Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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.

IMAGE

Is Figure 1 image in the following webpage a Wikipedia image? (https://www.nataliescasebook.com/tag/cardiovascular-reflexes). I have tried to find out from the author of this article without success. If the image is a Wikipedia image, I would be grateful if you were able to please send me the webpage details on which it appears so that I may acknowledge its source in my work. Thank you for your assistance. Jennifer Jilowry (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Comment It doesn't seem to be an image from Wikimedia Commons, but there is a copy on [1]. Yann (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and helpful reply. 2001:8003:8403:1E00:D855:A09A:A777:2CD8 12:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The website https://caringmedical.com/prolotherapy-news/hrv/ does directly attribute it to Natalie's Casebook and acknowledge their permission to use the drawing. So it does seem like they could be the original source. Felix QW (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Felix. 2001:8003:8403:1E00:5806:8CD3:1C34:C380 13:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Donkey Kong Country Logo.webp

Hello. I am concerned that this image File:Donkey Kong Country Logo.webp exceeds the threshold of originality and is non-free. The source is from the Logopedia FANDOM wiki which is a database of logos, with disregard to status of copyright, and the image contains stylised text (stars in the O letters in the words "donkey kong" and a curve + gradient in the word "country".) which probably exceeds the TOO. This was on the enWP mainpage yesterday, which brought this image to my attention. I doubt the creator of this logo (nintendo) was gracious enough to put it under a PD licence too. I feel this file should be taken down (and maybe audit logopedia imports as a quick search here showed other stylised logos that may break commons rules like File:TFFNAF.png, File:Mario & Luigi - Brothership.jpg, and possibly File:XHTL FM SLP Logo.png and file:The More You Know 2022 logo.png) Draco Centauros (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Under US law, I'm pretty sure it's fine. Stylized text is just text, and the US Copyright Office has rejected highly stylized text; e.g. [2].--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Sorry for the late reply. Draco Centauros (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What does "published" mean here?

Regarding photos photographed or scanned out of library special collections, private archives and such, what does "published" mean? I nominated a file for deletion based on Commons:Publication#United_States, but an administrator said Publication occurred when the picture left the photographer custody, and we usually consider such pictures as published unless there is an evidence for the opposite. I've carefully read the COM:Hirtle Chart and the meaning of publications as linked above and I haven't heard Yann's version of definition. I have also studied https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-make-image-published-registration/ Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Pre-1978 publication is murky Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg but essentially "I will just summarize what she told me for my own future reference (since I assume you may be familiar with the argument)--basically that your argument comes from Granse v. Brown Photo Co, where the court ruled that selling a copy of a photo to the buyer of the photo constituted publication." Abzeronow (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The photo in question is Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Frank_H._Buck_was_an_oil_tanker_of_the_Associated_Oil_Company.png, which was present online in 2008 or earlier

https://web.archive.org/web/20081121021828/http://caviews.com/Shipwrecks.html and says must obtain permission.

It was uploaded to commons in April 2024 as "public domain". The photographer who took the photo in question died 60 years ago. It seems like "California Views photo archives" which runs the website I linked above has the original. I don't know if this photo was ever sold during the relevant time. Graywalls (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"5x7 Negative No. 71-001-0300" The uploader neglected this important piece of information. If the negative was never developed until recently, and was in the custody of the estate until 1978 or afterwards, we might have to go with the website being the first publication. Abzeronow (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like that user has uploaded quite a bit of photos from a historical society archive citing negative number that would not be public domain if they were not published. What determines they have been published prior to 1929 like the uploader claims? File:Mission San Francisco Solano Sonoma.jpg The description says "English: Mission San Francisco Solano Sonoma, California circa 1920, by Lewis Josselyn, CV # 71-001-0So 5x7 Film Neg. Date 1920 Source Monterey County Historical Society" Graywalls (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's an old photo first published in 2008, with a known author, then we have to wait till 70 years after that author's death for it to be PD. And, as I understand it, if that 2008 publication was from someone other than the heir to the author's intellectual property, and without permission from the heir to the author's intellectual property, theoretically the person who published it could be sued, but for any image of known authorship still unpublished as of the end of 2002, publication after that date (authorized or not) changes nothing about copyright status. - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel would you agree that Commons is something people should be able to come and use contents with confidence? When things with questionable copyright is tolerated, it transfers the risk to the users of contents Graywalls (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Two separate questions here: (1) should we delete it? Presumably yes, until it falls out of copyright, because of our precautionary principle. (2) Would reusing this image actually put someone at risk of being successfully sued? Almost certainly not, for a couple of reasons. It seems unlikely that the historical society in question actually owns the intellectual property rights, so they can't sue and their own publication was most likely a copyvio and copyfraud; most likely the actual inheritor of the intellectual property rights—quite likely two generations down by now—doesn't care. Further, the deep-pocket entities that would be the most likely potential targets for such a suit (because they are operating on a scale where there would be some meaningful damages to be shown) would presumably not rely on any third-party assessment of copyright status.

