Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Benito Mussolini portrait

With all the recent fuss with the Donald Trump official portrait, it has come to my mind this portrait of Benito Mussolini. Is it in the public domain? Photographer is G. Caminada (apparently Gianni Caminada, I could not find death date). It was published pre-1930 (see for example this one in the Spanish periodical press). Does {{PD-Italy}} applies as "simple photograph"? I do not know how high is the threshold in Italy with regard to photographs and so. Strakhov (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly not a "simple photograph"; it's a pretty deliberate portrait. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Strakhov PD-Italy do apply to simple photographs, and as Jmabel said, this is not the case. There are 3 options.

it's a work for the Italian Government, thus its Template:PD-ItalyGov (20 years after publication)
it's a work for hire for Mussolini, then the rights belong to his heirs 70 years after ~~his death (1943)~~ Caminada's death.
it's a work for Gianni Caminada, then it's like above: PD 70 years after his death

All of them are possible, because Mussolini was prime minister in 1922, and Gianni Caminada was active in the 1920s. I am leaning more toward the second option: Mussolini was also a well known journalist and it's possible that the portrait was commissioned by him. Ruthven (msg) 09:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 (commissioned photographs) exists or did exist similarly in other countries, and it usually means the rights are with the person who commissioned the photo. But is the term duration really 70 years after the death of the person who commissioned the photo? Or rather the usual 70 years after the death of the author, even if the copyright is owned by someone else? In which part of Italian copyright/authorship law can this be found? --Rosenzweig τ 17:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Directive 2006/116/EC seems rather clear that the copyright term depends on the author, i.e. the photographer, not on the one who commissioned the photo. If the former Italian law states that you should use the death year of the one who commissioned the photo, then I think that it becomes 70 years after the photographer or 50 years after the death of the one who commissioned the photo+war extensions, whichever is longer, per Article 10.1 of the directive. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Antola, Alessandra (2013) "Photographing Mussolini" in Stephen Gundle, Christopher Duggan, Giuliana Pieri , ed. The Cult of the Duce: Mussolini and the Italians, Manchester University Press, pp. 182−183 the photograph was taken in 1921 and "later reproduced as a postcard". At the very least, if no info on Caminada's death is found, it could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in 2042 as per {{PD-old-assumed}}. Strakhov (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig@Stefan2 It's 70 years after the dead of the author (art. 25). In Italy, in case the owner of the copyright is the State, the term is reduced to 20 years (art. 29), same for "simple photographs" (art. 92). Ruthven (msg) 16:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: So in case 2, the rights belonged to Mussolini and then his heirs for up to 70 years after the death of Gianni Caminada? Because presumably Caminada is still the author, even if others own(ed) the copyright for photographs he made for hire. --Rosenzweig τ 17:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig It seems so, because I haven't found any specification of the term of copyright in case of work for hire (or simply in case of transferring the copyright to someone else). And that sounds logic: you cannot indefinitely extend the copyright term through successive acquisitions of a work. Ruthven (msg) 10:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: Thanks. So this is not not a simple photograph (per the discussion), and if it is from 1921 (also per the discussion), state copyright cannot apply because Mussolini was not yet prime minister then. Which means the photograph is copyrighted for 70 years pma of Gianni Caminada. To (perhaps) use it before 2042, we would therefore need to find out the year in which he died. --Rosenzweig τ 12:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find information about Caminada's death. He was active in March 1920 in Milan, participating to the Futurist movement; besides that, some news of his activity as photograph in the 1920s. --Ruthven (msg) 12:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg

Hello,

this image, File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg, is declared as being in the public domain. But it does contain a derivative of a CC-by-SA 3.0 licensed work, File:中華民國第12、13任總統馬英九先生官方肖像照.jpg. I do not think that this mix-up is legally possible. Am I mistaken, or what kind of action is to be taken? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Grand-Duc, you are of course correct that we must honozr the CC license of the portrait when dealing with a derivative work such as this one (unless the portrait falls under de minimis, which I would say it doesn't). Accordingly, the photo should be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Gnom (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the photograph on the wall can be seen as de minimis, but dual licensing is fine as well. Saimmx (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US licensing tag for images

During the course of a review of the article on the en:battle of Meligalas in the English Wikipedia, a reviewer stated that two of the article's images need "a US licensing tag as well, since Wikimedia servers are in the US". The images (File:Borci na ELAS.jpg and File:BRAVOS-1940.jpg) are already uploaded with a license on the Commons. I am wondering if there is a user eager enough so that s/he could please help me navigate through the matter and find the appropriate tag for the US. Many thanks in advance, Ασμοδαίος (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how File:BRAVOS-1940.jpg could be out of copyright in the U.S. If it was still in copyright in Greece in 1996 (the URAA date) then the U.S. would give it 95 years of protection, dating from first publication. That cannot yet have expired, since the photo is less than 95 years old.

If the current licensing for File:Borci na ELAS.jpg is correct, then it is presumably {{PD-US-expired}}. May I ask which of the three bases listed in {{PD-North Macedonia}} is believed to apply here? Anyway, if it was out of copyright before January 1, 1996 in its home country, and its original publication did not involve simultaneous publication in the U.S., ~~File:Borci na ELAS.jpg~~ {{PD-1996}} should apply. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous Greek photo from 1940 would have expired in 1991, before the URAA date (Greece had 50pma terms at the time... well, non-retroactively increased to 70 years in 1993). That would be {{PD-1996}} if the date is correct and the photographer was not named. Unsure of the date of the other one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies, Jmabel and Carl Lindberg. I've now used {{PD-1996}} for File:BRAVOS-1940.jpg.

