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.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque should be focused by professors in this grey area

In this discussion, several Indonesian users are doubting if COM:FOP Indonesia is indeed not ok or not, they mentioned a lot of educational articles to say "Indonesian copyright law is not clearly defining things about FOP". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Who are the "professors"? dwf² ✉ 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

e.g. @Aymatth2 and Clindberg: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the presented articles are not merely "educational articles"; it's published law review from legal academics. dwf² ✉ 02:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• The 2014 Law Article 9 says the author or copyright holder has exclusive rights to publish, reproduce, translate, etc. the work. Freedom of panorama would be defined in Chapter VI Copyright Limitations (Articles 43-51). This talks about official works, news, non-commercial use, archiving and authorized broadcasts. I see nothing that would permit commercial use of pictures of buildings or works of art permanently located in public places. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I could imagine an implicit FoP. The absence of cases about infringement suggests that might be the case. If you want formal language for that, it could be a de minimis interpreted broadly. However, somebody who knows the local legal situation should tell us whether such an interpretation makes sense. –LPfi (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is a rather interesting clause, 43(d), which I've not really seen in other laws. An act not considered infringement: the production and distribution of the Copyrighted content through information technology and communication media that are not commercial and/or lucrative for the Author or related parties, or the Author expresses no objection to the manufacture and dissemination in question. That is a pretty general clause, and would seem to allow distribution of works over the internet and other media, provided that they aren't copies of works which are of a commercial nature themselves, and that the author of the original work does not object. From a practical perspective, that probably covers most freedom of panorama type stuff -- sounds like for many situations that it's OK, unless the author objects later on -- so it's not infringement until that latter event happens. And I doubt architects or sculptors object very often, if ever. That strikes me as a rather practical clause, making much normal modern behavior not be infringements, and probably contributes to most FoP type usages (among others) being considered just fine in regular life. From a strict theoretical definition of "free" however, it is problematic -- part of that definition is irrevocability, i.e. that a work can be used without worry that the permission can be withdrawn. The Author expresses no objection part contravenes that, as permission can be effectively be withdrawn by the underlying author expressing an objection, of whatever nature. So from a policy perspective, it may not qualify, unless (as normal) we get a free license from the underlying author, even though posting such works here is perfectly legal (until an objection is raised, at which point they would be illegal). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • From a practical view that would mean we probably should not upload images of a nature such that the author gets revenue from selling or licensing similar images, e.g. as postcards or art books. I suppose that there for An-Nur Great Mosque could be such a business, but it could very well be that that business relies on the exception and the architect doesn't have a financial interest in it. It might be that there is no way to control the business, and thus not getting the revenue is not seen as a loss. Something to explore in the case of high profile works. –LPfi (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

an-Nur Mosque was constructed by Riau provincial government, and it now remains under their management. So does most government-constructed buildings in Indonesia that has seen its files getting deleted on Commons because of this. dwf² ✉ 01:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Most works are of a commercial nature. The author (architect) of the mosque presumably was paid for his work. Clause 43(d) seems to refer to works like Wikipedia articles where the author has waived their commercial rights, and/or where the author has given permission for copies to be made. I do not see it allowing copies until the author complains. "Expresses no objection" presumably means "says they do not object" rather than "does not say they object" to each electronic copy.

The law says that the author or copyright owner is the only one who can make copies, apart from certain defined exceptions. These do not include making copies or photographs for commercial use. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: That is, (un)fortunately how Indonesian copyright jurisprudence (or lack thereof) works. There has been no FoP-related case law decided by the Supreme Court, and even if there is one, the court has no real power to interpret provisions of the 2014 Copyright Law (it is up to the Constitutional Court, which has not received nor reviewed any petition regarding copyright up until now), and individual case laws do not serve as a binding legal authority or be treated as a precedent of Indonesian law. One of the recent discussion (https://youtu.be/LEmMc2bsAFE) about intellectual property law of photography, presented by Ari J. Gema of the Ministry of Creative Economy (and, to note, a member of the Indonesian bar and founding legal lead for CC Indonesia) also concluded that the FoP matter under Indonesian law remains an inconclusive subject. I would support Clindberg's point that we could, for the purpose of Commons, interpret there there is an provision allowing FoP under 43(d) of the 2014 Copyright Law; or alternatively, as LPfi pointed out, a broad interpretation of de minimis. dwf² ✉ 02:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I have proposed a complete overhaul of COM:INDONESIA based on statutory interpretations of existing laws, but it was promptly removed. dwf² ✉ 02:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