In short: we are probably dealing with something at least close to an orphaned copyright here, but our precautionary principle says we shouldn't host those. - Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite "orphaned" https://www.montereyherald.com/2022/01/23/legacy-of-late-local-photographer-pat-hathaway-continues-on-at-monterey-county-historical-society/

when you look at the source cited by the uploader for File:Frank_H._Buck_was_an_oil_tanker_of_the_Associated_Oil_Company.png https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-frank-h-buck-was-an-oil-tanker-of-the-associated-oil-company-and-was-427-feet-long-may-1924-california-views-archives-mr-pat-hathaway-archives.html?product=canvas-print it looks like they're trying to cash in bigtime on selling the prints. The photo only being offered on Common sat 944 × 631 seems to protecting business interest while letting photos available as a "catalog" and to bring attention to his work. If it's truly in the public domain, it doesn't make sense to not be made available at high resolution and we don't do low resolution "fair use" on commons. Graywalls (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The glass plates, negatives and prints seemed to have been transferred from the photographer's widow to a collector in 1970. Since this was a negative, that still might not equal publication, and we don't know if Pat Hathaway also acquired the copyright or if that was retained by the photographer's estate. Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I hear this argument of "US publication occurred as soon as the photographer did give the photo to someone" quite often, for example in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Found photos from the Thomas Hawk collection, but I'm still not really convinced by this (very convenient, of course) argument. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi If true, it should be documented in the Hirtle Chart and readily verifiable against a reliable source, but it's not. Graywalls (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

From the Copyright Compendium Chapter 9: Giving away copies of a photograph without further restriction constitutes publication of that work. . This probably comes from the older court definition (some circuits, not all) of "limited publication" as being publication to a limited set of people, for a limited purpose, and no right of further distribution. If any of the three parts of that were not satisfied, it was general publication. Giving away copies of a photograph without further restriction would fail at least the third part of that test, thus becoming general publication. (The Hirtle chart does not deal with questions like this, so no, it would not be there.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Being pedantic: First, it says copies in the plural form - so there would need to be proof that multiple copies were given? And where lies the burden of proof for "without further restriction"? In most cases in deletion discussions here on Commons where people argue for keeping photos with that argument, we know nothing at all about the specific arrangements between the photographer and those the photo was given to; in fact, as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Found photos from the Thomas Hawk collection we do not even know for sure to whom the photo was given, if to anyone at all. People just make a lot of convenient assumptions. But doesn't this go against COM:PRP? As I wrote in that deletion discussion, I beg to differ. Giving photos to a family which intends to keep them in their family album doesn't necessarily amount to "giving away copies of a photograph without further restriction", in my opinion. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the family intends, it matters what restrictions were put on it. I don't see any evidence that works that were intended to end in family albums were ever treated with the care required to preserve copyright in those times. COM:PRP doesn't require us to reject everything on a largely theoretical risk that it might be copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Even this really isn't clear-cut, because courts have applied the "without further restriction" element inconsistently. And in the two most famous cases on "limited publication" (which does not result in divesting copyright), the copyright holder placed no explicit restriction on the recipients making copies; the copyright holder really just assumed that they wouldn't (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. Creative House Promotions, Inc. and The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.).

More fundamentally, the whole doctrine of limited publication developed in US courts as a judicial reaction against the harshness of the law as it stood and that it was all too easy to divest copyright when that wasn't the copyright holder's intent. (Nimmer on Copyright -- the definitive work on US copyright law -- makes this point, and the same point is made in the decision in The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.).

I feel that many discussions here on the Commons of pre-1989 US images rely on a really unfortunate combination of precisely the kind of draconian interpretation of "publication" that courts have generally sought to avoid, and on some really wild assumptions about how and when a photographer was handing out prints.

I'll add that our practices on the Commons have also not kept up with the explosion of archival material available online in the last couple of decades. Until relatively recently, questions about how and when an old image might have been published in the traditional sense -- books, magazines, and newspapers -- could only be resolved with access to a very large research library. Today, a very large chunk of America's publications are available online to anyone prepared to pay for access, as well as a large and growing number of archives held by private and public institutions. Instead of assuming the publication history of old images, we can now research many of these cases. Just because it's difficult and/or time consuming and/or expensive are no excuses. And COM:ONUS says that this effort should be borne by the uploader or anyone arguing to keep. The kinds of assumptions that might have been justified (or, at least, more forgivable) 10 or 20 years ago really aren't justifiable now. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Draconian interpretation? How about the law as written, that generously made it much easier to secure a copyright than a patent, merely requiring the would-be copyright owner to properly notify the public of who owned the copyright and when the term of copyright started?

