Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ 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.

Please note

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.
Have you read the FAQ?
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).
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.
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.

Copyleft trolling - proceeding to watermark images

The same image, cropped with CSS image crop so the watermark is not visible.

Hi, one year ago we had a major case of Copyleft trolling discovered, with over a thousand images (partly featured) being hosted on our platform as bait to sue anyone for "damages" when re-using the material. Afterwards, we created a new page (the bolded one above) to take action against those who try to indiscriminately sue re-users of Commons-hosted pictures for money. In short: After confirming that a user is copyleft trolling, possible fixes are persuasion of the user not to do this; if continued we have to delete or forcibly watermark images. Those actions prevent both innocent re-users from overlooking the possibility of a lawsuit; and less innocent users on Commons to just follow the set example.

In the case from last year, the user in question has not stopped to extract money from unsuspecting re-users (1, 2, 3) and also a DR against the images has ended in (ca.) 12:19 (Kept). This means that forced watermarking is the last resort left for the community.
Since this is the first test of a new and not fully tested process (the last time we did this was in 2019), it is only prudent to ask again for a community consensus. A script is available that can quickly attach the attribution watermark. --Enyavar (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is interesting especially for the known copyright trolls from Germany. Happy to provide a list. For reference, we have a designated page in the German-language Wikipedia for this phenomenon: de:Wikipedia:Abmahnung. Gnom (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)f=[reply]

This is complicated. We've had many discussions about copyleft trolling as well as alleged cases of copyleft trolling, and many discussions about possible solutions. This much is clear: once we have determined someone is engaging in copyleft trolling, there are several possible approaches, including deletion and forced watermarking. There are parallel discussions about improvements we could make to the Wikipedia/MediaWiki interface to better explain the requirements of CC licenses, but that's something that should happen irrespective of actions on specific users. This particular case involves Diliff, and much text has been spilled debating what to do about these images: VP thread, another VP thread, and a DR. I have trouble determining the extent to which consensus emerged that Diliff has been "copyleft trolling" sufficient to consider an intervention, so figuring that out is probably what needs to happen first. Personally, I remain ambivalent. I don't like the idea of people using Commons to make money through a license enforcement business model, but I also don't think Diliff is as egregious as, say, Verch (who allegedly only uploaded material to Commons in order to profit). Diliff is a different case, apparently just going after commercial sites/businesses. But then again, that includes small businesses and, according to what he said in a past discussion, even when he determines there was no serious offense, he still wants money for the time he took to determine it was not a serious offense. Nearly lost me completely with that response. So yeah, ambivalent. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Consensus has already been established that we should watermark images that are being used for copyleft trolling unless the uploader agrees to migrate to a CC 4.0 license. Diliff rejected that suggestion as he believed that the 30-day grace period offered by the CC 4.0 license had "not been considered from the content creator's perspective with respect to the potential income it takes from them".[1] He also refused to discontinue sending legal threats via Pixsy.[2] The fact that Diliff is demanding compensation for accidental attribution errors even when the reusers have offered to correct the attribution or remove the images entirely[3][4][5], means that Diliff has gone beyond seeking fair compensation for use of his images and is copyleft trolling, IMO. The only way we can protect unwitting re-users from accidentally getting ensnared in this trap is to add a watermark to the images (or delete them). Adding a watermark seems the least destructive path. Nosferattus (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the watermark isn't aggressive enough, it reads more like a threat by the uploader than the warning about the author it is supposed to be. JayCubby (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not elegant, but I support it, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just delete them all so that he learns the lesson. On the down side, we'd be missing on some great photos. Bedivere (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It gives us another tool besides deletion. Will we be able to detect people reverting or overwriting the change? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add a category for those images, then have a process that detects whenever a user other than an admin (or bot) changes an image with that category? Ravensfire (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that Diliff would revert the change; he is largely inactive and has not uploaded new files for five years now.
We should mark the edits clearly as an administrative action with referral to the Copyleft Trolling policy, to discourage other users from reverting. And yes, a hidden category to collect all watermarked files sounds prudent. Not sure how to patrol it by bot, but even if that isn't feasible, humans could also patrol the category for a while to find out if other parties crop the images. (And on that note, determined editors could probably also remove the category as well?) --Enyavar (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a way to crop thumbnails without creating a new file if I recall correctly, so the watermark isn't a nuisance on mainspace articles. Perhaps make a note of that on the affected files, to discourage unwatermarking. JayCubby (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{CSS image crop}}. It's a little tricky and tends to require some experimentation with the exact parameters used. See example I've added at top of this discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 22:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems like a no brainer given the circumstances around copyleft trolling on here. Although it sucks for re-users and other projects but whatever. There doesn't seem to be a better way to deal with it at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Nobody seems to be engaging with the whole "there hasn't actually been consensus that the person whose images we're about to watermark is engaging in copyleft trolling" thing. That seems like the sort of thing we need to do officially, like a topic ban or somesuch. The closest thing we have is a DR where multiple options were proposed and was closed as keep. We also have a discussion closure (fraught -- still waiting for the closing admin to clarify their intentions) that once someone is found to be copyleft trolling, follow steps xyz. Presumably the subtext is not "if you see someone doing what looks like copyleft trolling, go ahead and watermark their images". This thread may suffice to find consensus specific to Diliff, but if that's what's happening they should really be notified and the heading clarified. A little awkward to be the one who has to keep drawing attention to this, since I found Diliff's responses in the last thread totally inadequate, but oh well. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I just notified Diliff on his talk page. Nosferattus (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"there hasn't actually been consensus ...that Diliff is a copyleft ~~troll~~ enforcer"? Really? We have seen about ten examples of people coming to his talk pages asking him if the extortion letters were written on his behalf (I found three just since the DR was closed); and Diliff himself has not been willing or able to provide examples of him waiving the fees he imposed on these individuals. It doesn't matter that he claims to only charge commercial re-uses, because a) we can hardly control him on that and b) that will still affect mostly small companies and also nonprofits. c) It also goes counter to our Copyleft-trolling policy page (edit: which should be renamed, see my next post from April 5).

People have voted to keep his images while still acknowledging that he is a copyleft enforcer because we believed that there was another way to deal with this problem. And I say "we" because I also voted "keep and watermark". I do think that the voting could have been narrowly swung the other way if we had known that watermarking were not an option.

If we're letting this slide we can just agree to delete that Copyleft Policy altogether. --Enyavar (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been soulsearching a bit and decided that I will not continue calling Diliff a "troll". Please also see Commons talk:Copyleft trolling#Name of the policy page.

Regardless of the internal motives and thought processes of Diliff as a Copyleft Enforcer, we urgently need to protect re-users from the consequences of his practice. We absolutely should watermark these images, and also keep Diliff as an upstanding (former) member of the Commons community. --Enyavar (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion: Commons:Village_pump#Copyleft_enforcement_-_concern_about_stretching_of_a_guideline — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat what I said here but it is relevant to this discussion. Enyavar, would you drop this please. We don't need to urgently protect stupid people from being stupid. Thousands of people have used Diliff's images per the licence conditions. Your post lists three, two of which openly admit to not bothering to attribute at all (i.e. they are of the "everything on the internet is free to take" mindset) and the other appears to have had problems with Wordpress displaying the attribution. In none of those cases do we know how it ended up. Hundreds of people ask Diliff how they can use his images and he guides them. Many who want to do so without attribution, for non-profit/charity work, are granted that permission. This is not a copyleft troll, Jmabel, and we all need to drop that kind of Twitter-rant language and start behaving more professionally. The Pixby solution is suboptimal for sure, and nobody here likes it, but there also isn't a professional outfit doing this kind of thing who behave any better.