Re File:Borci na ELAS.jpg, the picture was taken between 1942 and 1945, the years when ELAS was active. I am not sure which of the three criteria mentioned in the licensing tag already existing applies to the file, so I made an inquiry to the file's uploader. I am also not sure I understand what Jmabel means when stating that [[:File:Borci na ELAS.jpg]] should apply in this case. Would you mind to elaborate? Thanks, Ασμοδαίος (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ασμοδαίος: I think @Jmabel meant {{PD-1996}}. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a copy-paste error. I was about 10 minutes shy of headed for bed after spending most of the day driving, & didn't notice. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the other one... it will matter where it was first published (thus becoming the country of origin, and which country's laws we use). It seems it comes from an archive in North Macedonia. It could well have been PD there in 1996, so if that is the country of origin, it would also be PD-1996. If Greece is the country of origin, it would have been needed to be published in 1942 (or taken in 1942 but not published before 1993). If 1943 or later, its copyright would have been extended in Greece, and restored in the US. Do we know of any provenance from the North Macedonia archive? If that is the only known source, it may be enough to assume that it was published there -- so if PD-North Macedonia applies, it would also be PD-1996. If only published after 1971, it gets more complicated. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses once more, Jmabel, Jeff G. and Carl Lindberg, and for elucidating the meaning of what Jmabel had written.

Re File:Borci na ELAS.jpg: I asked the file's uploader which of the three criteria of PD-North Macedonia applies to it, but she was unable to answer due to the long time that has passed since the file's uploading. As far as the time of publication is concerned, I find it unlikely that this is a a photo of 1942 -- I would guess it was rather taken in 1943, when ELAS had been turned into more of a disciplined formation than an assemblage of partisan groups, or 1944, when they had secured their rule in areas of Greece and could stage such photos. The fact that it seems fairly sure that other photos of the same archive related to ELAS also seem to have been shot in 1944 (e.g. File:Zarobeni Germanci na ELAS.jpg -- German soldiers surrendering to ELAS [most probably around the liberation (autumn 1944)], File:Artilerija na ELAS kaj Kalitea.jpg -- waging war in Athens [December 1944], File:Elas vo Ksanti.jpg -- a victory march in Xanthi (September 1944)) makes this even more likely -- in my mind. Regarding the file's country of origin, I cannot be sure about the exact provenance of the archive, but I assume that its files were brought to the Socialist Republic of Macedonia by refugees of the Greek Civil War (perhaps Slavic speakers/Slav Macedonians of Greek Macedonia) who relocated to Yugoslavia at a certain point of time from 1945 until 1949. I never happened to see any of these pictures published in Greek secondary sources concerning World War II, so I would speculate that none of them (neither the file in question) was published in Greece. Where would this leave us? Ασμοδαίος (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In copyright, it usually matters more where and when a work is published, rather than created. Sounds like these may have been private photos taken to North Macedonia, and at the very least donated to the archives and published that way. That would make North Macedonia the country of origin. If that was before 1971, then we are fine -- qualifying for that tag means {{PD-1996}} is also satisfied, as they changed their law in 1996 and this tag represents works that became PD before that, which matches up exactly with the URAA date. If that was after 1971, then not sure there is any tag we can use. The current presumption appears to be publication before 1971, so PD-1996 would be the tag to add there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and your help, Carl Lindberg. I've now added the {{PD-1996}} tag to both files. Thanks once more, Ασμοδαίος (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the DeepSeek logo covered by the MIT License?

DeepSeek has published their logo in a GitHub repository under the MIT License. However, the repo also contains a custom license that does not allow users "to make use of [DeepSeek's] trademarks, trade names, logos." So my question is: are those restrictions related to copyrights or trademarks? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the latter refers to trademarks Bedivere (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've transferred en:File:DeepSeek logo.svg to Commons. However, I wouldn't blame anyone if they decide to nominate it for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of subjects in files in Category:Food samples in Japan

There is no FOP for 3D artworks in Japan. Fake food samples are modeled replicas of real food (typically of restaurant menu items) for display. Would they technically be considered 3D artworks that may be copyrighted by the artist who made the samples? Atomicdragon136 (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Atomicdragon136: I think so. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I can't imagine a derivative work unless one particular one was the main focus of the photo. There may also be questions on how it was made -- if someone made a cast of an actual food item, that may not be copyrightable at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such food replicas are usually used by restaurants. The replicas are placed in the windows to give potential customers an idea of what food they can get in the restaurant. Meaning that the replicas are modeled after the actual food of the restaurant. See [1]. Can they still be considered creative work by the food artist if the restaurant gives them extremely detailed descriptions for how the result has to look like? As for the restaurant chef's arrangement of the food, I think that food arrangements are not copyrightable even if they are quite artistic? Nakonana (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is pretty tricky. Since restaurants provide food sample artists a detailed visual description of dishes to then make a virtually identical replica of, there isn't really much creativity here. But now that you mention this, I'm going to lean towards derivative photos of fake food samples being okay in terms of copyright, but would like others to weigh in their thoughts on this before concluding an answer. Atomicdragon136 (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia of India

Hi, I have noticed that some users uploaded insignia of India without information, or with {{PD-India}} without the date of the original. I don't see anything in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India which would indicate that these are in the public domain. I find that there is lack of evidence to be under these licenses:

Uploads by Adiiitya (see also my talk page).
File:Indian Armoured Corps Insignia (India).svg and some others by Jpgibert.

Opinions? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yann: I think DRs are in order. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to SVGs, the question is are they derivative of another graphic work -- the age of general design is not necessarily relevant (see Commons:Coats of arms). If they were copied/traced/extracted from existing drawings, then yes they are a problem, but a new drawing of a general design is often a separate expression of the idea, not a derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check this image

and tell if it is licensed properly? The original design is linked in the description. Adiiitya (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notify Soap Boy 1 at the origin of my set of SVG indian insignias. Jpgibert (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these modern insignia are a different case than traditional coat of arms. A coat of arms is usually described by text, without a specific graphic representation, but this is not the case for these insignia, which are very similar if not identical copies on the official ones. Am I right? Yann (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no particular dates of insignias of regiments of the Indian Army but most of the insignias are directly derived from the regiments of the British Indian Army. When India became a republic in 1950, all the royal titles were removed from the name of the regiments and insignias with crown were also altered. Examples -

So most of the army insignias are from 1950 and over 60 years old, hence they are in public domain. Soap Boy 1 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture copyright Q: David Smith, Medals for Dishonor series

Looking for some assistance confirming the copyright status of several sculptures by American artist David Smith. These three sculptures, all owned by the Hirshhorn in DC, were completed in 1940 and do not have copyright notices. They are from Smith's series Medals for Dishonor, which includes 15 small relief medallion sculptures. But I'm a bit confused as to how to assess them as original works vs derivatives of an earlier work. Smith drew detailed sketches for each sculpture, then created dental plaster reverse molds which were used to create a set of master casts in plaster. He completed a bronze edition of the each work in the series in 1940, exhibited them at New York's Willard Gallery, and published a catalogue of the works. They were all subsequently shown in multiple museum settings without photography/copying restrictions in place over the next 10 years. (most of this background detail comes via an article in Art Journal [JSTOR 776184]). The artist's estate claims copyright, with licenses handled via ARS. I would think the works would be public domain, but I could easily be wrong. Any insights? Thanks all! 19h00s (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the sculptures were first displayed in the United States in 1940 without a copyright notice, then they are public domain. If there were previous works done in anticipation of a grand work the grand work would not be considered derivative of those works.

