Hosta

↓ 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.

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

Advice on Australian copyright and URAA

I recently stumbled across File:StateLibQld 1 118980 Sir Raphael and Lady Phyllis Cilento, January 1949.jpg, which is an Australian photograph created in 1949. I found some other photographs of the subject online and uploaded File:Sir Raphael Cilento 1941 IE175532 FL177183.jpg from 1941 and File:Sir Raphael Cilento, April 1937 IE166164 FL172516.jpg from 1937. All of them were created before 1955, so are eligible for {{PD-Australia}}, which covers the Australian copyright. Unlike many other templates, {{PD-Australia}} does not mention US copyright (either as a warning to add a US copyright template or as confirmation that one isn't needed. Looking at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, the key issue is the copyright status of the images on 1 January 1996. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia say that at the time a blanket 50 year copyright term was in effect. The 1949 image would have become PD in Australia in 1999, so URAA should take effect to restore copyright in the US and the image is ineligible for retention on Commons. The only exception to the URAA rule I can see is if the 1949 newspaper photograph was also used in a US publication with copyright notice in 30 days of initial publication (but would that have generated a new US copyright from the 1949 publication date?). The 1941 image would have become PD in 1991 and the 1937 image PD would have become PD in 1987. For these last two, URAA does not appear to apply and the copyrights in the US have expired. Is that a correct interpretation of the situation? From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, right on all counts. (The 1937 photo would have become PD on Jan 1 1988, and the 1941 image in 1992, but same result.) If the 1949 photo was simultaneously published in the U.S. (within 30 days of publication in Australia), then the URAA would be avoided, and you'd have to see if the U.S. copyright was renewed or not. But you'd have to show that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation. I have started a deletion discussion for the 1949 image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:StateLibQld 1 118980 Sir Raphael and Lady Phyllis Cilento, January 1949.jpg. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the deletion page, but repeat it here so it will be more readily available:

::FHTS, thanks to a unique provision relating to Australian photographs made by a non-government entitiy, you don't have a problem. Take a look at this document, issued by the Australian Government. The bottom row on page 1 specifies that if the photograph was made before 1 January 1955, its copyright has expired. If the photo had been made by the federal government or a state or territory government, it would come under the provisions shown in the first row on page 5: copyright would expire 50 years after the end of the year it was made or first published (e.g., 1 January 2021 for photos made in 1971). So you are clear on both counts.

SCHolar44 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the deletion page and I would suggest that further discussion is held there to prevent a fork in the discussion. Unfortunately your advice only deals with the Australian copyright. It is the US copyright that is cause for concern here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of originality

Program of the ceremonial commissioning of the 380 kV interconnector Berlin-Wolmirstedt

This is the invitation / program of an official inauguration of the 380 kV line which connected Berlin with the RoW. Is this a piece of orginal work which has copyright protection. If not - how to address this on the commons' page for this scan? --Gunnar (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably covered by {{Pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar, I see a bot has put an automatic deletion tag on the page (expires 5 December) because a copyright has not been entered. Cheers, SCHolar44 (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added the PD-text template and removed the bot tag. Hope that helps. --Gunnar (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Data Bots

There are some problems with the which I want to illustrate with File:Säulenhalle Humboldt-Schule Kiel (5).jpg:

I don't want my attribution note copied to structured data (because thereby this personal data is easier to use, but this is irrelevant). And Wikimedia Commons is obligied to remove such information to the extent reasonably practicable. And obvious it is, because I myself did it. But the the structured Data bot reverted me.
The information data of this page was obvious never explicit licensed as CC0. The whole database of the File-namespace is mostly licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0, not CC0. In this case you could argue, that this database isn't protected, but big databases like Commons:Batch uploading/Kieler Stadtarchiv likely are. And the automatic copy without the license CC-BY-SA is likely an copyright infrigment. Therefore such images copied from othere Share-Alike Databases must either prohibited and deleted or the data removed.

If you argue that databases itself cannot be protected, than I want to stress out that the license CC0 (It is not the Public Domain Mark) itself aknowledge, that this is possible something protected which need licensing to ensure the public domain. Habitator terrae 🌍 20:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC) PS: For the first point (not the second) see also User talk:Multichill/Archives/2020/October#Edit-War a year ago which lead nowhere[reply]

I will only comment on the first point. Yes, CC licences require users to remove some or all attribution information on request. But I interpret that as the complete removal of that information. If the licensor does not desire complete removal, but rather removal only in a particular format, then there is no provision in CC licences for them to demand this. CC BY-SA 4.0 section 3(a)(3), which the OP linked to, comes right after 3(a)(2) (emphasis added):

You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material.