Commons is an image repository of freely licenced or PD images. It's primary purpose is to serve as a common host for the Wikipedias and other WMF projects. If you guys decide to vandalise images in this repository, Wikipedia is just gonna fork and you'll be irrelevant. The above image with attribution/warning caption is then displayed as an example of use on Wikipedia with the caption cropped off. Are you insane? That's only going to make it worse. Please pursue Wikipedia/WMF to help fix their terrible image use UI. Every other publisher on the internet displays CC images with attribution in text below the image. Wikipedia does not, and seems to think a subtle hyperlink is enough. But it (and your stupid cropped solution) both teach our reusers that attribution is not important. This is Wikipedia/WMF's fault. They should fix it. Let's not vandalise our repository. These images do not belong to us. -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I will respond to only one part of this: you can either take back calling it "stupid" that I demonstrated that something is technically possible when JayCubby alluded to it but did not know how to do it, or I can start a complaint against you for that at COM:ANU. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin -- I think the inline attribution is an interesting prospect, actually. MediaViewer fills the role for the most part, but it could be justified with things like PotD, where there is enough space. JayCubby (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. It is messy. And this going to be a long comment unfortunately. Please at least address the first point.
- Point 1. The added watermark text is questionable, particularly in the atmosphere of a copyright holder enforcing the licence terms. Looking at the CC-BY-SA 3.0 legal code (and I am not a lawyer):
  - Is "Photo by DAVID ILIFF" indicating the copyright holder adequately? Use a "©" surely. It may be indicating a work-for-hire.
  - The code says "credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors" - does this illegible-at-thumbnail-size watermark do that for all use-cases?
  - The code says "If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit" - so in this case by maintaining the watermark you are violating the licence terms.
  - The watermark says "Keep this attribution intact to avoid legal action". You should confer with WMF Legal before baking poor legal advice into files. I am not aware of any cases where Diliff has started legal action, but legal threats and payment requests for sure. Incidentally, the watermarking on File:LL Cool J 2013.jpg doesn't offer legal advice but does it meet the "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation" part of the legal code when it is associating the copyright holder with litigation? I mentioned that because of the call to take the watermark further to warn people about the author - ie make a disparaging comment on the copyright holder's behaviour.
- Point 2. We have editors saying we have consensus for taking action copyleft trolling but please link to me the consensus to designate Diliff as a copyleft troll I must have missed it. And then we have other editors wanting to change the name of the guideline (Copyleft trolling), but wouldn't that make any theoretical consensus designating Diliff a troll invalid. I can't keep up, and going by the comment above and parallel discussions in various forums I am not the only one.
- Point 3. There is the problem of further damaging the reputation of Commons within the Wikimedia space. I don't think anyone is claiming that this watermarking procedure improves the value of Commons for Wikimedia projects. I understand that Commons wants its own identity, but it won't have any identity if merged into Wikipedia due do making free works inaccessible. I am not sure how the {{CSS image crop}} feature works when used outside of Commons, for example for a Wikipedia to use the file without the watermark they will have to wrap it in a template?
- Point 4. About the use of "watermark": The term is not 100% clear, to me at least, as it is not used in the traditional postage stamp or digital sense it is more of a non-destructive additive copyright notice modification to the work, and you may have better luck implementing it if you make that clear - you are extending the image canvas with a notice.
- Point 5. There have been multiple discussions surrounding this topic over the years covering various suggestions that were never implemented, like:
  - putting a {{Copyright holder aggressively enforces licence terms}} on file pages
  - a simple credit line at the top of the file pages
  - getting Wikipedias to lead by example with credit lines
  - the WMF providing a service to track down copyright infringement of Commons uploaders - using the same style of tracking software used by pixsy for example - to get them to comply before copyright holders even notice and legal threats are launched (this is my idea, but I am sure I have seen it somewhere before. It defends free-culture and can also list legitimate uses which uploaders typically desire anyway)

So instead, we let the copyright violations throughout the world accrue until we realised that the payment demands had started. And now we have this reactive watermarking process that does nothing to help those reusers already affected. Ideally those most passionate about protecting reusers (which includes those wanting watermarking) can get something done about educating reusers so they meet licence terms and this money demand situation can be prevented in the future. It is not ideal to have to oppose a proposal so that something gets done, but in this case that something is reducing future harm. I also wanted to note that the section of CC-BY-SA 4.0's legal code of saying you must "if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications" is a nightmare for non-WMF Project resuers so we are going to be having these discussions in perpetuity.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Commander Keane: Without addressing most of that, on Point 1 third bullet point, "upon notice from any Licensor… is an operative phrase. That is, the obligation to remove a credit would only arise upon notice that the licensor wanted the credit removed. - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the way I understand it is that the copyright holder informs the reuser that the credit must be removed. Then if not done, copyright infringement has occurred. An aggressive one will say "remove the credit or pay me $900" and if you can't (I have seen cases where the reuser can't pay for website/file server adjustments) they are liable for legal action - contrary to the proposed watermark. I was curious about what licence the file has if credit removal is requested, but that is not relevant here. Commander Keane (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Point 5, if you want to implement a different solution, by all means, have at it! So far though, watermarking is the only solution that has anything close to consensus. It's easy to shoot down ideas, but quite another thing to actually build consensus on a solution. Nosferattus (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe 1) the watermarking process has consensus, and 2) based on OP's description and the linked discussions, the copyright enforcement actions around Diliff's files makes them eligible for watermarking per that process. I agree that WMF legal guidance on the wording of the watermark would be appreciated, but that shouldn't stop us from making a good attempt today (the watermarks could always be amended based on WMF guidance). Consigned (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to make them unusable for any project we may as well just delete them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff - closed as Kept. Nosferattus (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. It wasn't clear to me if the next step is revdeleting the original un-watermarked versions. In any case, Diliff's images have 23,372 mainspace uses across Wikimedia projects. I assume that m:Forum and at least the ~50 wikis with more than 100 uses will get notified with time to react. The exposure of watermarking on this scale may prompt other uploaders to retrospectively apply watermarks to their works, which is fine per Commons:Watermarks. Someone mentioned a grey list for copyright holders that have engaged in copyleft trolling. This would be useful as derivatives of Diliff's works won't be welcome without a watermark, and uploading free content found on the web from those on the list will also require a watermark. Any progress on improving the watermark text?--Commander Keane (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I would really like to see some improvement on {{CSS image crop}} (or a wrapper around it for this purpose) before we go ahead with that. I honestly had no idea these were that heavily used on other WMF wikis. (I wish Colin had focused on things like that rather than insulting my intelligence, which quite honestly left me unwilling to engage with the rest of what he said.)
- Possible wrapper template would have a parameter for the height of the watermark at the bottom of the image in pixels of the underlying image, and a parameter either for the desired width or height of the resulting displayed image (ideally a choice of either) and would do the right calculation to call {{CSS image crop}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I didn't realise before, but some uses are transclusions - stub templates etc.
  
  Would it be possible for the wrapper to pass caption, alt-text, thumb/no thumb, etc too? By the way, {{CSS image crop}}'s description field isn't documented and I can't remember if templates like that get globally rolled out. I am not sure how a crop template would look versus a normal image with caption in an article, or if it would work at all in an infobox. If a standard watermark height (maybe percentage) is selected, could a further wrapper then have a default "Commons Watermark" value to make it easier for wikis?
  
  Despite all of these suggestions, I would still like to see a "copyright holder confirmed as engaging in copyleft trolling > added to grey list > {{Beware trolling}} template added to file pages > watermarking schedule announced to wikis > watermarking script run" process.
  