"Just because it's difficult and/or time consuming and/or expensive are no excuses." Then nothing has changed; there's very few archives in the world where enough money won't buy you or your agent access. If you want Commons to be better, more comprehensive, you're welcome to access those archives, but don't imagine it's suddenly feasible for anybody without huge amounts of time and money. Nor do I think much has really changed; the origins of most of these pictures has fallen down the memory hole, especially fine details like who gave what to who. Heck, even details like rights to works in Dragon Magazine, a magazine starting in the 1970s, are lost with the death of the drives the contracts were stored on. A random photograph from 70 or 100 years ago, with no commercial value? Nobody knows who gave what to whom, and with what restrictions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

In the notes to section 17 USC 106 of the 1976 Act, it notes that despite the plural term, it can apply to a single copy: The references to "copies or phonorecords," although in the plural, are intended here and throughout the bill to include the singular.[3]. And the original is also a "copy". In earlier laws, not sure it was explicitly stated. However, loss of copyright I think always has required actual distribution of copies without notice -- something that got technically published but without actually distributing copies, would not lose copyright. Yes, copies distributed between family members most likely would not be publication. If there was some implied restriction on further publication when giving it out, or maybe to just a couple of close friends, then also probably not. Not sure there is a bright dividing line, but when copies leave the control of the photographer or at least their family, you'd have to look at the circumstances of that. The more copies and the further away from the photographer they get, the more likely they could be considered published, unless there was some form of limitation on further distribution. I too would be leery of family photo albums -- those can be complicated, for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted, on the same page of the Compendium: "A work is considered unpublished if the copies or phonorecords were not distributed to a member of the public, but instead were much more restricted, including an exchange between family members or social acquaintances." Toohool (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Logo de UAC Rusia

Buenas administradores, se puede publicar el logo de United Aircraft Corporation como esta ,si es un logo simple se puede publicar?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Glrx:any opinion?? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Linked page won't load for me. - Jmabel ! talk 02:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Nor for me. Chrome says "This site can’t be reached", "www.uacrussia.ru took too long to respond" and "ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.,@Jmabel:look this? AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia dice que falta una regla clara para el umbral de originalidad en Rusia. Claramente el logo https://1000logos.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/United-Aircraft-Corporation-Logo.jpg sería bastante simple para los EEUU, per ¿para Rusia? No tengo idea. - Jmabel ! talk 07:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Question any opinion? (google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Ian Pre-Position Camera - PD-automated or Copyrighted?

When Hurricane Ian was set to make landfall in Florida, a storm chaser, Max Olsen, pre-positioned a webcam to capture the effects. The full 10-hours of footage captured by the webcam can be seen in this YouTube video. In the description, Max Olsen stated, "I felt it was important to finally release the full, unedited surge probe video, which confirmed the only human interaction involved in this process was the downloading and uploading of the full footage.

That said, in the video description, Mr. Olsen states, "NOT FOR BROADCAST OR RE-POST Contact [EMAIL Address] to license footage". As with other weather-related photographs and/or videos, there have been a ton of confirmed instances of either (1) license laundering or (2) the actual selling of public domain content. {{PD-NWS}} with the subsequent RFC deprecating it + the review of thousands of weather photos, several hundred of which have or are currently in deletion requests prove those two points exist within the broadcast meteorology community.

So, with that being said, would this footage, which was captured by a pre-positioned camera, actually be copyrighted or would it be free under {{PD-automated}}, given Mr. Olsen confirmed that the only interaction present was that of downloading/uploading the footage to YouTube? WeatherWriter (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Max Olsen has the copyright. He used his judgment to position the camera to capture the storm surge. Why shouldn't society reward him for that effort? We are not talking about medical Xrays where there is little room for creativity. License laundering is taking somebody else's work and attaching a false license; I do not see that here. Glrx (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Max Olsen did not take the video himself and just left a camera there. Why is that any different then a CCTV camera on a highway? P.S., ignore the license laundering aspect I mentioned above. That was mentioned specifically because editors on the Commons have discovered that occurring. The key aspect is that 2nd point of the selling of public domain content. After 2 separate deletion reviews (August 2024) the File:A tornado funnel is shown moving through Xenia.jpg, (amid a very large and long RFC investigation of weather-related photos), we have several instances of companies selling public domain content, which they are allowed to do. For instance, that file above is being sold by the Associated Press for up to $495. However, a ton of investigations later determined it is a public domain photo. That isn't the only one of its kind either. So, in fact, Max Olsen may be selling the content, despite it being possibly in the public domain.