• If there is no case law on Freedom of Panorama we have to go with a pessimistic interpretation of the 2014 law. The basic position is given in Article 9, which says the author or copyright holder has exclusive rights to publish, reproduce, translate, etc. the work. Exceptions are given in Chapter VI Copyright Limitations (Articles 43-51). These do not include any waiver for commercial use of pictures of architecture or artworks permanently located in a public place.
• Clindberg has pointed out that Article 43(d) is unusual. It says "Acts that are not considered as Copyright infringements include: ... (d) the production and distribution of the Copyrighted content through information technology and communication media that are not commercial and/or lucrative for the Author or related parties, or the Author expresses no objection to the manufacture and dissemination in question." This is somewhat ambiguous.
  • "that are not commercial and/or lucrative for the Author or related parties" must refer to the Copyrighted content rather than the information technology and communication media, or this would allow reproduction through IT of any work as long as the author is not paid for it. The first part of 43(d) therefore relates to works for which the author or related parties receive no payment, which would rarely apply to buildings or statues.
  • "Author expresses no objection" must mean that the author has stated they do not object rather than they have not stated they object. They could have given a general waiver saying anyone may copy the work, or a specific waiver saying website XYZ may copy it. But this cannot mean that they have to explicitly object to the manufacture and dissemination in question, or anyone could copy a work as long as the author does not notice.
• The idea of a "broad interpretation of de minimis" does not work. The pictures of the mosque show the buildings as the primary subject, not as a trivial and incidental inclusion that could be blanked out without causing much harm to the picture.

It is annoying, but in the absence of an explicit statement in the law that allows freedom of panorama we must assume that there is none. Remember that works on Commons must be freely usable for any purpose, including commercial purposes such as advertising of products that the author or owner of the copyrighted work may find extremely offensive. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: I would therefore second Aymatth2, that neither Article 12, nor 15 (1), and nor 43 (d) are giving the possible of commercial-allowed FOPs, rather, they may apply to architectures and artworks, but still limited on some cut of non-commercial usages. What an unfair 43 (d) term I met. As I've said again and again, these terms look like what I've met in COM:FOP Ukraine, that some fair use-like terms are having confusing wordings, so that they misleaded people to claim that FOP is okay in XXX country. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: are you saying that I am misleading you to say that FoP is okay in Indonesia? dwf² ✉ 01:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: I'm not saying you're misleaded, rather, I'm pointing that many Indonesian users like you, are all misleaded by 43 (d), this panorama is found-able in COM:FOP Ukraine, don't explain anything more without a refreshed new legal advices. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how Ukrainian copyright provisions has anything to do with Indonesian copyright law, but I have seen stranger things. dwf² ✉ 05:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

While I hate to say this, unless Indonesian copyright law is changed, no FOP in Indonesia will be completely valid. Creative Commons Indonesia's statement prevails over the obsolete scholarly articles. While it may be a rough machine translation, the last paragraph of CC Indonesia's statement states "The image of objects in public spaces, with the convenience offered by the latest technology, is becoming more commonplace for the general public. Law, in this case regulation, should be able to keep up with technological developments and people's habits. Because, in essence, regulations are made to provide legal certainty for the legal relationship between legal subjects in a jurisdiction. Therefore, it is better if a provision is made as complete and detailed as possible, to avoid any legal vacuum. As well as providing free space for movement and still within the limits of reasonableness." (Yes this is highlighted in the statement.) The wording "it is better if a provision is made as complete and detailed as possible, to avoid any legal vacuum" (alangkah baiknya suatu ketentuan dibuat selengkap dan serinci mungkin, untuk menghindari adanya kekosongan hukum) implies an urgent need for a major amendment (that is, the introduction of FOP) so that the copyright law will fit in the new media / digital age. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to rehash any substantive point, since I think I have exhausted it already. For the record, I disagree with all of the interpretation of the 2014 Copyright Law above, and I am still of opinion that the Law must be expansively interpreted in favor of FoP, as much as possible. We do not reach a consensus here. dwf² ✉ 01:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the extract of that relevant section in CC Indonesia's statement (in original language and highlighting, enclosed in collapsible box). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Extract of CC Indonesia's statement