  I would also be interested in a commonsUS.wikimedia.org fork that will hold all top quality free files that can be used on with US servers (with a red banner saying trolling may occur). That discussion is for another day though. Commander Keane (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image of book cover

Hello everyone!! I need some assistance and orientation. Earlier today, I was expanding the article about Os Subterrâneos da Liberdade, a book trilogy written by the Brazilian writer Jorge Amado, in the Portuguese Wikipedia, which has a counterpart in the English site, at The Bowels of Liberty. In the English article, an image of the cover of the first volume of the trilogy is feature, and employed under fair use (thus, it has been uploaded at the English website). I would like to find out if I can use the same image (it is a cover in Brazilian Portuguese) in the Portuguese version, and, if so, under what license and tag. The image I'm referring to can be found here. Could you please advise me? I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance. StoryCraftsman (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term for anonymous works in Brazil is "publish + 70 years" which seems to have passed this year. So it should be good as long as the artist isn't known. I assume the proper template would be "PD-Brazil-media." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason to believe the cover was published anonymously? Often the cover images of books are attributed together with the copyright information for the rest of the book (often on the back of the title page). –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LPfi: "often" in that era in Brazil? - Jmabel ! talk 01:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. –LPfi (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurar el logo del Movimiento Al Socialismo (Venezuela)

Buenas por favor agrega la Categoría:Undeleted in 2031 a este logo (File:MAS.svg) removido por Yann ,este logo estará al Dominio Público en Venezuela (60 años según {{PD-Venezuela}}) AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 2031 yet, Commons doesn't need to do this pre-emptively. Ask in 2031 perhaps? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[6]. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not checking that it existed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it should be undeleted 2032, as the logo dates (supposedly) from 1971 (the party foundation). I say supposedly because we are only guessing the logo dates from 1971. Bedivere (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere:Porque 2032 ,era 1971+60=2031 (por calculadora). AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|AbchyZa22} +1 porque cambia al fin del año. Voy a cambiar a Category:Undelete in 2032. - Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22 can you provide definite proof this logo dates from 1971? Puedes entregar pruebas de que este logo data de 1971? Basta un folleto, lo que sea. Bedivere (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere:Tienes razón el partido fundó en 1971 (54 años) según Wikipedia en español ,pero la primera aparición (publicación) fue en 1973 abajo en el medio aparece el símbolo del puño del MAS color rojo. 2 años después de la fundación. AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel we'd have to undelete this one in 2034 actually Bedivere (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: feel free to change accordingly, I'm sure you know how to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 06:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hehehe, for sure 😃 Bedivere (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1970s Soviet performances of national anthems.

I basically want to check on this before I nominate a file that has been on Commons for nearly 20 years for deletion. File:Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza (1977 Vocal).oga is from a 1977 performance of the 1977 version of the Soviet national anthem. The anthem composition would be free from copyright since it is a state symbol. The performance was done by the choir and orchestra of the Bolshoi Theatre and conducted by Yuri Simonov (b. 1941). The source is this recording is the CD “National Anthems of the USSR and Union Republics” https://web.archive.org/web/20160325163946/http://www.hymn.ru/15-union-republics/index-en.html which had a copyright notice of "©1996 Melodiya."

What I basically want to know is if I'm missing some facet of this that would make the Bolshoi Theatre performance free from copyright? Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alex Spade might know ... --Rosenzweig τ 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have planned to make additional PD-Russia-audio template in near future for many similar cases of audiorecords.

The Russian copyright legislation have two branches - the copyright itself (works of arts, literature, and science - chapter 70 of the Civil Code) and the neighbouring rights (rights for performance, audiorecordings, and some others things - chapter 71 of the Civil Code). The rights for performance (for audiorecording) and audiorecording in the US legislation is part of copyright legislation - so, chapter 71 could not be ignored for Commons (as Commons ignores other rights - museum rights, rights for broadcasting of sport events, etc.).

Audiorecording is in PD in Russia, if all next three conditions are fulfilled

The original work for performance and audiorecording is in PD, or it is not the subject of copyright, or it is not the result of human creative activity.
The performer(s) is/are died and it is passed 50(*) years from performance - in this sentence only human can be performer (* - 54 for performer, who worked during the Great Patriotic War or participated in it).
It is passed 50 years from audiorecording - in this sentence any recorded sound is the subject of neighbouring rights - including both sounds of nature (birds, rain/thunder, etc.) and artificial sounds (music, song, speech, foley sounds, sounds from streets, building sites, sports events). Alex Spade (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, this record is not in PD in Russia. Alex Spade (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does (2) include all performers? I assume it may be hard to determine the identities and possible death of them all (for film in Finland, only a few key figures are counted). (1) seems to be covered, and for the rest of (2) and (3), 2028 is not too far away.

Depending on age of Bolshoi Theatre performers at the time, we may have to wait several decennia before we can be sure all of them are dead – but using the threshold of {{PD-old-assumed}}, we would likewise arrive at 2028, which corresponds to performers of 25+ years being 75+ now. Of course, the performers being many makes the odds of somebody surviving higher.

–LPfi (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alex, I've now started a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza (1977 Vocal).oga Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Odisha Govt

Hello everyone. This concerns Template:GoO-donation under COM:TAG India. This template was used for works by govt of Odisha which are allowed here. In the list of accounts we have Naveen Patnaik's accounts. He was Chief Minister then but isn't now. So shall we remove his personal accounts and add new CM's account in place. Bcoz since he no longer is part of govt, his uploads can't be considered as Odisha Govt works. Please take care of this situation. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

they should be fine up to the point they left office, so I guess clarifying that would do. Bedivere (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So @Bedivere this needs to be done without delay. Clarification would definitely do it. And also that no more uploads after the day they left office can be considered under this. Also, the second question is, should we add the social media accounts of the new CM? I would request you or someone good at this to do so. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:MCS 1Line col-pos-claim rgb.png

I think that files license is wrong. The source is a website that has "© Copyright" at the bottom. Unless there was a VRT ticket to for it, I don't see where the CC BY 4.0 comes from, since there's no indication that the uploader has a connection with the copyright owner. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably have been taken to Commons:Deletion requests. I think the file is fine due to mostly being plain text- files below the Commons:Threshold of originality cannot be copyrighted. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the license should be something like {{PD-textlogo}}? 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yeah- it was the uploader's only contribution, so they probably gave up and chose cc4.0 by default. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Publication without restrictions'

Hi, I'm looking at images on the international Red Cross archive here https://avarchives.icrc.org/ some of them say 'copyright ICRC' but also are labelled 'publication without restriction' does anyone know if that means I could add them to commons? DrawingDays (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to "What does "publication restrictions" mean?" on their website "Publication without restrictions: The documents are public, the ICRC holds the copyright and you may download and share the content, as long as you respect the general terms of use." Unfortunately those terms do not allow commercial use which is required by Commons:Licensing

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 16:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg

Sure, German law allows FOP application on graffiti, like this one (File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg) and other two-dimensional artworks seen in public. Nonetheless, it's a derivative of an iconic photo labelled non-free (w:File:Alan Kurdi lifeless body.jpg), isn't it? Should COM:DW apply? George Ho (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The angle is another, so most details cannot be derivative. Does anything resemble the original photo more than if the graffiti author had taken their own photo at the beach? –LPfi (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The TO said something about an "iconic photo", but it was actually my first time seeing the specific angle of said still. Nevertheless, I recall that several news outlets had photos that are strikingly similar to the graffiti (approx. the same view), using Google, you can find e.g. https://www.collettivoclan.it/la-fotocosa-del-giorno-la-morte-di-alan-kurdi/ . So, I tend to think that our German FOP won't do here, as the graffiti is too close to an assumed protected source. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the author has used several photos, without copying details from any one of them, it isn't a derived work (in my understanding). Of course, I cannot know whether it is an exact copy of one of them, possibly one that isn't online – but what are the copyrightable elements? What is here that another author couldn't have done in the same way (personal expression of the photographer)? Angle, lighting, composition? Much of that would be different in the graffiti anyway, and much could have been chosen the same by chance. –LPfi (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A photographer doesn't get a right over the entire scene -- just their very specific photograph of it, including the framing and angle. You would have to be able to identify the specific photograph it was derivative of. Two photographers standing next to each other taking very similar photographs are not derivative of each other, so you would have to be able to identify a specific photograph, and be able to also identify that it's not the same as another similar photograph, to be derivative I think. It's possible but the copyright in a snapshot photograph is really just on the specific framing (likely not replicated here) and the angle. If the photographer sets up the scene, i.e. poses people or items, then it's different. But not snapshots. Making a painting of a scene using photographs as a guide is fine and not derivative, provided they don't copy the details very closely. Finding several similar photos but not being able identify the exact one is more an indication that it's OK, I think. While possible, I think the exact photo would need to be identified for a chance of this being derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: please take a look at these media: https://www1.wdr.de/mediathek/av/video-der-vater-von-dem-jungen-am-strand-100.html (singled out photo: https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/wdrforyou/wdrforyou-der-vater-von-dem-jungen-am-strand-100~_v-HDready.jpg), https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Picture-of-Alan-Kurdi-used-in-the-experiments-Note-Picture-by-Niluefer-Demir_fig2_328521095; several other image copies can be found per Google. When comparing it to File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg, it's not only the viewing angle, I think also that the wavelet pattern around the head is quite a unique characteristic (and the foam blotches plus the pant wrinkles too, which are visible on both instances in the same locations), so that we could easily conclude that the graffitto is a copy of this photograph. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closer, but I don't think it's the same. The foam blotches in front are different, and there appears to be water up and behind the feet in the graffiti, while there's a dry patch in that photo. There are likely many similar photos; those photos are not derivative of each other. It may be there is one in particular that does come closer, but for something like this I'd say it really needs to be a slavish copy of a particular photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"[...]likely many similar photos" is probably disproven by w:Nilüfer Demir#Photo of Alan Kurdi seen from the side and https://time.com/4124895/top-100-photos-of-2015/ plus https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/top-100-photos-2015-alan-kurdi.jpg?quality=75&w=3000 (deeplink). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then the graffiti artist probably changed enough details to make it not derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without any of the photos, and despite the foam bloatches, how else would the graffiti artist accurately depict the image of that dead boy lying sideways on the ground? How else would that artist depict the red T-shirt and blue denim shorts? George Ho (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The graffiti artist can use photographs to get an idea of what the scene looked like, and depict that in their own way. That does not cause it to be a derivative work by itself. The question is if they are copying expression -- for a snapshot photograph, that is more the angle and framing, and possibly precise timing. The artist did not copy the framing or the precise timing. The angle is similar, but that is not necessarily enough to make a derivative work. A photographer standing nearby making a similar photograph would not be a derivative work; you'd have to give similar latitude to another artist. The details of the particular photograph do not seem copied to me; the angle of the body is indeed similar but I'm not sure the photographer gets an undisputed copyright on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You baffled me there, Carl: your sentence seems to be totally contrary to the content of COM:DW. Specifically, the explanation of what constitutes a derivative work there does not present itself for saying that changed details make something not derivative. The explanations further down corroborate this, with examples of drawings of Albus Dumbledore and Pikachu given as negative examples. See also Commons:Derivative works#Casebook, and in COM:FAN, it is clearly stated that Commons:Fan art#Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement. I do not understand your opinion of why only a slavish copy can be seen as derivative. Can you elaborate? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to what constitutes actual copyrightable expression in a photograph. It's not like a painting -- if the original was a painting, where the scene was completely made up by the artist, a similar graffiti like this is an obvious derivative work, and some details changed would not change that. It's just that the photographer does not get the sole right to depict the scene -- a photographer standing nearby making their own photograph would be an independent copyright. What makes that second photograph independent but a graffiti, which differs by probably about the same amount, derivative? You would have to slavishly reproduce the photograph. I'm just not sure the general angle on the body is enough for that. You can certainly make derivative works of a particular photograph -- the Hope poster for Obama was one. But the copyrightable expression in a snapshot photograph is not alway the obvious thing of visual similarity. For another example, I do not believe the US Marine memorial sculpture of the Iwo Jima flag-raising is derivative of the famous photograph. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the likelyhood that w:Nilüfer Demir was the sole photographer present is high. All media outlets trace their imagery about Alan Kurdi's death back to her, after all, her wiki article says that she took a photo series. If anybody else would have happened to make images, this person would most likely have stepped into the public by now, at least to participate in the fame surrounding the even (not necessarily out of a morbid or greed-borne motivation, but simply to tell a story too). Furthermore, I doubt that either shipwrecked refugees or rescuers would whip out their smartphones to snap pictures, they would be preoccupied with other things. I'm not aware of such a second photographer, are you? On the other hand, let us compare the details again between https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/top-100-photos-2015-alan-kurdi.jpg?quality=75&w=3000 and File:Alan Kurdi Graffiti.jpg:

at the head: the small wave breaks on the forehead of the child. A noticeable triangular shadow is present on both sides, the silhouette of it and the wave is really similar.
- Waves breaking are AFAIK physically basically chaotic phenomena, so each instance of them is unique.
along the wrist, there are foam blotches arranged in a line on both images. Similar foam patterns are also discernible along the shin and chin.
- Foam and waves are phenomena that persists for a few seconds maximum (waves) and at most, some minutes (foam). Hence, a hypothetical second photo used as template for the graffito would have had to be taken at nearly the same moment as the Demir image.
The wrinkles on the pant, the decorations of the shoes and the skin crease of the groin are really similar in both images, again.
by using these named reference points (forehead wave, foam blotches, cloth wrinkles) and also the angle of the shoe soles, the vantage point of the Demir photo is strikingly similar to the viewing angle of the graffito.
- A hypothetical second photographer would have had to stand more or less shoulder to shoulder with Nilüfer Demir. This is unlikely by the described circumstances of the shot.

As conclusion: The graffito is by all appearances (COM:PRP) an unlicensed copy of the well-known photograph by Nilüfer Demir and would have to be deleted. Or can somebody refute this deduction? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if they were the only photographer present or not. That does not expand nor contract the scope of their copyright in a photograph. It lessens the possibilities there are other photos out there to be derivative of, for sure, but the question of a derivative work is mainly by looking at the original and the graffiti, and determining if there was copyrightable expression copied.

Most likely, yes the artist used that photo for reference. The question though was specific expression copied. An artist can imagine a similar but different scene, and that would not be within the scope of the original copyright. Yes, there are some similar patterns. The photographer does not get a copyright over whatever particular patterns happened to be there -- that was done by nature. Yes, there is a wave at the head -- it's coming off at a different angle in the graffiti. The wrinkles in the pants likewise are not part of the photographer's copyright. They would be the same for anyone photographing the scene.

In the end, the artist changed many small details. It does not feel to me like a slavish copy of the photograph. Certainly the framing is different. The angle is very similar, certainly. If you think that is enough, that is your opinion -- there are no bright lines here. But the Copyright Office frequently talks about a "thin copyright" where something is on the borderline of being copyrightable -- where only virtually identical copying is prevented, with larger changes meaning it's a different work. They mention this when granting copyright to a logo[7], which cites the court case Satava v. Lowry (summary here). If we would grant a different copyright to a photographer standing nearby (even if there wasn't actually one), we should be granting a separate copyright to an artist who imagines/depicts the same scene, with a similar level of changes. To me, usually the copying is evident in all the small details, and in this case while there are similarities, most of those small details have been changed some. The artist could certainly have changed more, and I can respect differing opinions, but that is mine. I think it's a very borderline thing to file a DR over, particular as it's a photo of a graffiti in place, and not a direct upload from an artist. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson press photos

Due to the nature of the person and the current discussion at Talk:Michael Jackson, I figured I would invite others to share their opinions on the copyright status and discuss at the respective deletion requests of the following files which were uploaded from Getty Images:
File:Michael Selling Pepsi.jpg & File:Michael Selling Pepsi (2).jpg PascalHD (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The PD rationale is that the photos were published without copyright notice in 1978–1989, but the source is Getty. Absolutiva, how did you come to the conclusion that there was an authorised publication without notice at latest in 1989? Does somebody else have any clue why that would be likely? –LPfi (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no copyright registrations without copyright notice in 1978–1989, most photographs are public domain in the United States by these unknown authors. It's from the collection of Michael Ochs Archives, not the photographer. Absolutiva (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the full copy actually distributed so that we can see there was no notice on the front or back? Registration was not required, just that there was a notice on copies actually distributed (though in that time frame, a registration is an important step to recovering the copyright if notice was forgotten). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the pictures were commissioned by Pepsi, they would own the copyright. Quite a likely situation is this case. Yann (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the contracts involved. In any event, a copyright notice would tell us the copyright owner, and lack of notice would mean the copyright owner would not matter. Thought we would still need to search for a registration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am updating the spanish version of "Visual Effects" page

Hello everyone,

I am Alexis Rivera, a computer graphics generalist and 3D animator from Chile. I have been watching some videos where spanish speakers talk about special effects, saying they are the same as visual effects, but they are mistaken. So I want to upload an image of Robert Patrick as the T-1000 in its metallic form, but I don't know if this image can be uploaded to Wikipedia. I need your feedback on this, I would appreciate it.

