Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


Great shearwater and plastics pictures from paper[edit]

May the pictures of a great shearwater and plastics from Figures S1 and S2 [1] (CC-BY) be uploaded here? If so, may I ask someone to do so? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.140.3.202 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Is it copyrightable to colorize a black and white photo?[edit]

The photo "File:Kongo 1936.jpg" is of the battleship Kongou, which belonged to the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. It is published on a website called MONOCHROME SPECTER (戦艦 金剛). I don't even know where the original file came from, but this file has been given a Template:PD-US-alien property.

I understand that it is in the public domain if it is still a black and white photo, but is there a copyright on something that has been independently colored?

If it is copyrighted, then it cannot be offered as free content according to the copyright notice of MONOCHROME SPECTER.--アルトクール (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Not sure there have been court cases on this subject anywhere. The U.S. has a prohibition on "mere variations of coloring" being copyrightable, as part of 37 CFR 202.1(a). The U.S. Copyright Office for a long time used that to avoid registering anything based purely on color changes, but in the 1980s it was ruled that colorizing motion pictures was usually copyrightable -- this was based on the selection aspect alone of a "selection and arrangement" copyright, since per their original guidelines, colorizing a film usually involves selection of over 4000 colors, and that degree of human involvement supports a copyright. The criteria at the time was 1) Numerous color selections must be made by human beings from an extensive color inventory, 2) The range end extent of colors added to the black and white work must represent more than a trivial variation, and 3) The overall appearance of the motion picture must be modified; registration will not be made for the coloring of a few frames or the enhancement of color in a previously colored film. That logic apparently still applies, since that document is cited in the current Copyright Compendium. Whether colorizing a single frame qualifies, might be a harder question -- if there were only a few colors, it may not, and it could also depend on the process used (if it is the result of a computer algorithm, then no).
The current guidance is in the Copyright Compendium, section 906.3 . It states: Merely adding or changing one or relatively few colors in a work, or combining expected or familiar pairs or sets of colors is not copyrightable. It has this among its examples: Clara Connor found a black and white photograph that is in the public domain. She altered the image by adding a variety of colors, shades, and tones to make it appear as if the photo was taken in a different season. Clara submitted an application to register the revised photograph and in the Author Created and New Material Included fields she described her authorship as “adapted public domain black-white image by adding different colors, shades, tones, in various places of derivative work.” The registration specialist may register the work if Clara made sufficient changes to the preexisting photograph. That implies that it's possible that a colorization of a photo could be copyrightable, although the changes described there might be a higher degree of change than pure colorization (making it appear to be a different season).
All of the above is for the U.S.; I have no idea what Japanese law would say. I would say it would be preferable to avoid third-party colorizations unless it has been explicitly licensed. It would likely be sufficient to simply change the photo back to black and white, rather than deleting it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Atsushi Yamashita, has signed his name　(Irootoko.Jr) in the image.
According to MONOCHROME SPECTER, it is not a color restoration, but a subjective coloring.
In Japan, there is a precedent called this (古地図事件（東京地判（46 部）平成 26 年 12 月18 日（平成 22 年(ワ)第 38369 号））). Regarding an old map from the Meiji era, when a specific person did the coloring, if it has originality, it is said to be copyrighted.
In Clara's case, just as the copyright is recognized by the coloring with originality, if it is not due to the automatic coloring of the application, the right can be claimed.
It is not advisable to re-upload a map that has been signed by a person by processing it into black and white. If it is possible, the original image before coloring should be re-uploaded, but unfortunately I don't know where the original image is stored or available.
It is wrong to offer something as public domain when it is not supposed to be public domain. In that case, I would have no choice but to submit it for deletion, wouldn't you?--アルトクール (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we change it back to black and white, i.e. remove the colorization, then we are just left with the PD photo since we removed any of the copyrightable expression. For a map, less sure if even the black and white version has expression added from the orginal, but for a colorized photo it should pretty much go back to the original, or at least be a trivial change from the original. Agreed it would be preferable to find the original version, but don't think it's necessary in this case -- the only additional copyright was the selection of the actual colors, so removing the colors also removes that selection. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is an original version on this page (direct image here). Higher quality one on this page (direct image here). Those look to be slightly tighter crops than the version which was colorized, so there is likely a further original somewhere, but uploading one of those is probably better, and then deleting the original upload. Unsure of the alien custodian tag -- that would imply a copy was taken by the U.S. (quite plausible) and a copy would likely be at www.archives.gov, but that is not shown. However, it would be PD-1996 anyways because the other tag, PD-Japan-oldphoto, also implies that, so that is enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scans of works within PD but with non-commercial license[edit]