Meskipun begitu, Indonesia telah mengatur pembatasan hak cipta melalui huruf b dan d ayat Pasal 43 UUHC14: Perbuatan yang tidak dianggap sebagai pelanggaran Hak Cipta meliputi: b. Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan segala sesuatu yang dilaksanakan oleh atau atas nama pemerintah, kecuali dinyatakan dilindungi oleh peraturan perundang-undangan, pernyataan pada Ciptaan tersebut, atau ketika terhadap Ciptaan tersebut dilakukan Pengumuman, Pendistribusian, Komunikasi, dan/atau Penggandaan; d. pembuatan dan penyebarluasan konten Hak Cipta melalui media teknologi informasi dan komunikasi yang bersifat tidak komersial dan/atau menguntungkan Pencipta atau pihak terkait, atau Pencipta tersebut menyatakan tidak keberatan atas pembuatan dan penyebarluasan tersebut. Pada huruf b disebutkan bahwa setiap pengumuman, pendistribusian, komunikasi, dan/atau penggandaan setiap ciptaan yang merupakan produk pemerintah, boleh dilaksanakan tanpa izin langsung dari pencipta atau pemegang hak ciptanya. Artinya, setiap upaya pencitraan kembali gedung atau monumen, sebagai karya seni rupa maupun karya arsitektur, yang pengadaannya dilaksanakan atas nama pemerintah, dapat dilakukan secara langsung tanpa perlu ada izin tertulis dari siapapun. Asalkan pelaksanaan hak tersebut masih dalam batas wajar, yaitu tidak mengurangi nilai kehormatan dari ciptaan dan juga pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta ciptaan terkait. Dengan begitu, upaya pendokumentasian, pengumuman, dan pelisensian kembali ciptaan berupa gedung atau monumen, sebagai karya seni rupa maupun karya arsitektur, dalam format dua dimensi maupun tiga dimensi, yang tersedia di ruang publik secara permanen maupun sementara, dan diciptakan atas nama pemerintah tidak dianggap sebagai perbuatan melanggar hak cipta meskipun dilaksanakan tanpa izin langsung secara tertulis maupun tidak tertulis oleh pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta. Kecuali, dilarang oleh ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan lain, misalnya untuk menjaga keamanan dan kestabilan negara Republik Indonesia. Pada huruf d, disebutkan bahwa pembuatan dan penyebarluasan ciptaan secara daring, selain ciptaan yang dimaksud dalam huruf b, dapat dilaksanakan, bahkan dalam kepentingan komersial atau disediakan untuk digunakan kembali dalam kepentingan komersial secara langsung asal pihak pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta tidak keberatan terhadap hal tersebut. Artinya, setiap ciptaan berupa karya seni rupa maupun karya arsitektur lainnya yang hendak dicitrakan serta dibagikan dalam format lain dan untuk kepentingan apapun, harus menyertakan pernyataan bahwa penggunaan tersebut bukan merupakan untuk kepentingan komersial. Atau, jika penggunaan melibatkan kepentingan komersial, izin langsung dari pencipta atau pemegang hak cipta, mutlak dibutuhkan untuk menghindarkan perbuatan dari kategori pelanggaran hak cipta. Bagian ini menjadi dasar status “not OK” Indonesia di laman ini karena belum memenuhi standar atau kriteria “FoP” Wikimedia Commons. Untuk memenuhi kriteria tersebut, Indonesia dapat menerapkan pengecualian dan pembatasan yang diberlakukan pada ciptaan di huruf b, tanpa membuat daftar spesifik tentang ciptaan apa yang dikecualikan, karena sesungguhnya jenis ciptaan yang ada di ruang publik bisa saja tidak hanya berupa karya seni rupa dan karya arsitektur (pameran karya teks, karya seni terapan di pasaran, ekspresi budaya tradisional, rekaman suara musik di ruang publik dan lain-lain), dengan tambahan ketentuan yang mewajibkan penyebutan sumber atau nama pencipta dan/atau pemegang hak cipta, yang kemudian dapat memperluas kriteria penggunaan ciptaan dan menghindari sifat multitafsir (“tidak merugikan kepentingan wajar”) dari huruf a ayat (1) Pasal 44 UUHC14. Penghindaran adanya ketentuan multitafsir misalnya dengan pembuatan ketentuan yang menyatakan bahwa ciptaan citraan terkait merupakan ciptaan yang terpisah dari obyek yang dicitrakan, yang dilindungi oleh Pasal 40 UUHC14, sesuai dengan format citraannya. Satu tambahan ketentuan seperti itu saja dapat menjembatani hak pencipta ciptaan citraan untuk melaksanakan pelisensian ciptaan (baca ketentuan Pasal 80 UUHC 14 Tentang Lisensi di artikel ini) secara mandiri, tanpa memposisikan pencipta sebagai pihak pelaksana sublisensi pada ciptaan hasil citraan. Karena pelaksana sublisensi wajib memperoleh izin langsung secara tertulis untuk melisensikan kembali suatu ciptaan, materi asli maupun karya turunan, dalam aktivitas pengumuman ciptaan. Pencitraan obyek yang ada di ruang publik, dengan kemudahan yang ditawarkan oleh teknologi terkini, semakin menjadi sesuatu yang lumrah bagi masyarakat umum. Hukum, dalam hal ini peraturan, seharusnya dapat mengikuti perkembangan teknologi dan kebiasaan masyarakat. Karena, pada hakikatnya, peraturan dibuat untuk memberikan kepastian hukum terhadap hubungan hukum antara subyek-subyek hukum di suatu wilayah hukum. Maka dari itu, alangkah baiknya suatu ketentuan dibuat selengkap dan serinci mungkin, untuk menghindari adanya kekosongan hukum. Serta memberikan ruang gerak yang bebas dan masih ada dalam batas-batas kewajaran.

