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.

Hjælp til at undgå sletning af billedfiler. har angivet Template:PD-arvinger, men alligevel nu igen sletningstrussel i artikel Elisa Maria Boglino-

Ầ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HNBS (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Old trademark

Moved from Commons talk:Help desk#Old trademark

How can I load an old and no more existing trademark? --Moxmarco (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Moxmarco it depends, could be not old enough to be in public domain. What's the logo? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 11:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the old Reinach's logo, used in 1920s --Moxmarco (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moxmarco: Where can we find it?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a personal scan from an old document --Moxmarco (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moxmarco: Can you upload it to an alternative outlet that doesn't care as much about copyright so we can see it? What is the old document? Where did you get it?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Stamps of Liechtenstein

This question is prompted by the open deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:LIE 1985 MiNr0892 mt B002.jpg. Katharinaiv argues there that stamps should be considered public domain in Liechtenstein because Liechtenstein's law exempts "means of payment" (Zahlungsmittel in German) from copyright protection. However, it's not clear at all that stamps are considered "means of payment" in Liechtenstein. Very often, Liechtenstein emulates Swiss law, and Swiss law commentary explicitly states that stamps are not "means of payment" and do not fall under any other exemption clause, therefore enjoying copyright protection. So, for Switzerland it's clear enough: Stamps are protected by copyright unless one of the general reasons for PD applies (creator died more than 70 years ago or very simple design...). But for Liechtenstein? For now, I have updated Commons:Stamps/Public domain to reflect the fact that we don't actually know the copyright status of stamps in Liechtenstein, see here - it's certainly not sufficient to simply refer to the law exempting "means of payment". There are already quite a few stamps of Liechtenstein here on Commons using {{PD-Liechtenstein}} - I wouldn't delete them now, rather grandfather them, but not upload more until this has been clarified. My personal opinion is that it's more likely that the stamps will be protected (as it's the case in Switzerland). Anyone here familiar with the law and law commentaries of Liechtenstein? ;-) I'm taking the liberty of pinging some users I think might have an idea, although probably none of them is a Liechtenstein law expert: @Gnom, Pajz, and Lupo: ... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Gestumblindi, a brief search suggests that there is no treatise/commentary on Liechtenstein copyright law (rather unsurprising for a country the size of a small town). For that reason, I would also look to Swiss law for guidance. Art. 5 Liechtenstein Copyright Act corresponds - word-for-word - to Art. 5 Swiss Copyright Act (URG). The draft bill by the government of Liechtenstein that led to the 1999 Copyright Act specifically notes that the draft "is based upon the Swiss Federal Act on Copyright and Related Rights of 9 October 1992" (BuA No. 1998/48, p. 13). Turning to Switzerland, the near-consensus view of Swiss commentators is that Art. 5 lit. b URG ["Zahlungsmittel" = means of payment] does not extend to stamps (Cherpillod in Müller/Oertli, Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. 2012, Art. 5 para. 3; Barrelet/Egloff, Das neue Urheberrecht, 3rd ed. 2008, Art. 5 para. 5; von Büren/Meer in von Büren/David, SIWR II/1, 3rd ed. 2014, para. 379; Hilty, Urheberrecht, 2011, para. 130; Dessemontet, Le droit d'auteur, 1999, para. 413; Gilliéron in Werra/Gilliéron, Propriété intellectuelle, 2013, Art. 5 LDA para. 9; von Büren, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, ZSR 1993, 193-222, 200; disagreeing: Rehbinder/Viganò, URG, 3rd ed. 2008, Art. 5 para. 3 [included by analogy]). With that in mind, I do not think that it would be reconcilable with Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle to treat stamps from Liechtenstein as being in the public domain in their country of origin. (Aside from that, just on the basis of a literal reading, considering stamps a "means of payment" also appears like quite a stretch. By the same logic, a concert ticket should also be a "means of payment" ... I don't think you would find many people on the street that would agree with such a characterisation.) — Pajz (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pajz: Thanks for your thorough reply! I'm going to update Commons:Stamps/Public domain accordingly soon; not quite sure how to deal with the rather numerous Liechtenstein stamps uploads now... as it seems that most of these uploads are quite recent, I'm no longer convinced that we should grandfather them just because of a probably rather slight chance that they might be actually PD; wouldn't see to be in line with COM:PRP... Gestumblindi (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of possibly incorrectly upload images

In December 2014 and February 2015 I uploaded File:Telford College of Arts and Technology logo.png and File:Scatcollege.jpg respectively marking them as being in the public domain. However this was before I realised they had to be free in their home country as well as the United States in order to be hosted on Commons. I have already uploaded both images to the English Wikipedia as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Telford_College_of_Arts_and_Technology_logo_(1990s-2017).png and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shrewsbury_College_logo_(2004-2017).jpg marking them as being public domain in the US only and being probably trademarked so no move is necessary. If the original images were uploaded to Commons incorrectly I would like the assistance of whoever is qualified to remove them. Tk420 (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You can use {{Speedydelete}} template. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Gettyimages and files from 1933

These two files taken in London 1933. Beside the issue of date and place of publication can I assume that the authors are unknown?

