Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


File:Me at the zoo.webm[edit]

Per discussion at English Wikipedia,[1] did the uploader have the right to offer File:Me at the zoo.webm to the public under the Creative Commons license? Rjjiii (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Updated link to archived discussion. 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I don't really understand why the CC license would be void if the camarographer co-held rights on a video from the early Internet era, in this case Lapitsky. Even the Wikipedia page says "On Karim's camera" and was uploaded on Jawed's YT channel, it's most likely that Lapitsky informally gave permission rights to publish the video. If this was going to be the case, a lot of YT videos under CC would end up in problems because of "who is the actual owner of the footage" discussions. Hyperba21 (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperba21: I think the concern is that's there is no indication that Lapitsky (who was holding the camera) knew how the video would be used online.[2] In the US, I believe, the owner of the device doesn't affect who holds the copyright.[3] And courtesy pings to the reviewer Armbrust and uploader Tuankiet65. Rjjiii (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The video was licensed under the CC-BY when it was uploaded and reviewed. Here's an archive made the day it was reviewed: https://web.archive.org/web/20130606120257/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNQXAC9IVRw
Creative Commons licenses aren't revocable so Me at the zoo can stay here. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also I'm pretty sure the Lapitsky was recording for Jawed, and Jawed likely owns all the rights to it but only reserves some. I feel like Lapitsky knew Jawed was going to upload the video and most likely reserves no rights to it AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

English Wikipedia is treating en:File:Shell logo.svg as non-free which has made me wonder about the licensing of File:Fisogni Museum Monteshell sign 1990s.jpg: the licensing seems fine of for the photo but not so sure whether it also can apply to the sign. File:Shell-logo.svg was actually deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shell-logo.svg. Assuming that the logo's imagery is owned by en:Shell plc, it would seem that this would be too complex for Commons per COM:TOO UK; however, maybe there's something about COM:TOO Italy that makes logo in the photo OK to keep. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, a short history of the Shell logo: https://www.shell.com/who-we-are/our-history/our-brand-history.html - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and submitted that image for deletion since it seems to be the point of that image very much. SDudley (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the logo of Shell; this is the logo of the former MonteShell Italian company, a joint-venture between Shell and Montedison. This is a photo of one of the pieces of the Fisogni Museum, that freely allows the diffusion of photos of its pieces. The photo correctly report the "trademark" template. I am totally against cancellation Moxmarco (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel @Marchjuly @SDudley Moxmarco (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beni Culturali Standard (BCS)[edit]

I want to draw attention of users who may be interested to an undeletion request discussion: File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg, which is remaining undecided for an unusually long time. More opinions may be useful. Although the request is technically about one file, the issue is broader and can potentially affect a large number of images and I guess that's probably one reason why administrators hesitate to close the request. C:VP/C would probably be a better place for the general discussion, if it hadn't started at C:UDR. I suppose that comments can be made here or there. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick overview:
  • What BCS is:
"Beni Culturali Standard" (BCS) is a tag placed by entities of the Italian government (e.g. the ministry of Culture) on some images (e.g. photographs of old objects). Essentially, the BCS tag:
1) states that the image has "no copyright", referring to this statement, and
2) describes some non-copyright legal requirements for some uses of the image.
The description of the BCS tag can be read in Italian there.
  • Example:
The source of the file discussed at UDR can serve as one example [4]. Other examples can be found on the same source website. Or on Commons.
  • What the question is not:
There is no problem with the non-copyright requirements (for which Commons uses the template MiBAC).
There is no question about the copyright status of the pictured objects. They are old enough to be out of copyright.
There is no problem with images that are obviously old enough to be tagged on Commons with PD-Italy, PD-1996, etc.
  • What the question is:
The question arises with images that look recent enough and would normally be considered copyrighted in the United States. The problems are to determine who owned the copyright on an image, by what rationale the entity tagged the image as uncopyrighted (BCS), and if that assessment of public domain can apply outside Italy.
  • Possible solutions:
There may be other solutions but, to keep it simple, there are at least these possibilities:
A) except where evidence suggests otherwise, it cannot be safely assumed that the recent BCS-tagged images are in the public domain in the United States, therefore such images cannot be hosted on Commons, or
B) except where evidence suggests otherwise, it is assumed that the Italian government somehow owned the copyright on the recent BCS-tagged images, and that tagging with BCS constitutes a valid statement by the Italian government that those images are in the public domain worldwide, therefore such images can be hosted on Commons.
  • Scope of the problem:
At present, Commons has many files sourced from catalogo.beniculturali.it. At the source, many of those images are tagged BCS.
Also, apparently many, or most, of those files are mistakenly tagged on Commons with CC BY. That mistake is probably caused by the fact that, at the source, the descriptive notices ("metadati") are visibly tagged with CC BY, but to view the status of the image itself it is necessary to click on the image.
  • Review:
Whatever decision is taken, whether such files are accepted or not on Commons, a major review will be needed to assess the status of all those files and to tag them correctly.
-- Asclepias (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UDR has not budged and nobody commented here either. To try to make this progress a little, here is a suggestion for a Template:BCS, which might look like this, which is only a rough draft, of course. It can be refined and someone who knows how to format templates would need to format it in all the rules of the art. Other than that, perhaps there's a way to identify the relevant beniculturali files and to group them in a maintenance category to be reviewed for proper tagging. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zdjęcie do biogramu[edit]

