< Commons:Village pump
(Redirected from Village pump/Copyright)


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
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.
[edit]

It's not clear how COM:SIG Japan applies to File:Signature Hisahito.png, but it's clear that this is almost certainly not the own-work of its uploader Spectra321578 unless the uploader is claiming to be en:Prince Hisahito of Akishino. If it's truly the uploader's own work and they're not Prince Hisahito, it seems that Commons shouldn't be hosting it because doing so would be considered misleading at the very least. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The signature is based on his name, what's not clear? This is my own work, why are you butting in? Spectra321578 (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a genuine trace of his signature or an artists recreation Cyberwolf (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
genuine of course Spectra321578 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a grey area imo they traced the signature or photographed the signature which makes them the creator of said image and content but content was originally by someone else so… Cyberwolf (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is no problem with considering it "free," but it should probably be described as a "traced signature" rather than just a "signature", and both authors should be acknowledged. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do it interestingly? Spectra321578 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not responding earlier. I was away from a computer for a the past few days and couldn't respond. Are you en:Prince Hisahito of Akishino? If you're not, then this signature isn't your COM:Own work per se; it's either (at the very least) a slavish reproduction of Prince Hisahito's signature or (at the very worst) a en:signature forgery if you're trying to claim it's actually his signature. Most signatures (typically as the word signature is understood in English) aren't generaly considered creative enough to warrant copyright protection as explained in COM:When to use the PD-signature tag. In some cases, though, such as a signature that's more than simply a person's signed name (e.g. when it's done in en:caligraphy or in this case en:Shodo), it's possible that there's enough creative input involved to push it above the COM:Threshold of originality. In such a case, however, the individual who the signature belongs to would be its copyright holder, which in this case would be Prince Hisahito. So, if you're not Prince Hisahito, you shouldn't really be trying to claim copyright authorship over his signature. On the other hand, if your intent was simply to be your recreation or some kind of COM:Fan art of Prince Hisahito's signature, then you shouldn't have been trying to pass it off as his authentic signature by using it in the English Wikipedia article about him. It has basically zero encyclopedic value to English Wikipedia if it wasn't signed by Prince Hisahito's own hand. It's also questionable whether it has any real education value for the purposes of COM:SCOPE and is not simply just a case of COM:PERSONAL. You've uploaded several other files of signatures (e.g., File:Emperor Shijo.png) and other types of text (e.g., File:Urbi Et Orbi Leone XIV.png) as your "own work", which also have the same problems as this one. You might want to take a closer look at COM:L since you seem to be misunderstanding some important things about Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd note that COM:TOO varies among countries, and in the US, signatures and calligraphy aren't copyrightable. We need to be very careful about being specific about the country in these discussions, because there is a lot of variance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) This file along with several others by the same uploader are currently being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Spectra321578. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Can this Vulgate be uploaded here? RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UK has a 25-year copyright on a typographical arrangement, so at the very least that has not passed for that particular PDF layout. The preface was new in 2006, so that part is 70pma. Unsure if this is identical to source texts, or if there were corrections made or selections made from slightly differing source texts, and if that particular combination would get a copyright in the UK, which has a low threshold of originality. Bit more dubious on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Europe #2

[edit]

There are two vector version uploaded locally: former logo (1999-2013) and current logo. May I upload them here, specifying where they come from, with {{Euroflag}} and {{Trademarked}}?-- Carnby (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnby: Probably, but I'm not sure. Please don't be offended if the are DR'd for some reason. - Jmabel ! talk 02:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this free use? Photo mainly of a public artwork

[edit]

File:Hume MRT Station, Singapore (2025) - img 02.jpg - this is a photo mainly featuring part of the official (government-approved) artwork of a train station in Singapore. Could experienced users advise on whether it is free use? Thank you. Starship.paint (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: I'm not expert on the copyright laws of Singapore, but in most countries "government-approved" has no bearing on copyright. Is there something I'm unaware of in Singapore's law on this? - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chainwit.: as uploader. - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, Singapore has a rather open and free FoP (see FoP-Singapore). I've seen older uploads without problems here, as far as I'm aware:
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if I missed the point.
-- Chainwit. (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chainwit. I doubt so, unless the artworks are tiles or mosaics that qualify those as "works of artistic craftsmanship". If those works are paintings (by muralists or painters), then those are notOK as Singaporean FoP does not cover flat arts whose artists are not craftsmen (like murals, paintings, and frescoes made of paint, not colored mosaics or tiles). Singaporean FoP was inherited from the British FoP model. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'm not too keen on these topic either but in that case, it would include the following cases (of "Art in Transit") too?
Or am I missing the point of the artwork being the main subject in the photograph as well?
Very keen to learn more. Please guide me. Thank you. -- Chainwit. (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chainwit. luckily, the guideline page "Commons:Artistic craftsmanship" has just been created. You may read that. (See also the sections below, especially one concerning Ireland, whose FoP rule was inherited from the British FoP rule. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sure helps. Thanks a lot! -- Chainwit. (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Street Art Murals in the Republic of Ireland