That is why I brought the question here. Anyone is allowed to do anything they want with public domain content, so my question still remains: Does this actually surpass the originality threshold, despite this basically being a CCTV camera? The aspect of selling it, bluntly, is irrelevant, given everything that RFC has discovered in the several thousand weather-related photo review that has/is still occurring, as anyone can claim they own the copyright to anything. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Max Olsen has the copyright. He did not make and publish the video without an explicit copyright notice in 1974 when copyright laws required such notice to obtain a copyright in the first place. Olsen did not post his video to a website whose terms of use forced him to donate his rights like the single NWS website. Olsen did not replace his doorbell with a Ring camera (giving him little discretion in siting the camera) that by chance caught the storm surge at his doorstep. Olsen is not a state or federal employee who installed a government-owned camera to watch a government-owned highway. That a handful of people have perpetrated copyfraud does not prove that all people (and particularly Olsen) commit copyfraud. Your position about unattended cameras is troubling. Olsen set up his camera to catch a coming event; it was not sitting there for years and just happened to capture the surge as it came by. Olsen used his judgment. Using your logic, anyone who set up a timelapse camera to watch a flower blossom would not own the copyright because she was not there to snap the shutter. Society chooses to reward that effort. You were free to set up your own webcam and capture the same storm that Olsen did. You would then have been free to do a CC0 dedication of your footage, but that does not mean Olsen wants to release his footage. Glrx (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

So what the heck is {{PD-automated}} for? Can you explain the clear difference of why something like Max Olsen's video is not PD while File:Andover Tornado, April 29, 2022, City Hall East Camera.webm is? Both are pre-positioned cameras, so in theory, both fall under {{PD-automated}}. However, you are saying Olsen's video does not fall under it. So please explain why. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

{{PD-automated}} is untested in the United States. According to Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices there is no case law that holds automated cameras in the US do not have a copyright. Therefore, the PD claim is weak. It may also be overapplied — the knife cuts both ways: there are people who claim copyright when there isn't one and there are people who claim there is no copyright when there is. I believe the Copyright Office has stated that medical images such as Xrays do not get a copyright. The Andover Tornado image is public domain because it was captured by a subgovernment of Massachusetts. Even ignoring that issue, the Olsen footage planned to capture the storm surge. The Andover footage did not plan to capture the tornado.

So you believe that all time lapse videos cannot be copyrighted? All photos taken with a 15-second timer are PD because the photographer stepped away to get into the picture? That all prepositioned cameras lack elements of composition? That Olsen's video would have a copyright if he had just stayed with the webcam the whole time rather than retreating to safety? Olsen's attorneys would have a field day in a deposition.

Glrx (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

His work shows creative intent, which is part of what's lacking in PD-automated. He set up the camera for the shot he got. Security cameras are also continuous, running for years, and the parts under debate are usually short clips of events that just happened to be caught in that long stream. Here the author set up the camera for a limited period of time and caught what he intended to catch. I'd say it's certainly copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• I concur with Prosfilaes -- the difference here is that Olson used his judgement and expertise to position a camera with the specific intention of capturing/documenting a specific event. This is an entirely different situation from ones where a static security or traffic camera is simply pointed in the same spot indefinitely and just happens to capture something interesting that crosses its field of view. PD-automated does not apply in this case. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• The copyright of a photograph is based on several factors, such as the position, angle, and framing of the camera -- elements associated with the author. PD-ineligible comes from when those factors are basically obvious and decided for the author (such as a straight-on photo of a painting framed to the painting itself). The fact that the person was not actually holding the camera is not really relevant -- what matters is that the expression seen in the final work involves creative expression from a human author. In this case, the position, angle, and framing (at the least, and possibly other factors) was chosen by the human. It's the same copyright if the footage captured a hurricane, or 10 hours of normal waves -- the content is not what makes it copyrightable, since the human author had nothing to do with that. PD-automated is untested, and the CCTV and traffic camera wording is likely wrong. I have seen at least one CCTV recording get a copyright registration in the U.S., and a traffic camera would likely be very particularly positioned by a human and almost certainly be copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg - Copyrighted?