Dzień dobry, opracowuję biogram jednego z żyjących profesorów. Chciałabym umieścić Jego zdjęcie, otrzymane e-mailem. W jaki sposób sprawić, aby to zdjęcie znalazło się w domenie publicznej?Pozdrawiam Ledowiczka Ledowiczka (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate: "Good morning, I am working on a biography of one of the living professors. I would like to post his photo, received by e-mail. How do I get this photo into the public domain? Ledowiczka" - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that translation is accurate, I think there is a misunderstanding here. You cannot turn someone else's copyrighted material into public-domain material.
What we need is for the owner of the copyright (typically the photographer) to offer a free license (in Polish: Commons:Nadawanie licencji) such as {{CC-BY 4.0}} or {{tl|CC-BY-SA 4.0}; if their intention is actually to place it in the public domain, and they do not care about attribution, they can use {{CC-zero}}. There are two ways they can do that:
  • The owner of the copyright (not you) can go through the email-based process described at COM:VRT (COM:VRT/pl in Polish). Do have them cc you on the email. NOTE that the license must allow commercial reuse and must allow derivative works (so no "NC" or "ND" licenses).
  • If the photographer still owns the copyright themself, they can shortcut this by posting the image on a web page clearly under their control (e.g. on their professional site as a photographer, on their account at Flickr or a similar photo site, in a public post on social media, etc.), with an indication of what free license they are offering. Then you (or anyone) can cite that as a source when uploading, using that same license.
I hope that is a clear enough answer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tak, dziękuję za wyjaśnienie. Właściciel fotografii wczoraj wysłał stosowne oświadczenie pod adres: [email protected]
Pozdrawiam Ledowiczka Ledowiczka (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright link to my website in the attribution[edit]

Hi Community!
Is it possible to have a hyperlink to my website in case somebody uses and attributes my image?

For example, the current HTML provided by Wiki is:
- <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ExampleFile.png">https://example.com/</a>, <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0">CC BY 4.0</a>, via Wikimedia Commons
with a href to the image in Wiki by default. I made it by using |author=https://example.com/ in the editor.

Currently, this HTML attribution looks as following if placed, and links to the Wiki page:
- https://example/, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons


Is it possible to have a link to my website instead? Even if both Wiki and Website are displayed, it's fine. For example:
- Example.Com (links to my website), CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
or
- https://example/ (links to Wiki), Example.Com (links to my website), CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Also, how do I set it up by default without editing the file data every time? Even if what I'm asking is not possible, where do I set up the default attribution data?

Thank you! Reveille23 (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the {{Self}} template, you can explicitly set author and/or attribution.
I don't think the Upload Wizard lets you take control of this, but you can switch over to using Special:Upload; just copy-paste from the wikitext of an existing file page of your own and edit accordingly for the description, date, categories, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I upload a Twitter profile picture that has no other search returns on image search?[edit]

So I need an image of a politician, and I found one on his personal twitter account that when I searched the image, there was only where I found it from as a result. I can't find any other images that aren't copyrighted of him, so can I upload this image, or not? Wheatley2 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wheatley2: unless I completely misunderstand you, no. Are you saying you have some reason to think that image isn't copyrighted? Why wouldn't it be copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk 21:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant I assumed it wouldn't be lol Wheatley2 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is automatically given to a creative work when it is fixed in a tangible medium, per the Berne Convention. Copyright has to be explicitly waived for it to be public domain, or given an explicit free license. COM:L Abzeronow (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wheatley2: See also COM:NETC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any user-created content on X / Twitter is automatically copyrighted. Per their TOS, under "Your Rights and Grant of Rights in the Content: "You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your incorporated audio, photos and videos are considered part of the Content)." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitungsartikel aus dem Jahr 1987[edit]

In der Zeitung "Junge Welt" (DDR) erschien im Juni 1987 ein Kommentar zum Album "Casablanca" der Rockgruppe City. Dieser Kommentar hatte Einfluss auf den offiziellen Umgang in der DDR mit diesem Album. Auch verdeutlicht er auch das Klima und die staatliche Sicht. Ich habe eine Kopie dieses Artikels und würde diesen gerne bei Wiki-Commons zugänglich machen. Da ich keine Rechte an dem Artikel habe, frage ich ob das urheberrechtlich möglich ist. Intermerker (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass das etwas anderes als ein urheberrechtlich geschützter Artikel sein könnte. Also, es ist nicht möglich. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ein "Kommentar" zu einem Musikalbum wird urheberrechtlich gesehen de:Schöpfungshöhe haben und damit urheberrechtlich geschützt sein, und zwar zu Lebzeiten des Urheber (= Autors) sowie weitere 70 Jahre nach seinem Tod. Selbst wenn der Autor noch im selben Jahr gestorben wäre, wäre der Text in Deutschland noch bis Ende 2057 geschützt. Und Wikimedia Commons (wie auch die deutsche Wikipedia) will nur urheberrechtlich freie Werke (Commons:Licensing/de). Das ginge also nur, wenn der Urheber des Textes bzw. ein Rechteinhaber (bspw. ein Erbe) eine entsprechende Freigabe (COM:VRT/de) schickt und diese auch akzeptiert wird. --Rosenzweig τ 19:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of sculpture[edit]

this is wax sculpture in display cabinet by anonymous author from 1800 - 1850. So the sculpture is in public domain. But it is 3D work, the photographer own the copyright. Her they claim - Public Domain Mark 1.0. Can it be considered {{PDMark-owner}}. Your advice appreciated. -- Geagea (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a direct link to the respective creativecommons page. So, yes, it is obviously {{PDMark-owner}}. Ruslik (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0, thanks. -- Geagea (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two Questions Regarding Freedom of Panorama[edit]