Best regards, Alexis Lazurita (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be used- the movie is still under copyright, and so is any image taken from the movie. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, just saw it also says if it can be used on wikipedia- non-free images are allowed to be stored and used locally on Wikipedia, but not Commons, if they come under COM:Fair use. I don't know if Spanish Wikipedia (seeing as you are from Chile) allows it (it currently doesn't, so probably not), but the English Wikipedia article w:en:T-1000 does use the image of the T-1000 metallic form. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found the page for Fair use on es.wiki, and they don't allow fair use images w:es:WP:FU. However the spanish version of T-1000 w:es:T-1000 does show a visual effect for the metallic look. File is at File:London Film Museum - Terminator 2 Judgment Day (5754890313).jpg DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was the United States the only country that had copyright formalities?

A lot of older American works are in public domain because the author did not observe certain formalities, such as including a copyright notice or renewing a copyright before it expired. However, I couldn't find much information about formalities in other countries. For example, Commons doesn't seem to have an equivalent of templates like {{PD-US-not renewed}} for countries besides the United States. Wikipedia also treats old foreign works as non-free except those that are unambiguously in public domain due to age. en:Copyright renewal redirects to en:Copyright renewal in the United States, and en:Copyright notice also mainly covers U.S. law.

I do know the 138-year-old Berne Convention did away with most formalities, but there are still some countries that only joined the Berne Convention in recent decades. So I'm curious: were copyright formalities unique to the United States? Ixfd64 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. The phrase All rights reserved came about because the Buenos Aires Convention required a reservation of rights -- that was equivalent to the U.S. copyright notice. Not all Buenos Aires Convention countries were members of Berne (I think Nicaragua only joined Berne in 2000). Mexico had a registration requirement until the late 1940s or early 1950s. I'm sure there were some others. Berne eliminated formalities in 1908, I think. The U.S. probably had the most formalized though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do you think it would be worth the effort to research copyright formalities in other countries? For example, would a {{PD-Mexico-not registered}} be useful to Commons? Ixfd64 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mexico's old registrations are something we can research very easily. {{PD-Mexico}} has the shorter terms they used to have (and have not had any retroactive laws to change that); that is often enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Philippines situation was similar to the U.S. (they were a U.S. colony for about 4 decades), but someone else would probably know more than I do about that. Jmabel ! talk 06:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel yes, you're right. Until 1972 (when Marcos Sr. enacted Presidential Decree 49 which finally applied the Berne treaty here), the Philippines was adhering to the American-era Act 3134 of 1924, which was heavily inspired by the US law of 1909. See also the Memorandum Circular No. 021-2023, released by our copyright office in 2023 to finally clarify the public domain rules here. See COM:PHILIPPINES#General rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some old copyright laws of the UK from the 19th century and earlier, like the en:Copyright Act 1842, required that you register your work to be able to sue others for infringement. But that was abolished a long time ago. --Rosenzweig τ 13:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles A. Willard.jpg

I need help in proper tagging of this image. I doubt that it is a PD-PhilippinesGov work. Just because it appeared in the website of the Philippine Supreme Court does not mean it is automatically a PD work as a "PH public document" work. I suspect its origin is in the US, proper US tag is required for this. I need help from other editors in proper tagging of this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that he is called associate justice. Ruslik (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: "associate" as against "chief". - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is a vectorized recreation of """game""" box art that simply only contains just text allowed?

Hi. I am working on a vectorized recreation of the box art depicted in this photograph of the Linux for PlayStation 2 cover hosted on enwiki. I am curious about whether a de minimis copyright exemption might apply in this case, given that the image as a whole basically comprises of nothing short of just text and very simple geometric shapes?

My one concern about it is the presence of Tux (right) in the bottom-right corner of the box art, the version of which is triple-licensed under the public domain under both CC0 (for Garret LeSage's version hosted on enwiki, which I am using in the recreation) and an attribution requirement for Larry Ewing, the GIMP project and Simon Budig, who are responsible for creating the penguin mascot.

At any rate, would it be technically acceptable for such a recreation to be hosted on Commons? Pivotman319 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances, I believe that either the original box art or a recreation would be acceptable. The Linux logo is available under a free license, the PlayStation logo in the upper right is considered under the threshold of originality, and the remaining content on the box is plain text well under the threshold of originality. Combining these elements does not result in a new copyrightable work. Omphalographer (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The box art is not copyrightable. I'd suggest importing the English Wikipedia image over here, by changing the license accordingly. Bedivere (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll get to exporting this tomorrow and seeing fit with a high-rez vectorized copy, then. Thanks, you two. Pivotman319 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Medina Peralta in 2024.png

hello, i know there are a lot of images from youtube that need to be verified, and i don't know if it's considered appropriate to take a step to request verification of a file, but i recently uploaded an image from a creative commons video posted on youtube that depicts Isabel Medina Peralta, a neo-nazi activist. given that the video is akin to neo-Nazi propaganda, there's a very good chance it will end up striked. so if it's possible, i'd like to request verification of this image, Isabel Medina Peralta in 2024.png, due to its precarious nature. GloBoy93 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GloBoy93 confirmada la imagen, gracias. Bedivere (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Council Open Government License

Hi! I recently added some local councillor portraits (can be found at Category:Portrait photographs of members of Cornwall Council) with a license template I haven't used before and I just wanted to check on a few things before I spend too much time uploading any more.

Template:Cornwall Council links to a page on the council's website which has the phrasing that "Information is generally provided under the Open Government License" but that "Where any exceptions apply to this, we will let you know." - would this be enough to assume that these types of portraits are freely licensed? There are also some portraits which look like they have been taken by councillors themselves, rather than as official portraits - would these also be covered? Thanks in advance! Gazamp (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests the images are licensed under the OPL unless stated otherwise. If these aren't explicitly stated as having another license, I'd guess they are safe. Bedivere (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to also include a link to the Cornwall Council Publication Scheme document [8], which listed out which information are published under OPL, since it isn’t obvious just from the permit page alone. On a side note, maybe a link to the document should be included in the template instead. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's really useful - thanks both! I'll amend the template as suggested to link directly to the document. Gazamp (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tryst with Destiny.ogg

"Tryst with Destiny" was an English-language speech by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, to the Indian Constituent Assembly in the Parliament House, on the eve of India's Independence, towards midnight on 14 August 1947.

I have uploaded the file "Tryst with Destiny.ogg"
Please evaluate whether this file has the right to be on Wikimedia Commons with all subsequent rights.

To be honest: I wrote an article in the Russian Wikipedia about this speech and really want this file—featuring this great address—to appear in all Wikipedias and other projects. However, I know there may be legal complications, and I want to be sure that using this file does not violate Indian law.

ps: I don’t speak or write in English. I use DeepSeek for translation. Я говорю, пишу, читаю и тд на русскомя зыке. VladimirPF (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a DR right now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tryst with Destiny.ogg. The file is certainly public domain in India (Nehru has been dead over 60 years, died in 1964). The U.S. status would be a complicated interaction of URAA and the U.S. laws about sound recordings, needs someone more expert than I am. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV in the United States Ineligible for Copyright - A Complete Legal Fiction

The template PD-automated has been turned into something for which there is zero legal justification for in the United States. Any time a CCTV footage or picture in the country takes a shot of something notable, users upload it to Commons, thinking, erroneously, that the picture cannot be copyrighted. That is a complete legal fiction and the usage of this template for images originating in the US should be curtailed and all such images being justified under this template should be removed. Two of the best examples to counter this ridiculous claim are, first, the Andy Warhol movie Empire, which is an eight-hour film that is composed entire of a still shot of the Empire State Building. The second example is Wolfgang Staehles' time lapse work, "2001", that captured the 9/11 attacks. The former has been inducted into the National Film Registry and is under copyright.

