Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Upon reading , a question struck my mind. Are the U.S. terms applicable to non-U.S. sound recordings, like those from the Philippines? Uruguay Round Agreements Act already complicates works like public monuments, old photos, and several other works of non-US countries; is the sound recording modernization act of 2018 also governing non-U.S. sound recordings? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I am sure that RIAA would like to think so.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Copyright Office Circular 38b says "Although sound recordings fixed before 1972 were not then protected by federal copyright, those sound recordings will receive the remainder of the term they would have received had they been protected by such copyright when published. For example, a sound recording published in 1925 will be protected until 2020." Unless they were in the public domain in their source nation, they'll get 95 years. The Music Modernization Act doesn't mention foreign works; I'd assume it applies to all of them, or at least all of them restored by the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[]

> Are the U.S. terms applicable to non-U.S. sound recordings, like those from the Philippines?

Yes. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@D. Benjamin Miller do the terms also encompass works already in PD in the Philippines etc.? Or, just like URAA, only affects works that were still in copyright as of the 2018 law? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Yes, those terms encompass all sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972. Maybe you should read the law (starting on page 54/3728 of ). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Thanks for inputs. Perhaps will share these facts to the FB group (the FB group of w:en:Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines), to give them attention. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Doing your own interpretation of the law is always a little sketchy. I think there's at least a case that Congress didn't intend to change the status of foreign works left in the public domain after the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@Prosfilaes Point taken, but I don't think this is supported by the text of the actual statute, nor by some external principles. (not written by me), for your reading pleasure. To make things clear, for @JWilz12345 too, we can go over a bit of the history.

1. In the US, there are both federal and state copyright laws. (State copyright laws incorporate common law copyright.) Federal copyright law preempts state copyright law wherever federal law creates a right equivalent to one that exists within state law — only the federal law applies. (State copyright laws now mostly don't matter, because the Copyright Act of 1976 preempted state laws with respect to unpublished works (which was the area in which state copyright law was most important — but that's a different subject.)
2. Until February 15, 1972, US federal copyright law did not apply in any way to sound recordings. Only state law applied. States often gave a perpetual copyright in sound recordings (though some states modified this). # In 1971, Congress passed a law which made sound recordings subject to federal law, but only those which were made on February 15, 1972, and later. Any recording made before February 15, 1972, was subject only to state copyright law. The law passed at that time provided that state law should not be preempted for any sound recording made before that date until February 15, 2047 (extended to 2067 with the CTEA in 1998).
3. In 1994, the URAA was passed, which provided a new federal copyright for "restored works," including works which were not in the public domain in the source country on the URAA date, and where "[were]" in the public domain in the United States due to […] lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972." The term of copyright is "the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain in the United States." The sensible interpretation of this is to treat eligible foreign recordings as published works at the time of their publication abroad, and to extend to them (accordingly) copyright protection for 95 years from that publication.
4. In 2018, the MMA/CLASSICS Act was passed, which provided for the preemption of state copyright law for sound recordings made before February 15, 1972. The CLASSICS Act does not actually make pre-1972 sound recordings subject to the same copyright regime as normal works (as the URAA did for eligible foreign recordings). Instead, there is a special () set of provisions defining both what uses are unauthorized and what the terms of protection are. Notably, the term of protection is for not only a flat 95 years, but a longer period (taking into account the transition period based on date of publication).
5. With the CLASSICS Act, state law on use of recordings was finally preempted. Accordingly, , which previously read "With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15, 2067. The preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to any such rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising from undertakings commenced on and after February 15, 2067. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067," was changed to read "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, and in accordance with chapter 14, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title. With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, the preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to activities that are commenced on and after the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to affirm or negate the preemption of rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising from the nonsubscription broadcast transmission of sound recordings under the common law or statutes of any State for activities that do not qualify as covered activities under chapter 14 undertaken during the period between the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act and the date on which the term of prohibition on unauthorized acts under section 1401(a)(2) expires for such sound recordings. Any potential preemption of rights and remedies related to such activities undertaken during that period shall apply in all respects as it did the day before the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act."

Now, there are some problematic aspects of how this is written. In particular, the URAA's applicability to pre-1972 sound recordings is a bit odd, since I don't think it is quite accurate to say that pre-1972 sound recordings were really "in the public domain in the United States" at the time of the URAA's coming into effect, which is one of the requirements to be a "restored work" to begin with. But since subject-matter eligibility is defined to include those recordings, they have to assimilated to the copyright scheme somehow, and the 95-year term seems to be the way that makes the most sense. The question is (as addressed in the paper), whether, for restored works which are pre-1972 sound recordings, protection is given:

• According to 17 USC § 1401 (Unauthorized use of pre-1972 sound recordings) only, overriding the provisions of 17 USC § 104A (Copyright in restored works)
• According to 17 USC § 104A (Copyright in restored works) only, with those restored foreign works already eligible for federal copyright being excluded from eligibility for 17 USC § 1401 protection, despite no indication in the text of the newer 17 USC § 1401 that there is any such exclusion
• According to both, with such works both having a federal copyright (lasting 95 years) under § 104A as well as protection under § 1401.