[edit]

Per Template:FoP-Ireland works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in a public place or premises open to the public are legally allowed to be photographed.

COM:FOP Ireland has more detail for those who wish to review further.

Currently, photographs of Street Art murals in Ireland are being mass deleted (See Category:Irish_FOP_cases) following nominations by User:A1Cafel. Unfortunately, these were individual nominations rather than a mass deletion nomination which would have provoked more discussion around such large deletions. User:TheImaCow commented on this fact.

In light of the fact there are 46 files of this kind up for deletion and a further 296 files which may have been deleted incorrectly; can we please have some serious discussion to verify if photographs of murals in Ireland can or cannot be hosted on the Commons? Because if it's fine, a massive undelete needs to occur. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy, Krd, and IronGargoyle: , Could you weigh in on this matter as you approved a number of the deletion nominations? CeltBrowne (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my reading of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, murals are generally classified as paintings (graphic works), not "works of artistic craftsmanship." The freedom of panorama exception applies to 2D works of artistic craftsmanship, but murals, as standard paintings, are excluded from this exception. "Artistic craftsmanship" is a term used in copyright legislation for works exhibiting both artistry and craftsmanship, including forms of artistic expression beyond the conventions of paintings, drawings, and sculptures. Examples of works granted copyright protection under this category include hand-painted tiles and stained glass. While some murals may involve specialized techniques (e.g., frescoes), most fall under typical painting methods, which do not meet the high threshold required for "artistic craftsmanship" under Irish copyright law. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great explanation, thank you. I will add that it isn't easy to find reporting on the concept of artistic craftsmanship in Ireland specifically (the one article I can find is [1]), but the term is used in many countries' copyright acts and the reporting from other countries tends to align with your explanation. Consigned (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is closely aligned with the UK in this regards in my experience, and therefore I find https://www.dacs.org.uk/advice/articles/what-is-visual-arts-copyright/artistic-craftsmanship helpful here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to do a better job of defining artistic craftsmanship on this project - Josve05a has the correct answer here, but it's 100% understandable how CeltBrowne came to the conclusion they did. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Head of USCO fired

[edit]

Not really a question for anyone, but this feels like a possible harbinger of changes - or claims of changes - to the legal regime in the US, particularly around AI-generated works and material. Undoubtedly most of the folks here are already aware, but probably good to keep an eye on this.

The Washington Post (5/11/25): "White House fires head of Copyright Office amid Library of Congress shakeup" 19h00s (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside whether the firing is actually legally effective, the Copyright Office has no role in determining what the law is; only courts actually provide authoritative interpretations of the statutes. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very much am not saying this means the law will change. Just saying it's a possibly big change at USCO that clearly merits some attention. In my personal opinion this won't stand legally, but the courts have proven me wrong a few times this year so it's probably better to keep an eye on this than ignore it. Especially if whoever is chosen as "interim" or "acting" Register has as cavalier an attitude toward legal guardrails as some other new federal agency/department heads. 19h00s (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permissions/copyright status for File:Ano Soudena - Ano Pedina.jpg ?

