly and perhaps quite quickly end up being tagged for speedy deletion. The only way that Commons will be able to host such an image is either (1) the copyright holder agrees to give their COM:CONSENT (i.e. agree to to release the image under a free license acceptable to Commons or (2) the image is, for some reason, now considered to be within the public domain (i.e. it either never was or no longer is eligible for copyright protection).

For reference, generally the person taking a photo is considered to be the copyright holder of said photo, and only they can release their work under an acceptable free license. In some cases, a photographer/journalist working for a newspaper might've entered into a en:work-for-hire agreement with their employer which transferred the copyright of any works they created while working for their employer either totally or partially to their employer. Many photographers working for newspapers did (still do?) are sort of freelanchers in the sense that they're paid for providing photos, but they retain all or some of the rights; moreover, many newspapers also get photos from other third-parties (local residents, wire services, photo agnecies, etc.) with which they've entered into some form of contractual agreement allowing them to use the photos. So, if you're able to track down the en:provenance of this photo, you should look for any type of attribution that might help determine who took the photo. If by chance you're unable to find out any more about the photo's provenance, then under US copyright law even photo with and unknown author are still eligible for copyright protection. How long they're eligible depends upon when they were first published or how may years have passed since they were created. An photo taken by an unknown author first published in 2012 would be eligible for copyright protection for 95 years after the date of first publication or 120 years after its creation, whichever is shorter as explained in COM:HIRTLE.

Finally, even though Commons doesn't host fair use content, some of the local Wikipedia projects (e.g. English Wikipedia) do. These project, however, have their own policies and guidelines with respect to such content. Some of these projects have policies in place which are much more restrictive than fair use by design; so, before trying to upload any files to these projects, ou should first determine whether they host such content and then figure out what their policies regarding it are if they do. Information about English Wikipedia's policy can be found here and here, and questions can be asked about it here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and links so I can understand this better when considering other images! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

There is one chance the image might be in the public domain, if it was published without notice before 1 March 1989. If you can find an actual issue of the newspaper using the photograph, and it was published without notice, then it can be safely uploaded. Bedivere (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "without notice"?

The library that owns the image says the photographer is unknown. It was published in a newspaper named Daily Oklahoman, on November 29, 1981. The library did note the caption that ran under the photo, and this seems to be the article, but as you can see the newspaper did not retain the photo with it, with the move online.

Actually one of the last lines of that article, I just notice, gives a Staff Photographer's name even though the photo itself is not there.

That newspaper is still in business. I don't know how the library system came about owning the photos, but they have thousands of them from that newspaper, from the 1880s to 1999. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding: I just googled the staff photographer's name thinking I could just ask him. It seems he died in 2022. (But I think the library was holding the photo during his lifetime, not a recent acquisition.) Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

By publishing without notice means that the newspaper issue that included the photograph did not include a copyright notice saying for example © 2024 Bedivere. All rights reserved. Bedivere (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, that's good to know! I went down a few rabbit holes looking at newspaper archives to see if that might work in this case, and couldn't find it explicitly. But I'm keeping that in mind for future - thank you! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Media created by Fars News Agency

Recently, Fars News Agency had redesigned their site, and they removed the older CC-BY-SA 4.0 notice from their site, and replaced it with "© 1401 Fars, Inc.". The earliest instance of the new design was on Feb 17th according to Wayback Machine.

However, another editor pointed out that some other pages like the photos page^(archive) still retain the older CC-BY-SA 4.0 in the footer. Is that redundant, or does it still apply to newer photos? I have updated Template:Fars/en in the meantime. أنون (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The page you link to has a CC-BY 4.0, not a CC-BY-SA 4.0 in the footer. Besides that, tread lightly. I'd tend to assume they meant to remove it from the whole site. Someone could communicate with them and ask them to clarify.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Holy Door of St. Peter's Basilica

Is the Holy Door of the famous basilica in public domain or not? It was apparently inaugurated in 1950, and its sculptor died in 1979. Per COM:FOP Vatican, Vatican City follows the Italian copyright rules, so the restrictive law of Italy (no formal FoP) applies. Unsure if the door can benefit from things like 20-yr protection for works of state et cetera. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

1968 image free to use?