There is no legal precedent in the US that CCTV footage is copyfree. Further, the template is now being used to try to claim that bodycam video in copyfree. There is no end to how this template will be abused because there is no clear directive or policy when applying the template. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of YouTube channels that exclusively use CCTV, bodycam, or otherwise fixed, automated photography for their content and all their content is rightfully copyrighted. I believe this template should be nixed for any all all use within the US and that those photos and videos currently uploaded under this template should be removed or blanked unless their verified authors upload them themselves. -- Veggies (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In COM:CRT/US, we have a sentence that reads "In the United States, copyright can only be assigned to "works independently created by a human author"[9]." This is corroborated with COM:TOO and COM:TOO US. Your hypothesis "There are dozens, probably hundreds, of YouTube channels that exclusively use CCTV, bodycam, or otherwise fixed, automated photography for their content and all their content is rightfully copyrighted." about the copyright status seems flawed. Most fixed camera installations simply lack the human input that is necessary for and behind (receiving) copyrights. The Warhol and Staehle examples aren't opposed to this concept, as these humans used material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication; by this intent, there's a foundation for copyrights. You cannot go by simple technical characteristics, but you have to consider the purpose and intent of something that may be a copyrightable work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most fixed camera installations simply lack the human input that is necessary for and behind (receiving) copyrights. The Warhol and Staehle examples aren't opposed to this concept, as these humans used material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication Sorry but that is a distinction without a difference. If the owner of a CCTV camera decides that their random footage is now (ahem) "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication" who are you to say it isn't and would that suddenly validate their copyright claim? -- Veggies (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a owner of a rock decides that is now "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication", the Copyright Office has said it's not. Even if the human polished it up. You don't get to take stuff that exists and claim a copyright on it. Warhol intended to create an artistic work from the start.

If someone edited a work out of a CCTV camera, I wouldn't be arguing it. But those are never the cases on here; the videos are obvious cuts to the video to the parts of interest. Taking a PD movie and making a shorter cut could be copyrightable; taking a PD movie and cutting it to a scene, especially when there's one or two obvious scenes to cut.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a owner of a rock decides that is now "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication", the Copyright Office has said it's not. Even if the human polished it up. A rock is a natural object. Rocks are not created by men. Rocks existed before humans. There is a natural process by which rocks come about. CCTV videos are not natural objects. CCTV videos are created by people. CCTV videos did not exist before humans. There is no natural process by which CCTV videos come about. You just made my point for me.

If someone edited a work out of a CCTV camera, I wouldn't be arguing it. That's exactly what is on Commons. Uploaders don't upload the entire CCTV feed, they upload the short clip or still image that they find relevant. Second, you're still presupposing that CCTV video is PD. It isn't. There's zero legal precedent for claiming that it is. -- Veggies (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocks are polished by humans, but that's not enough input for the work to be copyrighted. Kinetic sculptures are made by humans, but aren't copyrighted, because they aren't fixed.

It feels like you didn't bother reading what you're responding to in your haste to respond. Turnings hours and hours of film into one work is a creative action. As I said above, making two cuts in the film, one when the action starts and one when it ends, is not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nitpick but recent court decisions would seem to contradict your analysis of “fixed”. January decision by the 9th Circuit found that sculptures or 3d works with moving or manipulatable parts can be eligible for copyright; they compared movable sculptures (in this case children’s toys) to dynamic works like songs or dance and concluded that the movement does not violate the “fixed” clause. Tangle, Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc., et al, 9th Circuit, January 14 2025. 19h00s (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyright Office has ruled time and time again that works without a human author (the notorious monkey case or AI, in more recent years) cannot be copyrighted. Who would be the human author of a CCTV camera? The owner of the camera? No, because they did not have any input on its creation. The brand that made the camera? Also had no input on any creative work. It can't be the person who "set it up", because the monkey copyright suit had a person setting up the image that the monkey took, and yet it was ultimately ruled uncopyrightable due to lack of human authorship, because what made the decision about when to snap the camera and how was the monkey (a non human). Similarly, an AI, even if prompted with creative input, cannot produce a copyrightable work. There is simply no human author in which to vest the copyright here. With Empire, Warhol chose to start filming, and chose when it ended, and chose the location with lights for artistic reasons. With 2001 it was a video at a specific time for an artistic reason with specific artistic choices. They chose to film, they chose where to frame the camera for creative reasons. There was human input in both cases, in both the original production and in its representation (the time lapse and slow motion elements and such). If CCTV footage is significantly altered in a creative manner after the fact, or edited in a specific way, or there is some especially creative placement of the cameras for an artistic work that could be copyrighted, but that is almost none of these cases, which are almost uniformly security cameras. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the camera? No, because they did not have any input on its creation. Of course they did. They or an authorized agent of theirs set it up, chose where to point it, and incurred the costs for buying, maintaining, and preserving that footage. We're not talking about "monkey" photos or AI here—stay on topic—we're discussing CCTV footage. With Empire, Warhol chose to start filming, and chose when it ended, and chose the location with lights for artistic reasons. The very same thing that someone with still-camera footage chooses when setting up, publishing, or releasing their images. With 2001 it was a video at a specific time for an artistic reason with specific artistic choices. As I said above to someone else's comment, that's a distinction without a difference. "An artistic reason" is not a pre-requisite for copyright. If I install a doorbell security camera and, inadvertently, end up capturing footage of something unexpected (natural phenomena or some human act), would you demand to know if I had "an artistic reason" for setting up the camera before granting me a copyright? That's risible. -- Veggies (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your home painters spilled paint on the floor, and you posted a photo to Facebook, and they claimed you violated the copyright on their floor painting, would you think that not risible? Taken to court, would your lawyer's first argument not be that accidentally spilling paint on a floor is not a copyrightable act? In a country with stronger moral rights, you might be enjoined from destroying their artwork they made on your floor. Artistic intent makes a big difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to court, would your lawyer's first argument not be that accidentally spilling paint on a floor is not a copyrightable act? No, because spilling paint is very much copyrightable. My lawyer would simply state, first, that the painters failed to state a claim because they hadn't demonstrated how a photo uploaded to Facebook violated their copyright in any meaningful way. Second, he would argue that the painters were agents hired by myself to do specific work on my property, which did not include painting the floor, so I was entirely within my rights to have them clean the mess up or clean it up myself, effectively destroying their creation, as being outside the bounds of what they were contracted to do. So, no, your analogy falls flat on all counts. You didn't even attempt to answer my hypothetical doorbell scenario because there is no "artistic reason" prerequisite for having a copyrightable work. -- Veggies (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Veggies: I was just thinking about a scenario where someone is taking a photograph on their phone, drops it, and the camera goes off after rolling down a hill. Obiviously there's no human input or "creative process" involved in that case. But is anyone seriously going to argue the person doesn't own the copyright to the photograph? Otherwise, what exactly would be the standard there? How many times the phone rolled before taking the picture? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that De jure, there's no copyright for having an image snapped due to a technical mishap or fluke, your example is similar to the monkey grabbing a DSLR and pressing the shutter. But in practice, that would be often hard to prove. By the way, there's a photographic technique involving setting your camera to triggering the shutter with a short timer (1 to 3 seconds) and then to cast it in the air. After you caught it when coming down, you have sometimes pictures with funny novel perspectives. I would say that this is undeniably a creative process, even if you're using a lot of randomness. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a difference, legally, between the copyright of a picture taken by dropping your phone accidentally versus dropping your phone intentionally? I don't see one. It's still a human act. -- Veggies (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyright Office says "An original work of authorship is a work that is independently created by a human author and possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity." Accidents aren't creative.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The laws actually make more or less huge differences between accidents and intentions. See Act of god, manslaughter vs. murder vs. negligent homicide and battery for examples, admittedly not related to copyrights but mostly with human acts. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a picture of a painting, then that photo is a derivative of that painting and distributing it without a fair use justification is copyright infringing. You can argue that you can destroy this copyrighted painting, but if you accept that it's a work of copyright, I'd wait until the court tells you it's A-OK in any country with strong moral rights. If you install a doorbell cam for someone, are you claiming copyright over any of the footage that results? If someone comes out from Lowe's to install the doorbell, does Lowe's have the copyright to all the cameras its workers installed?-Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Spilling paint" is not copyrightable. Spilling paint is a technique which can be used in the creation of a copyrightable work. There is a difference. Within the context of the creation of a work, a person can spill paint in a way that reflects their originality and control over the creation of a process. But it is only the intentional application of intellectual creativity, rather than the spilling of paint (or whatever other physical act) that produces a copyrightable work. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it is only the intentional application of intellectual creativity, rather than the spilling of paint (or whatever other physical act) that produces a copyrightable work There is absolutely nothing in copyright law that necessitates (ahem) "the intentional application of intellectual creativity". If I accidently spill paint on my floor and I think it spilled in a neat pattern, I can cut the floor out and copyright the whole spillage, sell derivate works from it, and zealously protect it as my intellectual property from people who want to duplicate it without authorization. -- Veggies (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they did not have any input on its creation. Lots of security cameras are remote controlled. There's no way to know on our end which camera footage was or not either. With body cams specifically, obviously whomever is wearing the camera controls what is being recorded by moving or looking in a certain direction. The question would be if something like that is intentional enough to be considered creative. It certainly seems to be in instances like someone wearing a GoPro camera to record themselves doing an extreme sport. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of files of Red Bull videos on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could clearly tell from the way the footage moves, and if you can't tell, you run into the same situation as the monkey copyright thing, where what little influence the human may have is not enough to make them the author - after all, he orchestrated the monkey shoot and set it up and moved into its position, still not enough. On the body camera question: yes, I agree, and so I didn't mention body cameras, because there is creative input in how one moves and operates the camera, whether it is attached to one's person or not. Those are not really "automated", their movement and capture is wholly dependent on a human. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think the monkey footage is copyrightable. Probably CCTV footage that clearly looks automated isn't either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I place a camera somewhere to film for an hour and I am not touching the camera during this hour no one would say that I do not have a copyright on the video. But if I do the same but leave the camera for two years the copyright vanishes? Is there then a point on which the recoding before is copyrighted and the recoding after. Will the copyright of the first hour be revoked because the camera was standing for two years. This does not make sense to me. There are similar questions on some FOP cases where we decided to delete them all per PCP. GPSLeo (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All is about the intent. The objective of a security camera is not to produce any work. It is only to provide security. If you set a camera with the intent to create a work, you get a copyright. Yann (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about the US law but in EU law intent is definitely irrelevant for the copyright of a work. The only think that matters is if there was a creative process. If placing a camera is a creative process keeping there for a longer time does not remove the creativity from the process of placing the camera. GPSLeo (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't that simply two ways of saying the same thing? Yann: "If you set a camera with the intent to create a work, you get a copyright." GPSLeo: "The only think that matters is if there was a creative process." I understand it as such: Intent to create = Creative process, if you have the intent to create, then you've taken the first step of a creative process. I do not see how creation without intent could be possible. Grand-Duc (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say placing a camera at a certain place is always a creative process. GPSLeo (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Fixed cameras are usually installed by technicians, not by videographers. And for determining the intent, search for who pays for the camera. For security cameras, a private or public organization pays for it with the intention of providing security. Yann (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If I place a camera somewhere to film for an hour and I am not touching the camera during this hour no one would say that I do not have a copyright on the video." Not necessarily. If I place a digital thermometer outside and it records the temperatures though-out the day, I don't have any right to stop others from copying the same exact data and publishing it themselves.