Question 1: Do logos found on buildings of government institutions fall under FOP the following image was taken by me from my car of a governemnt building. File:CES CACES Logos.jpg if I edit this image to cut out the logo, can I use said logo to replace this image : File:CES Ecuador.gif?
Question 2: If an institution has awards permanently on display, would a picture of said awards be considered FOP? What about government medals? HarveyPrototype (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HarveyPrototype: Assuming we are talking about Ecuador, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Ecuador#Freedom_of_panorama. If these are on the exterior of a building, clearly OK. Otherwise, it's going to come down to exactly what is considered "public" space in Ecuadorian law, about which I have no guess. - Jmabel ! talk 01:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That answers the question with regards to the logos.
What about the awards which are permantly on display? HarveyPrototype (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations, which is binding on Ecuador, provides for freedom of panorama as follows: "Without prejudice to that put forth in the Chapter 5 and in the previous article, it will be legal to realize, without authorization from the author and without the payment of any remuneration, the following acts:...h) undertake the reproduction, transmission by broadcasting or cable distribution to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of fine art, photographic work or work of applied art located permanently in a place open to the public".[351/1993 Article 22(h)]". If they are permanently on display in a "place open to the public" then they could be uploaded here. Bedivere (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is whether the logo separated from the picture has a copyright. I don't remember how we interpret this. Some laws expressly forbid extracting a copyrighted work even if the picture itself is OK. Yann (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Yann
In the CÓDIGO ORGÁNICO DE LA ECONOMÍA SOCIAL DE LOS CONOCIMIENTOS, CREATIVIDAD E INNOVACIÓN (ORGANIC CODE OF THE SOCIAL ECONOMY OF KNOWLEDGE, CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION) which regulates IP in Ecuador.

Article Article 369.- Use of the trademark by third parties for informational purposes.- As long as it is done in good faith and does not constitute use as a trademark, third parties may, without consent of the owner of the registered trademark, use in commerce your own name, address or pseudonym; a geographical name; or, any other certain indication regarding the species, quality, quantity, destination, value, place of origin or time of production of its products or the provision of its services or other characteristics thereof; provided that such use is limited to identification or information purposes and is not capable of misleading the public about the origin of the products or services.
Would the Use of logos for wikipedia not be covered under the previous article?
HarveyPrototype (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further, "open to the public" is problematic until we know how the country's courts have interpreted it. For example, if a space is open in the daytime but closed at night, some countries have said that is sufficiently "open" to qualify here, some that it is not. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the following article some IP laws were modified in 2018. Including el "proyecto instaura la denominada libertad de panorama, establece la legalidad de la copia para uso personal y elimina las sanciones penales para las infracciones al derecho de autor que se realicen sin fines de lucro" translates to: The project establishes the so-called freedom of panorama, establishes the legality of copying for personal use and eliminates criminal sanctions for copyright infringements carried out without profit.
"Se habilita la disposición de obras a través de Internet con fines de investigación y educación, sin fines comerciales."which translates to "The provision of works over the Internet is enabled for research and educational purposes, without commercial purposes."
HarveyPrototype (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HarveyPrototype Commons does not accept non-commercial licensing, however: see COM:Licensing#Forbidden licenses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 Understood. So Article 369 would not be aplicable even though it is legal in Ecuador. It is actually part of a different Chapter. Chapter VI Brands (Trademarks) HarveyPrototype (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Ecuadorian FoP in the new law seems problematic. This should be addressed in a new discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movie leaflet as derivative work[edit]

Anyone have a quick opinion on whether this leaflet is derivative of the movie it accompanies? The 1933 movie S.O.S. Iceberg is still copyrighted in the US since I actually located its renewal registration, so while the leaflet clearly does not bear a copyright notice (I uploaded all pages, so one can check), it just occurred that it could perhaps be regarded as derivative of the film. Felix QW (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movie documents (trailer, poster, cardboard, etc.) have a separate copyright that the movie itself. If this was published without a copyright notice, or if the copyright was not renewed, then it is in the public domain. Yann (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was my initial thought too. Felix QW (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change of License - Edit Message to say "less restrictive" (not "more restrictive")[edit]

I want to change the license of some of my uploads from CC-BY-SA-4.0 to CC-BY-4.0, thereby making them less restrictive.

However, using the Change-of-license template, the following message is rendered on the page:

Please note: This image was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons licensed as noted. The copyright holder has since changed the licensing to be more restrictive. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. See the Creative Commons FAQ on revoking licensing.
Templates:Change-of-license/en
العربيَّة | català | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | +/−

I assume I cannot edit this message to make it say "...less restrictive..."? Michael Weinold (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Weinold: Please just add redirect {{CC-BY-4.0}} or actual template {{Cc-by-4.0}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That template doesn't apply here. It is intended for when someone off-wiki tries to change to a more restrictive license.
  2. When adding an additional license for your own work on Commons, don't remove the one that is already there. It's fine to give reusers a choice of licenses.- Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escudo del Tecos Fútbol Club.png[edit]

This file was kept per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Escudo del Tecos Fútbol Club.png because apparently Mexico don't have copyright on non-governmental logos, eventhough I assume it would surpass the threshold of originality there, so {{PD-textlogo}} doesn't fit as a license, it isn't PD because of lack of originality. Can someone find a fitting license for Mexico and one for the US. In the latter {{PD-textlogo}} might work since COM:TOO US is fairly high. Jonteemil (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag would be {{PD-MX-exempt}}, although I am not quite sure a football club would be "officially" recognised in the way a governmental organisation would be. Felix QW (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter pic[edit]

File:Christian belief.jpg what would be the proper copyright for something of this nature clearly it's not from before 1929. 100.43.104.71 01:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current license is almost certainly incorrect and most likely this would fall under COM:SCREENSHOT and COM:NETCOPYVIO in that the COM:CONSENT of the X account holder would be needed for this to be kept. The quoted text itself could be really old (i.e. from a publication published prior to 1929), and the X account holder simply didn't attribute it; however, the other elements seem too recent to be not eligible for copyright protection simply because of their age. My personal opinion is that whomever uploaded this file probably did so to prove a point and it's copyright status was the last thing they were worried about. They could've simply just provided a link to the tweet in whichever discussion wherever they were discussing this, but perhaps seeing it would be better. I'm also guessing the the X account holder also possibly wasn't too worried about the copyright status of the "quote" and properly attributing it (if it's indeed the words of someone else); they most likely also didn't worry about whether it would be en:fair use (even though it probably would be). Those things, however, are not really issues for Commons and the only thing that matters is the licesning of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Struct as uploader and poster of section en:Talk:Christianity/Archive 61#Removal of Christian belief example, since indeffed with 296 deleted contribs on enwiki.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free images from Museo del Oro by Sarah Murray[edit]