This image is hosted by the Huntington Library, but I don’t see any copyright terms listed on the page. BhamBoi (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd so no since it's from an original 35mm slide, which means there's evidence of prior publication. Although you could maybe just upload it anyway and then support the DR if anyone nominates it for deletion. Not that I'm telling you to do that, but then on there's already a bunch of images from slides on here that no one seems to care about even though they have a questionable copyright status. So it's your call... --Adamant1 (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: please don't advise people to upload images of questionable copyright status just because someone else did. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not. That's why I said "Not that I'm telling you to do that." Otherwise I would have just said it's probably PD. Although I think you could make an argument as an ignorant user for uploading something with an ambiguous copyright and then supporting it being deleted later on if it turns out to be. Plenty of people do that all the time on here and one of the reason's I mentioned it is because there's different opinions about if things like photographic slides are technically published or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: do you know the term "apophasis"? If not, look it up. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Kodachrome was "slide film", no negative. The existence of a slide proves nothing more than that it was developed. - Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I'm just letting them know what options are out there. Nowhere have I said I support uploading the image if it's copyrighted or that they should do that. But again, there various opinions on here about if photographic slides have been published or not. So I thought it was worth mentioning even if I don't personally think they are published or that BhamBoi should upload the image. Although since you brought it up, I think there are instances where you could argue a slide is considered a published work. Not that I think any of them apply here though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@BhamBoi: unless it was published without notice before 1 March 1989, it's hard to see how it could be in the public domain. See Commons:Hirtle chart: there are a lot of possible cases, but any that do not involve that would have it as still in copyright. Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the time, any somewhat modern photo like that will be under copyright. The U.S. has some exceptions though. The only real chance was if it was legally published (without a copyright notice, but none seems to be there) before March 1, 1989. That question is among the more thorny ones in U.S. copyright law, with a lot of gray area. It seems as though the photo comes from the archives of Otis R. Marston, who had his own photos and collected a lot of material writing books. He died in 1979, but not sure when the collection was actually donated. The source names the subject of the photo as the "creator". If the photo had been taken by Marston, it was likely unpublished at least until the collection was donated, if not further. But if it was a photo given to Marston without any distribution restrictions before 1978, there is a decent chance that constituted "general publication". If that gift happened 1978 or later, you'd have to go by the new definition of "publication" in the 1976 Copyright Act. Different sides can make arguments, in whichever way is in their favor. That can be a judgment call for hosting here, if the community feels there is a significant doubt as to the public domain status. There is no explicit license given (in fact the collection page notes other entities you have to get permission from for certain photographic authors in the archives), so being public domain beyond a significant doubt is the only way to host it. I probably would not upload it myself, but unsure how I'd vote if someone else did. It does seem likely the print was given to Marston, and probably before 1978. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

file:2010 Apple Bowl Winners.jpg

This photo was uploaded in 2010 by user JoelleJay, and credits "Joelle Smart"—presumably the same person—as author. It was shortly thereafter added to a Wikipedia page about a high-school competition called KYVE Apple Bowl (also created by JoelleJay), the caption noting "captain Joelle Smart (holding trophy)". Much as the technical capability exists for JoelleJay to have taken a photograph of herself and her high-school coterie using some sort of camera with timer, it seems more likely that someone else took the photograph and she later uploaded it when creating the page about the high-school competition she participated in. Given this, is the image appropriately licensed? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this happened when I was a teenager, my dad took the picture and used my Wikipedia account to upload it... Not sure what that means for licensing, but the proper owner of the copyright definitely released it to Commons. JoelleJay (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

John Baker pic: copyright status

I've found a good pic of John Baker, but the work is copyrighted by The Royal Society; the picture was shot in 1958 by Bassano Ltd. I'm pretty sure it is not OK for Commons, but I ask it anyway.-- Carnby (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

An anonymous photo from the UK, published in 1958, would be public domain there in 2029 and the U.S. in 2054. Royal Society would not own the copyright; they likely published it under a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

2023 Kosovar Law on Copyright and Related Rights

Page that may need updating: COM:CRT/Kosovo.