• This file: Photo by Daily Herald Archive/SSPL/Getty Images
• This file: Photo by KEYSTONE-FRANCE/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

-- Geagea (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Certainly not for the first one, seeing that the name of the author is given in the page you linked. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Edward Malindine died in 1970, so at least that one is not out of copyright. Jcb (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Geagea: You might find https://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?t=6656&start=42 interesting.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have been asked to check the copyright status from http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6656&start=40. Anyway there are more photos from Gettyimages about Jewish protest in London 1933 like this or this. -- Geagea (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Can File:Constructing the Helsinki Olympic Stadium.ogv already be public domain?

I am not sure if File:Constructing the Helsinki Olympic Stadium.ogv can fall under {{PD-Finland}} or other public domain reasoning. Can somebody with better knowledge of Finish law than me please check it. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure that the author is not known? Ruslik (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

HMDB.org

There are 37 Commons images that appear to be sourced from HMDB, whose copyright notice requires attribution and non-commercial use. The few I looked at claim either PD or CC-BY-SA-4 licenses. There are another 52 images that mention hmdb.org, but may have been uploaded by the original author or authorized in some other way (see the search terms). Can images be copied from HMDB? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This restore request for one of the HMDB images that had been deleted may be relevant (though the opposition to restoration is for a different reason). Apparently, HMDB's copyright notice previously limited commercial use to not "more than 25% of the content of any particular country, state, province, county, parish, shire, prefecture, region, department or city". This may have been previously relied upon to justify uploading of single images, though this is clearly flawed since there is no way for Commons to track if/when HMDB changes their copyright (as it did) or modify its content (i.e. by deleting images), resulting, e.g., in an image that was previously one of ten (10%) becoming one of three (33%). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sinbad Jr. and his Magic Belt

Moved from Commons:Help desk#Sinbad Jr. and his Magic Belt

How come this series appears to be in the public domain? I see a copyright notice after 1963 on the show's intros, and it's an American show, but I am not seeing anything in the official US copyright database, and a guy who made a disc set on Amazon claims that the show is in the public domain. Could this be some rare exception that's not listed in the Hirtle chart? Or am I missing something big? (It's almost too good to be true, though) PseudoSkull (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

When were they published the first time? Ruslik (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: According to Wikipedia, 1965. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If they were published with a notice then they will remain copyrighted until 2061. Ruslik (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

w:Sinbad Jr. and his Magic Belt. Let's assume there is indeed no registration (I don't feel like looking for it). It could be a case of a {{PD-US-defective notice}}. How do we figure that out? Not easily, at least not for me because the quality of every single YouTube video is insufficient to actually read the notice and check it's validity. I understand you have a video with a readable notice. Can you take a screenshot? Perhaps it could be read in some remastered video, but legally, that would be irrelevant.

The fact I can't read the notice on any of the YouTube videos may hold the answer though. Here is a screen capture of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP4cf4Zn00E. Can't read a thing, but okay, YouTube compression and all that. NTSC gives us 483 visible lines. The horizontal resolution is theoretically unlimited (because analog). In the best case scenario, the notice would have looked like this (assuming 1280 pixels horizontal resolution): https://imgur.com/a/Xw1AipB.

That's not great, but not illegible. However, it assumes that at the time of broadcast you had a progressive television set (which was a bit of a problem as those didn't exist yet), a ridiculous horizontal resolution, perfect reception, an LCD screen which wouldn't be invented until the 70s (or a fictional CRT without color bleed), perfect black.. Okay maybe this just isn't going to happen.

More realistically it would have looked like this: https://imgur.com/a/reXOBde. Which, to be honest, is still assuming a pretty good television set and reception. Also, the notice was on screen for approximately 4 seconds. This in a time when nobody would have been able to rewind the video (Betamax and VHS became available in the mid-70s), could anyone really have deciphered this? On some television sets, the notice might have even vanished due to overscan. And if I remember correctly, the image gets more blurry towards the edges. Which doesn't help the case for a legible notice..