 Oppose, I mean that oppose to say "Indonesia has FOP", tried to copy-paste those terms to a Kyoto University Senior, they said that these aren't panorama related, but rather you can make photographs of buildings, sculptures and fine arts without permission from author for any non-commercial purposes such as educational. For commercial purposes, either the affected buildings are already public domain or don't matter on your works (COM:DM), or a license book must be given by the owners of buildings, otherwise you're violating their intelligent property rights. Compare with other countries, I see no reason to say "Indonesia is a FOP OK country". --117.136.54.63 10:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@117.136.54.63: who is this "Kyoto University Senior" and what are their relevance to the discussion? dwf² ✉ 07:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I doubt if this dwf²'s asking can get an answer, if I read Kyoto University's Privacy Policy carefully, their "2. Use of personal information" would be enough to suppress the possible to reveal it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Upload from Flickr

I don't get this: uploaded via Flickr and licensed "cc-by-sa-2.0", but the metadata say quite clearly "all rights reserved, no reproduction of any kind", plus the name and contact information of the photographer. Can someone explain please? --87.150.14.40 13:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the cc-by-sa-2.0 mark takes precedence over the EXIF. The photo could've been "all rights reserved" at the time it was uploaded to Flickr, before it was relicensed to cc-by-sa. pandakekok9 13:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But why, and how? Did the photographer himself upload it to Flickr? Would that automatically relicense the photo? Why would he do that if he had previously decided to explicitly want "all rights reserved, no reproduction of any kind"? It just doesn't make sense to me. --87.150.14.40 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

A License Reviewer could ask via Flickrmail.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

So would that be an issue with this particular image or with Flickr uploads in general (in which case, there's probably a help page out there somewhere that I don't know about)? I have a faint memory of reading the term "flickrwashing" somewhere... but I can't quite make sense of it yet. --87.150.14.40 20:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be an issue with this particular image. It could be an issue with some or all of that photographer's uploads. I sent him Flickrmail.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The correct license is cc-by-sa-2.0.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

O.k., thanks! So what was that "flickrwashing" thing I had in the back in my mind? Is there some information on that out there somewhere? I've come across similar things a couple of times and had been wondering. --87.150.14.40 11:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see Commons:License laundering, which has 17 redirects.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Live and learn. :-) --87.150.14.40 00:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

1933 photograph published in a Swedish newspaper

This photograph was, according to the information provided, published in the newspaper Upsala Nya Tidning in 1933. It was taken by Paul Sandberg (sv), who according to his article was a Swedish photographer who did freelance photography for the paper and died in 1951. Although the photograph is available with a CC BY-NC-ND license, that won't cut it here. It seems that {{PD-old-70}} will apply in ten more months in any event, but has copyright already expired due to the 1933 publication, given that a) the publication was 88 years ago, and b) copyright was presumably held by the newspaper? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The copyright always runs until 70 years pass after death of the human author. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No FOP in Bulgaria but, Template:FoP-Bulgaria?

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bulgaria#Freedom of panorama, there is no Commons-applicable FOP in Bulgaria. However, there's a template titled {{FoP-Bulgaria}}, which when visited just only gives the period when a certain Bulgarian architecture and sculpture falls public domain. IMO this should be renamed {{PD-Bulgaria-artistic work}} or some other similar title (in line with {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}} which I created two months ago and based on {{PD-US-architecture}}). Your thoughts on this? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Liuxinyu970226: regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  Why not ask users of bg:Специални:Потребители/sysop instead? @Borislav, Elkost, Iliev, JSS 9, and Maymay: @Nadina, Nk, PSS 9, Panzer, and PetaRZ: @ShadeOfGrey, ShockD, Spiritia, StanProg, and Ted Masters: @Termininja, Tourbillon, Uroboros, V111P, and Vodnokon4e: @Александър, Алиса Селезньова, Лорд Бъмбъри, Молли, and Петър Петров: @Спасимир and Филтър срещу злоупотреби: . --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's OK to be renamed. I'm not even sure why if/why we need such a template when "Art. 27(1) and (2)" are a standard "70+ years after author's death", which is covered by a more generic template {{PD-old-70}}. --StanProg (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@StanProg: since the generic template works as well, I chose to use it for the three eligible files previously at Category:FoP-Bulgaria. One file depicts a graffiti and so I used the generic {{Non-free graffiti}}. The remaining two seems to fail PD, and therefore have been filed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:FoP-Bulgaria. For the template itself, I nominated it at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Bulgaria since {{PD-old-70}} works the same way as it, and it just leads to misconception that there is Commons-applicable FOP in that country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I upload photos from these book?

I found interesting photos from Oudheidkundig Verslag 1930 (photos) in Internet Archive. So far I can't find the author but it was published in 1930 by Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen.

If I'm not wrong in understanding the copyright rules, the book is now in public domain because the copyright is expired in 2000 (1930 + 70 = 2000) in The Netherlands (where the publication took place). If I set the length to 100 years (where it's more preferable by Wikimedia Commons), it means that I have to wait 10 year to clear the copyright expiration. But, the Digital Collections from KITLV/Leiden and Tropenmuseum had photos from the book and they licensed it as CC.

So, can I upload these photos? AnsyahF (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@AnsyahF: Not speaking Dutch it's a bit challenging to be firm on any details, but there are a number of issues that would concern me in that regard.