Providing the required information in information templates and licence tags is reasonable, and doing this in combination with structured data is also reasonable. Brianjd (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Habitator terrae I think some of your arguments are getting lost in translation. I suggest you post in German; I am sure there are other German speakers here who can respond. Brianjd (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:TOO

What's the point of a template to tell us the file might not be free? If it's not free, it should be deleted.

That's the argument made at this DR, but it seems to be going nowhere. Your input is welcome! Brianjd (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations in Italy, by Frank Fox

Hi, In Category:Italy (Fox), we have paintings claimed to be anonymous, at least some are signed (e.g. File:Italy by Frank Fox (47).jpeg). There are probably all by the same artist. I did some research, and the book doesn't mention the artist's name, i.e. 1913 edition, 1915 edition. The 1918 edition was deleted from IA. A copy is available in HathiTrust, but it is not accessible to me. One of the file was already deleted. Any idea who is the artist? See also record in LoC. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, if a painting is signed, it's not anonymous. If it's a pseudonym the term would be the same, but if it's a person's real name, the term is longer. The cover of the book says: Italy by Frank Fox Illustrated by Alberto Pisa and others. So they are not all by the same artist, but none of the others are explicitly named in the book (in fact, Pisa is only named on the cover). File:Italy by Frank Fox.jpeg has a signature of an artist who died in 1943 apparently (Creator:Ella du Cane). File:Italy by Frank Fox (47).jpeg is Alberto Pisa. The books says there was a 1913 version with 32 illustrations, the 1918 edition had 64. No idea if they used the same ones as 1913. I guess if any are not signed, they are anonymous, otherwise we may need to try and read the names and find death dates. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. If we know that the painters are either Alberto Pisa or Ella du Cane, we are safe, even if we can't determine for sure which one painted what. I fixed the 2 you mentioned. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama in Italy

I spent a while reading through the pages and discussions linked from COM:FOP Italy, but some of the "cultural heritage" stuff is still pretty confusing to me. For the photos in Category:Museo Guggenheim (Venice) Facade, for example, should those all be tagged with {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}? It is more than 70 years old, so it "should be assumed a cultural heritage asset" per COM:FOP Italy, and it's also listed on the Ministry of Culture's beni culturali website. I'm pretty clueless about this stuff so any guidance is appreciated. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can mark them with {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} if you are sure that this is needed. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is simple photo of simple 2D object having own copyright?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Wanderwegsymbol_W15_Waldm%C3%BCnchen.png https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Wanderwegsymbol_o-Rot_O-Wei%C3%9F_(Reiteralm).PNG - would it be ok to treat such photos as Template:PD-shape? Or is it inapplicable to photos even ones with no or basically no creativity, where photo is taking picture of a simple shapes? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like somewhat a 3D object to me. At least the dirty borders are visible. So, it is quite possible that a copyright can subsist in this photo. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of update to PD-AustraliaGov template

Dear colleagues,
I have outlined some ideas for updating the PD-AustraliaGov template, ☞ here. Please add your expertise! :-) SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 04:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applying a licence tag to part of a file

For example, the file Microsoft Windows 95 Version 4.00.1111 command.com MS-DOS Prompt 492x259.png contains an MS-DOS icon. The icon itself is tagged {{MIT}}, which is fine. But when we try to apply the same tag to the Windows 95 screenshot, we have a problem:

This file is licensed under the Expat License, sometimes known as the MIT License