If that eBay guy gets dragged to court, I'm willing to place a little bet he won't lose if he gets a good lawyer. He won't win either, MGM will simply drop the case when the lawyer confronts them with this out of fear the copyright notice will be legally ruled defective. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: This isn't just happening on your end. All the episodes I have viewed have illegible copyright notices due to the quality of the recordings. The only thing I could make out was that the year didn't look to be "1961" or "62", for instance. But that's a case of exclusion, not inclusion of a specific year. Wikipedia says 1965, but for all we know it could be a different year. We know that's probably not the case, but just based on the assumption that it could be different because we can't make it out can we release it here? Also, it's debatable as to whether the words would have been legible on the actual TV broadcast from 1965, you know, for the people that were actually there to see the real thing happen. So if I can't find a legible copyright notice in any known recordings, and there is no registration in the copyright database, can this be considered public domain? PseudoSkull (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: assuming Wikipedia is correct, the year on the notice doesn't matter (unless it's 1967 or higher). Whether it was legible on the actual TV broadcast from 1965, using a realistic (average) television set and reception is all that really matters. If it wasn't legible at the time, it was invalid. Can you take a screenshot of the most legible notice you have? (color doesn't matter) I had to guess the font, which may actually make a big difference. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Broadcasting a TV program isn't publishing it. The first season of Star Trek was originally broadcast without a copyright notice, but a court ruled that someone selling copies violated their copyright on it in Paramount Pictures v. Rubinowitz. The arguments were about copies sent to broadcasters, so I doubt any scenario, at least in that era, would worry about whether the broadcast had a readable copyright notice, as opposed to any actual copy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It isn't? Today I learned.. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait does that also mean anything that was only broadcasted and never officially distributed in other ways is legally unpublished? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It easily could, if broadcast by the copyright owner. If in syndication, it's possible that physical copies were distributed to others though, which would have required a notice then. For example, movies were considered published when copies were distributed to theaters or given to a distribution company or something like that; the actual showing of a movie was a display but not publication. Thus, a showing made by the copyright-owning company (say, to gather consumer reaction, or a special premiere) would not be publication. Similarly, a broadcast made by the copyright owner would not start the 95-year clock, necessarily, though would still be subject to 120 years from creation. The publication date of TV shows can definitely be problematic in that way. On the other hand, if they put an explicit copyright notice on it, that would probably start the 95-year clock then, as would registration with the Copyright Office. A registration could be years later though, with a later publication date, and that would be valid as the start of the 95-year term, even if there was no notice on the original broadcast. The notice would have only needed to be visible on copies sent for distribution (which would constitute publication); I don't think visibility on a TV screen would matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia says the tv program is still copyrighted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sinbad_jr.jpg Abote2 (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... Wikipedia tends to be wrong about that sort of thing. They hedge their bets with images quite a lot, without even knowing that an entire cartoon series with over a hundred episodes is public domain! For instance, they assumed that The Adventures of Paddy the Pelican was copyrighted still, and it clearly to me is not (watch). The video I was referring to, from watchcartoononline, is just as illegible. EDIT: I won't upload until there is a good consensus as to whether or not that copyright notice is defective, since there seems to be some disagreement. But really, it should be defective. I can't read the thing. At all. The actual television screen at the time much less would not have been able to make it out. They should have made a clearer notice. Also, the copyright being defective would mean that it would be in the public domain, since there is no subsequent registration in the database and we know who produced it. It's not anonymous, which would be the 120 yr. thing. Unrelated: there was also a comic book series it looks like. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: @Clindberg: According to this, "The 81 five-minute episodes were packaged into half-hour shows and syndicated to local stations in that form." PseudoSkull (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