Continued from Wikipedia, File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg was used on a few pages, which I've since reverted since it's unclear what exactly the copyright status is. It's been labeled as an "official" photo of the 119th United States Congress even though it hasn't yet been uploaded on Congress.gov or another official government website, since the 119th Congress has yet to start. It's only been uploaded on Representative-elect Hamadeh's newly-created "official" Twitter account, which leads me to believe that there may be an issue with copyright, and it might not yet be public domain (if it's the official photo in the end), since he's not officially a member of the U.S. government. AG202 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In the past we have used official images and I have also found this old discussion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anna_Paulina_Luna.jpg for Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna's official image which the consensus was to keep the image in place. (You can also see that I was around during that and I didn't even remember me taking part of it!) Wollers14 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to that, but it looks like it wasn't kept until after she was sworn in. Also, honestly, I don't see that strong of a consensus there on keeping the image before she was sworn in. I see a few comments saying to wait, with some other comments solely giving information. I'd hope that there'd be an official policy on this, hence why I brought the discussion here and not nominated the image for deletion. It's also not just the copyright issue for me, but also calling it the "official congressional photo" without it being posted on an official government website or social media from a current government official. It's also has the author of "Office of Congressman Abraham Hamadeh", even though that office does not yet exist. This would be helpful to explicitly clarify for future situations. CC: Participants in the aforementioned discussion: @A1Cafel, @Curbon7, @Connormah, @Mdaniels5757, @Reppop, @Putitonamap98, @Frodar. AG202 (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Technically the offices do exist even in the physical format. I don't know about the House but Senators-elect are given temporary offices to prepare to be sworn in and take over official duties so they are technically some kind of official as they will also share caseloads of constituent work so it can be completed when the incumbent leaves office and the new member can take it over. As for the images if they were created by the House Creative Services I'd say it is public domain even if not posted by them because they give it to the member for them to use however they see fit such as their government websites when they are created. Wollers14 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Accuracy is of the utmost importance here so I'd like to see what others think of this specific scenario before making, though educated, guesses. AG202 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The file name used and how the file is described aren't really pressing issues for Commons, or at least not as pressing an issue as copyright status. The caption used on Wikipedia can always been worded to say whatever is encyclopedically correct. What matters most to Commons, in my opinion, when it comes to "PD-USGov" licenses is whether a photo was taken by a federal government employee as part of their official duties. The subject of the photo, where the photo was taken, when it was taken, which website it ends up being published, whether the subject has an official government office or an official government media account/website on aren't really that relevant because the subject of the photo isn't considered to be its copyright holder. You might argue the subject has personality rights, or the file should be renamed, but those things are unrelated to the file's copyright status. So, what needs to be determined is who took the photo, whether they're an employee of the US federal government and whether they did so as part of their official duties. If official photos of newly elected members of the US House of Representatives taken by the House Creative Services are considered "PD-USGov", then the photo should be OK s long as the subject of the photo states as much when posting it online; otherwise, the argument just seems to be that the subject of the photo isn't to be believed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok so based on that I think some criteria should be established with these kinds of images when they are posted on social media. Feel free to add points I'm just throwing out suggestions out there. 1. The photo must look like one normally taken by the House Creative Services and 2. The photo is confirmed to be their official portrait by the member themselves. Wollers14 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I participated in that discussion to say that someone didn't tag their image correctly which is why another, related image was deleted. Otherwise, I somewhat agree with Wollers14, in that there must be a confirmation that it was taken by House Creative Services and is an official portrait. As I recall from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene official photo, 117th Congress.jpg, the image may as well be by a private portrait photographer, which isn't under {{PD-USGov}}. reppop^talk 04:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

So there's a way to tell if its done by the House Creative Services because they take their pictures the same way with details such as an American flag in the background and a blueish background along with it. Also to tell if it is by the House Creative Services it can be posted by the member elect on social media. The MTG example you provide was clearly not one done by the HCS as there is no Flag background or blueish back drop. Wollers14 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Both of those cannot give 100% clarity that the image is public domain. there was a period in a time when the House official photos were simply a blue background like File:Greg Lopez 118th Congress portrait.jpg. I don't think that there's a precise way to tell without A. the member being an official member of the government (so that we can assume that it's public domain) and/or B. it's been officially published on House.gov or a similar government-run website. In fact that second MTG photo deletion (also in a blue background with the American flag per archive) is very similar to the situation that we're in right now, and that's why I want to wait until we have official confirmation from House.gov (or a copyright release from the congressman-elect). Again, there's really no harm in waiting. AG202 (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Greg Lopez doesn't have an American Flag behind him nor the traditional blue backdrop. What I'm essentially saying is that you can use the flag and blue back drop to tell or you can email HouseCreativeServices@mail.house.gov for more information. In fact I'll email them to see if we can get answers here. I doubt that they will respond though. Wollers14 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a different photograph thing for Lopez, see File:Gabe Amo 118th Congress Official Portrait.jpg. I see it as a Cleark portait photograph, rather than an official House portrait but it's still under a US Government unit. The best way is for a website to actually host it with metadata, but we would just need to actually get confirmation that it's by a government unit. reppop^talk 08:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The best way is to look at familiar details to other images of freshmen in the house such as the previously mentioned above. Also we can call or email the House Creative Services to confirm with them though I imagine it will be hard to talk with them since we are Wikipedia users Wollers14 (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