There appears to be an updated copyright law of Kosovo: the Law No. 8 L-205 on Copyright and Related Rights. It is a major overhaul of their copyright law, aligning their provisions with EU standards.

The terms remain at 70 years (since the law before the implementation of EU standards was already at 70 years p.m.a.).

A promising revision is the Freedom of Panorama. Now found at Article 49(1.12), it bears striking similarity to the EU FoP clause at the EU Copyright Directive (this is also the identical wording of the Portuguese FoP which is also aligned with the EU standards). I found no trace of non-commercial restriction, so far.

But I don't want to celebrate prematurely; someone should confirm if this is indeed the official law now for Kosovo. Can anyone verify by accessing the Albanian text of the 2023 law?

Ping all participants of the CRT/Kosovo talk page: @Bes-ART, Clindberg, Aymatth2, and Arianit: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

 Info here is what I consider the official version (in Albanian): [1]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on the English version linked, it does look good -- the non-commercial restriction on FoP in their previous law seems to no longer be there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg I have now updated most of the CRT page (specifically the sections pertaining to the governing law, general rules, not protected, and FoP). I will withdraw three Kosovar DRs that I made yesterday. Kudos to the Kosovar government at introducing FoP that's friendly for new media and I.T. age! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The open question now, is if the FoP provision covers murals (and other 2D flat arts) or not. It bears identical resemblance to both COM:FOP Portugal and COM:FOP Moldova, which are patterned after the European Union FoP model, but it appears there is difference in the interpretation with regards to the inclusion of 2D flat arts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

English translation published in the official gazzette is fine as refrence. Albanian version has the exactely same content.

Law is already in force. So this is good as well.

Regarding 2D arts: The article speaks about "works" in general. Article 2 doesn't offer a definition of work. So we can only refer to article 1. 1.1 just speaks about "literary, scientific and artistic works" in general. And 1.2 says: "This Law is in full compliance with the following EU Directives." I don't think that the law makes a difference between flat and three-dimensional work, but I don't know all there EU directives. Albinfo (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Albinfo the Kosovar FoP bears striking similarity to Moldovan FoP. Both anyway patterned their laws upon EU standards. Portugese FoP has identical FoP word construction, too. However, the Portuguese FoP commentators do not speak of restrictions to uses of 2D works. However, the current interpretation of the Moldovan FoP is that 2D works are excluded, at least as per longtime admin @Jameslwoodward: (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#FOP Moldova seems to not limit 2D works). Further clarity on the Kosovar FoP treatment on 2D works is needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The 2D works eligibility should be clarified as soon as possible. I thought w:en:File:Bill Clinton Boulevard2.jpg (which I requested for undeletion) refers to the statue of Bill Clinton, but it turned out to be an outdoor poster (or mural as the uploader claimed). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Abinfo: The EU directive says nothing on 2D vs 3D works. That is up to each country. The phrase used, "such as", is a bit ambiguous in English. The presence of the comma before "such as" most likely means it was not meant to be restrictive and part of the definition, but merely explanatory of common types of works that may apply. Without the comma, it can more easily be read as only applying to those types of works (though even then, it's not definite). James Woodward, in the previous discussion, thought that any ambiguity argued for only allowing that type of work or similar. I did and still do disagree, but it's an understandable argument. I don't know if the Albanian is any more clear on that matter; reading such a technicality into a English translation is a bit nervous. (Even if 2D works are allowed, you can't make a virtual copy of a public 2D work via a photo -- that would prejudice the original work. It would just be showing the original work in its public context.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Clindberg perhaps leave 2D works as "unsure" for the meantime, and "buildings and sculptures" as OK. Anyway, I have requested undeletions of several images, on COM:UNDEL. Perhaps the Kosovar buildings and public sculptures may be the uncontroversial ones to be restored, I'll ping @Yann: who frequents the UNDEL page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Partula otaheitana

I have uploaded two images [2] and [3] that I have now realized do not have any listed copyright (see [4]). How do I remove them? 0x16w (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine to me at first glance, since the observation itself and the parent dataset carry CC0 marks - is there any particular reason you think the images are excluded from the public domain dedication? Felix QW (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)