And the copies that were given to the syndicators had no copyright notice? How do we know that? Again, a work lost its copyright if it was *published* without a copyright notice. A TV broadcast does not actually count as a publication; it is handled differently in the law. It is similar in the EU, which defines "publication" and "making available to the public" differently. So a defect in a notice in a broadcast may not actually mean anything. TV shows could be broadcast, but then only be officially published years later. The fact that an .mpg or .webm transfer is hard to read would likely not invalidate anything, either. If it was readable on a 1965 TV, it would be fine, and if the physical copies given to the syndicates had a copyright notice on them, that was probably all that mattered anyways. The Paddy the Pelican ones had clear copyright notices at the end. They may not have been renewed, so are fine for that reason. But that only helps for works published before 1964, which this one couldn't have been. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I'm gonna be really unhappy if I have to spend 300 dollars to convince some individual to lend me film reels for this show. Are you seriously telling me that would be necessary? The packages themselves might actually be lost at this point. I can try to get actual packages. But I can't guarantee anything. And if no one can find the packages, then no one can prove whether or not they came with a copyright notice. Who holds the copyright for it, exactly, anyway? I don't even know. The defective copyright notice on the theme song isn't legible enough for me to read that, so I don't know who I should get in contact with to ask. Also, knowing how much things have changed between 1965 and 2018, I'm willing to bet that the copyright holder company is not even in business anymore, and probably hasn't been for a very long time. Sigh... I'll try to contact a bunch of people who sold compilations on eBay, and see if they have any official packages, and if they do, ask them to send me a bunch of pictures of the packages, so we can confirm that they came with a copyright notice, or no copyright notice. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If you are claiming public domain status for post-1964 works based on an invalid copyright notice, you are treading in rather dangerous territory. That is not an area which Commons normally allows unless very clear (COM:PRP). And right now it sounds like you are basing things on broadcasts, which are not publication and does not cause a lost copyright. Companies can disband, but rights typically are bought up or inherited by someone -- if not, they are "orphan works", which while aggravating we also generally don't allow on Commons. You may well be right that nobody really cares about this stuff anymore and thus would not sue, but that is different than "public domain". Congress (and governments everywhere really) have not given very much protection for that stuff -- if you get away with it, great, if not, you can be screwed. Looking up "Sinbad Jr" on copyright.gov, there is a "recorded document" on several records from 2006, which documents the end of a licensing agreement between MGM and Sony Pictures. So it sounds like one of those companies could own the rights (if they exist). Hard to say without seeing the document, and sometimes they just claim to own copyright when they do not in those submissions -- but that is also they you need to start a copyright infringement lawsuit if they so choose. But we normally like to see evidence of no notice on the actual distributed copies. Courts would often let someone get away with distributing a relative few copies as well. The music could have been copyrighted separately, which could also prevent distribution of episodes even if the video portions were in fact public domain. And if "Sinbad Jr" counts as a character, and the earlier episodes are not PD, then they can be derivative of the character as well. Copyright is incredibly frustrating, yes, but we can't ignore it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Best license for an 1877 photo taken in the Netherlands by unknown photographer?

Looking at File:Jacobus Gerhardus van Niftrik 1833 - 1910.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), I'm wondering if we should do better than PD-old-assumed for this 141 year old simple portrait photo. The 'assumed' template casts doubt on its public domain status for reusers, when in reality there is no doubt that the photographer will remain unknown. Considering how IP law is applied in the Netherlands, would swapping to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} be a more useful and precise statement? --Fæ (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No. Telling the truth to potential reusers is better than telling them a false information. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

{{PD-anon-70-EU}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} are supposed to be used when the author is unknown. {{PD-old-assumed}} can be used when the author's name is known, but their death date is unknown. I'm not sure what to do if the full original source isn't available and there's no way to tell if the author was named somewhere. --ghouston (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Simple: PD-old-assumed. We don't know if the author is anonymous. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, {{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} apply from date of publication, so can't be used unless there's a known publication date which is more than 70 years ago. --ghouston (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I knew it I knew it I knew it I knew it I knew it I knew it! - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The photographer's name is on the back of the photo. There's no way you can know whether or not that's true. There is not "no doubt".--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: you added a date of 1877. What is that date taken from, is it a date of publication?

By the way Prosfilaes, do you honestly believe that an archive would not add the name of the photographer to their catalogue if it were simply "on the back of the photo"? --Fæ (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

https://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/beeldbank/weergave/record/?id=OSIM00006002648 "Datering 1877". And for all we know the photo may have been published in a book with photo credit. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