See Jameslwoodward's conclusion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg: "Most such images are taken by private portrait photographers because the subjects want the best possible image." If the photograph is hosted on a congressional website, or has metadata that says that it's by a photographer for House Creative Services, then its fine. We just need a way to find out if this is truly a House photograph. reppop^talk 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Ahh thanks to both of y'all, but in that case, yeah if we can't get in contact with them and there's no metadata, then imho it's just best to wait and see. AG202 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You can reach out to them too just so you know the email is above and they do have a phone number that you can find online Wollers14 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok so I’ve reached out to the HCS and they said that best bet is to contact the member-elect’s office to verify but the lady I talked to who is one of their directors said that images done by the House Creative Services are public domain so the only way to verify is to contact the office of the member-elect and ask them. So I will reach out and ask Hamadeh’s office and see what I get from there.Wollers14 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do this, I do appreciate it. AG202 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

So I also got a response to the email I sent from the House Creative Services and they are saying that the post by Hamadeh (They linked the post) is by them. So I think the image is fine to use. We good now here? Wollers14 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Then it should be fine. Maybe a statement that an email correspondence confirmed that it was by House Creative Services, maybe forwarding via COM:VRT but I'm not sure if that's really needed. reppop^talk 00:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think VRT accepts forwarded emails but perhaps a VRT member could clarify by asking at COM:VRTN. Anyway, even if one's not needed, it might be better to ask the consider sending one anyway because it would be on record if this thing comes up again with respect to another similar image. The HCS could actually word the email to cover not only this particular image, but other images it takes. This could possibly allow a specific copyright license template to developed for HCS images that could be used for its images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Well I have the names of the people who responded to me. I'm sure they'd be willing to talk if you ask them. You will however probably need to use an email that looks like it came from a real person. I used my real name in my emails to them. Wollers14 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Dealing with reposts without attribution in the context of a deletion request (aka showing its mine, not theirs)

I uploaded an illustration in 2021 and it has been listed for deletion because some online store put it on its website without giving proper attribution. I was able to show via the wayback machine that their listing is from July this year only, but generally speaking what is the best way to go about it? I do not want to use watermarks, and I don't think that drawings contain any type of EXIF data that would help assert authorship. Any ideas? Aphis Marta (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Aphis Marta: you claim to represent Philip Morris International, a huge multinational company. You better verify your identity and relation with Philip Morris via COM:VRT otherwise all your uploads are likely to be challenged sooner or later. Günther Frager (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also: is this with reference to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Terea.jpg or something else? Please be as specific as possible when asking questions here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

DEGA MD question about copyright

Hi Dega MD, You have done a beautiful map of Philip's tetrarchy that I would really like to use in an article I am currently writing. But I have been working on this article for years and it will be submitted to a peer-reviewed, top-end, academic journal. These are not technically open to all; they are accessible by way of a subscription and a learned society. I myself am more than happy to circulate this work, but I have to sign a copyright agreement with the journal once/if the article is accepted. I will circulate my article once it is published to students and to any interested parties who wish to use it for research. That will be free. Do I have your permission to publish this map in my article? (Please say "yes.") Best wishes, Douglas Campbell Professor of New Testament Duke Divinity School 70.130.73.169 15:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I presume this post is about User:DEGA MD's File:Philip Tetrarchy.svg.

That file has a CC-SA 4.0 license. You can use it in the journal by citing the license and giving credit to DEGA MD. It is a derivative work, so you may need to cite its underlying works.

The file is derived from DEGA MD's File:Herodian Tetrarchy political map.svg.

That file was derived from DEGA MD's File:Herodian Kingdom political map.svg.

That file was derived from DEGA MD's File:Herodian Kingdom topographic map.svg.

That file was derived from DEGA MD's File:Southern Levant blank topographic map.svg. The blank map sources its information from 3 sources.

I see no need to cite the intermediate works by DEGA MD, but you may need to decipher and cite the 3 sources for the blank topographic map.

Glrx (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the artwork depicted in File:Wikimedia Foundation hall blurred.jpg is under a free license?