I think there is a legitimate debate to be had there as to what provisions are really meant to be applicable. Since § 1401's remedies for unauthorized use are almost identical to § 104A's for infringement, the question really is one of term (i.e., whether or not these recordings should be protected for a term exceeding 95 years). Since the WTO/TRIPS agreements require national treatment (i.e., no country may provide preferential protection to domestic sound recordings over foreign ones), I think it's pretty clear that § 1401's terms need to apply to foreign recordings (whether instead of or on top of § 104A's provisions, I cannot say). Ochoa agrees (in the paper I linked above) that finding that only § 104A's terms apply is the least likely option for a court to pick.

But, more importantly, we must not ignore the bounds of § 104A to begin with. § 104A only applies to foreign works whose protection in the source country hadn't already expired by the restoration date (generally January 1, 1996). Any work whose source-country protection had already expired could not be a restored work to begin with. In the case of books, musical compositions, etc., US federal copyright law had already preempted state copyright law, and so items which had already entered the public domain in their source countries remained in the public domain in the US (and were not subject to state copyright law). Foreign recordings which were no longer protected in the source country would not receive a federal copyright either. But there is no reason to believe that these recordings, which were outside of the scope of "restored works," were supposed to be removed from state protection either. Instead, we need to split things up:

• Recorded before February 15, 1972, and PD in source country on URAA date — State law only preempted with CLASSICS Act, and subject to protection under CLASSICS Act.
• Recorded before February 15, 1972, and not PD in source country on URAA date — State law preempted with URAA, and might be subject to only URAA protection (for 95 years), or perhaps CLASSICS Act protection (for longer).

Since almost all non-US countries provided only for a relatively short period of protection for sound recordings when the URAA came into effect — 20 to 50 years — any sound recording which had the ability to become a restored work, even if only protected for 95 years from publication, would still not be in the public domain now. For example, a recording from 1960, which was still under protection in its home country (with a 50-year term), and which could thus be a "restored work," is protected until either 2056 (under the URAA alone) or February 15, 2067 (if the CLASSICS Act's provisions apply). But it will be decades until the answer becomes relevant. Any recording made in, say, 1925 (which would be protected under the CLASSICS Act despite being over 95 years old) wouldn't have been subject to the URAA anyway due to ineligibility for restoration due to a lack of protection in the source country. I'm not aware of any countries which had even a 70-year term of protection for sound recordings in 1996.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@D. Benjamin Miller: Thank you for that detailed examination. I had to deal with this subject matter almost two years ago in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conservet Deus su Re.ogg, and it was really complicated. --Rosenzweig τ 09:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[]

And then of course there was the case of , which was about some 1930s UK recordings marketed in the United States after the URAA, and was ruled to still be under New York common law copyright (which Capitol had a license for, and Naxos did not). They determined the URAA did not apply since the recordings were already PD in the UK before 1996, thus the US common law copyright continued (until the CLASSICS act, presumably). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Пишу українською, бо англійською не можу повноцінно висловити своє запитання.

Отже, питання таке (це більше стосується України, де нема Свободи панорами, але, може, це і в інших країнах діяти):

• 1) чи є порушення авторського права у файлах, де самі митці (художники, скульптори, майстри фольклорних виробів) представляють фотографу власні твори? (example1 ; файл для прикладу — у цьому випадку надіслано дозвіл)
• 2) чи є порушення авторського права у файлах, де митці (художники, скульптори, майстри фольклорних виробів) позують фотографу на фоні своїх творів? (example2)
• 3) чи є порушення авторського права у файлах, де митці (художники, скульптори, майстри фольклорних виробів) позують фотографу на фоні своїх творів у день події (виставки, концерту чи іншого заходу) не під час самої події (виставки чи іншої події), а одразу після її завершення чи пізніше в той самий день? (example3); хоча в зазначено наступне (Стаття 22. Загальні випадки вільного використання творів. (...) 2. Без дозволу суб’єктів авторського права і безоплатно, але із зазначенням імені автора і джерела запозичення, допускається: (...) 6) доведення до загального відома публіки творів, побачених або почутих під час перебігу поточних подій з метою висвітлення таких подій, в обсязі, що відповідає інформаційній меті;), але це вже не сама подія, а час після події, або навіть, якщо і в час самої події (але не за програмою події), коли окремо позують фотографу?

