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.


Logo copyright status[edit]

Hello everyone! I want to ask you if this logo meets or not threshold of originality. Thank you

ツSenador Tell me! 00:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your link resolves to a blank image. Do you mean the logo in w:en:File:Allbritton Communications Company logo.jpg? The uploader to English Wikipedia tagged it as a non-free logo, but we are not bound by that opinion. This is the logo of a US company, so we should be guided by COM:TOO United States. This appears to be a marginal case, I would not upload it but I would probably not nominate it for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image of 12th century mosaic.[edit]

Quite some time ago (July 2017 to be precise) I submitted a file to Wikipedia. It was a photo of a 12th century mosaic from the Palatine Chapel in Palermo which I had photoshopped extensively (to remove architectural distortion, glare, etc). Someone decided it was possibly infringing copyright, and it disappeared.
The pretext given, from memory, was that all surface decorations to buildings were 3D and therefore copyrighted. It sounded nonsense at the time; I have since checked local (Australian) copyright laws which seem to indicate this is not so - especially since the building is open to the public.
The old file (File:JacobsLadderPalatineChapel.jpg) has long since disappeared from this site. I wonder if it is worth resubmitting it. If so, how would I designate its copyright status to avoid future conflict? (Clear & simple instructions would be appreciated – most advice given on Wikipedia seems TLDR!)
Nielshutch (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion was probably that the original photo was made by Richard Stracke, not by yourself. He owns the copyright of the photo. The mosaics are in public domain without doubt. Ellywa (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few mitigating factors, though.
1. Copyright in original artworks belong to the creators, in this case 12th century artisans or their employers. Photographs of them do not create an independent copyright in themselves, according to the United States District Court of N.Y. (in their 1999 ruling in favour of Corel Corporation against The Bridgeman Art Library). A fine point in law, no doubt...
2. My own modifications were extensive and time consuming. (By your own argument, I could probably assert a copyright of my own in the end material.) I doubt many would identify the results with any photo by Stracke, nor would its reproduction resemble anything but the original mosaic - or so I would hope.
3. The mosaic concerned is of great cultural significance. It is important for people to see it. My concern was to achieve a frontal representation of the work, rid of any obtuse camera angle, mood lighting or distracting surrounds. The aim is to provide a clear representation of the work. In this, I think I succeeded. Otherwise, the only current version of the mosaic on Wikipedia is a shocker (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacob%27s_staircase.jpg).
Admittedly, I am used to dealing with artistic reproductions where "scholarly use" is a valid defence under copyright law. Still, I can't see how anyone's interests are damaged by making such an image widely available. As for this business of 3D decorations encrusting a chapel having automatic copyright...perhaps you could explain that to me.
Nielshutch (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the mosaic, but the whole picture. A picture of only the mosaic taken perpendicularly may be accepted under the PD-Art rationale, but not this one. Yann (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Taken perpendicularly"? I presume you mean taken from scaffolding erected in the nave, several meters above floor level, with floodlights all around. Sorry, can't help you with that. Nielshutch (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nielshutch: My message is more theoritical than a suggestion. I mean if a third party takes such a picture, it could be accept under the PD-Art rationale. If you take the picture, the issue is moot, since the copyright would belong to you. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A drone would be simpler than scaffolding, but getting permission would still be difficult. This mosaic is also shown more clearly in File:Cappella Palatina (Palermo) 16 07 2019 11.jpg, but this is probably too blurred for your purpose. You could request a better image at w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sicily, or add an Image requested tag to w:en:Talk:Cappella Palatina, or to w:it:Discussione:Cappella Palatina (Palermo). Verbcatcher (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the lead to that image; I hadn't noticed it before. It's not bad – a little blurred as you say, and with a red bias and distorted perspective. I rectified such failings on the image I tried to upload. At twice the width it also includes the related scene to the right, of Jacob wrestling with the angel. (All done without a drone, in the comfort of my own home! Perhaps someone could have a go at the version here.) I'm not after any other image myself, but I thought other people could do with one.
I still think photographers' copyrights in these cases is generally overstated, and far outweighed by the merit of the original work. But I can understand Wikimedia being cautious; these are litigious times. Aggressive players, like Getty Images and Alamy, will serve lawyers' writs on anyone. Not that there seems to be much merit in their copyright claims; they are simply commercial bullies. And what sincerity can they claim, when they slap their own ugly logos all over reproductions of ancient works of art?
Nielshutch (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I will accept the commission to photograph the mosaic (by drone &/or scaffold) if you will pay for my return ticket from Melbourne to Palermo. [Covid allowing]
But who will own what copyright?
Nielshutch (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is File:Qualcomm-BREW.png below the threshold of originality?[edit]

