Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

< Commons:Village pump
Latest comment: 50 minutes ago by Fl.schmitt in topic Ancient roman frescoes in situ vs in museums

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


File:Me at the zoo.webm edit

Latest comment: 14 hours ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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

Tbh I don't really understand why the CC license would be void if the camarographer co-held rights on a video from the early Internet era, in this case Lapitsky. Even the Wikipedia page says "On Karim's camera" and was uploaded on Jawed's YT channel, it's most likely that Lapitsky informally gave permission rights to publish the video. If this was going to be the case, a lot of YT videos under CC would end up in problems because of "who is the actual owner of the footage" discussions. Hyperba21 (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Hyperba21: I think the concern is that there is no indication that Lapitsky (who was holding the camera) knew how the video would be used online.[2] In the US, I believe, the owner of the device doesn't affect who holds the copyright.[3] And courtesy pings to the reviewer Armbrust and uploader Tuankiet65. Rjjiii (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The video was licensed under the CC-BY when it was uploaded and reviewed. Here's an archive made the day it was reviewed: https://web.archive.org/web/20130606120257/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNQXAC9IVRw
Creative Commons licenses aren't revocable so Me at the zoo can stay here. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
And also I'm pretty sure the Lapitsky was recording for Jawed, and Jawed likely owns all the rights to it but only reserves some. I feel like Lapitsky knew Jawed was going to upload the video and most likely reserves no rights to it AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@AuroraANovaUma: According to Lapitsky, he did not know.[4] He has a public email, if anyone wants to reach out to him.[5] Rjjiii (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If I ever do reach out to him, I'll do so to ask him if he's ok with MATZ even being public, letalone being licensed under the Creative Commons license. For now, I'll assume he's ok with both, and I hope that's the reality. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is the videographer who owns the copyright, not the owner of the camera, nor the person who is being videoed. It is up to the videographer to license the file. If we don't have confirmation from Lapitsky that he's happy for this to be released under a free license, then we don't have a license that is suitable for Commons. That CC-BY licenses are not revocable is irrelevant; if the original license was invalid as the uploader didn't own the copyright, he could not legally license it. Schwede66 21:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit

Latest comment: 6 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

Movie leaflet as derivative work edit

Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

File:Escudo del Tecos Fútbol Club.png edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Free images from Museo del Oro by Sarah Murray edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Copyright experts,

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

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ecuadorian FoP in the new law edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago35 comments10 people in discussion

See also COM:FOP Ecuador.

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

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

Which translates (using Google Translate) as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translated as:

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

Possibly retroactive? With regards to the "use": "Regarding use, enjoyment, obligations, licenses, renewals and extensions, the rules contained in this Code will apply." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yep, that is probably as good as we get. So is such a photo only a "use" at the time taken, an ongoing "use" which becomes a problem, or a property right previously granted to the photographer? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Clindberg I can't say the context of the "use". Perhaps Harvey, who seems to work on files from Ecuador, may be familiar with this? Or perhaps COM:PCP may apply as the Ecuadorian courts may apply the current law (the "ongoing use")? The transitional provision also speaks of "this Code will govern the stages that have not yet been completed on the date of its entry into force." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Art. 83. Siempre que respeten los usos honrados y no atenten a Ia normal explotacion de la obra, ni causen perjuicios al titular de los derechos, son licitos, exclusivamente, los siguientes actos, los cuales no requieren Ia autorización del titular de los derechos ni estan sujetos a remuneración alguna:
[...]
f) La reproduccion, comunicación y distribucion de las obras que se encuentren permanentemente en lugares publicos, mediante la fotografia, la pintura, el dibujo o cualquier otro procedimiento audiovisual, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor de la obra original y el lugar donde se encuentra; y, que tenga por objeto estrictamente Ia difusión del arte, la ciencia y la cultura;"
= ... and that have for purpose strictly the diffusion of art, science and culture;
strictly = 2. In a limited manner; only. 3. In a narrow or limited sense.
As the saying goes, "the legislator does not speak in vain". If the legislature had wanted to give a broad permission, it would not have added such restrictive wording. People cannot pick the part that suits them and ignore the restriction that does not suit them. The wording does not allow uses where exists any purpose other than the diffusion of art, science and culture. The notion that practically any use would also be allowed because it can disseminate culture anyway would be to empty the wording from meaning. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Asclepias regardless of the 1998 Ecuadorian FoP, what are your thoughts on the transitional provision of the 2016 law that is relevant to Wikimedia Commons (the one I gave above)? From my reading, it seems the current code applies to the "uses" and "licenses", and it may seem that the more-restrictive FoP (educational/scientific purpose) applies even to all images, regardless of upload or photography date. This may make Ecuador   Not OK even to images uploaded before 2016. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have referred to decisions by the Andean Community once or twice in DRs, I think concerning threshold of originality matters. I don't really know anything right now about the interaction of the laws of Ecuador and decisions by the Andean Community though. --Rosenzweig τ 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Rosenzweig the paper used as citation on Andean Community CRT page (which I reread and digested) is clear though, in terms of the allowance for member states to heighten (for better or for worse) their standards on limitations and exceptions, because the rules from the Decision 351 are just the minimum legal standards. Therefore, Colombia raised the FoP standard by not allowing FoP in public indoors and interior architecture, but still acceptable here. Ecuador also raised its standard, but more far-reaching to limit to educational and scientific uses only (as of 2016, though the 1998 Ecuadorian FoP allowed "dissemination of arts, science, and culture"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I need to understand. Wikipedia in its essence and mission complies to the dissemination of arts, science and culture. I don't understand why the new 2016 law would be restrictive for Wikipedia, or for Commons. HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Part of policy is that files here must be usable for commercial use without getting further copyright permission -- that is what "free" means, not simply free of cost. See Commons:Licensing. So even though it is likely not a legal problem for us to use them for our purposes, policy requires something further. Depending on the Wikipedia project, you may be able to use such photos under a fair use rationale there, but Commons cannot host anything under that rationale, again per policy (see Commons:Fair use). Such photos would need permission of the sculptor to use in commercial uses. It's possible the older law was the same, but we misinterpreted it (or it was more vaguely worded). Without a special clause in the law allowing such uses, photographs primarily of sculptures are derivative works and need permission from the underlying author to do anything beyond fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
See especially foundation:Licensing Policy. While other sister projects are allowed to have a policy for hosting some non-free media, the mandate for Commons does not even afford that possibility. - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I may be entirely wrong on the fundamentals, however I'm going to try and place into perspective why I believe that the 2016 changes are aligned with Wikipedia, and not inherently restrictive.

Artículo 3.- Fines.- El presente Código tiene, como principales, los siguientes fi nes:
1. Generar instrumentos para promover un modelo económico que democratice la producción, transmisión y apropiación del conocimiento como bien de interés público, garantizando así la acumulación y redistribución de la riqueza de modo justo, sostenible y en armonía con la naturaleza;
2. Promover el desarrollo de la ciencia, la tecnología, la innovación y la creatividad para satisfacer necesidades y efectivizar el ejercicio de derechos de las personas, de los pueblos y de la naturaleza;
3. Incentivar la producción del conocimiento de una manera democrática colaborativa y solidaria;
4. Incentivar la circulación y transferencia nacional y regional de los conocimientos y tecnologías disponibles, a través de la conformación de redes de innovación social, de investigación, académicas y en general, para acrecentarlos desde la práctica de la complementariedad y solidaridad;
5. Generar una visión pluralista e inclusiva en el aprovechamiento de los conocimientos, dándole supremacía al valor de uso sobre el valor de cambio;
6. Desarrollar las formas de propiedad de los conocimientos compatibles con el buen vivir, siendo estas: pública, privada, comunitaria, estatal, asociativa y mixta;
7. Incentivar la desagregación y transferencia tecnológica a través de mecanismos que permitan la generación de investigación, desarrollo de tecnología e innovación con un alto grado de componente nacional; la
8. Promover la distribución justa y equitativa de los benefi cios derivados de las actividades vinculadas a generación, transmisión, gestión, uso y aprovechamiento de los conocimientos, la tecnología, la innovación y los conocimientos tradicionales, así como el uso efi ciente de los factores sociales de la producción para incrementar el acervo de conocimiento e innovación;
9. Establecer las fuentes de fi nanciamiento y los incentivos para el desarrollo de las actividades de la economía social de los conocimientos, la creatividad y la innovación;
10. Fomentar el desarrollo de la sociedad del conocimiento y de la información como principio fundamental para el aumento de productividad en los factores de producción y actividades laborales intensivas en conocimiento; y,
11. Fomentar la protección de la biodiversidad como patrimonio del Estado, a través de las reglas que garanticen su aprovechamiento soberano y sustentable, proteger y precautelar los derechos de las comunidades, pueblos y nacionalidades sobre sus conocimientos tradicionales y saberes ancestrales relacionados a la biodiversidad; y evitar la apropiación indebida de la biodiversidad y los conocimientos tradicionales asociados a esta.