I don't know what to do about the artist's estate, if they make a big stink, even if it is technically Public Domain it might be a fight. 🤷🏼 Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 04:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this! And yeah, I always assume with situations like this that if the estate ever makes a big issue of it, I'd just let it go and allow deletion. Real bummer that even government museums just defer to what estates say and don't check their copyright math (but also that's a lot of labor so I can't be too mad) 19h00s (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Display may not be publication (allowing photography may make it publication). Does the 1940 catalog have a copyright notice? {{PD-US-no notice}}. Was there a renewal around 1968? {{PD-US-not renewed}}. COM:HIRTLE. Glrx (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the catalogue this week, a museum library close to me has a copy of the original from Willard Gallery. And I did find a single renewal for Smith, the catalogue of an exhibition held posthumously by Harvard's art museum (I'm very bad at using the card cat interface and am not sure how to link: time period: 1955-1970; drawer: Smith_Cotton-EC; card number: .0412). I'll check that catalogue as well to see if these sculptures were included (I think they were), but I assume that might impact their current status? 19h00s (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm weak on paintings and sculptures. I do not see a copyright notice on the front of the sculptures, but there might be one on the back. In addition, a nearby separate notice might be enough to claim the copyright (a local library used to show paintings with a nearby card stating the title, author, copyright, and price). If the catalog does not have a copyright notice, then that would be good evidence of publication without notice. Personally, I do not like that technical error losing a copyright, but I have no problem with a failure to renew after 28 years terminating a copyright. Glrx (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Glrx So! I made it to the library with a copy of the original (1940) catalogue published by Willard Gallery. There is no copyright notice located anywhere in the book (more like a pamphlet). But I think if anything the catalogue has just added more confusion for me haha.

Only two of the above sculptures are illustrated in the catalogue (Death by Gas and War Exempt). The third sculpture is listed and described, but with no accompanying image.

But the illustrations don't actually seem to be images of the sculptures themselves, but images of the detailed preparatory drawings. They look basically identical to the small relief sculptures, but they're the pencil/charcoal drawings that served as the model for each sculpture. Which brings me back to my earlier question about derivative works -- it would seem to me that the sculptures are in fact 3-d manifestations of the original drawings, which are visually identical to the final sculptures. The drawings were also sold and now belong to several museum and private collections. So, would the publication of the drawings without copyright notices in this book count as publication of the eventual sculptures, as the sculptures are 3-d copies of the drawings? Any insight welcome. 19h00s (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems messy. Even if the sculpture is a derivative work of the preparatory drawings, the sculpture would have its own copyright. Glrx (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the sculpture would have its own copyright" or, quite possibly under U.S. law from that period, no copyright at all. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on this? Not totally clear what technicality/chain of rules would have resulted in that. For context, these sculptures are medallion sized relief carvings - visually, they just comprise small carvings of the illustrations Smith made and published. Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot sorry forgot to @Jmabel 19h00s (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[I was a bit confused when I wrote the following but leaving it here for reference - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)][reply]

First a disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'm extrapolating from some legal advice I received around 1978 (so right around the time of the first of the major transitions of U.S. copyright law from then to 2003) about songs, rather than sculptures. I had copyrighted (with notice and registration) an unpublished collection of songs I'd written; later I published them, with some minor modifications. I was advised that because the first version had been unpublished and the second was published, any failure to "do it right" would put all rights at risk, because, despite my earlier registration without publishing, this could count as publication without notice.

I guess this is a little different, because those preliminary drawings were published, so the sculptures would almost certainly be defensible at least as derivatives of that earlier published work.

This probably calls for someone with more expertise than I have. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@19h00s: Still, a question: was that 1940 copyright renewed? Because, if not, as an extinct copyright it is probably not relevant. - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, I feel stupid but: you say the 1940 catalogue did not have notice. So certainly those prelimimary drawings are PD; being derivative from those is irrelevant. The sculpture either was properly copyrighted or it wasn't; and I get back to my "or… no copyright at all". I mean, it might have a separate lack of copyright… - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is super helpful, thank you! I'll try and find/make a scan of the 1940 catalogue, those illustrations are very useful at least, as are Smith's self-written captions for each image. To be quite honest, after staring at those illustrations for quite a while in my camera roll, I think half of them are in fact photographs of the sculptures and the other half are the final charcoal/pencil drawings. There's no real way to know for sure which is which so I'm gonna call that a dead end in terms of figuring out the sculptures' copyright. Will do some digging to find other early publication examples and see what trail of publication I can establish (have found at least one other catalogue - MoMA, 1957 - with no renewal that includes illustrations of two of the sculptures). Appreciate your help here! 19h00s (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No copyright

Hi, what do I do if there is a photo I want to add but there is no copyright? The August Crisis (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then that photo is copyrighted (unless it is already very old), and you cannot upload it. Gnom (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, a lack of a copyright statement does not mean that a photo has no copyright. You should not upload such photos unless they fulfil the requirements outlined at Commons:Licensing

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The August Crisis: Where did you get it? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the photograph is t be useful in Commons, you should know something about it. Where did you find the photograph? Who took it? When was it taken? Where was it taken? What was the nationality of the photographer concerned? All of these affect copyright. Martinvl (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is on Ricky Jamaraz's website, it was taken by Thomas Ison (who is also Ricky Jamaraz), I don't know when it was taken - considering evidence from his TikTok and Discord server I'll estimate at some point between early 2023 and mid 2024 - it was taken in his bedroom, and he's English. The August Crisis (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The August Crisis: If these are selfies, then he owns the copyright. He would need to offer an appropriate free license either stated on his website (or public-facing social media account) or via the process described at COM:VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific area of his website I should be able to find this? If not, should I simple e-mail him? The August Crisis (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very surprised if he has already offered such a license. What I'm saying is that he can skip the VRT process by indicating the license through something that is public-facing and clearly under his control. He should be clear what license he is offering, and what image(s) that covers. - Jmabel ! talk 03:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old satellite image with no source

File:Racetrack Playa from space.jpg: Here's a mild chinstroker for ya. Satellite image copied from long-dead US National Park Service website way back when to en.wp, then ported over to Commons. Pulling on the thread in the Wayback Machine gets us to [2] which states, "Photo by Paula Messina".