First of all, this work was published in 1931, not 1930. Naturally enough since it seems to contain an edited collection of reports of various things for the year 1930.

Second, your given term of publication + 70 years seems to be based on the author being unknown. But the introduction is initialled by the editor, which presumably makes them identifiable, and at least several pieces within the work appear to be attributed to specific named persons. Even if the individual photographs are not attributed to a specific photographer, we may presume copyright to be held by the author of the article with which it is associated. If the author is not unknown then the term is pma. 70, and it would take research into the vital years of the various authors to determine expiry; and expiry by now would be less likely under that term.

Third, the term in the Netherlands is one thing, but even under the most generous term (1931+70) the work was in copyright in its source country on the URAA date (1 January 1996), meaning its US copyright would have been restored to a term of publication + 95 years (i.e. until 2027) barring exceptional circumstances. --Xover (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Even Delpher.nl isn't sure about the copyright. So, based on your reply (either the URAA protection or the book's affiliation), I don't think there's any hope for the book to be in public domain. Even the URAA protection is expired, it's still inconclusive to photographs's copyright. AnsyahF (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Fag24.jpg

http://photokade.com is not cc by 4 Baratiiman (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: Hi, and welcome. I tagged that file as a copyright violation (and most of the uploader's files), and started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nikrad2020. Thank you for your vigilance.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Filament20

All their uploads seem to be copyright violations, either screenshots or taken directly from the internet. I have just explained to them at en.wiki that they must only upload free-to-use images. Can someone mass-delete all the images? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Mass-nominated for deletion. Regards. T Cells^Talk 23:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

What if exif and uploader don't match?

In the last time I noticed a lot of speedy deletions of files which are uploaded by users who maybe didn't take the photo themself but uploaded it under a free license. I don't mean really obvious copyvios with bad resolution or taken from the web etc but when simply exif and uploader don't match. Last example was (@Túrelio and Lutheraner: ) File:20170820JuniorenEM C1 Zoe Jakob.jpg, uploaded by User:JamesTJohnson, author as per exif is Manuela Schwerte and depicted is Zoe Jakob. Why do we assume it is a copyvio? The uploader of course may have an oral or written approval by the photograph or it may just be the nickname of the photograph herself. Would't at least a regular deletion request or asking the uploader for an OTRS ticket be the right way to deal with?

What's the difference between the first case and Category:Images from CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion? Those photos are publizised by the german governing party on their homepage under CC license, uploaded here and licence reviewed. Of course they are taken by professional photographers and neither by the uploaders to the homepage/commons nor by the depicted persons. There were some discussions about those pictures years ago and it was decided to keep them, which I fully agree with. In my opinion we're not the CIA to investigate the history of origins. --Indeedous (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is question of trust. We trust CSU-Bundestagsfraktion but not random accounts uploading some random photos as their own. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this capitol security camera footage public domain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y-yBkGeHJI Victorgrigas (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of that video you're referring to, but security camera footage from US Federal Government sources is clearly PD-USGov.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

New notition of the licenses

I used to upload my images via Commonnist and with standard liceses. But after a long time I uploaded a few images as:

File:02310017_ROBIENE_(04).JPG

and now I see the the liceses are changed. It seems that:

{{User:Stunteltje/license}} {{Self|Cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL|attribution={{User:Stunteltje/attribution2}} }}

are no longer correct. See:

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike missing SDC copyright status| CC-BY-SA-3.0| Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 missing SDC copyright license| License migration redundant| GFDL| GNU Free Documentation License missing SDC copyright license| Self-published work| Self-published work missing SDC copyright license|

My question is: Can anyone give me the correct new notition of the licenses?--Stunteltje (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Stunteltje: Please ignore the "missing SDC copyright license" cats. A bot will come along to add information about your file to SDC, removing such cats.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed. --Stunteltje (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Stunteltje: You're very welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• New messgae from AntiCompositeBot. See File:ENI_03270408_DE_GOEDE_VERWACHTING_(13).JPG. I uploaded this file with the same licenses as before, however this bot wants to delete the file. Strange.--Stunteltje (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Close your "Self" template with the double accolade. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Harry, Walter and Guy Hillier, with three dogs

Hi, what do you think of this photo? It was taken in 1880, but the owner allow only non-commercial use. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom says: "Anonymous works: Photographs created before 30 June 1957: 70 years after creation if unpublished, 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation". It was published in 2014. William Saunders died in 1892. It seems to be PD. What do you think? --Regasterios (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Regasterios: I think copyright probably expired in 1880+70+1=1951 (or earlier) as unpublished, and was not revived by publication.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: thank you for your help. See File:Harry, Walter and Guy Hillier, with three dogs.jpg. --Regasterios (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Glyph stroke order

A user contends at Commons:Deletion requests/File:碎-order.gif that there is a consensus here that "files only consisting of text glyphs are not copyrightable". Is that true? If so, does that apply to gif files showing the order to use in making pen strokes to compose such glyphs? There are 8 files or file versions affected per User talk:Jeff G.#About a user who uploaded copyrighted images as new versions.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 07:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I am not an expert on the applicable law, but here are my thoughts:

• Simply arguing that a work is copyright free because it is made of uncopyrightable components is not a particularly convincing argument. Individual letters or words are not copyrightable, but a specific arrangement of letters or words which make a poem is not.
• The above analogy is not perfect, however, because a series of fundamentally similar images based on common knowledge (stroke order) might not meet the threshold of originality under copyright law as a poem clearly would.
• US courts have found that vector fonts are copyrightable as written works (computer code) because they are not mere expressions of the shape of glyphs but actual instructions for how a computer should draw them. I would suggest that these gifs might be protectable as motion pictures because they are animated instructions for how a person should draw various glyphs.
• These files appear to originate from Vietnam. How does Vietnamese law protect typefaces? They may have a different threshold of originality than the US, and works must freely usable in both the United States and their country of origin to be eligible for hosting on Commons.

In any case, this is a very interesting case and I am interested in seeing what others have to say.  Mysterymanblue  08:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama for bridges in France

I know that there is no freedom of panorama in France. However, I found several entries from other contributors for this month competition, which depict bridges constructed in France in the past century. I would like to upload my own pictures of bridges from France, but I thought that I cannot because of the lack of freedom of panorama in France. Am I wrong? Should I report the pictures?--Роман Рябенко (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Роман Рябенко: you are free to upload images of old bridges in France, or bridges whose architects or designers have been dead for more than 70 years. Be wary of modern bridges like w:Millau Viaduct, as they may be copyrighted (the management of Millau who acts as proxy of the rights of its architect Norman Foster explicitly stated in their website that every image of the bridge is not royalty-free). However, if the bridge in in background and not the principal focus, the image should be fine. Take note: no freedom of panorama in France. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Another thing to be considered is that if the bridge is original enough to make it copyrightable. Per COM:FOP France, the following are some criteria for originality based on existing jurisprudence (in the case of buildings): a) a definite artistic character; b) if the creation is original, but not if the realization is purely technical; c) a harmonious combination of its composing elements, like volumes and colours (TGI Paris, 19 June 1979); d) an "aesthetic preoccupation", here the choice of a sphere and of a mirror surface (CA Paris, 23 October 1990, about La Géode); e) a choice which cannot be ascribed to purely technical reasons (CA Paris 20 November 1996, about stairs and a glass roof); and f) works without a particular or original character, which are a trivial reproduction of building types largely found across the country, are not protected. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think the Pont de Recouvrance was artistic, but the result at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pont de Recouvrance was to delete. I'm still not sure how we work out when the copyright expires. --ghouston (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Need workable tag for newspaper under copyright

Hello. I have on my computer a rare picture of an artist featured on Wikipedia. I'd ideally like a link in a reference there, to go to the picture of him stored on Commons. (It's my original newspaper clipping, but I don't think that matters.) The problem is that the clipping came a New York Herald Tribune newspaper issue of 1931. I note that paper is still under copyright. I was wondering if there is a license tag that might still work. Such as: WP has a fair use tag for a newspaper picture, if it is reduced in size and needed for ID purpose. Does Commons have any similar tag that might work. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC) PS. The picture of him has a two sentence caption underneath, though I can always crop off that caption, though it helps describe the picture.

@JimPercy: Commons does not accept fair use at all. If you are willing to do some digging, there are two reasons the photo might be in the public domain. US copyright law at the time required a copyright notice on all published works; if you have a copy of the full newspaper, you can check to see whether it has "Copyright 1931" anywhere on it; if not, it's public domain. The copyright would also have to have been renewed (you could check this by following the instructions at COM:RENEWAL); however, https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/nyheraldtrib suggests that they did renew many issues. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vahurzpu: Thanks for reply. Okay, so I tried something else. Namely, set up a Gallery heading (at far bottom), on the WP page of the artist. (I don't want these two portrait images to be lost in time.) I have never done this before. Hence, my setting it up could be off a spec. It's located at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin_(illustrator) UPDATE. New York Herald Tribune, Feb. 22, 1931. Front page says atop "Copyright 1931." I haven't been able to figure out the renewing copyright part yet. So will have to strongly assume it was renewed. JimPercy (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Congress security videos and Capitol police bodycam videos PD-USGov-Congress?