Прошу коментувати щодо окремих пунктів нижче. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[]

(Google translate): So, the question is as follows (this applies more to Ukraine, where there is no Freedom of Panorama, but maybe this applies in other countries as well):

• 1) is there a copyright violation in the files where the artists (painters, sculptors, masters of folklore products) present their own works to the photographer? (example1 ; example file - in this case permission is sent)
• 2) is there a copyright violation in the files where artists (painters, sculptors, craftsmen of folklore products) pose for the photographer against the background of their works? (example2)
• 3) is there a copyright violation in the files where artists (painters, sculptors, craftsmen of folklore products) pose for the photographer against the background of their works on the day of the event (exhibition, concert or other event) not during the event itself (exhibition or other event), but immediately after its completion or later on the same day? (example3); although in the following is stated (Article 22. General cases of free use of works. (...) 2. Без дозволу суб’єктів авторського права і безоплатно, але із зазначенням імені автора і джерела запозичення, допускається: (...) 6) доведення до загального відома публіки творів, побачених або почутих під час перебігу поточних подій з метою висвітлення таких подій, в обсязі, що відповідає інформаційній меті;), but this is no longer the event itself, but the time after the event, or even if during the event itself (but not according to the program of the event), when the photographer poses separately?

Please comment on the individual points below. Thank. --Микола Василечко (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Hello @Микола Василечко, your questions are very clear. In all three cases, we would need a permission from the artist. Merely posing or making available their work during an event is not sufficient. Also, the legal exception that you are quoting does not apply to Wikimedia Commons, but only to journalism. I am sorry that I have no "better" answer for you. Gnom (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@Gnom I know. But I wanted to clarify in order to have reasonable grounds to nominate these and other files for delete. Because uploaders obviously do not know or do not understand that they are infringing copyright. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Please also comment other user. And, are there any examples of other discussions on this questions? --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Hi, I am trying to upload some public documents that would add value to an existing wikipedia page. But I am stuck at the stage where I need to describe the license of documents. Because I don't know them. These documents were first published on a website; it was available to everyone to see/download. I downloaded them to my computer. After sometime, the website took those documents down, so it is no longer available. So, my intention is to make those public document accessible again to everyone by uploading them on a related wikipedia page. I am hoping that somebody can guide me how to upload the documents successfully. Thanks (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Some general advice, if you don't know the copyright status, don't upload it. Also publicly available doesn't mean public domain. Which country are these documents from? What is the nature of these documents? Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I concur with User:Abzeronow. Try to get the original source of the documents and take it from there. Martinvl (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@ what is the source of the files? If you provide it we could offer better advice, too. Bedivere (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Or just link from here to the documents and someone can give you a more specific answer. But well over 95% of what is on the Internet is not eligible for Commons, because it is copyrighted and the copyright-holder does not offer a free license. Asking how you can license it legitimately is like asking how you can legitimately drive your neighbor's car. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I guess it's a Myanmar public document . Out of the COM:Myanmar I'm not sure documents of the general elections are in the public domain, but they might be ("procedures, rules, directives, notifications, explanations from a ministry, government organisation or regional or state government"). Bedivere (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Thank you all for replying. Yes, the documents are detailed election results of 2020 Myanmar general elections. It shows number of votes that each candidate received at each constituency in both union-level and state-level elections. Those data were made publicly available by the then-Union Election Commission as part of their election result announcement procedure. It was available for anyone to view or download freely. As you might probably know, the military staged the coup on 1 February 2021 claiming that there was a voter fraud without any concrete evidence. But both and election observers recognized and acknowledged 2020 Myanmar general elections as free and fair and that the results represented the will of the people despite some historical legal shortcomings. Since the coup, the military has been systematically destroying evidence of 2020 election results. One of them is taking down those publicly available detailed election results of 2020 general elections. And, the junta also installed a new Union Election Commission handpicked by them. Fortunately, I managed to download those detailed election results before they were taken away. So, my intention is to make those public data publicly accessible again and to uphold the validity of 2020 Myanmar general elections. These detailed results will also add value to the existing wikipedia page on 2020 Myanmar general elections and anyone who is interested in studying Myanmar elections. Could you all please suggest me how I can go about this mission of upholding democracy and respecting the will of the people of Myanmar? (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I think they would be fine as they are "procedures [...] from a [...] government organisation" as per COM:Myanmar. But I'd rather have you upload one of these files (elsewhere, like on Google Drive) and link it here so we can provide a better and final opinion. Bedivere (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Hi. is one of the documents that I like to upload on wikipedia. When I try to upload it on Commons, it asks me about the copy rights questions which I do not know how to answer. Thanks in advance! (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

They are in Burmese. (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Please allow access to the file! Bedivere (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Sorry. would you mind trying the link again? I also paste the new link . (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Are 3D models of architecture created by someone else considered derivative works? And if so, can they be considered copyright violations if the buildings themselves are still under copyright(in cases where there is no FoP exception)? --Aristorkle (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[]