Which translates (using Chat GPT) as (I will bold the underlying text which implies:

Article 3.- Objectives.- This Code has the following main objectives:
1. To create instruments to promote an economic model that democratizes the production, transmission, and appropriation of knowledge as a public good, thus ensuring the fair, sustainable, and harmonious accumulation and redistribution of wealth with nature;
2. To promote the development of science, technology, innovation, and creativity to meet needs and actualize the exercise of the rights of people, communities, and nature;
3. To encourage the production of knowledge in a democratic, collaborative, and supportive manner;
4. To encourage the national and regional circulation and transfer of available knowledge and technologies, through the formation of social innovation, research, and academic networks, and in general, to increase them from the practice of complementarity and solidarity;
5. To generate a pluralistic and inclusive vision in the use of knowledge, giving supremacy to the value of use over the value of exchange;
6. To develop forms of knowledge ownership compatible with good living, including public, private, community, state, associative, and mixed ownership;
7. To encourage technological disaggregation and transfer through mechanisms that enable the generation of research, technology development, and innovation with a high degree of national component;
8. To promote the fair and equitable distribution of the benefits derived from activities related to the generation, transmission, management, use, and utilization of knowledge, technology, innovation, and traditional knowledge, as well as the efficient use of social factors of production to increase the stock of knowledge and innovation;
9. To establish funding sources and incentives for the development of activities related to the social economy of knowledge, creativity, and innovation;
10. To promote the development of the knowledge and information society as a fundamental principle for increasing productivity in knowledge-intensive production factors and labor activities; and,

11. To promote the protection of biodiversity as a state heritage, through rules that guarantee its sovereign and sustainable use, protect and safeguard the rights of communities, peoples, and nationalities over their traditional knowledge and ancestral wisdom related to biodiversity, and prevent the undue appropriation of biodiversity and the traditional knowledge associated with it.