So, we have an archive record giving a date, probably a date of creation (which may be fine under Netherlands law from 1877, rather than trying to force 2018 copyright law on this photograph). Further, we have no known photographer. As this is the official city archive, it is reasonable to conclude that no simple research would ever lead to a name of a photographer. The facts make {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} entirely justifiable and a better license than the dubious "assumed" template. --Fæ (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, Fæ is on a crusade against {{PD-old-assumed}}. Create a proposal to ban it, quit this. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm borderline on it. I think we can assume there is no photographer name mentioned on the copy the archive has. But what is the publication info on that copy? Was it actually published at the time, or was it a private photo given to the archive decades later? That can also depend on per-country law, whether the giving of copies from the photographer was considered publication, or if the commissioner owned the copyright (thus no publication). Which could also affect the determination of publication with permission -- if the former, giving a copy to an archive may leave it technically unpublished. Not knowing the publication history makes it a bit safer to continue with PD-old-assumed. But if we know more when it was published, and it seems to have been the initial publication, then I would use the anonymous tags. Note that only the UK uses "unknown"; most of the EU is explicitly "anonymous", meaning it was published without a named author. The knowledge of the publication history -- not just the creation history -- thus becomes more important. I could definitely see using PD-UK-unknown if this was a British work, but not sure about other EU countries. The Dutch law does look closer to the UK law though -- which the author has not been indicated, or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt. It does require publication by consent of the copyright owner though, while publication on behalf of the pictured person is not a copyright infringement as long as the author is mentioned (if present on the photograph). So the reproduction by the archive would be legal if donated by the pictured person, though would not necessarily constitute publication which would affect the term. On the other hand, it would show that the person is unnamed. And I am not sure that the Netherlands had an expiration on unpublished anonymous work before the EU directives (though I think was generally 50 years not 70 before then) -- if the photo was only acquired in say 1975, that may constitute the first making available to the public, and copyright may last 50 years from then, and not shortened by the EU directive (of limiting to 70 years from creation). Given everything, I would probably just leave it PD-old-assumed. I'm not sure it's worth arguing over which tag is preferable, though I would mark the author as unknown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Without knowing the publication history, isn't it also impossible to know which US copyright status to apply? It will probably be in the public domain though, either because it was published before 1923 or it was left unpublished too long. Perhaps it still hasn't been published by a rightful copyright holder. Whatever the case, the chance that somebody turns up and is able to prove they are the copyright holder to successfully sue you is negligible. It would require a) knowledge and evidence of who the original photographer was b) an unbroken chain of copyright transfers, with evidence, since that time c) that given all this information, the photo hasn't fallen into the public domain in the country where they are suing c) that this copyright holder is willing and able to launch lawsuits, possibly in foreign countries. --ghouston (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the publication would have needed to be exquisitely timed to still be under copyright. As in, first published after 1978 and before 2003, or maybe first published after 1926 (with the URAA coming into play). If not legally published by 2003, with an unknown/anonymous author, it would expire 120 years from creation, which had already passed so it would have become PD in 2003. The odds are pretty darn high that it was either published before 1923, or if not legally published by then, most likely not legally published since. That's in the realm of theoretical doubt (and not significant doubt) for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

But using {{PD-1923}}, as the file has now, is incorrect when there's no evidence for any publication before 1923. That leaves {{PD-old-assumed}} as the only applicable template, both for the EU and the USA. Actually, {{PD-old-assumed}} doesn't seem to apply to the USA, so it's a mystery what template to use for that uncertainty, given that {{PD-old-assumed}} says a US template must be added. --ghouston (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We do often presume publication at some point for works that old. The definition of "publication" was also fuzzier in different ways back then -- that is before the 1909 Act, even. Could just use {{PD-US}} since it's probably either PD-1923 or PD-US-unpublished. There are theoretical doubts, but you'd have to prove when it was published to make use of the loopholes. PD-1923 is the more likely of the two. I just don't think it's worth worrying about too much unless some more concrete publication information is found. PD-old-assumed sort of applies to the U.S for anything unpublished as of 2003 even when an author name is known but death date is not (17 USC 302(e), different than actual expiration but there is some basis). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Image from a free journal

I ran into a strange situation when trying to upload an image from the CC licenced journal PeerJ. A drawing in this[1] article (figure 6) is credited the following way: "The reconstruction in Fig. 6 is by Velizar Simeonovski (authors own the copyright)". So I'm unsure what this means; can we or can we not upload the image here? FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the authors of the article are saying that they are not the creators of this image but that they have somehow acquired the copyright on it and therefore they offer it under the CC license like the rest of the article. If you want to be sure if that's the situation, you could contact Velizar Simeonovski. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I'll try. FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing Previously Published Article

Hi, all--

I am new to the Wikipedia (editing) world, and I am wanting to begin making edits to an existing article. I do have verifiable sources for the citations, they are not, however, online.

Also, the page that I am needing to make edits to falls under a larger umbrella, which currently does not have an article page to itself on Wikipedia. So how do I go about including the larger source (hyperlinks for said source, information about that source, etc.)? I currently am unable to publish an article until I have made 10 edits to an existing article.