[edit]

File:Ano Soudena - Ano Pedina.jpg is marked at "own work". It was uploaded in 2017, with metadata showing it was taken in 2017. It appears to be a photograph of a 1930 poster, with writing in Greek at the bottom. User:Christtwice1 uploaded it marked as "own work", with permissions ... "I, the copyright holder of this work..." I'm not sure if this is a copyright violation or just an unclear attribution. (Note: The uploader has not been active since 2017.) - ERcheck (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It happens a thousand times every day and we can do nothing against it. Many uploaders simply don't understand that making a reproduction, a scan, or even uploading a copy found somewhere online does not produce an own work. The wrong date usually comes from the metadata written by the scanning device. When I stumble across such an image I silently change the date and replace the license with an appropriate PD tag, usually not even notifying the uploader. I never got any negative response for doing so. Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Herbert Ortner: yes, as far as that goes. But are you saying that the copyright status of this work is clear? If so, what is that status? - Jmabel ! talk 05:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion copyright status is not clear. I would use PD-anon-70-EU in cases like this but there's no real proof for an anonymous publication (or just an unknown author). That's just closer to the truth than any CC license given by the uploader. This one could be a postcard with the photographer's or publisher's name on the back - we just don't know. Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Herbert Ortner: "we just don't know" so under the precautionary principle, we delete. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Greece, copyrights last for 70 years after the creator's death. The upload offers no information about the photographer of the original image. Certainly, the original poster was not created by the uploader. As the uploader has not been active since 2017, sending a talk page message inquiring about the origin of the 1930 poster would most likely not be answered. - ERcheck (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Artistic craftsmanship

[edit]

Since confusion about freedom of panorama for murals in the UK and countries with copyright laws based on the UK's has come up several times (including three sections above this post), I've created Commons:Artistic craftsmanship. I would appreciate it if other people could take a look, make any corrections, and tighten up any overly wordy language. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: Since your reply above seemed pretty spot on, I figured you'd be a good person to take a look. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I added value or not... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I've made it overly complicated and long now. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You open with ""Works of artistic craftsmanship" are objects with a utilitarian purpose...". Can you substantiate the requirement for utility? Consider this thought experiment: A potter makes a jug as part of an artistic display, which deliberately includes a hole in is base, rendering it unusable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added that, that wording is simply introducing the page. If you can word it better please do. Consigned (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC). Edit: Actually I didn't add that bit, but it seems to be a reasonable summarization to me, of course improvements are welcomed. Consigned (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple sheet music diagrams

[edit]

I'm skeptical of the copyright status of simple sheet music diagrams and MIDI files like these:

  • Standard ukulele tuning (C6 chord)
    Standard ukulele tuning (C6 chord)
  • Sequence of intervals
    Sequence of intervals
  • Another sequence of intervals
    Another sequence of intervals
  • Bass guitar tuning
    Bass guitar tuning
  • Honorable mention: this is a MIDI file, not a sound recording

They're basically sheet music representations of basic musical concepts and, imo, are copyrightable only to the extent that they consist of copyrightable musical works or creative arrangements or embellishments of musical facts (like layout or color coding). Merely representing them as sheet music images doesn't make them copyrightable. Likewise, a sheet music representation of a public domain musical work would be a faithful reproduction, not a derivative work, unless there is creative arrangement or embellishment involved.

The first image borders on {{PD-chord}} as it's a standard C6 chord on a ukulele, but the selection and arrangement involved (representing the same chord on a G clef above a tablature) might push it above the threshold of originality.

The second and third images are basically {{PD-tone row}}.

The fourth image is an arpeggio (possibly {{PD-chord}} or {{PD-musical set}}) but adds red to highlight the notes that are not always part of the bass guitar tuning. This too could be a sufficiently original choice, but I'm not sure.

File number 5 is a MIDI file, so it would only be protected as a musical work, not a sound recording - but it's just a representation of standard reentrant ukulele tuning.

I hesitate to change the license tags out of respect for the licensors' wishes, in case these files are indeed copyrightable, but I'd appreciate any guidance from others here as to whether they are in the public domain, and if so, which PD tags are the best fit for each case. Qzekrom (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the tag doesn't provide much advantatge to Commons, Wikimedia projects or reusers.
  • In Commons and Wikimedia projects which free license the media has doesn't matter much. The only difference I'm aware of is that PD images can be used without a link (for attribution) and that derivative works need to cite the original and license accordingly.
  • For reusers, the tag doesn't change the status of non copyrightable media. If the file is not copyrightable in the reusers'country, they can use it as PD, no matter what Commons says.
Therefore, I wouldn't change the tag unless I were very sure that the file is PD in all the world, and even then I would see the priority of that task as very low. Pere prlpz (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 4th example above might not be "simple" for some countries where TOO is said to be "very low" (a famous e.g. UK). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Investigative Reporting images

[edit]