Now I'm pretty sure they're not an astronaut. Let's assume arguendo that Messina was an NPS employee, official duties all that jazz. Inspecting the archived file name gives us "PMrtscanc1sm.jpg"—one infers, a scanned physical image. So now what to do. Web searching for satellite images of Racetrack Playa turns up some similar-looking images such as this one, stated to be a "Landsat image". Do we call it a day there, say the preponderance of evidence is it's a scan of Landsat imagery, and tag accordingy?

(Also anyone else think COM:SAT (excellent shortcut name) ought to give some info re: attempting to ID the source of a satellite image of uncertain provenance? And maybe some detail about Landsat, where to find Landsat data, how to get an idea whether stuff attributed to "Landsat" is Commons-compatible? Since it's a big source of PD stuff.) --Slowking Man (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the usage of a file under the commons licence bound to the file stored in commons

Hello, I have approached an journalist in order to get his permission to use his rendering of the bathyscaphe Trieste under the Creative Commons licence Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International CC BY-SA 4.0. He is considering doing so, but before he takes his decision he would like to get the following three questions answered. "I have some questions.

[1] IF I grant permission for its use, does that free use apply to other versions (i.e. higher resolutions, different formats) than what I provide you to use? [People could rescan the work from Naval History at a higher resolution than wiki has and claim to use it under the wiki release. Or may have gotten an electronic file from somewhere and make the same claim?]

[2] IF I provide you with a file to use, can I determine its format, size, and resolution?

[3] Can I watermark the image I provide you?"

I think the answers to his second and third question is clear to me. The picture shall be free of watermarks and he can freely decide format, size and resolution of the picture he provides.

But I´m not that sure if it comes to answer his first question. That´s why I´m asking for your advice. As far as I have understood the only the usage of the file is permitted under the aforementioned licence. If someone claims that he/she has got a version in a higher resolution from the file at commons, then this is not covered by the licence, because other versions can be derived from the properly licenced version but obviously not with a higher resolution. In this case the claimer would have had violated the copyright of the copyrightholder. So, what do you suggest? Cheers Yeti-Hunter (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The license applies to all versions of a picture independently of the resolution or the file format. But if it is a 3D-rendering having a view from one perspective the license does not apply to views from other perspectives or the 3D-model itself. GPSLeo (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One advice I've heard being given to photographers in situations like this is to license their "second best" shot under a creative commons license while reserving their "best shot" for commercial licensing. Maybe that's an option to consider. Nakonana (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My take:

[1] With all due respect to GPSLeo, I believe that slthough the usual practice is to free-license the image as such, yes, you can specifically free-license the lower-resolution version. Basically, you'd be licensing the lower-res version as a derivative work, without licensing the original. You'd need to be very clear at every step of the process exactly what version has been licensed. This would call for a very clear statement on the file page where we host it as to what is not licensed. — Jmabel 21:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

Actually, GPSLeo may be right on this. It would probably work for a crop, but not for simply lower resolution. The lower resolution would presumably not leave out any creative elements, and that is what copyright covers. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[2] You can provide a file of a particular resolution (and even crop) of your choosing. You cannot determine the size: for example, someone can print it as large or small as they want, and they could AI-upscale it, as long as that upscaling didn't consult an unlicensed form of the image.

[3] Visible watermarks are allowed, but discouraged. Even if you include one, someone may make a derivative work retouched to remove the watermark, as long as it is not done by consulting an unlicensed form of the image. If you are concerned with the work possibly being used without acknowledgment, I would much more strongly recommend including the credit to yourself in EXIF data or using an invisible steganographic watermark.

Continuing that last: the work is no more at risk of being stolen from a posting on Commons than anywhere else it is posted on line. Granting a free license that requires acknowledgment is just that. If someone were to use the image without a credit, they are exactly as liable for a copyright infringement as if there were no free license available.

Jmabel ! talk 21:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding it's uncertain whether (assuming this is the US) legally it is "meaningful" to "license" the exact same image, at different resolutions/sizes, under different copyright licenses. In US law what matters and what copyright attaches to is the creative work as a thing-in-itself, and not any particular physical copy of it. Obvious in the case of printed word: there is only one single copyright in The Grapes of Wrath, and not, 20 million copyrights, one for each individual printed English-language copy of the book plus every large-print format copy, plus every individual "e-book" copy, and every time a new copy gets created that increments by 1 the number of copyrights the work has... In other words, if they've published the image already, I think yes, anyone could then "rescan the image from Naval History" and reuse it under CC-BY-SA. If they're putting out a smaller version, and saying "this is under CC-BY-SA" I think that may be construed by a court, if it were tested in court, as dual-licensing the work, meaning anyone can take the "original" larger version and use it under BY-SA. I'm not aware of how much existing case law there is on this. Basically this is the kind of question they should ask a copyright lawyer about if they want an answer to rely on. --Slowking Man (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This can be found on the official website for en:Creative Commons and it seems to support what's been posted above: if a work itself is being released under a CC license, then said license would apply to all "copies" of the work as long as it's the same work from a copyright standpoint. Of course, Creative Commons can't control what people try to do and doesn't going around policing those using CC licenses. A copyright holder might attempt to impose additional restrictions on re-users of their work, but such restrictions probably would be considered COM:NCR by Commons. If a re-user agrees to such an agreement but then violates it, it could be considered more of contract law matter than a copyright matter and would have nothing to do with Commons. That type of thing, however, is probably something better asking an (intellectual property rights) lawyer about if it's a real concern. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi at all, I´d like to thank for all your answers. Best regards Yeti-Hunter (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The journalist declined to get the rendering in commons and despite the fact that I really like his work I´m fine with his decission. It all sounds to troublesome to me. It either works easily or not at all. If it is necessary to consult an intellectual property rights lawyer I´m out. Thanks again for your advices and opinions. Cheers