At least where the buildings themselves are stil protected, the model is a derivative work and therefore requires the permission of the original architect. Gnom (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[]

en:File:No name Brand Logo.svg

This file does not meet the threshold of originality in its country of origin or the United States AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@AuroraANovaUma: Yes, this is fine on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Marked Move to Commons template. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Wir haben hier schon eine Entscheidung, die Datei zu behalten; aber ich kann sie nur bedingt nachvollziehen. Die Historie des Hochladers zeigt, dass da auch schon mal was gelöscht wurde - wohl auch wegen Copyright etc. Zweifel sind daher nicht ganz unbegründet bzw. das bei der Behaltensentscheidung vorgebrachte Vertrauen nicht bedenkenlos hinzunehmen. Siehe /wiki/User_talk:Jakobo GerritR (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[]

You began the discussion. The uploader responded the next day. The discussion was open for three months. You added nothing to your original statement. It's really a bit late to respond now. - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Für die Frage, ob man dem Hochlader bedenkenlos trauen kann, ist das aber ziemlich egal.--GerritR (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@Abzeronow: you closed the discussion in question. Anything to say beyond what I said? (I take it GerritR did not contact you directly before discussing here.) - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Geht es hier um das korrekte Benehmen von mir oder um die Sache?--GerritR (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

No, I was not contacted. The uploader promptly answered that the work was their own work, and the uploader doesn't have a history of copyvio, and the drawing and text appear plausible as own works. I would need evidence that this is a copyvio. Abzeronow (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

About history of copyvio - we have at least one probable case: /wiki/User_talk:Jakobo GerritR (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

was deleted because it lacked a machine-readable license. Abzeronow (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Isn't the proper licence in this case CC0 ? - All photographs (from 1920-1930) of the described do not have individual licence restrictions and the authors are unknown. The photo in question is . The source page is sponsored by the Polish Ministry of Culture. Regards Henry39 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[]

{{PD-Poland}} is OK. Yann (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Great. Thanks. Henry39 (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@Henry39: by the way, absolutely not CC-0. That means someone held a legitimate copyright and has explicitly granted a CC-0 license as a means of effectively releasing the content into the public domain. That does not fit any of the facts here. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I also thought so but wanted to be sure. Thanks. Henry39 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Is Figure 1 image in the following webpage a Wikipedia image? (). I have tried to find out from the author of this article without success. If the image is a Wikipedia image, I would be grateful if you were able to please send me the webpage details on which it appears so that I may acknowledge its source in my work. Thank you for your assistance. Jennifer (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

 Comment It doesn't seem to be an image from Wikimedia Commons, but there is a copy on . Yann (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your prompt and helpful reply. 2001:8003:8403:1E00:D855:A09A:A777:2CD8 12:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Was made aware of this issue through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oshi no Ko taxi head 20240810a.jpg. Category:Itasha has a red note warning not to upload photos from Japan showing artistic works ("unless they are old enough to be in the Public Domain", which I suppose will almost never be the case in this category). The deletion request was about a photo from Taiwan; per COM:FOP Taiwan, Taiwan also has no suitable freedom of panorama for artistic works in public spaces (on vehicles), so I deleted the photo. User:Solomon203 argued "no valid reason for deletion" referring to that category without further elaborating, but as I see it, the category is full of pictures that probably should have never beeen uploaded to Commons in the first place. Many of these are from Taiwan. I'm not hell-bent on deleting all these pictures, so I would welcome good arguments why we should be able to keep them, maybe Solomon203 can explain. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

 Comment {{Useful-object-US}}? Though, if their source country of origin against this, then we can nuke such images as they are not free outside of US. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[]

"Outside of US" is too broadly spoken. We need to assess the copyright status individually for every country, depending on their freedom of panorama regulations. For example, these Itasha pictures would probably be absolutely fine if taken in Germany, as Germany's Federal Court of Justice ruled in 2017 that works of art on means of transport that are visible for longer periods of time in public space (such as a cruise ship) are considered "permanently" located in public space, so freedom of panorama is applicable, if the cars are regularly used in public. {{Useful-object-US}} doesn't seem fitting to me for this case, neither in the US. This is about the objects as such. The small print in the template says "A two-dimensional painting, drawing, or graphic work is still capable of being identified as such when it is printed on or applied to utilitarian articles such as textile fabrics, wallpaper, containers, and the like". Gestumblindi (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Buenas, administradores, la simbología Anti Comunismo esta en el Dominio Público como este ? AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