I have a vector version of the same logo, but I'm not sure if I should upload it as it looks slightly complex to me. The file is marked under CC BY-SA but I really doubt that Qualcomm (the original author of the logo) would license anything under that license...

If it turned out to be above the threshold of originality, would a text-only version be OK as well? Thanks. SergioFLS (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SergioFLS: It doesn't claim to be below the TOO. I tagged it as needing permission (from Qualcomm).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the license. Yann (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the second question, I think text-only vector versions are handy even when we also have a text-and-icon and/or icon-only version. Arlo James Barnes 20:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the file: File:Qualcomm-BREW.svg. I hope it doesn't cause any problems. SergioFLS (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Austro Hungarian war artist[edit]

What would be the status of a work produced by an "official artist serving with the Austro Hungarian army 1915-1917", while undertaking that role, if they died in 1994? Is there an equivalent of the UK's crown copyright, which renders the death date irrelevant? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status of any such image will be governed by the laws of the countries that Austro-Hungary disintegrated to. There is no such thing as an Austro-Hungarian crown copyright. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Australian copyright law is any guide, copyright tends to belong to the employer when the artist is under terms of employment. I doubt the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that abstract entity, can sue you from beyond the grave.
Nielshutch (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This "work for hire" concept exists in some countries (notably in the US), but not everywhere. So you should not assume you can apply it to other countries. Even if it does exist, while the copyright might belong to a company or similar (like in the UK), but the actual term of protection could still be tied to date of death of the creator, i. e. a human being (also like in the UK). --Rosenzweig τ 08:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any Crown copyright equivalent in Austrian law. --Rosenzweig τ 08:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such equivalent. {{PD-AustrianGov}} and {{PD-Hungary}} apply to official documents only but not to "official" paintings. If the artist is not named and the painting is not signed, however, you can use {{PD-EU-anonymous}}. On the other hand, the "official artist" phrase returned a search result for Kalman Kemeny though, and those images are still copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are camouflage patterns copyrighted?[edit]

Would camouflage patterns be copyrighted if they were not created by the U.S. military?

Some sources like [1] and [2] say they would be copyrighted, but there are many images of camouflage patterns being used on Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They seem quite complex, there's definitely creative labour exercised here; I guess case law would give precedent one way or the other. Arlo James Barnes 05:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1914 recording in Sorbonne University[edit]

Hi, Who did hold the copyright of these recordings, made from 1911 to 1914 in Sorbonne University, Paris? In some cases, the performer is not mentioned, but in other cases (freely available in Gallica), s/he is a well known personality. The recorder is Ferdinand Brunot (1860 – 1938). Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In theory such recordings come with multiple copyrights: First of all there would be the text that is spoken or read in the recording which may not necessarily be the speaker's own work but could have been written by someone else. I think the recorder Brunot can be neglected because as far as I can see these are not musical recordings that come with a mixing and sound engineering, but simple audio records. I think the type of performance by the speaker like intonation, emotional appeal and so on would also be copyrightable if they are not the original author of the text. So you may want to concentrate on the origin of the texts. Where there is no information on the speaker or original author, {{PD-EU-anonymous}} and {{PD-US-expired}} should apply. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Original texts are folklore or traditional songs, so if there was any copyright, it expired since long. My concern is more about the performer's copyright, when not anonymous. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reimagining into the public domain[edit]

I need to portray a copyrighted magazine cover. The important part I want is a text box which is 5% of the cover, and which is public domain by {{PD-text}}. The rest of the image ideally should communicate the artistic tone of the original work.

The original magazine cover is on the publisher's website as issue 915, 3 February 2003.

Here are my re-imagined works. I made these by applying every photomanipulation tool I could find to the original image, including recolor, darken and lighten, add spots, blur, swirl, enlarge, and push.