Consider this CSPAN video "Security Footage of Officer Goodman directing Romney" which was evidence presented on the floor of the Senate regarding the second Trump impeachment. I know the material of the house manager speaking at the beginning of the video is PD-CSPAN, but I am interested in uploading stills and video from congress's security videos such as that at timecode 54 seconds in which was shown on the senate floor. My presumption is that clips which only had silent security video content would be PD-USGov-Congress because they are works of the US government, and it would be best to post cropped versions of these with this template. For the uncropped CSPAN frame, my presumption is that it would be best to use PD-CSPAN using the rule for aggregate content since the notice points out the more restrictive rules of use for CSPAN material. It would be kind if anyone could take time to post comments and opinions on this. I know these rights issues are complicated and would like to know prior to extracting and uploading such material. Would the same apply for Capitol Police bodycam video also used as evidence? J JMesserly (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think that a video being silent or not makes any difference? Ruslik (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: It's a legalistic technical nit which is possibly an irrelevant distraction that I should not have mentioned, but since you ask- The security videos do not have audio. Any audio present would technically make such a clip aggregate content, the audio rights for which are CSPAN's who would have restrictions if the video were displayed in a committee. The restriction is not relevant since the content was presented on the Senate floor, but I would think it considerate to mention that a portion of the aggregate content was CSPAN's subject to its rules (which allows its use on Commons).

Whether this consideration is or is not an issue, do you have any opinion on the larger issue: whether It is proper to upload such capitol police security videos to Commons?J JMesserly (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We can't use any of CSPAN's stuff here. The reason the Senate/House floor stuff is OK is because the cameras there are the government's, not C-SPAN's, so that video (and/or audio) is PD-USGov-Congress. CSPAN simply rebroadcasts that, while adding their logo. If there is any CSPAN content beyond the raw feed, then there could be an issue. Security camera footage from the Capitol would also be PD-USGov-Congress (if even eligible for copyright, which is a harder question, so probably just stick with PD-USGov). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, since there appears to be no comments arguing the content cannot be placed on Commons, I will proceed as I proposed using PD-USGOV-Congress. Regarding CLindberg's statement "can't use any of CSPAN's stuff", I am sure s/he is aware we do have a PD-CSPAN template, used by nearly a hundred Common images. I presume by "their stuff" what was meant was the material using CSPAN equipment and facilities, such as content from CSPAN studio interviews and moderators interacting with CSPAN viewers. J JMesserly (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a perhaps distinct issue, but Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices may be useful. It say that for fixed surveillance cameras, it is an untested issue in the United States. On the other hand, fixed surveillance footage in England goes to the owner. In many continental European countries, this is not true--there it does not surpass the threshold of originality. And in Russia, security footage is not considered a work of authorship.

I don't think this is the same case as for bodycams, but perhaps this is useful. I'd also be curious if my understanding here is correct. If so, I can think of a couple photos and videos that might be useful. Jlevi (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

PD or Not?

Hi, I'm wondering if photos such as this from circa 1893 would be Public Domain now even though they (the Arkansas State Archives) claim the rights? If so what licence template should be used? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That was clearly a publication at the time, so there is no longer any copyright on the content. The archives might conceivably be claiming copyright on the photograph itself -- there are some 3D fasteners along the edges of that photo -- but a crop to the original content would almost certainly make that {{PD-Art}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If Arkansas state workers for example had created that montage recently, the boilerplate might be relevant- and I doubt they have the time or interest to decide when the boilerplate is irrelevant for specific images. It appears from the image the montage was created near the time of the legislative session, so my guess is that this would be PD-US, due to its age making the accompanying boilerplate notice inapplicable for this particular image.J JMesserly (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Carl Lindberg & J JMesserly — KylieTastic (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wondering

I hesitate to start a deletion process, but I am wondering: Why should we assume that user Friendly Toad is identical with Marco Vega, photographer of this image? --87.150.14.40 00:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Was the photo available on the internet, in that resolution, prior to upload? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the current situation of freedom of panorama in Sweden?

A statement and a ruling pertaining to Sweden's freedom of panorama are:

Statement: On 4 April 2016, the Supreme Court of Sweden issued a statement that the first paragraph in Article 24 does not extend to publication of works of art in online repositories.

Ruling: On 6 July 2017, a lower court of Sweden ruled that linking to depictions of copyrighted works of art hosted by Wikimedia (including on Commons) in a database constitutes copyright infringement.

And in the statement and the ruling above, nothing related to the building was mentioned.

The statement was issued five years ago, and the ruling was issued four years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ox1997cow (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If so, what is the current situation of freedom of panorama in Sweden?

Does it apply only to buildings like the United States, Japan, and Russia, not sculptures or statues? Or is there no freedom of panorama like France, Italy and South Korea?

--Ox1997cow (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this very question here. Zoozaz1 (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I have found a clause related to de minimis in the South Korean copyright law.

As the South Korean copyright law was amended on November 26, 2019, the following provisions related to de minimis were newly established.

Look at this.

Original: 사진촬영, 녹음 또는 녹화(이하 이 조에서 "촬영등"이라 한다)를 하는 과정에서 보이거나 들리는 저작물이 촬영등의 주된 대상에 부수적으로 포함되는 경우에는 이를 복제ㆍ배포ㆍ공연ㆍ전시 또는 공중송신할 수 있다. 다만, 그 이용된 저작물의 종류 및 용도, 이용의 목적 및 성격 등에 비추어 저작재산권자의 이익을 부당하게 해치는 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다.