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yeti-Hunter (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to add a bit -- the high/low resolution question revolves around if there is copyrightable expression present in a higher-resolution version which is not present in a low-resolution one. A copyright owner can scope their copyright however they want, but if the law determines that all expression exists in the lower-resolution version, if that is licensed there may not be anything left to restrict. I think this is a distinct possibility for photographs, at least in the U.S., while paintings would almost certainly have more expression visible in a high-resolution version. It could also differ by country. I think at Commons we try to respect the resolution distinction even for photos, though it makes it more likely others won't, even if for something like a painting. The author is free to note that only this resolution version is licensed. But, to remain "free" (and use the CC license) authors can not restrict someone taking the low-resolution version and upscaling or using it in other ways. It's entirely understandable that commercial authors don't want to risk this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:47 transition seal.png

I'd appreciate viewpoints at Commons:Deletion requests/File:47 transition seal.png. Glrx (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChatGPT-Logo.png & File:ChatGPT-Logo.svg

Hoping for folks' take on the copyright/licensing/threshold of originality here. Someone uploaded a png version of OpenAI's logo with a CC license, which was then imitated in drawing form and uploaded by a different editor as an svg file with a CC license. Another editor recently changed the licensing on the svg version to match what OpenAI says about the logo, which is that it is copyrighted but freely usable for any purpose under certain conditions. a) Are the nonstandard "licensing" terms listed for the svg version valid for Commons and b) Do we think the logo actually passes the threshold of originality for copyright in the US? Thanks!

(finally a non-art question from me) 19h00s (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images sourced to Alchetron

Following up on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince-amedeo-of-belgium-archduke-of-austria-este-df6105f8-d5fa-4e60-a705-249aab85a9a-resize-750.webp, I've discovered that there are about 300 images on Commons which link to Alchetron (https://alchetron.com) as a source. However, Alchetron is not a source. They're a Wikipedia mirror which supplements articles with images found online, frequently including copyrighted images - they're no more a source than Pinterest or Google Images.

Please help me work through these images and attempt to find their actual sources, or nominate images for deletion if they're not freely licensed:

Special:Search/alchetron.com

Omphalographer (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian newspapers copyright

I want to upload an image which is in two different newspapers for an article I'm working on. The oldest one was published in 1921 has a cc-by-nc-nd license, which unless I'm mistaken can't be used on the Commons and the other was published in 1935 and states it is still protected by copyright per Lisenser i nettbiblioteket. But as both were published over 70 years ago and with no named creator shouldn't they both be in the public domain per COM:NORWAY? Spiderpig662 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cc-by-nc-nd license probably applies to the scan, which we ignore on Commons per Commons:ART. So, the only relevant question is whether these publications are really anonymous. Ruslik (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template for collective work, published more than 150 years ago, without diligent search

What would that be? As {{PD-collective-work}} assumes a search has been conducted, and uses the 120 years instead of 150 years. According to info at Commons:Collective work, I gather that these can be moved to commons, but with which license? — Alien 3
3 3 18:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally 1870s works can be licensed with {{PD-old-70-expired}}. That's usually what I do when I find a 1870s work with a bad or no license. Abzeronow (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we already have {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} covering this case. Yann (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! will use that. — Alien 3
3 3 19:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Barnes ebay photos

I'm looking for opinions on whether any of the following photos of former ABA/NBA player en:Marvin Barnes found for sale on en:eBay might OK to upload to Commons as {{PD-US-no notice}}. If even one of them is OK, then it could possibly be used to replace the non-free en:File:Marvin Barnes.jpg currently being used for primary identification in the main infobox.

1976 Press Photo Marvin Barnes: attributed to a "Bob Scott" on the back of the photo. Photo is watermarked, but I can't find a visible copyright notice on either the front or back.
1977 Press Photo Marvin Barnes turns himself in at Superior Court in Providence: Attributed as "AP wirephoto" in the right border of the photo. Photo is watermarked, but I can't find a visible copyright notice on either the front or back.
1971-72 Providence College Basketball Yearbook: Various pictures of Barnes (and others for that matter) found throughout the yearbook (Barnes' profile is on page 13). I can't find a visible copyright notice anywhere in the yearbook. The photos seem unattributed but most likely were taken by a student or school employee.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. yearbooks in that era were typically not copyrighted, so that one is probably a good bet. - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make any assumptions about the press photos. It's not clear that they were actually published in the form that's on sale, or if we're looking at prints which were only circulated internally in a newsroom (and which may have been published with notice in a newspaper). In particular, the 1977 photo is clearly an internal copy, and the original photo is still available for licensing through AP. I would treat both of the press photos as validly copyrighted. Omphalographer (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ask some detail of Bild 183-14059-0018

(Copy from Help desk thread)

I am checking the copyright information of zh:檔案:Forth generals.jpeg on zh-wiki, but I have trouble checking the picture's detail. The picture was from Reddit. After searching, I got some info from Wikipedia for Schools. According to the site, the identifier is "Bild 183-14059-0018" by Bundesarchiv. However, when accessing the picture on the Commons, the picture was deleted. The deletion log says the picture's copyright holder is TASS instead of Bundesarchiv.

I can't access OTRS, so I want to know details - Is the zh-wiki picture "Bild 183-14059-0018"? What is the copyright status? I think the picture is now (2025) in public domain in Germany (or Russia?) and URAA-restored in the US, but I am not sure. Saimmx (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saimmx: I can't access OTRS, but I can confirm that it is the same photograph (possibly "enhanced" by AI). Because it is apparently a 1945 photo by Soviet news agency TASS, per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia#Durations the photo is probably in the public domain in Russia and also the US, with license tag {{PD-Russia-1996}}. (“The work is an information report (including photo report), which was created by an employee of TASS, ROSTA, or KarelfinTAG as part of that person’s official duties between July 10, 1925 and January 1, 1955, provided that it was first released in the stated period or was not released until August 3, 1993.”) Per the Bundesarchiv description, it was definitely released in 1985 on the 40 year anniversary, but that was most likely a re-release, and it is likely (I think) that the first release was in 1945. --Rosenzweig τ 07:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it is on Commons now: File:Forth generals.jpeg. Yann (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. Saimmx (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air traffic control recordings & TOO