Hello there. Some images, such as Sevlid Hurtić CIN.jpg and Lidija Bradara CIN.jpg from the Bosnian Center for Investigative Reporting, have been uploaded locally on to Wikipedia with the Center for Investigative Reporting license. Also, when you go to the very bottom of the website, it says, translated from Bosnian: "Acquisition of content from the Center for Investigative Journalism is permitted with the obligatory reference to the source www.cin.ba". I am now wondering whether these images can be exported to Commons. Also, it says in the aforementioned images that "If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license", but I have been made aware that I can just ignore this redirection as it is used mistakenly on en.wikipedia. Still, I am wondering if the license used on these images is okay for me to go ahead and export them to Commons without the images getting deleted. Bakir123 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Commons:Help desk#Center for Investigative Reporting images, I suggested to the user to ask the question here. I think that the main question is if the template Attribution is an adequate interpretation of the permission notice of the cin.ba website. The last part of the question probably just reflects the result of a mistake by the uploader of the files, see the comment at the help desk. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is citation allowed in image description?

[edit]

I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it. Question: Is it a COPYVIO to use a short quote from a non-free literary work (e.g. a famous phrase from a novel, a line or several lines from a poem, with attribution to the author and work, of course) in the description of an image uploaded to Commons? Vsatinet (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsatinet: Typically not (such quotations can sometimes be used on a "fair use" basis, but Commons makes little allowance for any sort of fair use), nor does it seem like it would often even be appropriate to quote something literary here, copyrighted or not.
Can you give an example of where this would be useful? - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answer. You're right, in the vast majority of cases using quotation or other unusual description is inappropriate for Commons. But sometimes I really want to change obvious and trivial description of the depicted object with something more interesting. In fact it's related to Commons Photo Challenge which is run largely for the fun of the participants.
As for examples let consider such (theoretical) cases: photo of burning paper (there was a challenge dedicated to fire) with description "Fahrenheit 451" (the title of a famous novel by Ray Bradbury); landscape or vegetation of tundra described with lines from poem "Tundra Shadows" by poet and songwriter Alexander Gorodnitsky. And so on. Maybe it's my personal quirk, but sometimes I like such associations and I think it's quite possible to use them where appropriate. Vsatinet (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content in the descriptions and captions should be free or freely-licensed too. Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia#Requirements of frequently-used licenses states that text in Commons is CC BY-SA and GFDL, and confusingly the Upload Wizard says that text and data will be licensed as CC0, but either way including copyright content could cause problems for re-users. I don't know where to draw the line between providing the title of a book (probably OK), a line of a poem (?), a few lines of a poem (maybe not OK), the whole poem (not OK), but it's generally better to err on the side of caution. Consigned (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vsatinet: Just grabbing a title like that is probably legally OK (pretty much what Consigned said, in that respect), but is usually not what would make a good description for Commons' purposes of discoverability and of clarity as to what the image shows. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Consigned: the CC-zero thing refers to the caption and other SDC. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frame challenge suggestion: There are a few thousands of years worth of literature that may provide great public domanin captions for photo contest images. Pere prlpz (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo question

[edit]

Is this this logo unoriginal enough to be considered public domain? Thanks! Rainsage (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What country is it from? Nakonana (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
according to the organization's facebook page, it is based in the United States and provides services in Gaza, Palestine. Rainsage (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For U.S. (which is probably what is relevant) it's near the border, so precautionary principle probably means don't do it without getting a license. - Jmabel ! talk 04:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks! Rainsage (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rainsage a version only containing the letters (without the watermelon half) would be PD-textlogo certainly. Bedivere (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Status of UK signatures after THJ v Sheridan

[edit]

As discussed at COM:TOO UK, the 2023 court case of THJ v Sheridan moved the threshold of originality to a somewhat higher threshold of "author's own intellectual creation". I doubt many signatures would be above this threshold, but the section at COM:SIG UK has not been updated to this effect. Should that be done? And, if so, perhaps we should consider a mass restoration of deleted UK signatures? A mass restoration of logos would not have made sense, because many logos still fall above the relatively low UK threshold, but that doesn't seem likely for simple signatures any more. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo de Piedmont Airlines

[edit]

Buenas ,se puede publicar el logo de Piedmont Airlines como este (el logo fue creado en EEUU)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put the logo right at ToO-US. It's only 4 lines/quadrilaterals, but those lines suggest a bird. So COM:PCP says do not upload. Glrx (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Como este (File:Piedmont Airlines logo.svg) aparece como PD-textlogo AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