Copyright is limited-time government granted monopoly it can choose to bestow or withhold as it sees fit. It chooses not to bestow that monopoly in cases where recovered information lacks human originality. Feoffer (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an extension of Burrow-Giles v. Sarony. The question has nothing to do with the mechanical process, but whether or not the photograph (or video) represents the "original intellectual conceptions" of the author. In the case of a planned or manually shot video, there is consistent control over the output. If you are watching the camera, you have a choice at any moment whether to move it or not, to adjust it, etc. — putting aside, of course, any control you may exercise over the events that take place in front of it. If you leave a camera unattended, however, then the frames captured will have less and less to do with your intellectual conception, to the point where you may not exercise any significant authorship.

To ask you another question: let's say you start shooting a video, and, after an hour, you hand your camera off to me (without turning it off) and I shoot video for an hour. During those times, we both have control over the camera and the various aspects of the photographic process. Once you stop exercising authorship, however, whatever the camera captures is not your work (but, in this case, mine). Look at Burrow-Giles. The photograph is found to be copyrightable because is a "useful, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture, and that plaintiff made the same … entirely from his own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit." In a CCTV case, very few of these criteria, if any, are fulfilled. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices: The crucial question is “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” - If the CCTV is a static CCTV feed, it's ineligible. If someone's controlling the camera, it likely is eligible. I don't think it makes sense to apply it to body cameras, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That interpretation has zero legal precedent or foundation behind it. It's, essentially, a highly disputable reading of the Copyright Office principles. In fact, none of the examples given after that passage even remotely come close to what you're suggesting. -- Veggies (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree, and have encouraged people not to use {{Pd-automated}} for US CCTV. It would be useful to get WMF Legal to weigh in on the copyrightability of prepositioned cameras via m:Wikilegal -- I was going to request it a while ago, but never got around to sending the email. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think the copyright would vest in? Hypothetically they were copyrightable, who would get it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the copyright is assigned to the property owner, if my memory serves me. Though in the UK, something as simple as a signature can be copyrighted.