I've been editing 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision, and I've uploaded a short sample of the air traffic control audio. I found the original version, and my question is whether the recordings are considered creative works. ATC jargon has very little creativity, but perhaps it's enough. Thoughts? JayCubby (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the recording itself may be copyrighted. Sound recordings in the US are presumed copyrighted. The transcription may be PD. Bedivere (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ATC and military are federal employees, so what they say is probably PD. What the private citizen / pilot says is not clear to me. Glrx (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an aviation staff, but if ATC pilots must follow standardised procedures to describe their situation in recordings, I don't see there will be any creativity or originality in it because every person with following procedures will report almost the same thing. For other people, I mean, if we believe people chatting in terminal is not copyrighted, I don't think people chatting in aeroplanes is copyrighted, either. Saimmx (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo del Movimiento al Socialismo (Venezuela)

Buenas ,en que año estara al Dominio público el logo del Movimiento al Socialismo como este (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Movimiento_al_socialismo_logo.png#mw-jump-to-license) el partido fundó en 1971 (en Venezuela son 60 años después de publicar)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2032 Bedivere (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to indicate my institution allows use of this image

The image is available in an archive maintained by the institution and use is granted on a web page stating this fact. How do I add this information to wiki commons>? CPViolation (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CPViolation: Could you be more specific? What institution, where is the image hosted, where is the web page stating that the image is available (and under what license)? - Jmabel ! talk 23:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have it fixed. See File:StuartJayFreedman.jpg in wiki commons. Also File:Ghtrilling.jpg and File:JDJ-LBL.jpg. For all three I have given the original file and the URL for the general permission granted by the institution. CPViolation (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CPViolation: I fixed your links here and on the file pages. The page you cite says, "You may use the Image solely for your own non-commercial purposes" and no free license is provided. What is your basis to think these are available under some free license acceptable to Commmons? What license would that be? - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will inquire of the institution (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) regarding free license. CPViolation (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manuel "Wowo" L. Fortes, Jr..jpg

File:Manuel "Wowo" L. Fortes, Jr..jpg was originally uploaded without a source under a questionable claim of "own work"; so, I tagged the file for deletion per COM:F5 and notified the uploader of this. An IP address (could be the uploader) just add a URL to an official website of the Philippine government where the image can be seen. Is it OK to relicense this file as {{PD-PhilippineGov}} and replace the "own work" claim with information about the government website per COM:GVT Philippines or is copyright holder consent verification still needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I don't know much about the details of Philippine copyright law, but if inclusion in that gov.ph page is sufficient for us to know that license applies, then absolutely it is OK to make the correction. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Udacity Logo 2024.png

File:Udacity Logo 2024.png is most likely not the uploader's own work as is being claimed, but it's possibly OK as {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO US given that en:Udacity is a US company based out of California, but would like some other opinions. Is the "U" of any concern here? If it is, then en:File:Udacity logo.png uploaded locally to English Wikipedia would also have the same issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file seems fine to me. The U is just a few lines. It is definitely trademarked, but trademarks are allowed here. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LAPD Critical Incident Video Releases

Many, if not all, of the LAPD's Critical Incident Video Releases use Google Maps satalite imagery (like in this one at 1:39). Of course, the video itself is in PD but the map isn't. How should we proceed? I think deleting all files is a bit overkill. I don't know how many of these we have uploaded, but I think there are a few. // Kakan spelar (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI tools?

Is it acceptable to use AI tools to enhance image quality, particularly when the image is blurry, or does this change the integrity of the original content? Lililolol (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI enhancements should be clearly marked as such and uploaded as a separate file to the non-AI enhanced version. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But please note: "Enhancements" on raster graphics (JPEG, PNG, TIFF...) are mostly never possible, be it by AI, classic software or humans, on technological grounds. Blurriness, lack of sharpness and noise must be fixed or avoided BEFORE saving the image to a media. If your image is already noisy or unsharp, then no tool can fix that. You can only fake the appearance, by sharpness filters (unsharp masking, highpass filtering, or the "Clarity" filter in Adobe Camera raw) or by downscaling so that the lack of sharpness becomes less apparent. Sharpness is represented by rapid and small sized contrast changes where the photographed objects do have actual limits or borders. Unsharpness happens when these contrast changes are expanded over more pixels or image areas than necessary or possible. AI tools tend to invent image data that was not there beforehand, that's why these tools do not improve anything. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altamaha

Some times ago my Altamaha.jpg file was deleted because it was too similar to a copyrighted version (here). What about this?-- Carnby (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnby: there was never a File:Altamaha.jpg (and certainly not a Altamaha.jpg, so it is hard to guess what file you are referring to. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel Sorry, it was File:Altamaha-ha.jpg.-- Carnby (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnby: OK, I can see that now, but still not the static.wikia... etc. image. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I click https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/non-aliencreatures/images/f/f1/Altamaha-ha.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20101207104459 I get what seems to be a standard "picture not available" graphic. - Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel The deleted picture was this.-- Carnby (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all I get there is a "picture not available" graphic. Is it the same image shown at https://cryptid-that-you-saw.fandom.com/wiki/Altamaha-Ha?file=Altamaha-Ha.png ? The third image you show is probably a copyright violation of that one. It is almost impossible to imagine that someone drew the postimg.cc one with any other reference than the fandom one, and there is little to distinguish it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel Recap:

Is the second version by me still a copyright infringement of the original image?-- Carnby (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so. If I were the author of the first, I'd certainly consider it to be infringing. But other opinions here are more than welcome. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Самолёт ТУ-104 на площади Новаторов в Рязани

Здравствуйте, пожалуйста подскажите, является ли данное изображение защищённым авторскими правами? (вот сайт с этим изображением) Hello, please tell me if this image is copyright protected? (here is the site with this image) Стыкалин Александр (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Стыкалин Александр: I see absolutely no reason to think it wouldn't be copyright-protected, and no reason at all to think it would be free-licensed. Is there anything you are seeing that gives you any reason to think otherwise? - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. According to this website the photo was the motive of a 1989 postcard. Meaning it's a fairly recent photo. Hardly any chance that it is in the public domain. Nakonana (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

С помощью Google я посмотрел информацию о фотографиях найденных по заданному мной запросу. Именно там я нашёл эту фотографию. Далее я с помощью Инструментов стал проводить Поиск по лицензии. Запрос остался тот же. В итоге ни по лицензии Creative Commons, ни по другим лицензиям не выставлено этой фотографии. Был бы рад прикрепить скриншоты, но к сожалению я этого сделать не могу. Вы можете сами проверить вышеописанное, введя в поисковую строку Google "ту 104 на новаторов рязань", и действуя далее, как действовал я. Пожалуйста ответьте, можно ли после проведения такой импровизированной экспертизы считать, что фото можно загрузить в Викисклад?