Translate: In the case of photographing, voice recording, or video recording (hereinafter referred to as "shooting, etc." in this Article), if a work that can be seen or heard is incidentally included in the main object of photography, it is reproduced, distributed, performed, exhibited or transmitted to the public can do. However, this is not the case if the interests of copyright holders are unfairly in light of the kind and purpose of the work used, the purpose and nature of use, etc.

(I used Google Translate, and I have modified it slightly to make the meaning clearer.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ox1997cow (talk • contribs) 06:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to add de minimis related to COM:CRT/South Korea.

Ox1997cow (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Anita Caspary and James Shannon.jpg

Request for feedback: Copyright status: File:Anita Caspary and James Shannon.jpg

Seeking guidance on first Wikimedia upload. File is an image of an artwork (a double portrait of two persons who have Wikipedia pages, both of which are absent any visuals). While it has not been released with a Creative Commons license, this is neither an attempt to assert nor test fair use since the terms of use provided by the owning institution proactively identify acceptance of "personal, educational, and other non-commercial uses" (Smithsonian terms of use, see: 2b. "Other Content – Usage Conditions Apply", cross-referenced to the file's "Usage Conditions Apply": National Portrait Gallery's page for 'Anita Caspary and James Shannon'). Cannot otherwise find applicable chapter and verse in copyright or help pages, unsure if OTRS is appropriate, ready to delete upload if incorrect about use case. --Migozared (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Other non-commercial use" which I interpreted as CC-BY-NC isn't compatible with Commons. Permission is required for this image. Regards. T Cells^Talk 22:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@T Cells: Thanks for thoughts, will proceed with removal. Migozared (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(c) for photo from books

I have come across this photo from WikiCommons. It was uploaded there by an editor who photographed a book page, presented it as "own work", and offered it as copyright-free for further use. It shows an event from 1918. I have checked and it is being offered FOR A FEE by the Central Zionist Archives here. I know this doesn't mean that the CZA are the (only) reproduction rights or (c) holders, but I also don't know if our colleague's formulation ("own work") is OK. I also believe one should check if the actual photographer isn't known by name, as he should be mentioned in the file as the actual author. There weren't all that many official photographers in Jerusalem in 1918. Anyone who knows the laws (which differ from area to area, stricter in the EU and less so in the US) & WP rules? Arminden (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The claim of "own work" is incorrect as the uploader is clearly not the author. This needs to be corrected. However, this is one of the series of photos taken at the Hebrew University Cornerstone laying in 1918 by Strajmaster & Werner and should be in the public domain in Israel since it was taken before May 2008 and possibly PD in the U.S as it looks like it was published prior to January 1926. I have fixed the copyright information. Regards. T Cells^Talk 17:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Countries above 95 years for anonymous works

Do any countries actually have copyright terms for anonymous works that exceed 95 years from publication? Here's my understanding:

• The United States (CRT) and Jamaica (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Jamaica) both have 95 year terms.
• Ivory Coast (CRT) had 99-year terms until 2016, when they were dropped down to 70 years. What I don't know, however, is whether the reductions were applied to existing copyrights or just newly-created ones.
• Mexico (CRT) normally uses life plus 100 years, but the CRT page says that "[a]nonymous works are in public domain until the author or the owner of the rights are identified".

I ask because I wonder if this makes the one year-holding parameter within {{PD-anon-expired}} superfluous. Its life as {{PD-anon-1923}} made it clear that it meant to track US terms, particularly in 2008 when 1923 was 85 years ago, but I honestly think that the change in situation makes {{PD-anon-expired}} very well suited to become a PD-worldwide tag. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are basically right -- that is effectively a global tag. Mexico does have a 100 year term for government works, which are one form of anonymous works -- but yes, their law is a bit different in that way. That is, so far, just a nominal term -- it was 30pma as of 1982, so expirations have effectively been frozen since then, and so are about 69pma now (69 years from publication for government works), increasing one each year. It would take another 27 years before their government works term would actually go beyond 95. The Ivory Coast was similar -- they increased from 50 to 99 non-retroactively, so expirations were simply frozen, and they changed their law to 70pma just as the effective term reached that point. So no anonymous work was ever actually protected for more than 70 years from publication there. Jamaica went from 50 to 95 in 2015... their existing law was by default non-retroactive, while the 2015 amendment does not specifically say other than the term extensions were deemed effective on January 1, 2012 (so a little bit retroactive), but no anonymous work more than about 60 years old is still protected there (though that will again increase by one each year). I guess the line there is 1960 (as 1961 works, due to expire on Jan 1 2012, presumably got extended). The various U.S. -expired tags were renamed from -1923 tags, since I guess we did not want to put the number 95 in the tag (in case the U.S. increased it again), but the PD-anon-1923 tag was meant to be a combined tag for the U.S. plus other countries, and still is -- it would apply pretty much everywhere. I think 80 years from publication (Colombia and in some cases Spain) are the actual next step down from 95, so PD-anon-1923 has been pretty much a worldwide anonymous term template since 2004. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)