Dear Copyright experts,

If you see these 2024 uploaded flickr images from the Museo del Oro in Colombia, they are free for you to upload under a {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} license...and they are own work. The problem is I have no knowledge of South American art. Only Egyptian art...that I already uploaded here File:Tutankhamun’s wood, ivory and box chest.jpg and here: File:Tutankhamun’s stool 2020.jpg from this person's flickr account. Can you ask someone with knowledge of these beautiful gold images to upload them with the right title? This is an unusual request but I don't know what culture these objects belong to....whether its Sican or Aztec or something else.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the link to the flickr images. HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are the links for the flickr images below. Unfortunately, the photographer did not give a clear title for these objects and say if they are Sican, Aztec, etc HarveyPrototype, Bedivere or Poco a poco. The photographer's image resolution from her Nikon camera is INCREDIBLE...but the problem is identifying the objects. The so called Gold Museum, Bogotá or Museo de Oro in Bogota, Colombia definitely exists as there is a wikipedia article on it and here is the old Wikimedia Commons Category on its Collection. These set of images by Sarah Murray are really New 2024 uploaded images as it has less than 75 views on flickr only.

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuadorian FoP in the new law[edit]

See also COM:FOP Ecuador.

Ecuador has passed a new law in 2016, and made significant revisions to many provisions, one of which is the FoP provision, now found at Article 212(7) and reads:

  • La reproducción, adaptación, distribución o comunicación pública con fines científicos o educativos y para garantizar acceso a las personas con discapacidad de las obras arquitectónicas, fotográficas, de bellas artes, de arte aplicado u otras similares, que se encuentren situadas permanentemente en lugares abiertos al público, mediante la fotografía, la pintura, el dibujo, la filmación o cualquier otra técnica o procedimiento similar, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor de la obra original, si ello es conocido, y el lugar donde se encuentra.

Which translates (using Google Translate) as:

  • The reproduction, adaptation, distribution or public communication for scientific or educational purposes and to guarantee access to people with disabilities of architectural, photographic, fine arts, applied art or other similar works, which are permanently located in places open to the public, through photography, painting, drawing, filming or any other similar technique or procedure, provided that the name of the author of the original work, if known, and the place where it is located are indicated.

In the link given by HarveyPrototype above (the article), there was a draft bill in 2013 that also included FoP exception which, according to the linked article, "establishes the legality of copying for personal use and eliminates criminal sanctions for copyright infringements that are carried out without profit." It is not certain if the draft bill was one of the bases for the current, revised copyright law. It should be noted that, even in the now-repealed I.P. law of 1998–2014, the indicated FoP provision at Article 83(f) is "strictly the dissemination of art, science and culture", so may not be possibly free even from the beginning.

Per the FoP section at the CRT page of Ecuador, the Andean Community's Decision 351 is claimed to override all local laws. But according to a Colombian court in the only real-life FoP case in Colombia (another Andean Community member; in English translation), "it is noted that the previous provisions enshrined in the community standard, being so general in terms of procedure, leave open a great margin for the internal regulations of the Member Countries to regulate the procedures and processes based on the community standard, in accordance with the principle of indispensable complement." (refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sculptures in the Museo Botero (Bogotá)).

The Colombian court's statement means that the member states of the Andean Community are open to regulate the procedures of the generalized provisions in Decision 351. Colombia did by not allowing FoP in public indoors, although still adequate enough for purposes of Wikimedia Commons. Peruvian FoP is also regulated but still acceptable here. As there is no explicit FoP in the copyright law of Bolivia, it can be assumed that the Andean standard still applies until that country introduces the FoP clause. As for Ecuador, the regulation seems far-reaching. The 1998 (repealed) law regulated FoP to art/science/culture dissemination. The current law only allows uses of public landmarks and monuments for educational and scientific purposes, so unlikely to allow commercial uses (post cards, web development, mobile applications, tourism souvenir items, et cetera).

This matter on the Ecuadorian FoP/Andean FoP difference should be addressed. If the Ecuadorian FoP is found to be the prevailing law for FoP and not the community standard (since, as said above, the FoP was regulated by Ecuador), then Ecuadorian FoP is  Not OK since 1998 – since the beginning of available WIPO Lex documents.