Using Google, I looked up information about the photographs found for the query I asked. That's where I found this photo. Next, I started searching by license using Tools. The request remained the same. As a result, this photo is not available under Creative Commons or other licenses. I would be glad to attach screenshots, but unfortunately I cannot do this. You can check the above for yourself by entering “that 104 on innovators Ryazan” into the Google search bar, and proceeding further as I did. Please answer, is it possible after such an impromptu examination to consider that the photo can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? Стыкалин Александр (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Нет в таком случае к сожалению нельзя загружать фотографию Викисклад. Чтобы загрузить фотографию в Викисклад, необходимо, чтобы она была явно опубликована по лицензии Creative Commons или находилась в общественном достоянии. Если невозможно найти такое явное заявление о лицензии, следует предположить, что фотография защищена авторским правом и, следовательно, не может быть загружена. Nakonana (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Это, конечно, печально, но спасибо за объяснение.

This is, of course, sad, but thanks for the explanation.

Стыкалин Александр (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template for US graffiti

It seems the US jurisprudence does not recognize graffiti as legal and copyrightable works. Per Carlisle (2022), two existing case: Cohen, et al v. G&M Realty L.P. (case in New York) and Canilao v. City Commercial Investments, LLC. (2022 case in California) solidified the US perspective on non-recognition of protection for graffiti.

Therefore, would it be wise to suggest creation of {{PD-US-graffiti}}? The template will cite these two court rulings as bases (plus links to articles like the one I gave here), as proofs that such works are indeed in public domain. A separate category can automatically be added courtesy of the template, so that in the event US courts go crazy and submit themselves to the desires of Revok et. al., we can nominate all images (including restored ones) for deletion at once.

Some files at Category:United States FOP cases/deleted may be restored in this case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those cases address the copyright of illegal graffiti. Those were both legally-painted murals, so had a copyright, but the cases were about VARA rights (a form of "moral rights" in the US) where artists might be able to prevent destruction of the work. One did not, and one ... might have not but the owner destroyed the works (had them whitewashed during court proceedings) without giving the artists the opportunity to save them, as hard as it may have been (murals on a building). That act was the one which ultimately violated the law. The illegality of an installation has also been shown in court to prevent normal VARA rights, but none of these really address the question of the regular copyright. Legally painted stuff has a normal copyright, which was the case in both of these. VARA rights are not an issue for Commons at all, so these are not at all relevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible good addition to COM:DM United States

HBO Wins Copyright Infringement Case Over Graffiti Artist Relying On The De Minimis Copyright Exception (by Krista Cox, dated May 2018)

The artist's copyright lawsuit vs. HBO was thrown out of the court, since the graffito that was included in an episode of Vinyl:

only appeared as a "fleeting shot of barely visible graffiti painted on what appears to be a dumpster in the background of a single scene";
only appeared for no more than 2–3 seconds;
"is not pictured by itself or close-up";
had no role in the plot; and
"is hard enough to notice when the video is paused at the critical moment. It is next to impossible to notice when viewing the episode in real time."

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 20:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article further adds:

Examples of court opinions upholding the de minimis use of copyrighted materials abound, often highlighted in uses by the art and entertainment industry. The court in Gayle v. HBO extensively cites Gottlieb Dev. LLC v. Paramount Pictures Corp, a case involving an infringement suit for the depiction of a pinball machine in a particular scene in the 2000 rom-com, What Women Want, featuring Mel Gibson. Similarly, a case brought against the 1995 crime thriller, SE7EN, featuring Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, resulted in a court finding that the use of copyrighted photos that appeared fleetingly and out of focus was de minimis and not liable for copyright infringement.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 20:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gottlieb decision cited repeatedly in the ruling ([3]) would probably be a better addition, as it deals with a less definitive case. Omphalographer (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an obvious decision. It's interesting that one of the factors was that the graffiti didn't have a role in the plot though. I wonder how much weight that was given versus the other points. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that cases involving video are less interesting for us; we are much more interested in cases dealing with photography. Gnom (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom I think one factor that is of relevance for us is the court's opinion if the video is paused (since it is analogous to a still image). Applying the Gayle decision for us, a copyrighted work in a still image (for example, the paused part of a video) is de minimis if it is barely noticeable for the viewer.

The excerpt of the Gottlieb decision mentioned in the Gayle ruling:

The scene in question lasts only three-and-a-half minutes, and the [machine] appears in the scene sporadically, for no more than a few seconds at a time. More importantly, the pinball machine is always in the background; it is never seen in the foreground. It never appears by itself or in a close-up. It is never mentioned and plays no role in the plot. It is almost always partially obscured (by Gibson and pieces of furniture), and is fully visible for only a few seconds during the entire scene. The Designs (on the backglass and playfield of the pinball machine) are never fully visible and are either out of focus or obscured. Indeed, an average observer would not recognize the Designs as anything other than generic designs in a pinball machine.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this – the quote talks at length about the duration for which the work is visible, a criterion that cannot be used in still photographs. --Gnom (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom how about the fifth thing mentioned by Gayle decision? It can apply to still images; the judge discussed the de minimis applicability for the paused scene: the graffito on dumpster "is hard enough to [be] notice[d] when the video is paused at the critical moment." It may be a narrow criterion for DM in still images like paused scenes of videos, though. A work should not be noticeable in paused scenes, which can be extended to still images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this sentence is of course notable, but the usage of the protected work remains one in a film, not in a still photograph, which we need to keep in mind when reading and applying this case as a precedent. Gnom (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By logic, a still image and a paused video shot are identical. A paused video is a still image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course correct. However, the judge was not asked to decide a case about a still photograph, or a still image. The case (only) dealt with a video. Therefore, any part of the judgment talking about still images needs to be seen in the context of a video being the subject of the lawsuit. I am only concerned about our discussion not missing this critical information. Gnom (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to use a copyrighted picture under exceptions