Hello,

Today I discovered this. A project by a Japanese public library uploading the scans of some old magazines. From the about page it says that the copyright of those magazines have expired (著作権が消滅している) and thus should be within the PD; as the project is made in association with the Japanese government, I can trust this I guess. And since the magazines are from 1912~30, it should be outside of the scope of the URAA.

But when I actually check one of the magazines, there is this ugly overlay saying it's under the CC-BY-NC-ND license, not compatible with Commons.

Can I still upload the scans (assuming I manage to remove the ugly overlay)? I remember hearing similar stories about museums putting some random license on works within the PD, what's Commons' stance on this topic?

Thanks, --Lady freyja (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can upload them. After that just tag them with {{PD-ART}} template. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commons will accept them; you can wrap the PD tag with {{PD-Scan}} (if they are made by scanner) or {{PD-Art}} (if they are photographs of the original pages) to show the reasoning. Unsure how much the library cares; sometimes they will make money off of reproductions so may be protective of the revenue stream, to the point of stretching copyright claims to the maximum. It's the uploader's choice of how to judge that risk. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NC and ND licenses on PD-Art are compatible with Commons, because even ARR is compatible with Commons; we simply ignore the license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the information! Then I will do. :) --Lady freyja (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright for picture taken at the fall of Singapore in 1942[edit]

File:BritishSurrender.jpg is recorded by its source (Imperial War Museum) as being taken by a Japanese official photographer (name of photographer not stated). It was taken during the process of the British administration of Singapore surrendering to the invading Japanese forces in 1942. The image currently has a {{PD-UKGov}} licence tag, which would be relevant if the photographer was a British soldier, but that doesn't apply here. Which set of copyright rules would apply in this situation? British-Singaporean law in place prior to the ceremony, Japanese/Japanese-Singaporean law in place after the ceremony or modern Singaporean law? Would any special copyright rules be applicable as a copyrightable asset produced in war time by a defeated power? I suspect there will be a justification for us to retain the image but the current licence is either wrong or not correctly justified. Any advice you can provide would be appreciated. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where and when was it first published? Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normally it's the country of first publication, but for something taken during the war, things would get really fuzzy -- unsure if publication would be by permission of the author, but maybe that was part of the terms of surrender, etc. I do recall somewhere that the UK extinguished copyright on such seized works, and that (in the author's opinion) the EU restoration did not apply to them, since those were only for expired works and not extinguished (so, similar to seized government works not qualifying for URAA restorations in the US). I think the UK did have a program which allowed private citizens to apply to have their extinguished works restored, but don't think the government could do that, so probably PD in the UK that way. If Japan is the country of origin, it's {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. Not sure I'd worry about it too much. It's probably been PD since the 1940s or 1950s at worst. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maunsell's 1926 Map of battle[edit]