Ping here participants in the above thread: @HarveyPrototype, Jmabel, Yann, and Bedivere: . Ping also participants (including the closing admin) from the Botero artworks in Colombia deletion request: @IronGargoyle, Adamant1, Paradise Chronicle, Holly Cheng, and Юрий Д.К.: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The final version of the law which regulates IP is CÓDIGO ORGÁNICO DE LA ECONOMÍA SOCIAL DE LOS CONOCIMIENTOS, CREATIVIDAD E INNOVACIÓN (ORGANIC CODE OF THE SOCIAL ECONOMY OF KNOWLEDGE, CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 2016) HarveyPrototype (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The aformentioned Article 212 is part of Section VII Of the limitations and exceptions to economic rights of Chapter II Generalities of Title II COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS.
I wish to draw attention to two aditional incisions Article 212.1 and 212.4 which may help this discussion.
  • Article 212.1 : La inclusión en una obra propia de fragmentos breves de obras ajenas de naturaleza escrita, sonora o audiovisual, de carácter plástico, fotográfi co, fi gurativo o similares, siempre que se trate de obras ya divulgadas, que su inclusión se realice a título de cita o para su análisis, comentario o juicio crítico, con fi nes docentes o de investigación, en la medida justifi cada por el fi n que se persiga, y siempre que se indique la fuente y el nombre del autor, y que en ningún caso constituya una explotación encubierta de la obra. Las recopilaciones periódicas efectuadas en forma de reseñas o revista de prensa tendrán la consideración de citas;
Which translates (using Google Translate) as:
  • The inclusion in one's own work of short fragments of other people's works of a written, sound or audiovisual nature, of a plastic, photographic, figurative or similar nature, provided that they are already published works, that their inclusion is made by way of quotation or for analysis, commentary or critical judgment, for teaching or research purposes, to the extent justified by the purpose pursued, and provided that the source and the name of the author are indicated, and that in no case constitutes a covert exploitation of the work.
Periodic compilations made in the form of reviews or press reviews will be considered citations;
  • Article 212.4 : La reproducción, traducción, distribución y comunicación pública con fines informativos de artículos, comentarios, fotografías, ilustraciones y obras similares sobre sucesos de actualidad y de interés colectivo, siempre que se mencione la fuente y el nombre del autor, si el original lo indica, y no se haya hecho constar en origen la reserva de derechos;
Which translates (using Google Translate) as:
  • The reproduction, translation, distribution and public communication for information purposes of articles, comments, photographs, illustrations and similar works on current events and of collective interest, provided that the source and the name of the author are mentioned, if the original indicates it, and the reservation of rights has not been recorded in origin
I believe most of the images used in wikipedia would be allowed under article 212.4 as articles of colective interes.HarveyPrototype (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HarveyPrototype in that case, the images can be hosted locally on local Wikipedias that allow fair use (does Spanish Wikipedia accomodate fair use rules of Spanish-speaking jurisdictions like Ecuador)?
Article 212.1 is for uses in typical fair use-type situations like in research, dissertations, theses, and criticisms. Article 212.4 does appear for uses in reporting, in sharing current events, and in informing the public. Local Wikipedias that can host FU-type media are welcome to such provisions, but English Wikipedia has a lex loci protectionis-based policy of only respecting the U.S. law, and not all foreign laws like the Ecuadorian law. U.S. copyright law does provide both fair use rules and architecture-only Freedom of Panorama. In the event the Ecuadorian FoP is unacceptable here, a few images (not all because of w:en:WP:NOTFILESTORAGE) of Ecuadorian buildings can be transferred there even in their fullest and highest-quality resolutions, courtesy of U.S. FoP (w:en:Template:FoP-USonly).
Wikimedia Commons has a strict licensing policy that does not permit non-commercial licensing. Yet the current trend in Ecuador seems to not allow commercial uses of their public spaces. I think, perhaps, to safeguard their "private" cultural heritage over the Internet. So there is nothing we can do. Unless, someone contests the Colombian court's statement over the Andean standards with other sources stating Andean standards prevail over the local laws of four member countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there is nothing we can do. That's essentially my opinion. Although the images can be hosted locally on local Wikipedias as fair use if they agree to it. But it's kind of out of our hands otherwise since we don't allow for things that can only be used non-commercially. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article 212 needs to be read in accordance with the article 211. They both refer to fair use possibilities, and so, they are not usable here on Commons as it cannot be a "covert" use of the work in a way that could cause "unjustifiable prejudice" to the rights holder. Bedivere (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed: a death sentence for Ecuadorian FoP. The Andean FoP provision is not applicable to Ecuador, even from the beginning (at most 1998). Under the First "Transitional Provisions" of Article 378 of the now-repealed 1998 law: "Until such time as the corresponding Regulations are issued, the Regulations under Decisions of the Commission of the Andean Community shall continue to apply in so far as they are not incompatible with the provisions of this Law." However, since the 1998 law already provides the regulation for FoP under Article 83(f), the regulation from the Andean FoP does not apply anymore. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I can sum up this discussion.
The reason that FoP images from Ecuador can't be used is because though they are allowed, they are permited under a "Fair Use" scenario, that since it's not in the U.S. than the images can't be uploaded under said conditions? HarveyPrototype (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HarveyPrototype I think Bedivere compared the "fair use" in the Ecuadorian context to "fair use" in the US context. But I don't think it is the issue here; countries like China and Taiwan consider "limitations and exceptions" as "fair uses", and every country can do so. FoP is technically synonymous to fair use in terms of permitted, reasonable uses of copyrighted works of architecture and public monuments. The Article 211, IMO, is only an enforcement of the Berne Three-Step Test.
The main issue here are the FoP wordings in both the 1998 and 2016 laws, which do not appear to allow commercial uses of images of the said works.
  • 1998 law, Article 83(f): "The reproduction, communication and distribution of works permanently located in public places by means of photography, painting, drawing or any audiovisual process, provided that the name of the author of the original work and the place in which it is located are mentioned, and that the purpose is strictly the dissemination of art, science and culture."
- is "the dissemination of art, science and culture" including the exposure of such works to media under commercial Creative Commons licensing?
  • 2016 law, Article 212(7), translated: "The reproduction, adaptation, distribution or public communication for scientific or educational purposes and to guarantee access to people with disabilities of architectural, photographic, fine arts, applied art or other similar works, which are permanently located in places open to the public, through photography, painting, drawing, filming or any other similar technique or procedure, provided that the name of the author of the original work, if known, and the place where it is located are indicated."
- "for scientific or educational purposes" certainly excludes commercial uses of the images, and in my opinion the exclusion of for-profit uses of Ecuadorian landmarks as stated in the 2013 article you gave is a stronger indication of Ecuadorian authorities disallowing exposure of their landmarks and monuments to commercially-licensed media. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand the position of commercialy licensed media. Is wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons considered commerial use? HarveyPrototype (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HarveyPrototype both Commons and Wikipedia are non-profit, technically. However, all Wikimedia sites, most-especially Commons, are expected to be stewards of free culture movement, and so cannot accept licenses that are roadblocks to that mission, like non-commercial licenses. See COM:Licensing#Forbidden licenses.
several Wikipedias allow local uploading, whether fair use or even high-quality resolutions of copyrighted architecture, using their local laws. Such Wikipedias have "exemption doctrine policies" that allow limited-to-controlled hosting of works that are against the free culture movement. English Wikipedia accepts unfree architecture of no-FoP countries by using U.S. law which allows commercial FoP for architecture (w:en:Template:FoP-USonly). German Wikipedia may also locally host, but also including copyrighted sculptures, using the more lenient German FoP (which extends to monuments), as dewiki only follows German law. Russian Wikipedia can also host, as they do not strictly adhere to free culture rules and can host unfree sculptural monuments using the non-commercial Russian FoP for sculptures. But other Wikipedias completely disallow fair use or even copyrighted buildings and monuments. Dutch Wikipedia is an example: they disabled any local uploading completely. French Wikipedia is another: they do accept unfree buildings but they have a policy that allows the architects or their heirs/estate to file take down requests to the frwiki admins to remove their buildings from wiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell did we have it listed as a FoP then? 1998 predates the creation of Wikipedia Commons. My life would have been much easier last year when I have been in Ecuador if I knew there is no FoP. Do we have similar disinformation listed for other countries? Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter due to the belief that COM:Andean Community standards are claimed to override local copyright laws. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I revisited the citation on COM:Andean Community article (ths citation). The Andean Community provisions are indeed binding among members, but there is a catch (which I will indicate with underlines):