Any and all interpretations of articles following these objectives must be interpreted under these criteria. Since Wikipedia and Commons is not a for profit organization. All FoP criteria should be valid for Ecuador. HarveyPrototype (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The 2016 Law is divided into different sections and in this discussion we should discuss how images from Ecuador can be used for FoP and for other circumstances as well.
Book I: The National System of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Ancestral Knowledge
Title I: General Provisions
Book II: Innovation
Title I: General Provisions
Book III: Access to Knowledge
Title I: General Provisions
Book IV: Intellectual Property
Title I: Copyright and Related Rights
Chapter I: General Provisions
Chapter II: Protected Works
Chapter III: Moral Rights
Chapter IV: Economic Rights
Chapter V: Collective Management Societies
Chapter VI: Licenses and Limitations
Chapter VII: Duration of Protection
Chapter VIII: Public Domain Works
Chapter IX: Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information
Chapter X: Computer Resources
Chapter XI: Miscellaneous Provisions
Book V: Traditional Knowledge
Title I: General Provisions
Book VI: The Technological Innovation System
Title I: General Provisions
Book VII: Institutional Framework of the National System of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Ancestral Knowledge
Title I: General Provisions
Taking this into consideration I believe the 2016 law is focused on the creation of knowledge and the equitable distribution of any profit that may arise from this rather than a restrctive law. HarveyPrototype (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@HarveyPrototype see Commons:Licensing#Forbidden licenses. Wikimedia Commons strictly upholds the definition of Free Cultural Works. Four factors are considered under this definition:
  • the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
  • the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
  • the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
  • the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works
The Ecuadorian FoP as it stands now, does not go well with the first factor in the free cultural works definition. By limiting uses of images of copyrighted buildings or monuments to educational and/or scientific purposes only, there is no legal freedom to use the images commercially, like in postcards, commercial websites (that rake in money through ads), tourism souvenir items (like prints on T-shirts or designs on calendars), and especially in application development.
Images of copyrighted Ecuadorian architecture can be transferred locally at English Wikipedia. That wiki only follows laws of the U.S., which means U.S. FoP for architecture is applied to foreign buildings. Images on enwiki are local only to enwiki, however, so Spanish Wikipedia won't benefit. I don't know if eswiki has an equivalent choice-of-law principle anchored on w:en:lex loci protectionis.
I also see the intention of the Ecuadorian legislature to pre-empt the restricted FoP to pre-2016 images too, as the uses or licenses are going to be weighed in by the current law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have just updated the FoP section of Ecuador CRT page. I'll leave the updating of the other sections like the general rules to other editors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Latest comment: 4 days ago11 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

pings for the ones involved in the former DR, @Yann, IronGargoyle, Adamant1, and JWilz12345: . Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd say the ornamentation on some organs can be copyrighted since it's clearly not there for "intrinsic utilitarian function" at that point. Although there isn't a bright line and every organ should be judged on it's own artistic merits. It also would only extend to the ornamentation itself, not the actual organ per se. To quote from COM:UA "if the three-dimensional design contains some such element (for example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware), copyright protection would extend only to that element, and would not cover the overall configuration of the utilitarian article as such." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Organ as itself is a music instrument (--> a utilitarian object) and not a literary or artistic work. If is has some decoration, that deco can be copyrightable as itself. If someone takes a photo of organ - the main question = what is the primary object of that photo? Organ or its decoration? Similar case - a non-trivial logotype on car. Alex Spade (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The reason why this was abandoned before was because trying to create a rule for a particular narrow class of objects is silly and this is already covered under COM:UA. In all the cases that I've seen, the creative elements of the organs are not separatable from the utilitarian aspects of the work (separability is a key test of COM:UA) . The shape of an organ and the sound apertures may be creative, but these elements will absolutely affect the sound that comes out of the organ. This is where each of Paradise Chronicle's deletion requests for organs fail. Now, I can certainly imagine scenarios where there is an image of an organ we cannot keep on Commons. Maybe the organ has a mural painted directly onto it, or maybe the organ has a fine engraving. A plain reading of COM:UA will tell you that though and there is nothing really to discuss here. It is, as I think the comments above suggest, case-by-case. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I actually owned a church organ at one point and there was plenty of elements involved that could be removed without effecting the sound Etc. You can look through the various sub categories in Category:Church organs in Italy by region and find a ton of similar examples. For instance File:Organo a canne Santuario San Giuseppe da Leonessa - Leonessa.jpg. You can't tell me the ornamentation at the top of the organ effects the sound, but people will automatically dismiss a DR for an image like that "because utility." --Adamant1 (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@IronGargoyle The separability test described in UA is about copyright law in the USA, where there is FoP also in the interior of buildings, but the discussion is about organs in countries with no-FoP indoors. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Paradise Chronicle: Ok, you bring up differences in national laws. Here is another bit from COM:UA: "In the vast majority of national jurisdictions, the level of originality required for copyright protection of works of applied arts does not differ from the one for the fine arts.[5] It is higher in Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Slovenia, and Switzerland." (emphasis mine). Most of the DRs you created or commented on are from Germany, Italy, and Switzerland, which have a higher level of originality required. This completely undercuts your point. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@IronGargoyle Well that makes it case by case or country by country and I doubt that Switzerland has a higher threshold of originality as there any "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose" are protected by copyright. If there is one if its kind, then that's it, it's an original and in my opinion protected by copyright. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You doubt that it is a higher threshold of originality in Switzerland for applied arts (which this would definitely be)? That is cited with multiple references on COM:UA. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you don't believe in COM:UA, as you seem to have been unbothered by other Commons policies like COM:DM and COM:TOO in your relentless deletion requests of trivial interior elements. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Adamant1: Interesting example. I would say delete it because it the photo appears to be a direct copyright violation. No evidence of permission and the source says all rights reserved. Congratulations on owning a church organ though. That's cool. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aotea Lagoon park map edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Sainsbury Archive edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