Otherwise, it'd be a copyvio... We don't like those here... JayCubby (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jdforrester (WMF): I would trust that a WMF employee would know enough about an artwork at the WMF office being sufficiently free to be uploaded here. Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: The original image is at File:Set Knowledge Free mural illustration.svg. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Fotografía registrada en derechos de autor

Mi pregunta es ¿puedo subir una fotografía de un reconocido fotógrafo, con su autorización y que el envíe el correo al VRT y elegir una de las Creative Commons permitidas por Wikimedia Commons, aunque la foto esté registrada en Derechos de autor? Mibucu 07 (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mibucu 07: Sí.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mibucu 07: Sí, porque registrar una foto es un recurso legal para afirmar los derechos de propiedad intelectual sobra la obra. El poseedor de los derechos de autor puede licenciar sus obrar como se le plazca, por ejemplo con una licencia Creative Commons. Günther Frager (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Gracias por las respuestas. Como estoy empezando en este tema, quisiera preguntarles también si es correcto como entendí el proceso para subir la fotografía: Primero se sube a Wikimedia Commons, posteriormente el autor tendría que enviar un correo a VRT manifestando su autorización para el uso de la imagen de acuerdo con las atribuciones de la licencia elegida (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) y, por último solo esperar a la validación de dicha autorización. ¿se me está pasando algún punto importante? Mibucu 07 (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mibucu 07: Cuando envie el correo, es buen idea indicarlo en la página de la ficha. Vea Template:PP. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hola, nuevamente pido su ayuda, ya subí el archivo a Wikimedia Commons, pero no se como etiquetarlo correctamente para notificar que estoy en espera de que el fotógrafo envíe el correo con su autorización. El archivo es File:Santiago-Garcia-Galvan.jpg Mibucu 07 (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mibucu 07: ya agregré la plantilla, ver Special:Diff/962189329. Günther Frager (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Is Comedian copyrightable?

Would an image of Comedian by Maurizio Cattelan be permitted on Commons?

An image of the "artwork" is marked as non-free on the English Wikipedia. However, there is absolutely nothing original about taping a piece of fruit to the wall. Another artist did sue Cattelan for copying a piece of art that comprised of a banana and an orange duct-taped to green panels, but the case was summarily be dismissed. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ixfd64 I was thinking of the same thought yesterday (Philippine Standard Time/UTC+8) and was considering posting the question here.

Anyway, I found two articles that may be of relevance. In this article, the judge commented regarding threshold of originality: "While using silver duct tape to affix a banana to a wall may not espouse the highest degree of creativity, its absurd and farcical nature meets the ‘minimal degree of creativity’ needed to qualify as original." In this another article, the same judge also commented regarding the concept: "Regardless, the concept shared by the works, 'affixing a banana to a vertical plane using duct tape,' isn't protected under copyright law, according to Judge Scola." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Somaliland copyright law

I'm confused about Somaliland's copyright law. The country is unrecognized and considered part of Somalia. Somali copyright law protects only registered works, but there has been no way to register copyrights there since 1991. So, how are intellectual works from either Somalia or Somaliland treated? Syrus257 (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Like The "mainland" (or non-splitted) Somali, there's probably unable to register a copyright, so works from here might already be in public domain unless published outside of this country befor anyone's uploading. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Syrus257: Please see COM:SOMALILAND.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

TOO Lebanon

Buenas administradores, con respecto al Threshold of originality en Líbano, estan usando los mismo pasos que en Francia porque Líbano era considerado un estado de Francia antes de su independencia necesito que algún administrador agrega el TOO en COM:Lebanon. AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: See COM:TOO Lebanon.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.:Gracias por agregar el TOO pero ponga una nota en el TOO Lebanon que Líbano era un estado de Francia antes de su independencia por favor. AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22:  Done.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Uploader removed the NPD template I added

I added an NPD template to a file and the uploader removed it. I did substitute the template, like this:

{{subst:npd}}

Will someone be notified that they removed it? What's the best next step? The file is File:Murder of Kiaya Campbell.png.

Jeffrey Beall (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC).

Photo is currently the subject of a DR, so this is moot. - Jmabel ! talk 19:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I am currently trying to upload an image from https://www.goodbarber.com/press/kit/ to commons so that it can be used in an article named GoodBarber on the English Wikipedia. I don't know the license of this image but it is part of a press kit. Is it safe to upload? The website states "guidelines" are available but they are never actually mentioned. Thanks so much! Here is the link to the article I refer to. Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cooldudeseven7: Hi, Most probably no. We need a free license, which gives much more rights than images diffused in press kit. These are only allowed for press purpose.

However these are simple logos, and may not be eligible for copyright in USA. So it depends on the country of origin. Yann (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

According to the article, the company originated from france... Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cooldudeseven7: Please see COM:TOO France.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Is photo CC Attribution 4.0?