If a book was registered validly with the US copyright office in 1985, but was only published in 1987 and all copies carry an invalid registration (they do not name any claimant), would that repair the copyright notice? I know from 1978 to 1989 you had a 5 year time period to repair an invalid notice by registration {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but the way the COM:Hirtle chart is written, it does not seem to me that this would apply to pre-registration? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which book? Personally, I doubt I'd touch it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure 80s American occult one entitled The Templar Tradition in the Age of Aquarius. The cover is PD for sure (because it needed a separate notice and one did not exist) but I was curious about the book.
I felt it raised broader questions and I have never seen a prior registration on something with an invalid notice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can register an unpublished work just fine. The federal copyright clock started then. What year was on the copyright notice? Registering before was one step you needed to take to save the copyright, but not the only one. The other steps are harder to prove though. The circular says copyright could be saved if the work was registered before or within five years after the publication without notice and a reasonable effort was made to add notice to all copies or phonorecords distributed in the United States after the omission was discovered. So the earlier registration would serve for that requirement. If just a relatively few copies were without notice, that would also be OK.
The Compendium does say: Separated name -- When copies or phonorecords contain a name, abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alterna­ tive designation of the copyright owner, that is separated from the other elements of the notice, but that could reasonably be considered part of the notice, the notice is acceptable. Where the copies or phonorecords contain two or more names abbreviations, or alternative designa­tions that are equally identifiable with the rest of the notice, the notice is sufficient if any of the names, abbreviations, or alter­native designations is capable of identifying any person or entity as an owner of copyright. If none of the names, abbreviations, or alter­ native designations is identifiable with the rest of the notice, the same action is taken as where there is an omission of the copyright notice. 17 U.S.C. 406(c).
Also: Identity by reference. A notice that identi­fies the copyright owner by reference, such as, for example, "Copyright by author," or "Copyright by the publisher," is considered acceptable by the Copyright Office, if the copies or phonorecords contain a name, abbreviation, or a generally known designation which is identified by the reference as the author, publisher, or other referenced person or legal entity. If no such name, abbreviation, or generally known designation can be identified on the copies or phonorecords, the same action is taken as where there is an omission of the copyright notice. 17 U.S.C. 406(c) and 405.
Is there an author name anywhere on the publication? Even if not this seems difficult to prove, at best. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clindberg "clark" => "clock"? (my first thought was "clerk" but I couldn't make any sense of that.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, "clock". Just fixed that. Well, I guess that was before 1978 -- the 28 year term until renewal requirement started then. Since 1978 it's automatically under federal protection from creation, and the term is based on the author's lifetime, and not date of registration. (Works for hire are still based on date of publication; before 1978 that could mean date of registration if registered as an unpublished work). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg It simply says Copyright 1987, with no author or anything, with no name anywhere near the notice. All of the copies have that error. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an obvious author or publisher? Particularly one that matches the name on the registration? Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox

[edit]

Is there any consensus about how to deal with Roblox screenshots

I understand that with almost every game Roblox is licensed under a proprietary license. However Roblox is also a game relying entirely on user-generated content. In cases where someone uploads a screenshot of something they themselves have created in Roblox would we be justified in deleting said image? Trade (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Roblox, so I can only speak generally. Per the Roblox terms of service, with some exceptions, users own the user-generated content (UGC) that they make available through the Roblox services. That said, works incorporating pre-existing material (including both derivative works and compilations) are subject to both the copyright in the pre-existing material (owned by Roblox and/or other users) and the copyright in the derivative or composite work (owned by the user).
So a screenshot from a Roblox game should be fine as long as all the visual elements in it are (a) owned by the user, (b) uncopyrightable elements like basic geometric shapes, or (c) released under a free license. The template {{Free screenshot}} has some further guidance on when screenshots are okay. Qzekrom (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Bursi photographs --> Commons

[edit]