Can en:File:Maunsellp.214.jpeg be imported here? It was just undeleted in en.Wikipedia, after this 2012 discussion said it would be allow allowable this year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If E. B. Maunsell died before or in 1951 (very likely but some sort of reference is needed), then the map is now public domain and can be moved to Commons. SV1XV (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Eustace Ball Maunsell lived from 1878 - 1936.[2]. Frankly, the copyright tag on en-wiki was incorrect before yesterday, due to the URAA. But it's fine now, and for Commons, by the looks of it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I transferred the file to Commons. Actually the copyright tag was not really fine (not PD in the country of origin in 1996), but it's PD anyway in both the US and UK now. De728631 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "copyright tag on en-wiki ... before yesterday [1 January]". The file was only undeleted on that day, as I said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, whoops, OK, missed that. Maybe we should mention the deletion and undeletion in the "history" section for the transferred file. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Mataram logos[edit]

File:Logo-Unram-1.png and File:Logo unram.png are logos for en:University of Mataram that were uploaded as "own work" under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} licenses, but that seems unlikely to be the case. I tried to check the university's official website, but my web security software keeps telling me that the site contains possibly dangerous links and is warning me to not try and access it; so, I can't really verify the files' licensing. Would logos of Indonesian public universities be acceptable to relicense as {{PD-IDGov}} per COM:Indonesia? If not, then these probably would be too complex to be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO Indonesia and this may need to deleted if there licensing can be verified to be OK for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No need to upload university logos or wrongly-licensed logos here. Thanks. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this is due to crosswiki upload; he is possibly a newcomer to Wikimedia projects. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, but the uploader was intended to use UploadWizard to upload it RaFaDa20631 (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{PDMark-owner}} on new uploads from Flickr2Commons[edit]

I am fully aware Flickr users' use of Flickr's "Public Domain Work" (PDW) license option, which links to PD Mark, on their own photos has been discussed ad nauseam, and I am specifically not seeking to reopen that debate. For avoidance of doubt, my understanding of the consensus achieved previously is that works that the copyright holder has asserted to be in the public domain (either through use of Flickr's PDW option or otherwise) are acceptable on Commons.

However, I am concerned with the way this consensus has been implemented by Flickr2Commons and Flinfo: they're currently tagging all new PDW uploads from Flickr with {{PDMark-owner}}, without giving the Commons uploader the opportunity to choose a more appropriate template. I read PDMark-owner as narrowly tailored to the "uploaded by the copyright holder, and none of the other PD license tags apply" use case, which is certainly not the case for all PDW images on Flickr.

From a technical standpoint: Flickr2commons and Flinfo use {{subst:Flickr-public domain mark/subst}} as the license tag when transferring PDW images. The old revisions of that template were deleted, but I think there used to be a big "please choose a PD license tag" notice added to new PDW Flickr uploads. This edit by Shizhao began tagging them as PDMark-owner instead.

Are we okay with PDMark-owner being used as the default license for images tagged as PDW on Flickr? If so, does its wording need an update? --Alex Cohn (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Cohn: I'm not okay with that. Shizhao, why did you do that?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Shizhao, the template had already deleted when they recreated and redirected it to PDMark-owner. At the time, new PDW uploads were being created with a broken subst as their only license tag; they may have simply been trying to fix the broken subst. I'm going to see if I can find an example. (edit: here's an example, which was quickly tagged as missing a license) Alex Cohn (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would likely prefer that PDMark works not be easily transferrable by the automated tools, since yes we should see if the Flickr user is actually the copyright owner -- if not, it would need to be another PD tag. Or at least that they be subject to Flickrreview as well, but not sure how much extra workload that would cause. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the workload: FlickreviewR 2 doesn't recognize PDMark-owner as a valid PD license, so there are currently 74k images in Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review. I've been working on that cat, assigning specific PD license tags using VisualFileChange if I see a lot of similar ones (e.g. everything uploaded as PDM by the Yellowstone National Park Flickr account can be safely tagged {{PD-USGov-NPS}}). Alex Cohn (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Template:Flickr-public_domain_mark/subst was deleted as an "unused template" at the DR Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Flickr-public domain mark/subst. Looks like a mistake, not realizing that it was actually still in use by Flickr2commons and Flinfo. The deleted version suggested various Commons PD tags to use for the Flickr file marked with PDMark, including "The Public Domain Mark was applied by the copyright holder to the work → please use {{PDMark-owner}}" along with a note that "...community consensus has decided to accept files which are labeled as Public Domain Mark by their copyright holders." I think undeleting / restoring the old versions is the right way to go. We can then edit the original if consensus is that the language is too harsh about PDMark. —RP88 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sounds like undeleting the old template is likely the right way to go there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the deleted revisions of Template:Flickr-public domain mark/subst and revered to the version prior to the deletion. —RP88 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image with CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license[edit]