  • Rolling Stone issue 915 3 February 2003 reimagined 1.jpg
  • Rolling Stone issue 915 3 February 2003 reimagined 2.png
  • Rolling Stone issue 915 3 February 2003 reimagined 3.png
  • Rolling Stone issue 915 3 February 2003 reimagined 4.png

I am aware of Commons:Derivative works, but I do not see that it applies to this case.

In Wikipedia people read and remix texts to create new works. I am looking for advice on reinterpreting a magazine cover to create a new work beyond the copyright of the original photo which inspired it.

Who has opinions about the suitability of the above increasingly abstract interpretations for hosting here on Commons?

If none of these are suitable, what advice does anyone have for me illustrate this text box in context? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IMO all of these are OK. Any copyrighted element is blurred enough. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colorized images[edit]

A batch of colorized ship photos have been nominated for deletion on the basis that the act of colorization is creative enough to warrant copyright protection. The B/W images, from the US, UK, France and Japan, are out of copyright so that's not an issue. The colorizer is Japanese and Japan has a high TOO; would that be the standard used rather than the country of origin of the photos?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Flickr account[edit]

User:CatDog2020 has been uploading copyright-protected photos. In the past few days, I asked that two of the photos be speedy deleted because I found both on commercial websites. Now, those deleted photos and more have magically appeared on this Flickr account, opened in March 2022, and with no copyright protection. This editor has been adding the photos to this Wikipedia draft. Thanks for your advice on dealing with this. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magnolia677. This sounds like a case of COM:LL. It's possible that the uploader just is misunderstanding what COM:Own work or COM:L means and you can try explaining this to them on their user talk page and see if they will request that the files be deleted per COM:CSD#G7. This will give them a chance to correct the mistake themselves and perhaps avoid being sanctioned in any way. You could also explain or ask them to take a look at COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? for reference as well. It's possible the files can be kept if the copyright holder is willing to give their COM:CONSENT. On the other hand, if you think the uploader knows exactly what they did was wrong and just doesn't care, you probably should ask for assistance at COM:ANI since the files can't be kept per COM:CSD#F6 and the uploader's behavior may need to be reviewed by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I'll leave the uploader a message. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Marchjulythank you for your help and you're exactly right. I'd appreciate the help. I have exclusive rights to the photos here I know the photographer and artist im writing about personally. CatDog2020 (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CatDog2020: Please look at the posts left below by JWilz12345 since they explain one way for you to resolve this. The file was nominated for deletion by a Commons administrator named Yann. Yann can also probably answer any questions you may have about this or the other files you uploaded. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CatDog2020 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Magnolia677, This is my first go around on this platform, also first time discussing how to do things on this space. I assume this discussion is to keep things open. Since you've been so open about this I'd love to have your help. Thanks, please feel free to connect with me. CatDog2020 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CatDog2020: (non-admin comment here) there is a process for the photographer/artist to send permission for your use of Creative Commons license. See COM:VRTS, specifically COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. The copyright holder must send a correspondence to Wikimedia Commons via that process. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that also applies to deleted files: contact the copyright holders of the deleted files and ask them if they are willing to release their photos/artwork under free license you chose. They too must send VRTS correspondence. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User adding non-free content from video game[edit]

OkinaMatara is uploading photos of Touhou Project characters and the creator of the series to Commons.

Thing is, fan content of the game is generally under a free license (see guidelines here). There are Touhou fanart images such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marisa_get_out.png but I don't know about ripping stuff from the games compared to fanart. Wizzito (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pictures of the creator aren't really allowed w/o his permission (see rule "Though not relevant to Fan Content, posting or modifying photos of ZUN himself without ZUN's permission is prohibited." on the guidelines page) Wizzito (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I upload a screenshot of Google search result?[edit]

Hello, I have this screenshot and I want to use it on ruwiki’s technical forum. Does it violate any copyright rules of commons.wikimedia.org? For example, File:Google Homepage.svg has Licensing: “This work is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship”. DenBkh (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your screenshot has more icons than the homepage one, but they are all fairly simple so they might not contribute to originality (I see the homepage one didn't consider the multicoloured magnifying glass a dealbreaker). And the excerpted text from Wikipedia in the results snippet would of course fall under the By-SA license. Arlo James Barnes 05:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files of paintings created 100s of years ago[edit]

Hello. I want to open up a store and put picture files of paintings hundreds of years old on blank objects and sell them. Most of the info under permission said a tag must be used to say why something is in the public domain. Is that for me to do, or for the person who uploads the file to Wikimedia?