Are any of the black and white ID style photographs here (on the Turin Polytechnic site) picturing the Italian mid-century modernist architect w:Ada Bursi acceptable for use on Commons? [NB: The Italian version of this page shows 4 photos, while the English page only displays the first (1/4).] Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginably, but they don't provide the information that would let us determine that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Best way to solve? Image 1/4 is presumably the oldest (late 1920s or early 1930s), would it be safe to use that one? Need an image to ID the subject in enwiki article. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright term for photographs in Italy is 70 years after the death of the photographer (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy). Therefore, without even knowing the photographer those images may not be in the public domain and therefore they aren't safe to upload to Commons. Pere prlpz (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The images are from the Archivio Storico del Politecnico di Torino, which is presumably a public institution ("università statali") of some sort. Is there anything concerning the use of works held in the archives of Italian public educational institutions that might apply in this case? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of anything where an institution obtaining a copy of a photo would change its copyright status. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the "Government works" section of the Italian copyright rules, esp. clauses relating to academy, or private legal entities of a non-profit-making character, as well the various clauses about [works] made for the public administration or for non-profit organisations [and] non-creative photographs, etc. If 1/4 is a university ID photograph, then would it not fall under some or all of the above definition(s)? (Bear with me, I'm not an attorney.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you found those images in a university website doesn't make them government works. In fact, if you are right that those images were made decades before Ada Bursi became architect, it's very unlikely that any government photographer took them.
That is, we shouldn't mix "created on behalf of the government" with "there is a copy of the image in a government website". Pere prlpz (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last shot at this: 1/4 appears to be a typical (for that era) ID photograph of a very young Bursi, so at the very least it is non-creative (which would mean a term of 20 years since creation, per above). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, in Italy the definition of non creative photograph is vague but very narrow. If it were a Spanish photograph I'd say it is non creative but for Italy it's not so clear cut. Pere prlpz (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I suppose unless somebody is inclined to pursue this directly with the Archivio Storico del Politecnico di Torino, it's a dead-end then. Too bad, it seemed like a good bet (especially 1/4). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Archivo is unlikely to have the rights, although it could provide more information.
About the id photo, you can wait for input from somebody mor knowledgeable than me on Italian copyright, or you can research on past deletion requests on similar Italian cases, or, if doubts persist, you can try to upload it and see if somebody requests its deletion. Pere prlpz (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. I may just try to use it locally on enwiki with a "Non-free" template (which would be a shame, as it's much preferable to have these things here, as we all no doubt agree). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Street View

[edit]

According to a law journal article, Google Street View images in the US could be public domain, at least if I have understood it correctly. Can Commons allow US Google Street View photos? See here. Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's arguable, since the driver is simply driving on the streets, with the rest being automated. Not sure we have allowed those though. I'm even less sure on the argument about aerial photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly human involvement in the process, unlike a CCTV camera - All the Ways Google Gets Street View Images | WIRED PascalHD (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the Hughes article being cited here is essentially an opinion piece, not a ruling. Some of the other positions it takes, e.g. that aerial and satellite photographs are inherently uncreative and should not be protected by copyright, are significantly at odds with the reality that copyrights on this types of images are claimed and enforced. Omphalographer (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where can we find more information about the enforcement of copyright for aerial photos? Howardcorn33 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what makes an aerial photo any different from other photos. I presume they mean methodical aerial photos over an entire area, but you still have a pilot positioning the camera even if everything else is automated. Obviously you can't stop anyone else from making very similar photos but I'd have to imagine they would have copyright on the precise ones they took. I've not seen anything like that in there copyright appeals decisions where they don't give a copyright to a photo. They have given copyrights to security videos. Outside of straight-on photographs of paintings, and things like x-rays, not sure we have any evidence of photos being denied registration. I do see a registration of a "AerPic Aerial Photography", among many aerial photos. I see one registration VA0002409890 which is a set of 744 aerial photographs (750 is the max you can register in one group), with a title of "aerial photographs 2024" and it covering three months. It would help to know what the law journal is basing their opinion on -- were there rejections or a court case or something? Google has registered precious little, and I don't see anything like their street view stuff, but they don't really have to. They certainly have a copyright notice on the aerial photography and street view parts of Google Maps. You'd have to prove that wrong in court. Basically, without some solid backing where a similar copyright got denied by a court or at least the U.S. Copyright Office, I think such things would have significant doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you for this response. I now agree with you that we should have more solid evidence than the journal's opinion. Howardcorn33 (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian army unit X account images

[edit]