Decision 351 is communitarian and supranational law, with direct and immediate effects upon communitarian and domestic authorities. Unlike European Union directives, communitarian decisions do not require adoption into domestic law because they have immediate binding effects and prevail over domestic law. Communitarian decisions allow the joint existence of domestic law, as long as the latter does not conflict with the former. As a result, AC members may need to modify their domestic law in order to avoid confusion, but not for implementation purposes. One exception is that communitarian decisions admit "complementary regulation by domestic law," which seems to be the case in several provisions of Decision 351.

Decision 351 allowed for additional provisions under the domestic laws of the AC members, as long as these rules were not inconsistent with the provisions of the common regime. In fact, Decision 351 made several references to its integration into domestic law. For instance, the provisions on works-for-hire, droit de suite, computing terms of protection, transferring and licensing, and affiliation to collective rights management societies. In other cases, such as rules on judicial procedures, civil measures, and criminal sanctions, Decision 351 did not address certain regulatory issues, but rather left such space to domestic law. In some cases, the Decision only set forth a minimum legal standard, allowing the standard to be heightened by domestic law. This is the case for moral rights recognized for authors, economic exclusive rights, term of protection, and exceptions and limitations to copyright. Referring to domestic law seems to have been the main mechanism used to overcome the lack of agreement around a given issue during negotiations of Decision 351.

I'll ping those familiar with FoP concepts here: @Clindberg, Paradise Chronicle, Aymatth2, and Rosenzweig: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added on Andean Community CRT page some bits of info about the allowance of the member states to "raise" the standards of the rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 Thanks a lot for your dedication. Fair use is not what we need on commons. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paradise Chronicle a question: do you think the former FoP rule (from the 1998 law) was suitable for Commons, or not? The uses of images must be for the "dissemination of art, science and culture," but unclear if commercial use is allowed or not. Also, is the 2016 law (with more restrictive FoP for "science and educational" uses only) retroactive? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could kind of see a hopeful interpretation of the 1998 law; using a photo of a statue commercially is still "disseminating" it. But the 2016 law (or translation at least) seems more explicit that it's a non-commercial provision. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg the last thing that needing clarification, is if the FoP of the current law (2016) is retroactive, or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't apply it retroactively for files uploaded before 2016. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 I'm not sure we have gotten clarification on that from any country. Certainly any old uses are OK; a law can't make past actions illegal. Does the photo count as a "use" as of the time it was taken and/or uploaded, or is it a continuing exploitation that going forward could be illegal? You could argue either way, and the laws never seem to address what happens with existing exploitation in this situation. I don't think we have deleted existing uploads in the past though, so not sure I see a reason to start now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg I found one transitional provision that may be applicable. From page 105 of the document provided by @HarveyPrototype, under "DISPOSICIONES TRANSITORIAS":

DÉCIMA CUARTA.- Todo derecho de propiedad intelectual válidamente concedido con la legislación nacional anterior al presente código, se regirá por las disposiciones vigentes a la fecha de su otorgamiento, salvo en lo que se refi ere a plazo de vigencia, en cuyo caso los derechos de propiedad intelectual preexistentes se adecuarán a lo previsto en este código.
En lo relativo al uso, goce, obligaciones, licencias, renovaciones y prórrogas se aplicarán las normas contenidas en este Código.
Para el caso de procedimientos en trámite, el presente Código regirá en las etapas que aún no se hubiesen cumplido a la fecha de su entrada en vigencia.

Translated as:

FOURTEENTH.- All intellectual property rights validly granted with national legislation prior to this code will be governed by the provisions in force on the date of its granting, except with regard to the term of validity, in which case the pre-existing intellectual property rights will comply with the provisions of this code.
Regarding use, enjoyment, obligations, licenses, renewals and extensions, the rules contained in this Code will apply.
In the case of procedures in progress, this Code will govern the stages that have not yet been completed on the date of its entry into force.