No problem, that symbol is below the threshold of originality. Gnom (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@Gnom:Osea {{PD-shape}}? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Sure, sounds good. (The original design is PD-old.) Gnom (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Hello editors. I am currently creating an article about an art critic and I need to add some images, the problem is that all images except for one are protected by copyright. I have reached to a photographer that has several images belonging to him on Getty Images and I have asked him, through mail, for permission to use them on Wikipedia. He has said that I can use them, however, I have read somewhere that I need to prove that the owner granted the permission to use his photos. What should I do before uploading the images to Wikimedia Commons and putting them on the article? (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@: Hi, Please ask the photographer to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@: Permission to use on Wikipedia only is going to be insufficient for Commons' purposes, particularly if Getty Images is involved. What's going to be needed is for you to get the copyright holder's COM:CONSENT (or en:WP:CONSENT). Basically, the copyright holder is going to need to release their work under a license that's free enough to satisfy Commons:Licensing; any license that places restrictions on commercial reuse or derivative use is going to be too restrictive for Commons' purposes. The fact the photographer/copyright holder is involved with Getty most likely means their trying to make some money off their photos and also possibly limit how others may reuse them commercially; that's perfect fine when it comes to Getty, but they can't expect to do the same when it comes to Commons. Uploading their work to Commons or Wikipedia under an acceptable free license means they're agreeing to allow others to download their photos at any time for any purpose with only some basic restrictions in place; it doesn't mean they're giving up their copyright ownership over the photos, but it doesn't mean they're making their photos really easy to reuse without someone needing to ask separate permission each and every time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[]

See related discussion: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/02#URAA on WWII photos of Nazi extermination camps

Currently there is uploaded many documents from Arolsen Archives (previously International Tracing Service - ITS) in Bad Arolsen, Germany - about Nazi collaborates and Nazi victims of World War II.

Thus, if I am not mistaken, this can be considered that these documents are in the public domain (with requirement on providing of Digital Document Number)? If I want to make a separated license marker template for this archive, do I need to rely on {{PD-GermanGov}} or {{PD-EU-anonymous}} or some other template? --Kaganer (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@Rosenzweig: @Gnom: pinging two of our German copyright experts. Abzeronow (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Hello @Kaganer, we can actually ignore everything that any of the terms on the website are saying, and need to make our own individual assessment for each of the files that are being uploaded. This means that we need to individually determine the identity and life span of the photographer/author, or the duration of the statutory terms for any anonymous works. This is because the Arolsen Archives do not hold any own rights in their holdings. (I know it sounds a bit weird when I am telling you to actually ignore all the seemingly important legal texts on the website, but that's actually how copyright law works.) --Gnom (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

This is not my first day on Wikimedia Commons, this approach is familiar to me. When I said "archive documents", I mean questionnaire/recordsheets with or without personal photos. The photos in these documents are anonymous "document photos" (in 99% cases). We can further refine the wording so that it doesn't apply to other types of photos. So, I suggest that in this thread we do not individually determine the identity and life span of the photographer/author," and discuss the entire class of such documents. --Kaganer (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Maybe it would help if we could pick two or three specific files that we should discuss here to avoid any misunderstandings. For example, File:Emmerich Wenger Dachau Arolsen Archives.jpg is {{PD-text}}. Gnom (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

• 
  #1 - Text only
• 
  #2 - Text with personal photo
• 
  #3 - personal photo only (cropped from #2)

--Kaganer (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

See above. These documents may be created on territory of various contemporary countries, but firstly published in Bad Arolsen. --Kaganer (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[]

In most cases, these documents without picture are {{PD-ineligible}} (or {{PD-text}}). And please note that the author is not the Arolsen Archives. It is the Concentration Camp administration. For the pictures, I don't think {{PD-GermanGov}} applies, but {{PD-EU-anonymous}} definitely does. There is no doubt that these files are in the public domain in Europe. The issue will be, as for the previous discussion, the copyright status in USA. It should be noted that, among 285 files, there are only 7 files with a picture. Yann (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

among 285 files, there are only 7 files with a picture
There will be more of them soon, hence the question. --Kaganer (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

The file cards as such (without photos) should indeed be PR-ineligible or PD-text. The one photo we see above looks like a very standardized type of ID photo probably routinely taken in this camp for every inmate (see the number in the photo, which corresponds with the date when he arrived in the camp), probably even with some kind of simple fixed head rest to position the face. I could see such a very standardized photograph to be a "simple" German photograph (with a protection term of 50 years from creation), something we almost never use because the German courts at some point (already before the EU copyright reforms of the mid-1990s) had started to treat almost every photo as a photographic work (with 70 years pma). I'm not entirely sure though. @Gnom: What do you think about that? --Rosenzweig τ 12:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@Rosenzweig: We need to careful here with intertemporal law, i.e. what was the copyright law at the time that the photographs were taken, and whether any later changes in the law were retroactive or not... Gnom (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

There is also two cases:

• 
  #4 A page with a photo from the displaced person's (DP) case file.
• 
  #5 personal photo only (cropped from #4)

This photo has not related with concentration camps and author is definitely not the Concentration Camp administration. --Kaganer (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

The text as such should be PD-ineligible / PD-text basically everywhere. For the photo, we need more information, specifically in which country it was taken etc. By German standards, I personally would hesitate to consider that one a "simple" photograph. --Rosenzweig τ 19:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