The description of File:White Knight Corps.jpg states it's sourced to "Official Twitter account of 16 corps, Indian Army". Ihaven't (so far) been able to find anything to suggest the image has been released under a {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} as claimed by the file's uploader. Given that the same uploader has uploaded many other files using this same license and that pretty much all of them have questionable licensing, I think this one might too. However, the difference between this and the others, is that this could be possibly with in the public domain per COM:India#Copyright tags if {{Indian Army}} is a valid copyright license (which seems to be the case per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Indian Army) and social media accounts of individual units would be covered by said license. Does anyone have a opinion on whether it would be OK to convert this to the "Indian Army" license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos in Édith Piaf article

[edit]

re the (English) Wikipedia article en:Édith_Piaf, the four photos of Piaf from 1950 and earlier all have tags explaining why they are public domain in France, but no confirmation about their copyright status in the U.S. Because public domain images from other countries than the U.S. must meet public domain requirements from the U.S. as well as from their country of origin in order to be considered freely usable on Wikipedia, I'm not certain whether these French photos also meet American public domain requirements- I'd welcome any advice on this. The pictures are:

PS File:Edith Piaf enfant.jpg is presumably pre-1925, but does 'presumably' suffice? Yadsalohcin (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yadsalohcin: is this about the Édith Piaf article in en-wiki or elsewhere? The link you provide is to a Commons gallery page.
I've taken the liberty of turning your mentions of filenames into links. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All: with apologies; @Jmabel thanks for converting the files to links... yes, I meant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89dith_Piaf (I've tried linking that in an edited version of the original now... Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
& I fixed that to an internal link. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone who was more involved in the protracted discussion of Harcourt pictures from this era say whether that ended up with a solid resolution that would cover the fist three here? - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:1951 La P'tite Lili - Théatre ABC retouched.jpg should almost certainly be deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by J.B. ARRIEU ALBERTINI. - Jmabel ! talk 20:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel thanks for this - file removed, which leaves questions about
Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As well as: File:Edith_Piaf_Harcourt_1950_1.jpg and the 'enfant' photograph, File:Edith Piaf enfant.jpg. Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ps sorry I'm struggling with this editing box in the mobile interface. Never been here before and it seems thoroughly unpredictable... Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Status of File:Edith Piaf enfant.jpg is unclear, and PD in the U.S. seems unlikely to me. "Before 1925" seems safe but irrelevant. Uploader made an obviously false claim of being the author. With no known author, how can we say the author has been dead 70 years? and we know nothing of the publication date, relevant to U.S. copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: The three remaining Harcourt deletion requests were closed by Krd on April 7 after no other admin had decided them for over five months (so re-nominating the files seems rather pointless because apparently no-one wants to touch the case). Krd closed them as keep, not based on the merits of the case (because “tldr” – too long, didn't read), but merely because “There appear a lot of votes for keep and no consensus for deletion. If this keep is wrong, please nominate again with summary of prevailing arguments.” So my take on the status of the 1946 and 1950 Harcourt Piaf photos is that they are in the public domain in France now, because of the 2014 French court decision declaring Harcourt photos to be collective works, and those enter the public domain after 70 years. On the URAA date in France (January 1, 1996), they were not yet in the public domain in France – unless you accept the claims that they somehow were in the public domain because the French state released them into the PD after it had bought the negatives in 1989/1991, or that the Harcourt entity which existed at the time released them into the PD. There is no properly documented evidence for those claims however, which is what the deletion requests were all about. --Rosenzweig τ 09:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt says "The French state bought the photo archives of Studio Harcourt in 1991 and released them under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license". Is this just wrong or am I missing some reason it would not apply here?  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@999real: It is just wrong. I have removed that claim. --Rosenzweig τ 15:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should create an index of all the discussions we had about the Studio Harcourt images over the years... I am sure in one of those I contributed, and I think I also followed up with the studio through the VRT ticket system, to clarify the permission, but I might be mistaken there. Ciell (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least two (maybe more) should be in the COM:VPC archives, I think were shorter ones at the VRT noticeboard, and then of course the various deletion requests. --Rosenzweig τ 15:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here's my analysis of the VRT permission we received from the Studio in 2010. I think images uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt are covered by the permission we have stored in VRT. Anything beyond those needs to be covered by general copyrights or additional permissions in order for us to host. Their archives were indeed at one point transferred to be kept by the French government, and that is where their copyright status becomes very complicated and statuses unclear.
Imho Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle could apply here. Ciell (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook photo query

[edit]