Possibly retroactive? With regards to the "use": "Regarding use, enjoyment, obligations, licenses, renewals and extensions, the rules contained in this Code will apply." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is probably as good as we get. So is such a photo only a "use" at the time taken, an ongoing "use" which becomes a problem, or a property right previously granted to the photographer? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg I can't say the context of the "use". Perhaps Harvey, who seems to work on files from Ecuador, may be familiar with this? Or perhaps COM:PCP may apply as the Ecuadorian courts may apply the current law (the "ongoing use")? The transitional provision also speaks of "this Code will govern the stages that have not yet been completed on the date of its entry into force." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Art. 83. Siempre que respeten los usos honrados y no atenten a Ia normal explotacion de la obra, ni causen perjuicios al titular de los derechos, son licitos, exclusivamente, los siguientes actos, los cuales no requieren Ia autorización del titular de los derechos ni estan sujetos a remuneración alguna:
[...]
f) La reproduccion, comunicación y distribucion de las obras que se encuentren permanentemente en lugares publicos, mediante la fotografia, la pintura, el dibujo o cualquier otro procedimiento audiovisual, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor de la obra original y el lugar donde se encuentra; y, que tenga por objeto estrictamente Ia difusión del arte, la ciencia y la cultura;"
= ... and that have for purpose strictly the diffusion of art, science and culture;
strictly = 2. In a limited manner; only. 3. In a narrow or limited sense.
As the saying goes, "the legislator does not speak in vain". If the legislature had wanted to give a broad permission, it would not have added such restrictive wording. People cannot pick the part that suits them and ignore the restriction that does not suit them. The wording does not allow uses where exists any purpose other than the diffusion of art, science and culture. The notion that practically any use would also be allowed because it can disseminate culture anyway would be to empty the wording from meaning. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have referred to decisions by the Andean Community once or twice in DRs, I think concerning threshold of originality matters. I don't really know anything right now about the interaction of the laws of Ecuador and decisions by the Andean Community though. --Rosenzweig τ 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig the paper used as citation on Andean Community CRT page (which I reread and digested) is clear though, in terms of the allowance for member states to heighten (for better or for worse) their standards on limitations and exceptions, because the rules from the Decision 351 are just the minimum legal standards. Therefore, Colombia raised the FoP standard by not allowing FoP in public indoors and interior architecture, but still acceptable here. Ecuador also raised its standard, but more far-reaching to limit to educational and scientific uses only (as of 2016, though the 1998 Ecuadorian FoP allowed "dissemination of arts, science, and culture"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organs in countries with no-FoP indoors: copyrightable or not? Part 2[edit]

Since the last discussion on the subject was left without a satisfying result (no relevant DR was closed so far), I would like to reopen the discussion in order for interested editors having the opportunity to add their opinions. The former discussion is located here. The main arguments presented are in my opinionCOM:UA and if an organ was ornate/orignial enough to be copyrightable.

Does anyone have examples of former DRs on instruments? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pings for the ones involved in the former DR, @Yann, IronGargoyle, Adamant1, and JWilz12345: . Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the ornamentation on some organs can be copyrighted since it's clearly not there for "intrinsic utilitarian function" at that point. Although there isn't a bright line and every organ should be judged on it's own artistic merits. It also would only extend to the ornamentation itself, not the actual organ per se. To quote from COM:UA "if the three-dimensional design contains some such element (for example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware), copyright protection would extend only to that element, and would not cover the overall configuration of the utilitarian article as such." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Organ as itself is a music instrument (--> a utilitarian object) and not a literary or artistic work. If is has some decoration, that deco can be copyrightable as itself. If someone takes a photo of organ - the main question = what is the primary object of that photo? Organ or its decoration? Similar case - a non-trivial logotype on car. Alex Spade (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why this was abandoned before was because trying to create a rule for a particular narrow class of objects is silly and this is already covered under COM:UA. In all the cases that I've seen, the creative elements of the organs are not separatable from the utilitarian aspects of the work (separability is a key test of COM:UA) . The shape of an organ and the sound apertures may be creative, but these elements will absolutely affect the sound that comes out of the organ. This is where each of Paradise Chronicle's deletion requests for organs fail. Now, I can certainly imagine scenarios where there is an image of an organ we cannot keep on Commons. Maybe the organ has a mural painted directly onto it, or maybe the organ has a fine engraving. A plain reading of COM:UA will tell you that though and there is nothing really to discuss here. It is, as I think the comments above suggest, case-by-case. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually owned a church organ at one point and there was plenty of elements involved that could be removed without effecting the sound Etc. You can look through the various sub categories in Category:Church organs in Italy by region and find a ton of similar examples. For instance File:Organo a canne Santuario San Giuseppe da Leonessa - Leonessa.jpg. You can't tell me the ornamentation at the top of the organ effects the sound, but people will automatically dismiss a DR for an image like that "because utility." --Adamant1 (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle The separability test described in UA is about copyright law in the USA, where there is FoP also in the interior of buildings, but the discussion is about organs in countries with no-FoP indoors. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paradise Chronicle: Ok, you bring up differences in national laws. Here is another bit from COM:UA: "In the vast majority of national jurisdictions, the level of originality required for copyright protection of works of applied arts does not differ from the one for the fine arts.[5] It is higher in Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Slovenia, and Switzerland." (emphasis mine). Most of the DRs you created or commented on are from Germany, Italy, and Switzerland, which have a higher level of originality required. This completely undercuts your point. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Interesting example. I would say delete it because it the photo appears to be a direct copyright violation. No evidence of permission and the source says all rights reserved. Congratulations on owning a church organ though. That's cool. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aotea Lagoon park map[edit]

