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.


Are the paintings of Pigcasso the pig PD?[edit]

So I was about to upload some images of recently deceased Animal artist Pigcasso, as seen here: https://pigcasso.myshopify.com/collections/available/products/amazon-tribe-picgcasso-lefson-2023 https://pigcasso.myshopify.com/collections/available/products/rip https://pigcasso.myshopify.com/collections/available/products/pigcasso-2-print.

We know the case of the "Selfie monkey" and that Commons hosts animal-made art as PD, but Joanne Lefson, her former caretaker, is claiming "co-autorship" of the works, calling some of them in the website as "Picgcasso | Lefson". Since the animal has been trained and in her own words says "The pig can only reach and paint within a certain dimension so to cover a full canvas of this size required a lot of turning in all angles and multiple variations in height...it still needed a colour"

Are those claims of co-ownership enough for this images to have copyright? Hyperba21 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. The Wikipedia article states they had a "partnership", which even sounds weird. I would be cautious to upload these. Maybe try and find some filmed footage where a painting was exclusively made by the pig and upload it safely. Bedivere (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just found a Video where Lefson states: "Pigcasso is definitely the artist, she is the only one that paints on the actual canvas". So her only role would be more precisely of an assistant. I think that's a good claim to be PD-animal. Hyperba21 (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have seen, the Pig is the artist. As we know, non-human (Animals) authors are not eligible to claim copyright. Of course, Lefson is the one who stands to profit from these works and will do whatever she can to claim ownership of the works. So is this a case of copyfraud? Maybe. Did she add to the artwork to claim co-autorship on the works? Maybe. If it ever went to court, I imagine it would follow a similar result of the "Selfie Monkey". PascalHD (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, there's only one way to find out, let's see where this goes. The "Boris" painting has video evidence of it being painted by the pig. Hyperba21 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that paintings by elephants may be a better analogy. Ruslik (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"PD-Australia" (tag) not valid[edit]

Recently I tried to upload an image using the "PD-Australia" (tag), together with the "PD-1996|country=Australia" (tag), both tags I've used on many occasions in the past. However, my latest attempts produce a red message: "The wikitext you entered doesn't contain a valid license template" (even though the preview button indicates they are valid), and I'm not able to proceed any further. If I go to the country specific tags webpage, under 'Australia', there are no tags listed, only "No information available". What's going on? Why are the tags for Australia no longer valid? Ikeshut2 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikeshut2: Where are you seeing the error and when did it occur? You uploaded a file with those templates yesterday, and that seems to have worked. If the error happened as a one-off incident today, it could have been a temporary server-based error. Try again after a few hours and see if it repeats. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Yes, it is a recent error. Ikeshut2 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikeshut2: It looks like Commons:UploadWizard tests for the presence of {{License template tag}} (see mw.UploadWizardLicenseInput.js and CommonSettings.php), which User:Jarekt removed from {{PD-Layout}} and the other license base templates earlier today. I'm working on fixing it now. —RP88 (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was getting the same error in the upload wizard earlier for the "PD-US-no notice" tag. So it's good to know someone is looking into the issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed now. —RP88 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still missing a few license tags, see: Commons:Copyright tags/Oceania. Bidgee (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bidgee: I am not sure what your point is, but that page is irrelevant to the error that was occurring yesterday with UploadWizard. As I mentioned above, UploadWizard depends on {{License template tag}}, it does not consult Commons:Copyright tags/Oceania or any other subpage of Commons:Copyright tags. If you want something changed at Commons:Copyright tags/Oceania you might try adding a note to its talk page. —RP88 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact the license tags are missing for numerous countries isn’t irrelevant. They were showing but now they aren’t, only “No information available” is displayed. Bidgee (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bidgee: You have misunderstood. RP88 is not saying your problem is irrelevant, they are saying that your problem is not related to the current discussion. You have found a new problem and joined an unrelated discussion, which has caused a bit of confusion. It would be best to start a new discussion and explain the problem again. When was the last time you saw the tags on that page? Which countries are you certain had tags showing previously? The Oceania page includes translation code and transclusions (with the translcuded pages in turn having translation code); there are a lot of potential areas for something to have broken. Knowing which tags have disappeared and the time frame will help editors track back related changes to find the cause. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there are a large number of license tags missing. Last time I looked was about the time just before {{License template tag}} was removed and they were there. When the UploadWizard issue appeared, I noticed this one, if they aren’t connected and happens to be at the same time so be it (I’m not to know). Bidgee (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Data (Brazil)[edit]