The EXIF data for File:Oba Ajibade Gbadegesin Ogunoye III during Igogo 2020 Festival in Owo.jpg indicates the photo comes from Facebook. It's possible it comes from this account, which seems to be the account of the file's uploader, but I'm unable to find this exact photo. There are other images of en:Oba Ajibade Gbadegesin Ogunoye III uploaded to that Facebook account. Some appear to be "own work", but others are watermarked and look like they probably come from somewhere else; moreover, none of the posts associated with the photos/posts include any references to a copyright license. Is it OK to assume "own work" here or should VRT verification be requested because of Facebook's standard licensing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Contact the Facebook account "figelcon", which is still active. Ask if Figelcon on Commons is them. If it is, then (barring that these were copyvios even on Facebook), we're good. (If you doubt that, then ask them that as well.)
I certainly often upload a given image to Facebook before I upload it to Commons, and I certainly don't routinely add a licensing statement of FB when I do that. I'm guessing that is pretty common. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About Category:Popular Revolutionary Army

[edit]

Hello, I think that the imagery in Category:Popular Revolutionary Army with assault rifle silhouettes and cereal ear are above COM:TOO (COM:TOO Mexico lacks content) and should be deleted for being copyvios. Do you concur? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Infinity images distributed by the NTSB

[edit]

I want to know the copyright status of these two images [2] [3]. They are distributed by the en:National Transportation Safety Board, so they should be public domain under {{PD-USGov-NTSB}}. However, the NTSB final report and search and recovery report (download link) mentions how en:Ocean Infinity conducted the salvage and took the photos, and the images are listed as "Courtesy of Ocean Infinity". So would the copyright belong to Ocean Infinity or would the images be released under public domain by the NTSB? RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 02:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright most likely belongs to Ocean Infinity. "Courtesy of" implies the photos were not taken by a Government employee. The US government can and often feature others' works in documents, but that does not automatically release them into the Public Domain. PascalHD (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossible Game text logo and the UK TOO

[edit]

I would like to upload the text portion of w:File:The Impossible Game logo.jpg (transparent version in the official site at https://impossible.game/1/), although I have some concerns that might make it not allowed in Commons:

  • I'm not very familiar with COM:TOO UK. Apparently it's a lot more higher than it was when I first started uploading, though not sure if the black shadow and the thin blue outline make it copyrightable. If it does, would a plain white/black logo make it acceptable?
  • I was able to identify the font as Ten by Twenty's Akashi, which according to their own website, all of their fonts there are under the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is a valid license in Commons ({{OFL}}). I'm still not sure if that impacts the copyright status of the logo itself though, since it's not really a generic typeface.
  • Would a version with a cyan-black gradient as the background be acceptable as well?

SergioFLS (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Spiral musical score and sound recording

[edit]

I noticed that the Intel Spiral (a.k.a. "Intel Bong") has been granted copyright protection as a sound recording in the United States (SR0000787475), but not the underlying musical work (a five-note melody), as noted in this official letter from the Copyright Office (mentioned on COM:US § Threshold of originality).

However, copyright protection for sound recordings in the United States only extends to the reproduction and alteration of the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording—not new, independently created sound recordings, no matter how closely they imitate the original sound recording (17 U.S.C. § 114). So theoretically, it should be possible to create a new sound recording of the Intel Bong from scratch, emulating all or some of the sound design steps in the original one, without infringing the copyright in the original Intel Bong sound recording—at least under US law.

Also, since the composition has been deemed ineligible for copyright in the US, does that mean that an image of the sheet music (available on Intel's website here) can be uploaded here and tagged with {{PD-music-ineligible}}? There might be copyrightable authorship in the visual arrangement of staves, dynamic symbols, etc. that isn't present in what the Copyright Office considers to be the "musical work". Qzekrom (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest someone do their own layout of the (brief) score. - Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already done! File:Intel Spiral.svg Qzekrom (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I synthesized my own sound recording of it using MuseScore; sound recording copyrights don't extend to "soundalike covers" under US law, but I don't know if that is true in other countries. That said, while the Intel Bong was registered as a sound recording, it normally appears as part of video advertisements, and sounds accompanying an audiovisual work have a broader scope of copyright protection.
I currently don't have permission to upload MP3s on Commons, but would this be safe to upload here? Qzekrom (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo de Daewoo

[edit]

Buenas, se puede publicar el logo de Daewoo por ejemplo como este (File:Daewoo logo.svg) ,el logo fue creado en Corea del Sur? AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1033326815"