Hi, I'm working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aotea_Lagoon and would like to upload and use a photo of the map posted at the gate of the park. I took the photo but the map is copyright Porirua City Council. I emailed PCC asking whether I could treat the map as free content, and the Principal Advisor Brand & Marketing replied saying "Yes it’s ok to be used as free content, ..." (happy to share my email and the reply if needed). Does that meet the requirement for the author granting permission? If so how do I express that permission on the upload form? Thanks. Arnhemcr (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnhemcr: We need the release of rights to come from them, since anyone could say, "the owner of this copyright gave me permission." There are basically two ways to do this:
  • On some web page clearly under their control (their own website, public social media post, etc.), the Porirua City Council (or its representative) can indicate that they are willing to release the map at the gate of the Aotea Lagoon park under a CC-BY 4.0 license (and that, in particular, they understand that this allows commercial reuse and derivative works). Then anyone can upload, citing that for permission.
  • The Porirua City Council (or its representative) can go through the process outlined at COM:VRT to make essentially that same declaration.
(There are other ways to do this, but these are the two simplest ways) Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The release of rights did come from a representative of the copyright holding body but I did not ask them to agree to a particular license acceptable on Wiki Commons. I feel I've taken up enough of their time already so will leave it there having learnt my lesson. Arnhemcr (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsbury Archive[edit]

This is an image repository of Sainsbury's supermarket covering years since 1869 (https://www.sainsburyarchive.org.uk). The copyright footer says CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0, which is not allowed on Commons. But images before 1929 and 1957 entered public domain in the United States and United Kingdom respectively. So are pre-1929 Sainsbury Archve images allowed on Commons? Xeverything11 (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeverything11: Yes, I think. Where did you get that 1957 date for UK? - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That 1957 is from Crown copyright. Xeverything11 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have the images at the Sainsbury website something to do with Crown copyright? Or maybe you were thinking of PD-UK-unknown? (I'm glad that Canadian Crown copyright remained more simple than the UK Crown copyright.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both are 1950s, but works after 1929 aren't all public domain in United States. Xeverything11 (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of the question was why the reference to Crown copyright? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-State of Palestine[edit]

We seem to have new PD template, created by @RowanJ LP: , and although I support clarifying copyrights for the State of Palestine, I do have number of issues with the details of the template:

  • I generally do not like PD templates with a long menu of possible reasons for work being PD. This template in the current form states that file is PD because: it is anonymous works or because it is a flag or because it is Knesset protocol or court decision. I think we should use one of template:PD-anon-70 for the anonymous works and have either one or 2 templates for the other cases.
  • The template mentions "§6 of the 2007 statute". I think we need a link and name of the statue.
  • I am also confused about "governmental items including national flags are not capable of receiving marks AKA trademarks" part as that seem to indicate that flags are not trademarked but has no bearing on the copyright status. The trademark laws should not be confused with the copyright laws.

Jarekt (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statute would be the one linked from Template:PD-IsraelGov, which links to a copy in Hebrew, and from Template:PD-Israel, which links to a copy in English. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a paper which examined the Palestinian intellectual property situation around 2003; I think they concluded that for copyright the British 1911 copyright act was still in force, and not any later Israeli copyright laws. Unsure if that has changed. Trademark was more complicated and could involve Jordanian law in the West Bank in particular (Egypt administered the Gaza Strip for that period but sounds like did not apply any of their laws there). I'd like to see where this tag decided that current Israeli copyright law changes also apply to Palestine, and why.
Also agreed that the national flags part is strictly about trademark, and has no bearing on copyright and should not be there at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check my work please?[edit]

I'm kinda new to uploading to Commons. Can someone check if this is good [5]? It's from this website [6], which has Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. See bottom right on the web page: "All site materials are available under license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". But there is a note in the file metadata. Bogazicili (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made one edit -- [7] -- based on what is in the EXIF. I think it is good now, but someone else may disagree. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Any way to make sure? Bogazicili (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumental of "Other Side of the Screen"[edit]

The YouTube description of the instrumental of the song "Other Side of the Screen" by markiplierSINGSbadly (mSb) states that others are "free to make covers with [the] video" as long as they include the Bandcamp and YouTube links to Emily Scholz's vocal version and the Patreon link for mSb. Does this qualify as {{Attribution}}? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The permission from the composer is restricted to one purpose, to make covers, it's not a free license to do anything with the music. The permission from the vocalist on her account is not a free license either and it is limited to non-profit uses. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

我想上传“赤地黑龙旗”的文件，但是我该怎么添加版权信息？[edit]

版本来自知乎上的第一个回答的图像，回答者收集/重置了网络上已有的黑龙旗，他允许我把复制品上传到Commons释出到自由领域，这个问题不大。问题在于其旗帜本身，该旗帜最早的实例已不可考，且没有作者版权或者许可证，被人们视作自由图像在中国互联网传播。那么上传文件时，我该怎么添加版权信息？ Maitian MaiLin (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of copyrighted text? (File:Pekin Noodle Parlor Menu.jpg)[edit]

Hi, and hope your week goes well. Is a menu, specifically File:Pekin Noodle Parlor Menu.jpg, copyrighted by the restaurant? Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any menu is just a directory, much a like a telephone directory held not protected by copyright in en:Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Ruslik here, though this particular one may be fine. There are plenty of menus that have enough complex graphical elements that the "telephone directory" comparison would not hold. Here are two blatant examples: [8], [9]. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this meet the ToO?[edit]

en:File:The Tetris Company logo.png

This was deleted and moved to English Wikipedia as a fair use file, but I wonder if it even meets the threshold of originality for copyright protection. It appears to just be simple text.

Someone told me to ask this here instead of the help desk. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is likely below COM:TOO US. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah some of the files there are more complex than that Tetris logo, which is just text with a bit of a reflection... AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could do just fine with a simpler version of that logo (without the shading). I think that shading could be considered creative enough, but simple letters (without that shading) are inherently not protected. Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the video game cover be under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license?[edit]

For File:Arcaea_logotipo.png, I don't think that a video game's cover should be under such a license. Then which license should it be under or should we delete it from commons?--—and in that light, Fz20181223 find deliverance.— 04:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=880318921"