Hello,

I was looking into the Brazilian Decree nº 8777 which has an interesting Chapter 2 (Translating with DeepL):

"Art. 4 The data made available by the Federal Executive Branch and the active transparency information are free to use by the Public Authorities and by society. (Edited by Decree no. 9.903, of 2019)

§ Paragraph 1 Authorizes the free use of databases and information made available under the terms of item XIII of the caput of Article 7 of Law No. 9,610, of February 19, 1998, and whose copyright holder is the Federal Government, under the terms of Article 29 of said Law. (Included by Decree No. 9.903, of 2019)

§ Paragraph 2 - The Federal Executive Branch is obliged to indicate the holder of copyrights belonging to third parties and the conditions of use authorized by them in the disclosure of databases protected by copyrights referred to in item XIII of the caput of art. 7 of Law No. 9,610 of 1998. (Included by Decree No. 9.903, of 2019)"

Would this really mean that the materials produced by the Brazilian Government should be free to use on Commons under an expansion of Template:PD-Brazil-Gov or even a new template (example GODL-India)? I'm personally curious about the possible use of texts and images (of public and historical interest) released under the Freedom of Information Law here. I'm also worried with the fact that the official gov.br domain is under CC BY-ND 3.0 Deed, which may create some eventual deletion requests if this domain is used as a source for the files. Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Freedom of Information Act", it covers the Brazilian Government (União Federal), the States, the Federal District and the Cities in general. By the paragraph 2 from the above decree, only the third party materials would receive a different license. Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this 2020 discussion is understood that the Decree 9903, which edits the Decree 8777, makes mandatory the free/nonrestricted use of the Government Data, going against any restrict CC license - the Decree 9756, which created the gov.br domain, doesn't mention any type of license. Erick Soares3 (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erick Soares3: Do our accepted file types count as data under the Decree 9903?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. The decree only says about data and information, without mentioning any file type. Using this example from the Brazilian Space Agency, I believe that most data from the Data Base would be CSV and JSON. Erick Soares3 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And @Jeff G.: since the Decree also covers the "Freedom of Information Act" as being Open Data, you can add "PDF" files in the mix. There's even a official search website for the FOIA requests - maybe a template linking to this site could be useful to cite the original requests. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I emailed the Open Data Portal and they replied me that they use the following licenses: Creative Commons Attribution; Cc-Zero; ODbL and PDDL. While this might not make a new template necessary, would be interesting to at least link this info (or this discussion, after it goes to archive) at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil? Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notice on US Government work?[edit]

I found a Air National Guard recruiting poster with a notice in the bottom left corner reading "©1989 United States Government as represented by the Secretary of Defense. All rights reserved." Aren't all works by the American government public domain, making this notice erroneous? Suspiciouscelery (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is erroneous. Nosferattus (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Suspiciouscelery: Yes, we probably have Dick Cheney to thank for that, but it could have been one of his two predecessors that year.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only chance that is correct is if it was a third-party copyright assigned to the U.S. Government. Not likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this poster in the April 1991 edition of the U.S. Government Printing Office's Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications at catalog entry 91-8849 on page 32. The publisher was the U.S. National Guard Bureau. On page I-555 is the contract number index, a list of documents that the GPO knows were prepared by third-parties under grants or contracts. The list is small and does not include 91-8849. While this does not completely eliminate the possibility of a third-party copyright, I think it is very likely that this poster is {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}}. —RP88 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image(s): Princess Indira and Maharani Chimnabi[edit]

Hello! I'm new to this. I've uploaded an image: MAHARANI CHIMNABI II which I'm fairly certain is in the public domain due it being published in the late 1800s. However, aside from a BBC outlet, I was unable to find a direct/original source for it. Will it be on Flickr? And is the source link being the BBC page alright?