I have several questions similar to those above. Please let me know if anyone is willing to work with me on getting these answered.

Thanks in advance,

Sydney T — Preceding unsigned comment added by SydneyThomason (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• @SydneyThomason: Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• @SydneyThomason: if you need assistance editing Wikipedia, please ask at w:WP:HELPDESK. This page is actually for Wikimedia Commons, a collection of images and other files used not only by Wikipedia, but by various other projects as well. --B (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. en:WP:REFB should get you started with references, and you can develop the larger umbrella article at en:User:SydneyThomason/sandbox.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Structured data - copyright and licensing statements designs

Keegan (WMF) posted a pointer to Commons:Structured_data/Get_involved/Feedback_requests/Statements_2 at the general village pump. I thought it advisable to mention it here as well, as it's about "modeling copyright and licensing in structured data" which probably will be used in the future. So people who specifically watch COM:VPC and are interested in these matters probably should have a close look, I think. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Gershon Sirota

Gershon Sirota was a Jewish cantor, who recorded in the early 20th century some famous cantillations. I have a disagreement with user:Alexis Jazz on the following points: Alexis Jazz considers that (1) Sirota is the author of the works he recorded and (2) his "copyright" should be computed as 70 years pma. He has modified accordingly all the audio files in Category:Gershon Sirota (e.g. [2]). I consider that since he "never composed" [3], he should not be described as the author but merely as a performer of these cantillations ; and that he was entitled therefore only to a performer's neighbouring right of 50 years from the publication of the phonograms, per the Rome convention [4]. See the discussions here and here. Third opinions would be appreciated. — Racconish ^💬 21:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not saying I disagree, but I'm no expert in related rights. In this case, the cantillations are extremely old. I don't know exactly how these are passed down, but it's probably not even possible to say who created them. I suspect there is more creativity involved in the performance of them when comparing to most sheet music and lyrics, but I'm not sure that changes anything. This case may also highlight a shortcoming in the {{Information}} template. Perhaps we need a new template based on it, similar to {{Artwork}}, for music. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sirota was nicknamed the "Jewish Caruso". IMO simply recalling he merely sung these cantillations and adding {{PD-EU-audio}} was sufficient. Nobody would hesitate to consider Caruso as a performer and not an author. — Racconish ^💬 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

In the mean time, I have replaced {{PD-old-auto-1923}} with {{PD-traditional}}. — Racconish ^💬 10:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Family archive

Trying to give the right license to File:The_Original_Arkansas_Hillbillies_in_matched_costumes.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). The original seems to be uploaded by the family member. Original license was given as CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 Int. As I'm new to Wikimedia Commons, I'd be grateful if pro-users will point me if I'm on the right track or not. —Lz (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Public domain Gumby episodes

See this; some early episodes are rumored to be public domain. Here goes a copyright search. I search copyright.gov for the rumored episodes. Then I search for episodes that would probably be copyrighted, such as ones not rumored to be PD from before 1963, and ones after 1963 that would clearly be copyrighted if they had a notice. All the searches brought up NOTHING in the copyright database.

Why is it so difficult nowadays to confirm the copyright status of specific works? If only a few episodes are in the public domain, how am I supposed to confirm this? An encode of one rumored episode, Too Loo, has two copyright dates, one for 1956 and one for 2005... Yet no results in the database for any specific episode.

This is very frustrating!!! We live in a society where information is supposed to be findable and verifiable in mere seconds. And here I am shrugging my shoulders because someone didn't spend the time to properly document all this. (Better yet, why not just release the copyright for the whole show to make this easier on all of us! Forever!) PseudoSkull (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to a characters, it can get worse -- even if individual episodes were not renewed, they could be derivative of a character copyright embodied in earlier (still copyrighted) episodes and therefore not OK. If the initial Gumby episodes were not renewed, those should be OK. But otherwise, I would not touch them -- it is only expression added in the not-renewed episodes which is public domain, any expression derivative of earlier copyrighted episodes is not OK. You could perhaps copy say the frames with the episode title, and things like that, but not the entire film. For copyright searches, you needed to look at the printed copyright registration and renewal volumes, published each year by the Copyright Office. Some of those are now online. copyright.gov has records from 1978 and onwards -- which should contain renewals for everything since 1951. Sometimes you had to search by the copyright owner, though. I do see a renewal made (RE0000209195) for episodes 1-73, referencing PA0000215238, published in 1956 (and renewed in 1984). If those are the original episodes, not sure how they fell into the public domain, unless there were missing copyright notices somewhere (but missing on the TV broadcast would not mean loss of copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