I have noticed that copyrighted material may be used under strict/limited and specific conditions, i.e., the photo of a person (portrait style) must be used for identification purposes and be of low resolution. Is this correct? If so, what is an acceptable low enough resolution? Are there any other restrictions that I need to be aware of? Is there a wiki page that contains this information (from a quick google search I could not find the relevant info). Please note that I do not frequently upload pictures/photos so I am asking for help to make sure I am doing things right (which label to use etc). Specifically, I am interested in one of these photos [4] [5] to use to identify George Koskotas since is no picture on Wiki-Commons. Thank you in advance.A.Cython (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to speak about "fair use". "Fair use" is not allowed at Commons at all. However some projects have a rule, that allows and describes "fair use" in that project. One of these is the english language wikipedia. You should find the information you are asking for at the english language wikipedia if you search there for "fair use". C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, en-wiki's preferred term is "non-free use". Pinging @A.Cython en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. - Jmabel ! talk 05:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest to type entry policy there is en:WP:F AKA en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! This was very useful. A.Cython (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stadeln_Wappen_2024.svg und File:Wappen Stadeln.png

In beiden Fällen hege ich den Verdacht, dass es sich nicht um offizielle Gemeindewappen, sondern um Erfindungen jüngeren Datums ohne offiziellen Charakter handelt. Die Schöpfungshöhe ist m. E. gegeben, somit gilt Urheberrecht. Die bei einer der beiden Dateien bereits abgeschlossene LD ist vermutlich falsch entschieden worden, siehe Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stadeln Wappen 2024.svg GerritR (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hier ist das Alter egal, wenn es sich um ein offizielles Gemeindewappen handelt; der korrekte Lizenzbaustein ist dann {{PD-Coa-Germany}}. Gnom (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory

Can someone explain how an explicit copyright statement and an "all rights reserved" go together with a CC 1.0 license ("no copyright", work dedicated to public domain)? I don't get this. --2003:C0:8F34:BD00:49D6:E4D9:E9EC:DD8 23:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has a VRT permission ticket @Martin Urbanec: . The VRT permission is more important than the metadata. Abzeronow (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. But I have also seen a number of VRT permission tickets in the past that the copyright holder knew nothing about. I hope that this one is based on communication with the copyright holder and not on communication with the paid editor of the image subject. --2003:C0:8F34:BD00:49D6:E4D9:E9EC:DD8 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a VRT member, but that seems kind of implausible because VRT is only supposed to verify a license if it receives a COM:CONSENT email from the copyright holder or someone officially authorized by the copyright holder to act in their stead. Of course, a mistake isn't out of the question, but it seems such a mistake would most likely be on the copyright holder's end, e.g. they misunderstood what releasing their work under a COM:CC license meant and wanted to undo what was done on their behalf. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, if you have an issue about VRT, please bring it to Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. No one but VRT members can see VRT tickets, so anyone else trying to tell you what happened is guaranteed to be just guessing. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Antiguo Rutaca Airlines

Buenas ,se puede publicar el logo antiguo de Rutaca Airlines como este (https://vectorseek.com/vector_logo/rutaca-airlines-logo-vector/) si el logo es simple se puede publicar con {{PD-textlogo}}? AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22: No estoy suficientemente familiarizado con la ley venezolana como para decirlo; seguramente Vd. debería estar más familiarizado con eso que yo después de subir tantos logos venezolanos. No hay ningún problema desde el lado estadounidense. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel:Que dice la ley estadounidense este logo de Rutaca Airlines es simple? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh (again)

Continuing the discussion from here and here. Pinging @User:JWilz12345.

In our previous discussion, @User:JWilz12345 mentioned a Daily Star article from Mar 29, 2024. Our team took time to take professional legal opinion. We found out that the author of the mentioned article, now a lecturer in law and justice at a university, is connected to our Wikimedia and open source network. Our team showed him the previous onwiki discussion and requested to clarify the current law. In response to our request, he published another column solely focusing on the FoP in Bangladesh. We can probably restart the discussion from here.

He is not a wikimedian and I'm afraid he might not be comfortable in mediawiki syntax and replying here. But our team can forward the questions to him that will be raised here and take his opinion. He is also available over email, not mentioning the adrress here to avoid spambots - not sure how the email discussion can be coordinated with this thread in that case. -- Mrb Rafi (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diario VI Región

Hello there. I am a bit doubtful about this one. The Diario VI Región of San Fernando, Chile, does not have a copyright notice in their editions. It rather states: "Se autoriza la reproducción total o parcial de la información de este medio, escrita o visual, indicando la fuente", which translates as "The partial or total reproduction of the information of this newspaper, be it written or visual, is authorized, as long as the source is credited". To me that seems a clear copyleft notice, but I want to be sure it could eventually be uploaded here. See for instance, page 2 of the 1 February edition [6] Bedivere (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: Yes, that sounds like a clear {{Attribution only license}}. We might want to make up a specific template for that source, with that template making use of {{Attribution only license}} with the correct parameters.

FWIW, nowadays in virtually every country of the world, absence of an explicit copyright notice means nothing. In all signatories of the Berne Convention, which is now close to universal, work is automatically copyrighted on creation. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Jmabel. Yeah, I just noted the absence of a copyright notice in light of the very evident copyleft notice. Have a great day! I will restore the template and previously deleted files accordingly. Bedivere (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:London Square - Caledonian Road.jpg

Are artifically generated images allowed on Commons? I am sure this was created by the user as part of their work for the property developer in question. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine: There is no blanket ban on AI-generated images, though (1) they must be identified as such and (2) most are out of scope. In most countries, the visual (or textual) product of generative AI is in the public domain, except insofar as it infringes someone else's copyrights as derivative work.

If this is a rendering from a CAD system, there is certainly no problem with that as such, and my remark above about public domain would not apply. In copyright terms, there is not a lot of difference between making a drawing by hand and making a model in a CAD system and then rendering it.

The one question I would have is whether this individual retains copyright over a rendering that they presumably did in a work-for-hire context. - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]