Hi, I am interested in uploading a photo from https://diggers-photo-gallery.com/. It mentions "these photographs are now offered as a free resource to the Community to honor the spirit in which they were created. Photographer attribution is requested." Would this be good enough evidence to upload a photo as CC Attribution 4.0 or should I try to contact the owner of website and ask them to fill out COM:VRT/CONSENT? (Edit: I should also mention that the website doesn't load the photos very well. I had better luck seeing them, however, when I visited using the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20240724190246/https://diggers-photo-gallery.com/). IsaacWikiEditor (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@IsaacWikiEditor: Never indicate a CC license unless it is explicitly granted. In this case, {{Attribution only license}} should be OK. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Eurovision logo

Buenas que pasó con el logo de Eurovision (File:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2011_logo.svg),según en el DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg) es totalmente simple (below too)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logos country of origin is Switzerland. As a result this is under copyright Bedivere (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Old London street recordings

This archived site incudes a variety of mp3 audio of old London street sounds, made and broadcast from 1935 to 1958, with some commentary.

There are also a pair of 1928 recordings from a gramophone record. One includes an unidentified busker, playing the violin.

Which of the earlier ones are (or will soon fall) out of copyright, in full or even in part (i.e. without the commentary), and be usable on Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing I'm afraid perhaps none can be accepted here as of the moment, courtesy of complications with U.S. copyright. While URAA aimed at artistic works like old photos, sound recordings – even those outside the U.S. that had never been played by Americans' radios, television sets, or computers on the U.S. soil – were given pre-emptive U.S. copyright protection in 2018 courtesy of CLASSICS Act. See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/11#Curious case: non-US sound recordings. For the CLASSICS Act terms, read this. U.S. copyright status dictates the eligibility of all foreign sound recordings, even those that weren't even played in the U.S. up to now, recorded before February 15, 1972. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The 1928 recordings should be free and clear as far as the U.S. in 2029. Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Lim Nang Seng.jpg

Tagged as {{PD-Singapore}}, but would this comply with U.S. PD status as well? According to Clindberg at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Singapore, the term before 2004 was 50 years, non-retroactive. So, 1950+50+1=January 1, 2001, which is perfectly well in PD in Singapore. But as per COM:SINGAPORE, URAA date for Singapore was 1996, and this was caught up by the implementation of U.S. copyright overseas, including Singapore, through URAA. Is this old photo unfree for Commons considering the U.S. copyright? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What to do when YouTube video descriptions contradict the assigned license

Question about files sourced to Agencia Lusa on YouTube. All their videos are uploaded with the YouTube CC license, but all their video descriptions have the copyright symbol in the description (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTSupvMi_g for example). Which do we go by? I feel like their intent is for everything to be copyrighted, but then if they choose the CC license, even if mistakenly, are the files free? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Adeletron 3030, afaik you have to actually opt-in to free licensing, so Agencia Lusa is aware they've released these under those terms. Go with the license on their page. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any contradiction there – a work remains copyrighted even if you give a license for its use. Here's what the Creative Commons website says on the matter [emphasis mine]:

Creative Commons licenses give everyone from individual creators to large institutions a standardized way to grant the public permission to use their creative work under copyright law. From the reuser's perspective, the presence of a Creative Commons license on a copyrighted work answers the question, What can I do with this work?
— About CC Licenses

jlwoodwa (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bastique @Jlwoodwa thank you both for your responses. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Paintings by Betsy Graves Reyneau

I'm specifically concerned about the following images of her painting of Charles R. Drew, of which we have 4 different copies, although there are numerous others, based on her enwiki page:

• File:Charles R. Drew - NARA - 559199.jpg
• File:Charles R. Drew - NARA - 559199.tif
• File:Charles R Drew portrait.jpg
• File:Charles R Drew portrait.png

I chose not to open a deletion debate because I'm reasonably sure they are PD, just not the rationales listed. There are a variety of rationales for why these are PD, none of which are actually valid. We received them from the National Archives, who said we can use them freely, however, and I assume it's because they know it's PD. probably {{PD-not-renewed}}}. But, since I don't know how to check on that, I am not certain that is the case. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Colossal statues of Milk tea in the Philippines

Are the files in the aforementioned category OK for hosting here, or consider those as no different from sculptures? Kindly review and tag the image files accordingly. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any way in which the object in these photos (all three are of the same object) wouldn't be considered a sculpture. I've opened a DR. Omphalographer (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Mary Kay Bergman Grave.JPG

I've got two questions about File:Mary Kay Bergman Grave.JPG. The first is whether this is OK for Commons as licensed or whether it needs to be treated as a COM:DW given COM:FOP US. The second question has to do with the additional text just added to the file's description and whether it could be considered eligible for copyright protection separately from the image itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)