No year listed

Moved from Commons:Help desk#No year listed

If no year is listed on a notice that says "COPYRIGHT", and it was made in what is believed to be 1965, does it count as Template:PD-US-defective notice? (I found this weird show called The Mighty Mr. Titan which has no Wikipedia article, but is mentioned on Colonel Bleep's page. Unfortunately, I'm not finding that the show even has episode titles, and are kind of hard to find or confirm that all the episodes I found are even all that existed. Maybe this would also be a good case for LostMediaWiki to solve.) All known episodes were uploaded to YouTube, and it was also not registered on copyright.org for its proper renewal, which would be required if this notice was defective.

I'm hoping the notice is considered defective so that yet another cartoon's entire episode list can be uploaded. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Proper attribution for employer photo

File:Steven Little.jpg is marked for deletion; however, the file in question is from the Swanson School of Engineering, and I am the School's Communications Director. I am not sure exactly how to mark it for use since I am also the person responsible for images at the Swanson School.

Paulkovach (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Flickr's The Commons an invalid license tag?

{{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}

I always thought this was a valid tag, but Jcb now clearly disagrees for this file (he really does). Which confuses me. Is it a valid license tag or not? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

By itself, this tag is meaningless. The actual declaration of "no known copyright restriction" is found on the pages of each contributing source. They are different. They vary greatly in significance. The declaration by the Library of Congress is very reliable, i.e. they state that they diligently checked the copyright situation. The declaration by the Internet Archive basically amounts to saying that they don't check anything. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Asclepias: This is not the Internet Archive (where declarations of PD can be meaningless); this is Flickr's The Commons, where institutions vet their submissions and declare them PD (the Library of Congress was the first such institution). The declarations are generally reliable, though usually just for the country of the institution, and they may not look at derivative rights issues. If an institution has a work which was first published in another country with longer terms, that can be deletion reasons. But in general yes, we accept it, though it has been argued against before (and I'm sure will continue). Technically, only two of the four reasons are an actual license tag (the institution owned the copyright); the latter two are the institution declaring the work expired, and usually there is a better / additional tag which can be applied if known. I have seen User:Jcb argue against the "anonymous" tags in general quite often, but that appears to be the reason the institution decided it was PD, and there is no reason to second-guess them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It is a valid template to apply. @Jcb: should undelete and raise a deletion request rather than speedy deletion if they disagree with the source, in this case that means demonstrating that the Stockholm Transport Museum have made a mistake. Speedy deleting the image as 'no source' is misleading. --Fæ (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

{{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} is a valid "tag" for institutions which have a trackreckord for ensuring that there is no known copyright restictions. It should be replaced with a better PD-tag (such as PD-old-70 etc.) to be more spcific how they are PD, but the institution's claim is reputable enough for us. {{Flickr-public domain mark}} on the other hand can be applied by anyone and need to be replaced with a better tag (such as PD-old-70 etc.) and never be trusted on the mere usage of it. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

the fact that Jcb is openly flouting the clear consensus is nothing new. he is always right, the institutions are wrong, and in his summary "process", he is unaccountable to anyone. expecting an undeletion from him is not supported by the history. maybe we need to review all of his speedy deletions, since he cannot seem to abide by the community consensus. and time to upload the 250 photos from the Stockholm Transport Museum. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Photographs in Category:Light Festival, Jerusalem really FoP-Israel?

Do you think that the photographs in Category:Light Festival, Jerusalem are really FoP-Israel? If so I'll be happy to upload some more, otherwise we should think about what to do with the existing photographs. The template quotes the statute like this: "[…] where the aforesaid work is permanently situated in a public place" (my emphasis). COM:FOP#Israel doesn't specify "permanently" any further. In 2018 the festival has lasted for 9 days.[5] I think duration for earlier years isn't much different. How to handle this? Thanks in advance, (pings appreciated) --Marsupium (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You may be right. Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Marsupium this aways is trick

For me here: File:Light festival in Jerusalem - פסטיבל האור בירושלים (3639767174).jpg there no infringements, the intervention is so minimal that this not configure a "copyrightble" work.

Here: File:Light festival in Jerusalem - פסטיבל האור בירושלים (3638953385).jpg just lamps...

File:Light festival in Jerusalem - פסטיבל האור בירושלים (3638888871).jpg just a text...

File:Light festival in Jerusalem - פסטיבל האור בירושלים (3638910323).jpg just a different illumination, nothing also that could infringe some copyright.