This is just an example of some homogeneous class of documents. We don't know (and cannot know) in which country such a photograph was taken. Specifically this document could have been created in occupied or post-war France or Germany, but the photograph could have been taken beforehand there or elsewhere. --Kaganer (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

In that case, don't upload such a photo per the precautionary principle, unless it is at least 120 years old ({{PD-old-assumed}}). --Rosenzweig τ 07:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[]

OK, thanks. --Kaganer (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Can I get an opinion on a "restoration" copyright claim regarding File:Le Chaudron infernal (Georges Méliès, 1903).webm. The original is a 1903 hand colored film [2]. Our copy is a restored version, and according to (see the last frame) there is a restoration copyright claim. I found This Commons discussion regarding film restoration and copyright, and according to the discussion, I very much doubt that there is much originality in our restored film, which means no copyright and public domain. I don't have much experience in copyright and hope someone with experience can opine on this. FYI, this came up in a featured picture nomination on English Wikipedia Here. Thanks. Bammesk (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Unfortunately, this very much depends on the specifics of the restoration we are talking about. Gnom (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Gnom, thanks for the reply. About the specifics, here are my two cents. Our copy has no music. Our copy is undoubtedly sharper and less noisy than the original 1903 film. These days removing noise and sharpening images (and video) can be done with relatively inexpensive software, such as the software. That's what many participants at Commons:FPC use to improve images. I don't see much originality/creativity there. Also, our copy has vivid colors. Given the original film was hand-colored, I don't see sufficient creativity in redoing or improving the colors either. That's just my impression and I could be wrong. There could be more to it than I know. Again thanks for taking the time. Bammesk (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

In my opinion, there can be probably no valid copyright claim for a restoration that is merely technical and improves the quality. But opinions differ. And particularly those responsible for such a restoration will be quite eager to claim copyright, of course. A related recent discussion was Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nosferatu (1922).webm. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

The restoration copyright claim dates to 2018 . I searched for a pre-2018 copy in order to compare the restored version with a non-restored version. The highest quality version I could find dates to 2015 at . Its scan quality is low, 480x360p. It doesn't show the fine details, but it does show the colors, frame sequence, and film length. I imagine a higher quality scan in 2015 would've produced finer details. I think this shows the restoration was technical, rather than original/creative. Bammesk (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Public domain? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khavtsgait Petroglyphs 01.jpg. Yann (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I don't think File:Lehman-Tunnell Mansion from E. Grand Ave.jpg is licensed correctly. The source provided for the file isn't a US government website but rather a en:State of Wyoming . The photo is also attributed to a Gladys B. Berry, but there's nothing stating that the photographer is an employee of the US federal government. Given that ,I'm not sure this should be kept as licensed, and it might not even be kept at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Indeed. Please create a deletion request. Yann (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lehman-Tunnell Mansion from E. Grand Ave.jpg. Yann (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Hello. I am concerned that this image File:Donkey Kong Country Logo.webp exceeds the threshold of originality and is non-free. The source is from the Logopedia FANDOM wiki which is a database of logos, with disregard to status of copyright, and the image contains stylised text (stars in the O letters in the words "donkey kong" and a curve + gradient in the word "country".) which probably exceeds the TOO. This was on the enWP mainpage yesterday, which brought this image to my attention. I doubt the creator of this logo (nintendo) was gracious enough to put it under a PD licence too. I feel this file should be taken down (and maybe audit logopedia imports as a quick search here showed other stylised logos that may break commons rules like File:TFFNAF.png, File:Mario & Luigi - Brothership.jpg, and possibly File:XHTL FM SLP Logo.png and file:The More You Know 2022 logo.png) Draco Centauros (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Under US law, I'm pretty sure it's fine. Stylized text is just text, and the US Copyright Office has rejected highly stylized text; e.g. .--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Regarding photos photographed or scanned out of library special collections, private archives and such, what does "published" mean? I nominated a file for deletion based on Commons:Publication#United_States, but an administrator said Publication occurred when the picture left the photographer custody, and we usually consider such pictures as published unless there is an evidence for the opposite. I've carefully read the COM:Hirtle Chart and the meaning of publications as linked above and I haven't heard Yann's version of definition. I have also studied (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Pre-1978 publication is murky Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg but essentially "I will just summarize what she told me for my own future reference (since I assume you may be familiar with the argument)--basically that your argument comes from Granse v. Brown Photo Co, where the court ruled that selling a copy of a photo to the buyer of the photo constituted publication." Abzeronow (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

The photo in question is Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Frank_H._Buck_was_an_oil_tanker_of_the_Associated_Oil_Company.png, which was present online in 2008 or earlier

and says must obtain permission.