I live in the United States. On the back of greeting cards and in the item descriptions that provide information on the artwork, am I supposed to use some sort of public domain tag, like PD-US inside two squiggly brackets? (I put the whole tag in there before, but then a huge notice came up so I removed the squiggly brackets and just wrote the words "squiggly brackets" instead.)

I have never seen tags like that on the back of greeting cards or in descriptions of items that have public domain works on them.

Thanks. -- special:contribs/SwoossieLou 20 March 2022 04:00 UTC

Can you be more specific about the files you are trying to upload? That might help us assist you in finding the proper template (the bit between the double curly braces). It sounds like you probably want one of the template:PD-old variants, but context is always helpful. Arlo James Barnes 05:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The request for a tag is for the uploader or for anybody that could help. It is also a warning to you: if the uploader hasn't explained why something is in the public domain, it might very well not be. If the works aren't from the USA, it is often the tag for the USA that is absent; as the rules for USA mostly are based on publication and elsewhere mostly on the lifetime of the author, one cannot be inferred from the other.
Most old works are PD in e.g. Europe, as enough time has elapsed since the death of the author. As their copyright never was registered in the USA, they didn't get copyright protection there – except those still under copyright in their country of origin in 1996, as the USA joined the Berne convention at those times. Details vary by country, but if a painter was dead by 1895, their works should be in the public domain nearly everywhere. Unpublished works (i.e. recently published works) are a problem area.
Most of those paintings are probably in the public domain in the USA, and as I understand it, you don't have to tell anybody anything in those cases. I would very much like there to be some information, such as the name of the painter, the title of the work (if known by a title) and the year the painting was painted – out of principle and as possible buyer. How much information is reasonable depends on the object: if it is a table, you could print out all the Commons file description page and put it somewhere discreet, while if it's something small, just the essentials would make more sense.
In some cases there may still be a copyright or copyright-like right demanding specific measures. Check the licence templates on the file description pages and ask if anything is unclear.
–LPfi (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It'd also be nice to hear how the project succeeds, and many uploader appreciate a comment on how their uploads have been used. –LPfi (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michael Anthony Caruso.jpg[edit]

Would some others mind taking a look at File:Michael Anthony Caruso.jpg? It looks like a professionally taken promotional pic that might be being erroneously claimed as "own work". There's no EXIF data or source link provided which helps to verify the "own work" claim, and the same image can be seen used on the cover art for the single "Shooh-Rah" released by the artist en:Michael Caruso (musician) here, here and here. The single seems to have been released in May 2013 or August 2013 which predate the file's upload to Commons by more than two years. The cover art doesn't show the entire image, but the time difference seems to indicate the original photo wasn't taken in November 2015 as the uploader is claiming. For reference, the uploading of this file is the only edit the uploader made on Commons, and there's no record of them making any other edits on other WMF projects; so, it seems unlikely that querying them directly about the file would clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PD-logo?[edit]

Any opinions on whether File:Academy Logo and Emblem.jpg might be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States? The logo seems simple enough, and it looks like it was uploaded by someone connected to the en:American Academy of Dramatic Arts. If it's not PD, then it probably needs to be COM:VRT verified to be kept under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is simple enough. Ruslik (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter pics posted by Government of India[edit]

Does the Twitter pics posted by Government of India fall under the open license of Template:GODL-India? Specifically @PMOIndia and @CMOPb. Please ping me when you respond. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first is yes apparently. The second is less clear because it was created by a state government. Ruslik (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of The Commons[edit]

How might we handle images like [3], labelled as "No known copyright restrictions" on Flickr, with a text note saying:

"(Copyright) We're happy for you to share this digital image within the spirit of The Commons. Please cite 'Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums' when reusing. Certain restrictions on high quality reproductions and commercial use of the original physical version apply though"

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should handle them by not uploading them here. At least as long as we don't know what they mean by "certain restrictions". --Rosenzweig τ 23:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=643000220"