Maybe here we could say that is grey File:Light festival in Jerusalem - פסטיבל האור בירושלים (3639730034).jpg, but, ...

I not seem a clear problem here, I opened some sub categories and also nothing that could be a problem.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 23:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ruslik and Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, thanks for your replies! Rodrigo, I thing you're right that a lot of the photographs don't depict anything copyrightable. Then nevertheless the template might be a misfit as it implies that the material is copyrightable, but still acceptable because FoP applies. --Marsupium (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Death on march 4, 1948

Hello, I uploaded today File:Kath Illustratie 1894 Haar lievelingsplekje, naar Frans Gräffel.jpg Gräffel turned out to be Franz Grässel, wich died march 4, 1948, just 70 years and a few month ago. Is this already allowed, or has it to wait to 1-1-2019. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Havang(nl): Sorry, it has to wait.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

OKE, no problem. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Being published in 1894, the image is in the public domain in the USA. Is it in the Netherlands? I guess it should depend on what law was applied in the Netherlands in 1894 (?) and how those 70? years should be assessed according to that law. Said that, "in practice", everyone here follows the 70+1 and the "January 1-Public-Domain-Day-tradition". Strakhov (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

nl:Auteurswet (Nederlandse wet) says that up to 1995 it was + 50 years. Then it became +70. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the change in 1995 extended the copyright.

To give you an example, in Spain the p.m.a. term was longer before (80 years in 1879 vs 70 years in 1995) and... the 1995 law refers to the 1879 one with regard to authors who died before than 1987 ("Los derechos de explotación de las obras creadas por autores fallecidos antes del 7 de diciembre de 1987 tendrán la duración prevista en la Ley de 10 de enero de 1879 sobre Propiedad Intelectual"). And that law didn't mention anything about "January 1". So... I guess 80 years should be applied, not 81.

In the Netherlands case... if law became more strict... it's probably 71. I can't read Dutch language, but I guess the key is in 1995's "transitional provisions"?. Anyway, as said, everyone here waits to January so... Strakhov (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna split a thread. Strakhov (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Post mortem autoris protection in Spain: 80+1 or maybe 80?

• Ley de 10 de enero de 1879 de propiedad intelectual.

Artículo 6. La propiedad intelectual corresponde a los autores durante su vida, y se trasmite a sus herederos testamentarios o legatarios por el término de ochenta años. También es trasmisible por actos entre vivos, y corresponderá a los adquirentes durante la vida del autor y ochenta años después del fallecimiento de éste si no deja herederos forzosos. Mas si los hubiere, el derecho de los adquirentes terminará veinticinco años después de la muerte del autor, y pasará la propiedad a los referidos herederos forzosos por tiempo de cincuenta y cinco años.

• Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, regularizando, aclarando y armonizando las disposiciones legales vigentes sobre la materia.

Artículo 30. Cómputo de plazo de protección. Los plazos de protección establecidos en esta Ley se computarán desde el día 1 de enero del año siguiente al de la muerte o declaración de fallecimiento del autor o al de la divulgación lícita de la obra, según proceda.

Disposición transitoria cuarta. Autores fallecidos antes del 7 de diciembre de 1987. Los derechos de explotación de las obras creadas por autores fallecidos antes del 7 de diciembre de 1987 tendrán la duración prevista en la Ley de 10 de enero de 1879 sobre Propiedad Intelectual.

As the term of 80 years is not explicitly "established" in the 1996 law (but that law refers to the previous one)... shouldn't be OK in Spain uploading works of deceased author 80 years after their deaths, instead of following the typical "January 1 of the following year"? Strakhov (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The Netherlands in 1995 was just enacting the EU copyright directive, which across Europe is 70 years then to the end of the calendar year (i.e. all expirations are on January 1). If there were longer terms before 1995, those can still apply, but don't think the Netherlands had any (they were 50pma before, but it all got retroactively restored). For Spain, they were 80pma, then they went down to 60pma in 1987 (but left the longer terms for any author who had already died), then of course went to 70pma per the EU directive (which again kept those longer existing terms). Their 1987 law had the January 1 provision, but you're right, not sure the older law does (that type of clause became more common in the second half of the 20th century) so those 80pma terms may expire on the anniversary itself. But the EU is now a minimum 70pma to the end of the year; older laws are mostly obsolete except in rare cases like Spain's. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Works of state run corporations in Taiwan not automatically free of copyright

Hi all. I've opened a discussion on the copyright status of works of state run corporations in Taiwan. Feedback is welcomed. Szqecs (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)