It was uploaded to commons in April 2024 as "public domain". The photographer who took the photo in question died 60 years ago. It seems like "California Views photo archives" which runs the website I linked above has the original. I don't know if this photo was ever sold during the relevant time. (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

"5x7 Negative No. 71-001-0300" The uploader neglected this important piece of information. If the negative was never developed until recently, and was in the custody of the estate until 1978 or afterwards, we might have to go with the website being the first publication. Abzeronow (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Looks like that user has uploaded quite a bit of photos from a historical society archive citing negative number that would not be public domain if they were not published. What determines they have been published prior to 1929 like the uploader claims? File:Mission San Francisco Solano Sonoma.jpg The description says "English: Mission San Francisco Solano Sonoma, California circa 1920, by Lewis Josselyn, CV # 71-001-0So 5x7 Film Neg. Date 1920 Source Monterey County Historical Society" (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

If it's an old photo first published in 2008, with a known author, then we have to wait till 70 years after that author's death for it to be PD. And, as I understand it, if that 2008 publication was from someone other than the heir to the author's intellectual property, and without permission from the heir to the author's intellectual property, theoretically the person who published it could be sued, but for any image of known authorship still unpublished as of the end of 2002, publication after that date (authorized or not) changes nothing about copyright status. - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@Jmabel would you agree that Commons is something people should be able to come and use contents with confidence? When things with questionable copyright is tolerated, it transfers the risk to the users of contents (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Two separate questions here: (1) should we delete it? Presumably yes, until it falls out of copyright, because of our precautionary principle. (2) Would reusing this image actually put someone at risk of being successfully sued? Almost certainly not, for a couple of reasons. It seems unlikely that the historical society in question actually owns the intellectual property rights, so they can't sue and their own publication was most likely a copyvio and copyfraud; most likely the actual inheritor of the intellectual property rights—quite likely two generations down by now—doesn't care. Further, the deep-pocket entities that would be the most likely potential targets for such a suit (because they are operating on a scale where there would be some meaningful damages to be shown) would presumably not rely on any third-party assessment of copyright status.

In short: we are probably dealing with something at least close to an orphaned copyright here, but our precautionary principle says we shouldn't host those. - Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I don't think it's quite "orphaned"

when you look at the source cited by the uploader for File:Frank_H._Buck_was_an_oil_tanker_of_the_Associated_Oil_Company.png it looks like they're trying to cash in bigtime on selling the prints. The photo only being offered on Common sat 944 × 631 seems to protecting business interest while letting photos available as a "catalog" and to bring attention to his work. If it's truly in the public domain, it doesn't make sense to not be made available at high resolution and we don't do low resolution "fair use" on commons. (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

The glass plates, negatives and prints seemed to have been transferred from the photographer's widow to a collector in 1970. Since this was a negative, that still might not equal publication, and we don't know if Pat Hathaway also acquired the copyright or if that was retained by the photographer's estate. Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

I hear this argument of "US publication occurred as soon as the photographer did give the photo to someone" quite often, for example in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Found photos from the Thomas Hawk collection, but I'm still not really convinced by this (very convenient, of course) argument. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

@Gestumblindi If true, it should be documented in the Hirtle Chart and readily verifiable against a reliable source, but it's not. (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Buenas administradores, se puede publicar el logo de United Aircraft Corporation como ,si es un logo simple se puede publicar?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

When Hurricane Ian was set to make landfall in Florida, a storm chaser, Max Olsen, pre-positioned a webcam to capture the effects. The full 10-hours of footage captured by the webcam can be seen . In the description, Max Olsen stated, "I felt it was important to finally release the full, unedited surge probe video, which confirmed the only human interaction involved in this process was the downloading and uploading of the full footage.

That said, in the video description, Mr. Olsen states, "NOT FOR BROADCAST OR RE-POST Contact [EMAIL Address] to license footage". As with other weather-related photographs and/or videos, there have been a ton of confirmed instances of either (1) license laundering or (2) the actual selling of public domain content. {{PD-NWS}} with the subsequent RFC deprecating it + the review of thousands of weather photos, several hundred of which have or are currently in deletion requests prove those two points exist within the broadcast meteorology community.

So, with that being said, would this footage, which was captured by a pre-positioned camera, actually be copyrighted or would it be free under {{PD-automated}}, given Mr. Olsen confirmed that the only interaction present was that of downloading/uploading the footage to YouTube? WeatherWriter (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Max Olsen has the copyright. He used his judgment to position the camera to capture the storm surge. Why shouldn't society reward him for that effort? We are not talking about medical Xrays where there is little room for creativity. License laundering is taking somebody else's work and attaching a false license; I do not see that here. Glrx (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Max Olsen did not take the video himself and just left a camera there. Why is that any different then a CCTV camera on a highway? P.S., ignore the license laundering aspect I mentioned above. That was mentioned specifically because editors on the Commons have discovered that occurring. The key aspect is that 2nd point of the selling of public domain content. After 2 separate deletion reviews (August 2024) the File:A tornado funnel is shown moving through Xenia.jpg, (amid a very large and long RFC investigation of weather-related photos), we have several instances of companies selling public domain content, which they are allowed to do. For instance, that file above is being sold by the Associated Press for up to $495. However, a ton of investigations later determined it is a public domain photo. That isn't the only one of its kind either. So, in fact, Max Olsen may be selling the content, despite it being possibly in the public domain.