Can an image with that type of license be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons? Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. See Commons:Licensing#Forbidden_licenses. It can be combined with another free license, but it can't be the only valid license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need help determining a license.[edit]

I have hired a voice actor to read a specific poem for me. Given that it was work-for-hire (I paid for it, obviously), the copyright for the said recording belongs to me, and I am willing to release that copyright under one of CC licenses (that was the big idea from the very beginning). Please advise about any possible issues that may prevent me from uploading the said voice rendition to Commons. -- Wesha (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Work for hire" is a bit more complicated than that -- see this circular. Paying for it is not enough; you'd need something in writing as well. It's only automatic for actual employees, not commissioned works. (For example, the photographer would own copyright in wedding photos unless there was something in writing.) Other countries can differ, but most are moving that way if not already there. If you did the actual recording yourself though, I presume you would own that copyright anyways, so work for hire would not enter into it. There are related rights for performers, which are murkier in the U.S., but usually those amount to agreeing to be recorded, so those may be fine depending on your agreement. Lastly, the poem itself would have (or have had) a copyright, so either the poem itself must be public domain (really old), or you need a license from the poet -- unless it's your poem of course. That may also be granting a license on the poem itself, if it's not PD. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

author vs copyright owner[edit]

I am a bit surprised that either there are no templates or I cannot easily find them (from template:Information) for the case where the author have transferred the copyrights to a different person. The information template gives author (which is the original author who is not allowed to license the image anymore) and source, but the source don't seem to offer a version where the uploader is the actual copyright owner (template:own says the uploader is the author, which is not true).

Is this case planned to be handled by misusing the parameters giving author=copyright owner and use an additional attribution field for the real author? Then the metadata will be untrue. What is the expected and standard way to handle uploads by the copyright holder instead of the author?

(I am not sure about the proper English legal terms; in Europe the "author rights" are bound to the original author and cannot be transferred and "copyright" is the right to sell or license it, which can be transferred by contract, if I understand the terms correctly.) --grin ✎ 07:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grin: In such cases, I generally use bullets in {{Information}} fields to specify, with full explanation in a VRT ticket.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but this is not "machine translateable" (structured fields will contain false information or information will be missing from there), also not standardised (so everyone uses a different way to describe it); also the fields will contain false information if source is "own" or the author is the copyright holder (which would be also against the template doc). I either hope someone tell me the matching templates or I ought to create them. grin ✎ 08:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general, for any license-based field, "author" really means "copyright owner", since it's only the copyright owner who can license the work. The Information template works to identify the author separately, for moral rights purposes. For corporate works for hire, the "author" is typically the company, even though that's not strictly correct (really means the actual author is anonymous). If that doesn't work for structured data, we may need something else. We do have some "heirs" type templates, like {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}}, which is a specific type of transfer away from the original author (probably the most common type we encounter). What does structured data do with something like that? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1972 sound recordings and U.S. copyright[edit]

There appears to be a misconception that pre-1972 sound recordings are protected by copyright. They are not. See 17 U.S.C. § 301(c): "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, and in accordance with chapter 14, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title." The Classics Protection and Access Act essentially extended copyright protection in everything but name to these sound recordings, allowing for unauthorized uses to be subject to the same penalties as copyright infringers, carving out exceptions for certain non-commercial and fair uses, and creating rules around statutory licensing (17 U.S.C. § 1401).