Template:PD-State of Palestine edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

Jarekt (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The statute would be the one linked from Template:PD-IsraelGov, which links to a copy in Hebrew, and from Template:PD-Israel, which links to a copy in English. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
There was a paper which examined the Palestinian intellectual property situation around 2003; I think they concluded that for copyright the British 1911 copyright act was still in force, and not any later Israeli copyright laws. Unsure if that has changed. Trademark was more complicated and could involve Jordanian law in the West Bank in particular (Egypt administered the Gaza Strip for that period but sounds like did not apply any of their laws there). I'd like to see where this tag decided that current Israeli copyright law changes also apply to Palestine, and why.
Also agreed that the national flags part is strictly about trademark, and has no bearing on copyright and should not be there at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Clindberg I don't think the changes in Israeli law is in force in most of Palestine (except the Israeli-administered occupied areas, as per COM:State of Palestine#Copyright laws). The Copyright Ordinance 1924 (based on the British copyright act of 1911) is applicable to Palestine. A few provisions of the British act, like copyright exceptions, do not apply though as the Copyright Ordinance 1924 already provides some copyright exceptions, although severely-restricted (like not adapting the British-style FoP). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Clindberg: for further clarification if the Article 3 of the ordinance did limited the copyright exceptions, I read the scholarly paper that you gave here. It appears that Article 3 of the ordinance (that includes private copying provision) only replaces Articles 11–13 of the 1911 British act. The FoP provision at the British act is at Article 2. So it appears, there is FoP in the State of Palestine courtesy of the 1911 British act. Need to make this correction at the CRT page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, so far I don't see anything to change the conclusions of those papers. Just because a country administers a territory does not mean that that country's laws automatically apply -- there usually needs to be continuity of laws already in place. Jordan did apply its trademark law to the West Bank when it was administering it, but looks like it left copyright alone. So it would appear the 1911 law and the 1924 ordinance are the last copyright laws applied to Palestine (and Israel, but of course that got superseded). That would seem to mean it's still a 50pma area, with photographs being 50 years from creation, and FoP and all that. None of this is certain, and who knows how much it's actually enforced, but those seem to be the most likely terms that currently apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all for looking into it. I did minor changes to the template:

  • added link to "2007 statute" (thanks Asclepias)
  • removed the bullet about flag trademarks as something irrelevant to Public domain template

I also noticed that the template was most likely created as a response to User:BmboB's Deletion requests for Emblems and Flags of Palestinian Political Parties. It looks like after DR was filed on May 20, few hours latter User:RowanJ LP created this PD template so it's existence can be used as a reason not to delete files. That is one of the worst reasons to create new PD template, and I do not trust legal research that went into it. I am not nominating it for deletion (yet), in hopes it can be salvaged through some consensus here. However otherwiseI think it would be better not to have it. --Jarekt (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt the 2007 Israeli law is generally not effective across Palestine, except the Israeli-controlled cities. The 1911 Copyright Act as modified by the 1924 Copyright Ordinance is the effective law of the two territories (Gaza Strip and much of West Bank, except Israeli-occupied cities). Therefore, the general term is 50 years p.m.a., but as per the ordinance, the term for anonymous works is 70 years from publication (1924, sec. 5). The 70-year p.m.a. of the 2007 Israeli law only applies to Israeli-occupied cities. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can someone check my work please? edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm kinda new to uploading to Commons. Can someone check if this is good [6]? It's from this website [7], which has Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. See bottom right on the web page: "All site materials are available under license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". But there is a note in the file metadata. Bogazicili (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I made one edit -- [8] -- based on what is in the EXIF. I think it is good now, but someone else may disagree. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Any way to make sure? Bogazicili (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Instrumental of "Other Side of the Screen" edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