Additionally, I've found this image of Indira Bayi (Travancore): (https://www.thehindu.com/society/the-life-and-times-of-indira-varma-princess-of-travancore/article19325070.ece) which is also in the Public Domain in India and the US. I'm unable to access further details because its behind a paywall. Could I upload it? Alljijhuiiniiyu (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MAHARANI CHIMNABAI II OF BARODA (1891).webp is OK. Yann (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's good to know.
The other image I mentioned, when I do a cursory search online, seems to be in Manu S. Pillai's book "The Ivory Throne", which I have not read but he might've the author there? I do know that the image was taken and published in 1937 so it should be in Public Domain. Alljijhuiiniiyu (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit more problematic, as Indian copyright will only have expired in 1997. That means that due to the URAA it would still be copyrighted in the US until 2032 inclusive. Felix QW (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind - I had misread COM:India to mean that the extension to 60 years applied to all photographs still under copyright in 1958, but apparently it applies only to photographs created after that date. In that case, copyright expired in 1987 and everything is fine. Felix QW (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm glad to hear that! Alljijhuiiniiyu (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sport kit drawing image and copyright licence template[edit]

Looking at various discussions about the kits, I saw that most have the usual copyright licenses (I, the copyright holder of this work, etc.), while some have the template {{PD-textlogo}} (like this). Since the clothes are not copyrighted (Clothing), but the sports kits are (Sports uniforms/kits), from what I understand, there is a belief that the latter can be on commons without logos, there is another perspective from some who say that these small images lack originality, while if I understand correctly, there is also a belief that perhaps some kits with complex designs (maybe like that) are subject to copyright (from the discussion).

Based on the fact that most of these files are uploaded with the team names and are painted thumbnails of the actual sports teams' kits, while most of these files list the uploader as the copyright holder, is this correct? If not, what copyright license should be used? What is generally the case with all this? Phailonick (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phailonick: For those who don't know, "kit" is the uniform worn by an association football (soccer) team (or goalie). Most of these small PNG representations of parts of kits are probably below TOO in the source countries, so not to be worried about. On enwiki, en:Template:Infobox football club uses such kit files, and there are counterparts on 102 other language Wikipedias. en:Template:Football kit does too, and has counterparts on 106 other language Wikipedias. I have yet to find a guide or set of standards for them. If you find out, please let me know.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Yes, but isn't it more covering for the uploader to use template {{PD-textlogo}} instead of a template like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} (when talking about specialized team kits, not generic designs)?

A photograph containing a derivative of an image which might be hard to find the origin of[edit]

The image File:Spoilt ballot in Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner Elections.jpg, used in the English Wikipedia page for Spoilt vote, is an image of a deliberately spoilt ballot paper, the subject of the image containing what appears to be a photo of a police officer attached to the ballot. Because it is black and white, has text superimposed on it, and is being photographed itself, it might be very difficult to reverse-image search the image, which this Commons file is a derivative of, to find its copyright status. Additionally, the uploader claimed to have created their image of the spoilt ballot themselves (which they have released under a free license), although I think it is unlikely that the photo attached to the ballot was taken by them. Is it possible to find the origin of the photo in question, and regardless of whether it can, does it need deleting under the precautionary principle? Xeroctic (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea Media[edit]

Hello, everyone! I want to upload photo of the new North Korean MBT, but this photo was made by Korean Central News Agency. Is it possible to upload file or not? Maybe, I need a permission from it? Thanks! Stoffel Vandorn (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Commons, all media is assumed to be protected by copyright unless there's a reason for it not to be (e.g. it is 500 years old, the creator released it under a free license, et cetera). Hope this helps. Bremps... 06:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility of Magellan's Cross Pavilion mural[edit]

Hello. Is the local enwiki file w:en:File:Magellan's Cross inside night view (P. Burgos, Cebu City; 01-23-2024).jpg eligible here on Commons? It may be dismissed as focusing on the cross, but I have some concern that it may not be eligible here because of the non-incidental presence of the ceiling mural. Per this site, the cited authors were painters Jess Roa and Serry M. Josol (the painters' names were signed on the artwork). The site further claims that it is not known when the painting was made but a 1965 photo implies it was already existing on the pavilion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Public domain status of European harmonised standards[edit]

Following a lawsuit by Carl Malamud against the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled today in case C‑588/21 (press release) that «a harmonised standard, adopted on the basis of a directive [...] forms part of EU law». It follows that such harmonised standards are in the public domain and we can host them on Wikimedia Commons.