That is why I brought the question here. Anyone is allowed to do anything they want with public domain content, so my question still remains: Does this actually surpass the originality threshold, despite this basically being a CCTV camera? The aspect of selling it, bluntly, is irrelevant, given everything that RFC has discovered in the several thousand weather-related photo review that has/is still occurring, as anyone can claim they own the copyright to anything. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Max Olsen has the copyright. He did not make and publish the video without an explicit copyright notice in 1974 when copyright laws required such notice to obtain a copyright in the first place. Olsen did not post his video to a website whose terms of use forced him to donate his rights like the single NWS website. Olsen did not replace his doorbell with a Ring camera (giving him little discretion in siting the camera) that by chance caught the storm surge at his doorstep. Olsen is not a state or federal employee who installed a government-owned camera to watch a government-owned highway. That a handful of people have perpetrated copyfraud does not prove that all people (and particularly Olsen) commit copyfraud. Your position about unattended cameras is troubling. Olsen set up his camera to catch a coming event; it was not sitting there for years and just happened to capture the surge as it came by. Olsen used his judgment. Using your logic, anyone who set up a timelapse camera to watch a flower blossom would not own the copyright because she was not there to snap the shutter. Society chooses to reward that effort. You were free to set up your own webcam and capture the same storm that Olsen did. You would then have been free to do a CC0 dedication of your footage, but that does not mean Olsen wants to release his footage. Glrx (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

So what the heck is {{PD-automated}} for? Can you explain the clear difference of why something like Max Olsen's video is not PD while File:Andover Tornado, April 29, 2022, City Hall East Camera.webm is? Both are pre-positioned cameras, so in theory, both fall under {{PD-automated}}. However, you are saying Olsen's video does not fall under it. So please explain why. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

{{PD-automated}} is untested in the United States. According to Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices there is no case law that holds automated cameras in the US do not have a copyright. Therefore, the PD claim is weak. It may also be overapplied — the knife cuts both ways: there are people who claim copyright when there isn't one and there are people who claim there is no copyright when there is. I believe the Copyright Office has stated that medical images such as Xrays do not get a copyright. The Andover Tornado image is public domain because it was captured by a subgovernment of Massachusetts. Even ignoring that issue, the Olsen footage planned to capture the storm surge. The Andover footage did not plan to capture the tornado.

So you believe that all time lapse videos cannot be copyrighted? All photos taken with a 15-second timer are PD because the photographer stepped away to get into the picture? That all prepositioned cameras lack elements of composition? That Olsen's video would have a copyright if he had just stayed with the webcam the whole time rather than retreating to safety? Olsen's attorneys would have a field day in a deposition.

Glrx (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

His work shows creative intent, which is part of what's lacking in PD-automated. He set up the camera for the shot he got. Security cameras are also continuous, running for years, and the parts under debate are usually short clips of events that just happened to be caught in that long stream. Here the author set up the camera for a limited period of time and caught what he intended to catch. I'd say it's certainly copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

• I concur with Prosfilaes -- the difference here is that Olson used his judgement and expertise to position a camera with the specific intention of capturing/documenting a specific event. This is an entirely different situation from ones where a static security or traffic camera is simply pointed in the same spot indefinitely and just happens to capture something interesting that crosses its field of view. PD-automated does not apply in this case. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

Trade (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[]

• I wouldn't consider it so; it's not informed permission because we have no idea whether the creator understands the implications of what the license means and that it's irrevocable. (Unless, does this creator release other material under CC-BY? If so, then we can assume that they understand what they're agreeing to here...) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[]

  An reasonable person would normally be expected to look up the terms of a license before releasing their works under it, no? Trade (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[]

  • Arguably, yes. But in practice, the Commons takes a less harsh approach and minimises situations where people inadvertently agree to things they don't fully intend. That's why we have such a detailed (even formidable-looking) permissions template. Note how carefully we spell out the implications around commercial use and the right to modify their image, as well as making it clear that they can't reverse their decision. I have some recent personal experience of what a barrier this can be. Several times in the last few months, I've had creators seemingly willing to release material, but then ghost me once they see the template...

  I don't think being tricked or deceived is the issue here; it's really just making sure that people understand what they're agreeing to without expecting them to go off and do the work of understanding the license, especially when the whole concept of licenses and "copyleft" might be new to them. I come to it from the perspective of it's usually them doing us a favour, which I see as an obligation on our part to take more responsibility than just the bare minimum. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[]