Perhaps someone could email the Copyright Office and ask them to weigh in? JayCubby (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody saying that these are easily in the public domain - well I hope they're right, but given the very low TOO in many countries, and the fact that this principle has been completely untested in the US, means we don't know until something goes to court. As a rule, I'd say CCTV is hopefully fine, while dashcams and bodycams are more dubious because there is far more likely to be human placement/decision in filming angle, what they're filming, when, ect. It's different from the monkey case, because the monkey produced a still and the choice of when to take the still is likely what bumps the copyright to the monkey rather than the human. But we don't know. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US law is clear: Copyright applies to art, not data. When there's no artist, there's no art, and thus no government-granted monopoly to restrict copying. It's not a legal fiction, it's a well-established legal reality. Feoffer (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you distinguish 'art' from 'data' in an image? -- Veggies (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well... The law is actually really unclear on this point. "Art" is never explicitly defined in the relevant statutes in the same way you're defining it here. You can call anything "art", that doesn't make it copyrightable. You can also call anything "data", that doesn't make it copyright-ineligible. Indeed, the shades of grey are the most important aspects of this situation - it comes down to how courts and the CO have interpreted and analyzed similar "works" under the relevant statutes, it does not hinge on whether we personally think it's "art" or "data". As OP correctly pointed out, there are multiple examples of copyrighted films that comprise nothing more than a single, continuous, static shot - Warhol's Empire for sure could be a case of the Copyright Office granting registration prior to a court decision that would nullify the effect of the registration, but we just don't know if that's the case, it hasn't been tested in court. I'll stop there as I don't want to get knee-deep in this discussion, but the idea that "art" vs "data" is a simply explained binary within the language of US copyright law is just incorrect. 19h00s (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some reasonable arguments that some installations may be PD-ineligible, which is more a question if there is no identifiable human authorship. For a photograph, the usual aspects are framing and angle -- while those may be limited and more obvious for security cameras (merger doctrine arguments), it still may be enough for copyright. A camera could be positioned by an installation company, or tweaked by an employee, and maybe that is enough. It may also be very difficult for us to determine. I did find one registration, PA0002103805, which is I think for this video. Which means it's certainly possible for some fairly basic security cameras to get a copyright registration in the U.S. It's a pretty untested area of law, where we are guessing. If there is any remote control of the camera, I would assume it's copyrightable, for sure. The CCTV aspect is irrelevant in and of itself. I'm not sure the Copyright Office or any court has given us any decent guidance over what aspects to look for. It's arguable, but I can also certainly see arguments that it's gray enough that there is significant doubt on such works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree. I think COM:PCP probably wins the day with me so far. Someone chose to put the camera there with the intention of capturing things in that area at that angle. It may be for utilitarian reasons and not "art", but AFAIK, there is no utilitarian exemption for video. GMG ^talk 22:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am leery of {{PD-automated}}. I do not think there is caselaw that supports a blanket ruling that such footage is PD-ineligible. The copyright office has ruled that technical images such as x-rays are PD-ineligible. An x-ray technician does not have much freedom in making the image. I'm sympathetic to PD-ineligible in some circumstances. If somebody screws a Ring doorbell camera onto the wall, there is also little choice available from framing the shot. The same can be said of dash cams and Tesla cams. I'm less sympathetic to PD-ineligible when the installer has a lot of freedom about where to install the camera and where the camera points. A few months ago, I saw a discussion about a camera mounted on top of a building to monitor the parking lot below. Yes, a functional image, but the image was also pleasing as it had good composition. I can easily see a human exercising judgment to make a pleasing image. There are clear cases of copyright. If someone sets up a camera to catch the surf pounding the shore or some wild animals feeding, that someone should not be denied a copyright merely because they left the camera unattended for hours on end. The photographer intended to catch some interesting footage. That a security camera captures an unexpected event such as a plane crash makes the issue of copyright less clear. The photographer was not trying to frame the unexpected crash, so everything else might be incidental. If, however, the photographer wanted to capture images of ships passing underneath a bridge and happened to capture a ship striking the bridge and collapsing it, then the framing is not accidental, and I see no reason for PD-ineligible. In summary, the law is not settled, so Commons should be cautious about claiming {{PD-automated}}. Glrx (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to say it has no basis in law, not that it is a "legal fiction." There is such a thing as a legal fiction, and this isn't an example of that. The question is whether or not the video has within it a modicum of originality which constitutes human authorship of the video/image.

Copyright exists only in works containing such originality, not in the mechanical process used to create them. If you run a camera for an hour with the lens cap on, you will produce an hour-long video, but it will not be copyrightable, because the output (a black screen) will not contain the modicum of originality necessary for something to be a copyrighted work. The best argument that CCTV is copyrightable in general is that the camera has been placed by a human and thus that there is human authorship in the framing of the image which is output. This may not always be the case — in some cases, the person who set up the camera may have little to no control over its positioning. There is no aspect of static CCTV which can possibly include human authorship, except for this initial framing of the image. And, even then, the contents of what is in front of the camera can be left uncontrolled to the point where the initial (minimally) creative image is no longer reflected in the output of the camera.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is there "legal precedent" for cctv footage being copyrightable? ltbdl (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking advice how to find usable images

Hi, I'm curious if anyone has any advice on how to tailor one's search for images/photographs to specifically find images which are eligible to be uploaded to Wikimedia.

Any help appreciated. Thank you very much. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the filter option on Google image search. (It only shows up in the desktop version of the Google image search page.) There, you can select to only search for images that have a Creative Commons license. Other image search engines, and image hosting sites, too, likely have a similar filter option. Nakonana (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you use that filter on google it will show results with all CC licenses including NC, ND which are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good to know. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely good to know. Nakonana (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain tag for item from HathiTrust

There's an image I'd like to upload that I extracted from a public domain document in HathiTrust. What PD tag should I use for the image in question? In case it is relevant, the document is from 1993, originally published in the United States, as a final report back to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The author of the document was not a federal employee. Nolabob (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nolabob: Could you give a link please? Yann (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: It's the figure on page 5 of the document at this link: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31210020590277&seq=1 Nolabob (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says that diagram is from the Denver Water Department, so it is not necessarily in the public domain. You'd have to show that they (Denver Water Department) published it in 1974 without a copyright notice, which is likely but by no mean certain. Then it would be {{PD-US-no notice}}.

My guess is that the main public library in Denver will have a copy of the study and could let you know. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Indonesia Copyright Tag

Hi, it seems that the list of Indonesian copyright tag on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Indonesia does not have a specific tag about copyright exemption of the Article 65 of Indonesian Law 28/2014 on Copyright, which specifically state: "The recordation of Works cannot be carried out for art paintings, in the form of logos or distinctive signs that are used as marks in the course of trade of goods/services or used as a symbol of an organization, business entity or legal entity."

I propose that Wikimedia Commons add a new Indonesian copyright tag about this copyright exemption (public domain) for "logos or distinctive signs that are used as marks in the course of trade of goods/services or used as a symbol of an organization, business entity or legal entity."

The relevant law is available on https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15600 Pp4920 (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article 64, right before it, says that The Recordation of Works and Related Rights products as referred to in section (1) is not a requirement to obtain Copyright and Related Rights. There is an "Elucidation" section as well, where they go over explanatory notes on many articles -- for the one above, they clarify: Recording of Works and Related Rights products is not a requirement for the Authors, Copyright Holders or Related Rights owners. The protection of a Work begins since the Work exists or is manifested and not due to its recordation. It means that a Work remains protected despite being recorded or not. So, the fact they can't be recorded apparently does not mean that copyright does not exist. It seems primarily there to be an official record of ownership, but does not affect the existence of copyright. In fact, the "elucidation" of the term drawings (as a protected work) is: The term "drawings" means, among others, motifs, diagrams, sketches, logos, colours elements and aesthetic fonts. So, logos are pretty explicitly covered as copyrightable works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright issues with uploaded QNews logos

The files:

are claimed to be under CC BY-SA 4.0 from User:Amamgee, but I find that unlikely. They could potentially still be eligible for Commons via {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}, but Australia's interestingly low TOO makes me unsure. Additionally, I have no idea where exactly the user got the images from, so I don't know what to fill in for source if I were to make these changes myself. BlankEclair (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1928 photo by Istituto Nazionale Luce

Hi, can someone please tell me if this image is copyrighted or if it can be freely uploaded on Commons? Thanks, Gitz6666 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be

{{PD-US-expired|PD-Italy}}

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope this is OK then. Gitz6666 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faithful reproductions of Catholic (and possibly, other Christian) coats of arms

In light of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Diocese of Dumaguete.svg, this is something that Wikimedia Commons should notice. It appears we don't have a policy (at least under Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter) regarding recent or newer coats of arms of Catholic dioceses and prelates, as well as similar symbols from other Christian denominations.

Ping the two involved participants from the said deletion requests, @GiovanniYosh12 and Abzeronow: . I'll also ping two Pinoy users who were involved in copyright-related discussions in the past: @Pandakekok9 and Howdy.carabao: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why should there be a special copyright policy for images related to Christian denominations? -- Asclepias (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COM:Derivative work issue, yet we host hundreds of images of such coats of arms. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA work as CC BY or public domain?

The YouTube channel of the NOAA research has a video under the CC BY license. But isn't the work actually PD? (PD-USGov-NOAA) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's clear that the whole work meets the conditions of section 105 of the copyright law of the United States, then it is in the public domain in the United States. The NOAA template is missing that precision, which is present in other templates such as USGov, USGov-NASA, USGov-Military, USGov-NPS, etc. Still, on YouTube, the CC free license is better than the default non-free YouTube license. As specified in the the House report extract reproduced in the Wikisource page, about the scope of section 105, "The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. [...] There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad." The CC license is useful for reusers in countries, other than the United States, where the work is copyrighted. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]