As the protection of pre-1972 works is a non-copyright restriction, we should get community clarification on whether works covered by the Classics Protection and Access Act are non-free. Because pre-1972 sound recording rights holders have essentially the same exclusive rights as sound recording copyright holders, and because violating these rights carries the same penalty as copyright infringement, I believe that we should consider these rights equivalent to copyright when deciding whether a work is eligible to be hosted on commons.  Mysterymanblue  19:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are (or were) protected by common-law copyright, just not federal statutory copyright. That is real, and has teeth, and is still copyright and as such affects the "free" status, even though the boundaries are not well defined and differs by state. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc.. Common-law copyright was eliminated in the U.S. in the 1976 Copyright Act, with the exception of those pre-1972 recordings. The new law from a few years ago (finally) eliminates common-law copyright for those too, meaning those old recordings are now protected by federal statutory copyright as well. The terms of protection are listed in {{PD-US-record}}. As of two days ago, we can finally start uploading pre-1923 sound recordings; before that even those were fully under federal copyright protection (since the passage of the new law) and so were unambiguously not public domain. 17 USC 301 is now mostly outdated; pre-1972 recordings are now subject to title 17 protection by virtue of the new law section you cite. We have therefore never allowed uploading of pre-1972 recordings, unless they were licensed (or PD-USGov), since they were non-free. See Template talk:PD-US-record and m:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 for some older discussions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: 17 USC 301 is not outdated; it was amended by the 2018 Classics Protection and Access Act (See page 53 here) at the same time that federal protection was granted to these sound recordings, explicitly keeping intact the relevant provision. 17 USC 1401 also does not refer to the protection afforded to these sound recordings as "copyright". Congress deliberately preempted state common law copyright while also declining to extend copyright in name to these recordings. My issue has nothing to do with the long history of pre-1972 sound recordings, but rather the law right now which gives copyright protection to these recordings in practice but not in name. I am asking the community to 1) validate that this protection is not "copyright" but only copyright-like and 2) find that this non-copyright restriction is sufficiently similar to copyright to make sound recordings protected by the Classics Protection and Action Act non-free and ineligible to be hosted on Commons.  Mysterymanblue  20:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, section 301 now sounds like common-law copyright is preserved, along with the additional federal protection, until the terms specified in {{PD-US-record}} expire. So, sounds like common-law copyright still exists on those as much as ever, being gradually phased out through 2067. They just added some baseline protection which is universal across states -- forgot about that distinction. It's still copyright though, just not fully-fledged federal copyright. The stance we have always had remains -- see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record. The "non-copyright" stance was suggested many years ago, but was generally rejected in that DR, at which point the template was changed to be vastly more limiting. Pretty much all pre-1972 recordings were non-free before two days ago, unless licensed or PD-USGov. Now at least, pre-1923 recordings are free, and that will increment one year for the next 24 years, before a further 10-year pause in expirations. When the law was passed, {{PD-US-record}} was changed to reflect the terms in the new law, so it was rarely a valid tag to use before now. So, that tag represents the current community consensus, and is in accordance with the Wikilegal guidance (most pre-1972 sound recordings created in the United States are not in the public domain). We consider that new protection copyright, along with the existing common-law copyright which prevented uploads before the passage of that law. Nothing much changed, other than the additional federal protections, until the expiration dates of which we have now arrived at the first one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of clarity, the statement "pre-1923 recordings are free, and that will increment one year for the next 24 years, before a further 10-year pause in expirations" is not quite true. While the terms for sound recordings published in 1922 and earlier expired on 1 January 2022, there will be a 1 year pause before the increment begins, i.e. the 100-year term for sound recordings published in 1923 will expire on 1 January 2024. The logic for this is encoded at {{Not-PD-US-record-expired-min-year}}. See 17 U.S. Code § 1401 (a)(2)(B). —RP88 (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea that "common-law copyright is preserved". To me, the statute establishes three things:
  1. State statute and common law do not protect pre-1972 sound recordings. See "With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, the preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to activities that are commenced on and after the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act" (17 USC 301(c)), referencing 17 USC 301(a): "On and after January 1, 1978,... no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State."
  2. Pre-1972 sound recordings are not protected by federal copyright (17 USC 301(c)).
  3. However, pre-1972 sound recordings do receive protection akin to federal copyright under 17 USC 1401.
     Mysterymanblue  03:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, "pre-1923" is the same as "published 1922 or earlier". In another year, it will be pre-1924 recordings, etc. Whoops, I see what you are saying. 1923 works are protected for 100 years, so they won't expire until 2024, so we have to wait two years for that.
  1. I guess I was looking at this clause: Nothing in this subsection may be construed to affirm or negate the preemption of rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising from the non- subscription broadcast transmission of sound recordings under the common law or statutes of any State for activities that do not qualify as covered activities under chapter 14 undertaken during the period between the date of enactment of the Classics Protection and Access Act and the date on which the term of prohibition on unauthorized acts under section 1401(a)(2) expires for such sound recordings. That seems like it says that common law is not pre-empted for any activities outside of the specific area of the new federal protections, until the expiration date. So it's possible that common-law restrictions can still exist. So, I was incorrect to say that common-law rights continue in full, my bad, but some may continue it seems to me.
  2. Correct, they don't get the full force of federal copyright, but they get some protections exactly the same as copyright law. The law may be wording things very carefully to control very specifically the rights being granted, but those recordings certainly do get some protections exactly the same as other copyrighted works, plus some other possible common-law rights. In the general concept of copyright as related to "free works", I would agree that those are also copyright restrictions. And that was the consensus I think when that law was passed. So when you say "I believe that we should consider these rights equivalent to copyright when deciding whether a work is eligible to be hosted on commons", I would agree, and that has been the practice. I think we would disagree that these are "non-copyright" restrictions, as the term "non-copyright" there is not specifically about U.S. federal copyright, but encompasses other forms such as common-law (and I'd argue these new protections as well). Simply hosting the files here would violate those new protections (unless licensed) anyways, so we couldn't host them regardless (just like privacy laws, if the act of hosting files here would violate other laws, we can't host them if they are copyright-related or not).
In the end, I think we agree -- pre-1972 sound recordings are non-free unless licensed, PD-USGov, or expire based on the new law's terms. And that has been current practice (though there are likely some files uploaded 10+ years ago under PD-US-record in its old wording, and not yet deleted, as we did not want to do a mass deletion without looking at the specifics of each file). So I think you are simply proposing that we keep the status quo. We have always considered the common law protections, and these new protections, as "copyright-related", that's all. The fact that most aspects of the federal copyright law don't apply to them is not the same thing as "non-copyright" from a more general perspective. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican clothing from 1970s by anonymous artist[edit]