我想上传“赤地黑龙旗”的文件，但是我该怎么添加版权信息？ edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Any menu is just a directory, much a like a telephone directory held not protected by copyright in en:Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with Ruslik here, though this particular one may be fine. There are plenty of menus that have enough complex graphical elements that the "telephone directory" comparison would not hold. Here are two blatant examples: [9], [10]. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does this meet the ToO? edit

Latest comment: 3 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion

en:File:The Tetris Company logo.png

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

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

I think it is likely below COM:TOO US. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah some of the files there are more complex than that Tetris logo, which is just text with a bit of a reflection... AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we could do just fine with a simpler version of that logo (without the shading). I think that shading could be considered creative enough, but simple letters (without that shading) are inherently not protected. Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are examples of shading gradients at COM:TOO US, and this is just text and a simple geometric shape beyond the shading. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore the shading is also not that complex either. It's just a semicircle. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@AuroraANovaUma: I've notified the administrator who deleted File:The Tetris Company logo.png about this discussion. Generally, it's usually a good idea to at least first discuss things with the deleting administrator, even if only as a courtesy, just to see what they have to say. Since the file has been deleted, it might need to be discussed via COM:DRV instead of here to see what the consensus might be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Logo looks complex enough for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

@Fz20181223: Deleted per COM:NETCOPYVIO thanks to Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

In Public Domain?? edit

Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
 

Hey, is the license right on this File:中国人民解放军福州军区福建生产建设兵团臂章.jpg? Is this patch in the public domain? How can we know? I checked Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China but I didn't see anything about pictures of patches. I assume the man didn't make the patch, but instead took a close picture of it. The organization the patch is for endined in 1974. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The work does not meet Threshold of originality because it's just text and a shape. The copyright rules of China are irrelevant in this context. Anwon (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay interesting. I'm learning. @Mike-dog: : did you make this patch? I assume the user will not respond since their 25 edits are confined to the mid-year months of 2017, but if they ever log in, we'll see. In the mean time, what do we do? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I actually have the same kind of issue with this one: File:抗大教员证章.jpg

 

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

COM:IRAQI KURDISTAN & Template:PD-Iraqi Kurdistan edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have created this page to highlight Law No. 17 of 2012 on copyright in Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Some of the changes introduced in that law compared to the one used in the rest of Iraq are:

  • Protection for applied arts lasts 25 years rather than 50 years
  • Unprotected work includes daily news among other things
  • The duration of protection for photos is 15 years rather than 50
  • Performances & sound media are exempt from the general copyright law, and their protection lasts 50 years after publication
  • Media published by broadcasting stations is ptotected for 20 years

Template:PD-Iraq might have to be replaced with Template:PD-Iraqi Kurdistan on some files. Anwon (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Closure requested for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can an administrator take a look at the deletion request. There has been a lot of back-and-forth between editors, with several !vote changes and strikethroughs. It was opened back on 17 May, so it is two weeks old. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I closed the first one. Keep in mind, administrators are dealing with backlog from March. Abzeronow (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Second has been closed as deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Image - plan created by Tasmanian government (state of Australia) edit

Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, this post provides more information on a query I made about a month ago. I'm new to this aspect of Wikipedia. If possible I would like to upload to the Commons, for inclusion in an article, a national park plan (simple park boundary lines on a sketch map, made prior to the first topographic map of the area). This was produced by the government of Tasmania, a state of Australia, in 1955. I can provide a very small thumbnail of the image if that would help in understanding my query, or possibly a link to it on the web. I went to a government office in Tasmania and asked for a copy of the plan, which they provided me free of charge. While it's never been published the plan has, since 1955, always been available for perusal or copying at Tasmanian state government offices. The national park which the plan describes/outlines only existed from 1955 to 1968. What are the options to be able to get the plan uploaded to the Commons? Also, if uploading is not possible, what are the options for somehow making the image available to readers of the intended Wikipedia article? For example, by using a reference to the map; a link to where it resides on another website (would this be the only feasible way?). Thanks in advance for your help. Cheyne (talk) Cheyne (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You should be able to upload it, tagged with {{PD-AustraliaGov}}.
Reasoning: According to {{PD-AustraliaGov}} and the discussion at its talk page, copyright in Australian state works now depends only on the creation date. Therefore, whether it would count as published or not is irrelevant. While this would usually be an issue for American copyright, which is also relevant for Wikimedia Commons, the Australian government has declared that expiry of Crown Copyright is valid globally, including in the US. Felix QW (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your response Cheyne (talk) Cheyne (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Screenshots of Wikipedia forks edit

Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As long as I carefully sourced the screenshots with URLs, the two screenshots of Qiuwen Baike (all have been tagged with {{npd}} have a blacklisted link. I couldn't tag the source because it is already blacklisted Found a short link to prove that they are legitimately under the same license. As the forks follow the same license as Wikipedia, are they safe to upload here? Ahri.boy (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ahri.boy: Should be, assuming they haven't violated the copyright of a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ohh thanks. I was slowly fixing the sources of screenshots I made. Ahri.boy (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

ABC Entertains Logo copyright edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has released a new channel, I am trying to find out what level of copyright or creative commons licence it has but I cannot find any information. Any help? Imageuploder (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Imageuploader. Under the current copyright laws of most countries, copyright holders are no longer required to clearly claim copyright ownership over their content. So, you probably should start out under the assumption that the new channel's logo is copyrighted and that the copyright holder is the Australian Broadcast Company. Unless you can either (1) show that the logo has been clearly released by its copyright holder under a free license that satisfies COM:L or (2) demonstrate thet the logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:TOO Australia, the logo shouldn't be uploaded to Commons. You can check (1) by looking at official statement (print or online) made by the company related to the new channel to see whether any make any mention of the logo's copyright status; for reference, no mention is equivalent to saying "this logo is copyrighted". Checking (2), however, is a bit harder without actually seeing the logo itself, but Australian copyright law is quite restrictive when it comes to the copyright status of logos and even those which seem to have very little creative input tend to be considered eligible for copyright protection. Assuming you want to use this new logo in the main infobox of en:ABC Entertains, you probably should be OK to upload locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content using the English Wikipedia Upload Wizard. Once you've uploaded the file locally to English Wikipedia, you simply relace the syntax of the old logo currently used in the |logo= paremater of the article's main infobox with the syntax of the new logo, and the old logo will eventually be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

are images from wikimapia free licensed? edit

Latest comment: 6 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

check this out. user has over 16K images, at least half of them is from wikimapia which is free licensed website. BUT, images that are upload is really free licensed? i saw nothing about licenses in these images in wikimapia. please enlighten me, thank you. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Modern primat: All WikiMapia submissions are CC-BY-SA 3.0 per https://wikimapia.org/terms_reference.html Term of Service 1F.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ancient roman frescoes in situ vs in museums edit

Latest comment: 50 minutes ago5 comments3 people in discussion

My question concerns the limits of {{PD-Art}} or {{PD-old-100-expired}} for in situ photographs of ancient frescoes (see, for example, Nereid pompeii fresco.jpg. That's a photograph taken between 2020 and 2024, presumably by a professional Italian photographer. The artwork pictured on that photograph is clearly older than 100 years, since it was buried under Vesuvius' ashes in 79 AD. While applying categories, i flagged it because there were no information regarding the picture's author. Am i right assuming the following:

  1. In such cases {{PD-Art}} should be preferred over {{PD-old-100-expired}} (since the photograph is clearly not over 100 years old - the PD status is derived from the pictured artwork);
  2. Photographs of ancient frescoes in situ can't be seen generally as faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works. For sure, picturing an ancient fresco displayed in a museum is the same case as picturing a medieval/classical painting that hangs 0.5 meters left of it. That's IMHO a faithful reproduction of two-dimensional public domain work. But taking pictures of archaeological objects in situ requires decisions regarding choosing which details to show in the in situ context. Especially for frescoes originally occupying the whole wall area, in situ photos are usually based on artistic choices, thus {{PD-Art}} isn't applicable as a matter of principle.

To be clear: My assumptions don't exclude own photographs of ancient frescoes taken in situ from usage on Commons, but it would restrict treating other (living) people's work as PD work. People are still free (while respecting other restrictions, see e.g. {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}) to take photographs of publicly accessible archeological sites and upload their own pics. They aren't free to take such pictures floating around on Pinterest or other sites and upload them as {{PD-Art}}. Is this correct? Fl.schmitt (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding "regarding choosing which details to show in the in situ context" does it mean that after I take a image from Commons, which depicts a whole fresco, crop out a small part of it and save the result into a separate file then that cropped file cannot be regarded as a faithful reproductions of a two-dimensional public domain work any more? After all, when a photographer chooses to take a photo of only a part of the fresco instead of the whole work, they basically do what is an equivalent of cropping. Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm - what's the effect (regarding the applicable license) of cropping a photography of a painting? Is cropping a way of demonstrating "originality (typically through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on)"? Then "it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted", or not? Please bear in mind that one of the rationales of the WMF standpoint is to counter "an assault on the very concept of a public domain. If museums and galleries not only claim copyright on reproductions, but also control the access to the ability to reproduce pictures (by prohibiting photos, etc.), important historical works that are legally in the public domain can be made inaccessible to the public except through gatekeepers.". For me, it seems that this rationale doesn't apply for archaeological sites which are in general publicly accessible (of course, not in its entirety, but in general). Fl.schmitt (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If it's basically a straight-on photo of all or part of a 2-dimensional public domain work, it's hard to see how that qualifies for copyright. If it's an unusual angle, or is a broader image that shows how the work sits in the context of a room, or something like that, I could imagine a claim similar to photographing a sculpture. - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but this isn't really helpful (especially in the case of the Nereid fresco). If 2-D or 3-D is crucial, this would imply that {{PD-Art}} never applies in those cases, since originally, the rooms of the roman villas were entirely painted, thus a 3D work. Additionally, as in the case of the Nereid fresco where only a small part of the wall is preserved, the pic has obviously a 3D subject. So, i don't see any reason to assume that {{PD-Art}} could ever apply in those cases, based on the 2D/3D criterion. For frescoes that were removed from their original place (a sad practice quite common in 19th century) and now be found in museums, i agree to see them (now!) as 2D works (as i explained). But it's the very question if this is justified for works in situ which originally were 3D works. Fl.schmitt (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

UAE copyright law before 1992 edit

Latest comment: 6 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Did the United Arab Emirates had a copyright law before 1992? An online article claims the 1992 law was the Emirates' first copyright law. But, did UAE ever had one before 1992, and did it protect works automatically or even architecture? If not, it may be possible that architecture before 1992 may be in PD, but I am not sure about this. The UAE was a former British protectorate known as the Trucial States. Further info is needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg edit

Latest comment: 1 hour ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please, remove this copyrighted photo! (File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg) The owner is company "BabaPhoto" and they don't want to everybody use it, it is copyrighted by them, and I have some issues because of downloaded it 9 years ago. I downloaded it in 2015, but times changed since then and it is not allowed to use it on a free site anymore. Thank you! Kalocsaizsuzsa (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

We've been through this before: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=881394454"