To have a transparent discussion about this, I've also uploaded one such standard and I've opened a discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EN 301 549 V3.2.1 (2021-03).pdf. Please participate. Nemo 13:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the lawyers' press release. Nemo 06:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the CEN/CENELEC press release which is in complete denial. Nemo 12:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the ruling said they were public domain, exactly, just that they form part of EU law. It may be like the difference between a public record and public domain -- the copyright protection does not mean that access can be refused. That latter press release tried to throw doubt on the standards even being reproduced by third parties, but that seems unlikely to be barred. However, also not sure there is an automatic derivative right in these. I.e. some other body can't take the standard and make changes. Is there an explicit copyright status for EU law specified anywhere? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain status of EU law across the EU follows from various national and EU rulings, but there may not have been an explicit CJEU ruling on the matter because it was never questioned. There was some information in the speeches by the judges during the hearing and in the Advocate General opinion. If DIN/CEN/CENELEC keep pushing the copyrightability in lower courts, we can expect the issue to be deferred to the CJEU again by some judge in Germany, but it's hardly controversial. Nemo 16:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I gathered in the press reports about this decision, the CJEU ruled that the European Commission must publish these standards so that they can be accessed free of charge. Several reactions also emphasise that the standards now should be accessible free of charge. I haven't read any reaction claiming that they are in the public domain. In fact the German standards body DIN welcomed that the court did not question the copyright protection of harmonised norms in general. --Rosenzweig τ 16:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely that EN harmonized standards will become accessible without cost, while CEN/CENELC/ETSI retain other rights (eg modification and merging into derivativw works), so they won't be public domain. SV1XV (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course you wouldn't expect the entity which sued Carl Malamud for copyright infringement to celebrate the public domain status of the standards. Nemo 12:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That they're not "celebrating" does not automatically mean they're wrong. --Rosenzweig τ 13:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't those standards automatically copyrighted per the Berne Convention?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the question is if there is something like {{PD-EdictGov}} for the EU which would change that status. The decision may be somewhere in between, which allows no-cost access and reproduction but no derivative works (and possibly not allowing reprinting for profit). If so, it would be the vague equivalent of CC-BY-NC-ND. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S Passport not protected by copyright... right?[edit]

Are U.S. passport photos protected by copyright? I would've thought so, as the photographer has no room for creativity. However, this Wikipedia discussion and this Wikimedia Commons question ("Using passport photo.") both did not reach a conclusion. Does anyone have a definitive answer? The files in question are this and this. Bremps... 01:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to this one, but it's a Swedish passport. Bremps... 02:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We discuss it a bit here: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/02#"Booth_Pictures"_and_U._S._Threshold_of_Originality. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which way would we err if it's not settled law? Bremps... 06:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are all images on Government of India-owned websites subject to the Government Open Data License (GODL)[edit]

About the picture I included and found on a Government of India website, depicting Santi Sudha Ghosh, does the Government Open Data License apply to this specific image? Also, does the permission for using this image follow the general rules for using pictures on Government of India websites? Or are there special rules just for this image? CharlieMehta (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On en:File:Santi Sudha Ghosh.jpg, you have given a direct link to the image at https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/Santi-sudha-Ghosh-US-1.jpg. Can you provide a link to the page where you found the image? The page may have useful context for us to answer your question. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore I found this image at this link https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/unsung-heroes-detail.htm?4320. CharlieMehta (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few years back, I requested some Indian people involved in Wikimedia projects to get a legal opinion from a lawyer. This never came, so I wonder now where and when the GODL is valid. Yann (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most arguments I have seen is that is only valid where explicitly stated. Which is mainly just the data.in.gov website only, as far as I have seen, and then usually not for photos (if ever). However, some of their government websites have a license which could be construed to be free (such as this one). Without a statement like that, I would not upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg Here's the Terms of Service document at https://www.nic.in/terms-of-use/, contains lot of ambiguity. But does this also apply to its subdomain sites? CharlieMehta (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pat Ast and Shelley Duvall.jpg nominated for deletion[edit]

Link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pat Ast and Shelley Duvall.jpg. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City Center Building in Homs, Syria[edit]

While we are probably aware that Syria has no suitable Freedom of Panorama, I stumbled upon these images of a suspected modern building in Homs. Is the building acceptable here? I cannot immediately find any information online, other than claims that it was once a modernist building but since the start of the civil war there all its windows have been blown out. It may be OK here if the architect has been dead since 1973 (if he is known) or if the building was completed before 1974 (if the architect is unknown). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the European Commission Audiovisual Service licence template[edit]

Link: Template talk:EC-Audiovisual Center#March 2024 update Joofjoof (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion at Fani Willis 2023.jpg[edit]

Hey all, thought to ask some of the more experienced people here whether a simple "yes" to "may you release this image into the public domain for Wikipedia" (or some similar phrasing) implies that the copyright holder understands the concept of public domain. The copyright holder is a politician who is trying to walk back her releasing the image into the public domain after seeing news media use the image in a way she does not like. The relevant deletion discussion is here. Bremps... 06:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=861747752"