This is a fun one. How should I tag a photo of a huipil (traditional women's garment) from Mexico from the 1970s? Nosferattus (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A traditional pattern is probably not copyrightable. --Leyo 08:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I settled on the following:

Public domain
This file is in the public domain because in Mexico, anonymous works are not protected by copyright. It is also likely that the textile pattern is traditional, and thus not copyrightable. The garment is also public domain in the United States since utilitarian items such as clothing cannot be copyrighted in the United States.

Dialog-warning.svg This template must not be used to dedicate an uploader's own work to the public domain; CC0 should be used instead.

Since Wikimedia Commons servers are located in the United States, if this template involves a non-U.S. jurisdiction it must be accompanied by a justification for free use that is valid in the U.S.

File:Zsobaner.png[edit]

Is this file a copyright violation? Can't find info on TOO in Kosovo or Serbia. There is also File:Community of Serb Municipalities (Kosovo) logo.png with the same symbol marked as PD-Kosovo but I am not sure if that is legitimate. eviolite (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The emblem does not look especially original. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winnie-the-Pooh 19.png[edit]

Files such as this one have been uploaded here and more in Category:Winnie The Pooh. However, the version on en-WP says it will not be in the public domain in its home country until January 1, 2047. There was some discussion on Wikisource on whether the US should be considered (one of) the home country. What do we think? ––HTinC23 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC) (02:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC) edited)[reply]

Published simultaneously in the UK and US in October 1926, per the en-wiki article. PD in the US as of three days ago. The text's copyright will expire in the UK (and most of the rest of Europe) in 2027; the illustrations not until 2047. So, it comes down to what is the "country of origin". Per Berne, with simultaneous publication, the country of origin is the one with the shorter copyright term. Of course the US was not part of Berne at the time. But if you go with that definition, then the U.S. is the country of origin I think. If you would prefer to break the tie based on the nationality of the authors, it would be the UK. There are no definitive precedents for something like this, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, this is not a legal question, but a moral one. Legally, we are in the clear because it is PD in the US, so it's a question of whether we choose to host it or not despite being copyrighted in the UK. The determination of country of origin is something that we haven't really formalized in general. For COM:FOP, we take the more lenient of the following two: 1) the country the work is located in and 2) the country the work was photographed from. In most cases, a chain of COM:DW requires PD in all affected countries, but not for FoP when its placement in the target country is (or can be presumed to be) authorized by the original copyright holder. But for multiple competing countries at the outset, we don't really have a policy written down somewhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure the book was the first publication of this illustration? Prior to the publication of the 1926 book (which may have been simultaneously published in 30 days in the US) Milne had published a series of stories about the bear in newspapers with illustrations by Shepard. Sources indicate that the stories and illustrations were reused in later books. Was this specific image one first published in the UK newspaper (so not simultaeneously published in the US) and reused or was it a new commission from the same artist that had worked with the author before? If it is the former, our tentative argument for retention here falls apart. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:SVSPA logo.jpg[edit]

DGJ has uploaded this logo to be used in their new article on Wikipedia and has said that they have permission to create an improved version of the Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy's logo (OG logo here). Since the logo is probably above the threshold of originality, should VRTS be brought in here? Nigos (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigos. If the uploader of the file is also the copyright owner or officially represents the coyright holder, then there are a few things they probably can try: (1) send a COM:CONSENT email to VRT as explained in COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?; (2) use the VRT release generator as explained at COM:RELGEN; or (3) post the logo on an official website or social media account owned by the copyright holder under a free license that Commons accepts at explained at COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary. As long as Commons is able to somehow formally verify the copyright holder's consent to release the file under a free license, it can be kept; otherwise, it most likely is going to end up deleted if it cannot be converted to a different acceptable license per COM:India. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I can convert the image into another license. I have gone through the licensing wiki page. But Iam still a little confused. What is the usual licensing used by academy logos?
Thank You DGJ (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to the copyright holder to decide. CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are recommanded, but any free license is OK. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Queen Hame of Assyria, Nimrud (side view).png[edit]

Hi all -- I'm working on a Good Article review of the Wikipedia article for an ancient Assyrian queen named Hama. The article is currently accompanied by three photos of treasures/artifacts found in the tomb of this queen (example: the golden seal linked in title of this post), but I'm not certain whether these photos have adequate licenses. The photos were all taken in 2003 by a member of the US Army as part of official duties (tagged accordingly) and published in an American academic journal, and I'm satisfied that they're public domain under US copyright laws, but according to the source these photos were originally taken in Bagdad, Iraq, and so I'm wondering: are they all right for use under Iraq copyright laws? Or is that totally unnecessary to worry about, as they were published in the US? Is it the place of creation or publication that matters here? Any advice would be appreciated. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the place of publication that matters. Ruslik (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=619852774"