No, it's not. Part of it is, but certainly not the whole file. Adding a note above the tag that it only applies to the icon doesn't really fix the problem. I have not been able to find any good examples of how to fix this problem. Any ideas? Brianjd (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The logo - which is probably not copyrightable anyway - has been published under the MIT license. The text - which is most certainly copyrightable - has not been published under any sort of license that Wikipedia/Commons accepts. It doesn't matter what tags you put on the page or how you put them there - that's not going to solve any problem. The image should be deleted. A previous DR came and went with one person (incorrectly) claiming that because the text had no literary value it wasn't copyrightable and with another proclaiming that the image was valid for fair use (which of course we don't accept here). The closing admin made the obviously incorrect decision and kept the image. There's no amount of tagging the image that's going to make it acceptable to use. The logo is probably not copyrightable and even if it is, Microsoft has offered it under the MIT license. So if you want to upload a different image containing only the logo and a simple C: prompt, you're fine doing that. Or if you want to upload an equivalent screenshot from MS DOS 2.0, which is published under the MIT license, you're fine doing that. But this image with this text is not fine and no amount of tagging will make it fine. --B (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@B: What license did the user manuals have? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: All of the source code (including any help text) in MS DOS 2.0 was released under the MIT license. Most DOS commands have some amount of help text built into them. Unfortunately, the help text built into this command in MS DOS 2.0 is completely and totally unrelated to the help text built into this command in Windows 95. --B (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@B I already mentioned another example of a file with a similar issue at the DR, and I am sure there are many more. I am focusing on the Windows 95 screenshot initially because the other user is so keen to tag this one. Brianjd (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianjd There is nothing that can be done for this image regardless of what you or any other user want to do to tag it. For the hypothetical situation that might arise where an image contains multiple works under two different licenses, what is usually done is to just indicate it in text. For example, in a Wikipedia screenshot, you might have the Wikipedia text, which is cc-by-sa-whatever-it-is-nowadays and an image contained in the screenshot, which might be under some other license, like the GFDL. When this happens, I don't think there is a template for it - someone usually just adds both templates and uses words to indicate which template is for which part of the text. (That is probably becoming less and less desirable as we make more of an effort to make data machine-readable.) --B (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so if {{MIT}} and {{Expat}} are having no different by this section, why don't we just merge both? Are we sure that we need {{MIT}} to let users choose one (Expat or X11)? Or license their files using both MIT license variants? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of Brazilian political parties

I am concerned that user Chiinamii has uploaded several files that are logos of Brazilian political parties (for example File:PTC - Partido Trabalhista Cristã.png) and has declared them as licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but with no indication of where that licence may be found, or that the user has the right to licence them. I have tried to find licensing information for a couple of them on the parties' websites, and not found any. I see that one file that Chiinamii uploaded has been deleted for copyright infringement: I wonder about the others. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chiinamii. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright discussion regarding Fleischer/Famous-produced animated short films

Some titles are public domain; some others are not. I just found the forum thread on the Internet Animation Database where contains the list of renewal registration entries filed by various proprietors.

Example: "Chinatown, My Chinatown" (Screen Songs, 1929) was supposed to be in public domain, but U.M. & M. renewed it in 1956, so it won't enter the public domain until the first day of January 2025.

Will y'folks help me nominating files before deleting as making them unavailable due to legal issues?

HarvettFox96 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC), edited on 10:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1919 photograph published in 1949 book

Plate 54 of Six Centuries of an Oxford College by Robert Howard Hodgkin is a photograph from 1919. It is attributed, according to the preface (p. vii) to "Messrs. Gilman and Soames". This is presumably a reference to Gillman and Soame, a school photographer. Could anyone please advise on the copyright status of the photograph? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: For this to be stored on Commons we will need to address the UK copyright and the US copyright.

In the UK, this will be an anonymous work. We know the company that took the photo but it is highly unlikely that there is any record of which employee took it in 1919. The current rules on UK anonymous photographs has two routes to becoming public domain. First, an anonymous photograph becomes public domain 70 years after first public exhibition or publication. Second, if the anonymous photograph was not exhibited or published within 70 years of creation, it becomes public domain in its 71st year. In this case, we know it was published in 1949, so the latest date that it became public domain was 1 January 2020. However, that assumes the 1949 book was its first publication or public exhibition. If the photo was on public display in 1919 (perhaps by being on the wall in one of the public areas of the college) then the earliest date that it entered the public domain in the UK was 1 January 1990.

For the US copyright, the relevant guidance is at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. Any photograph that was public domain in the UK on 1 January 1996 would be public domain in the USA as well. Any photograph that was under copyright protection on 1 January 1996 would have had its US copyright restored to initial publication +95 years.

If we can show that the photograph was first published or on public display on or before 31 December 1925, then it is in the public domain in both the UK and the US and can be uploaded to Commons.

If we can only support 1949 as the earliest kmown publication, then the photo was in copyright on the URAA date. In this scenario the US copyright was restored in 1996 as first publication +95 years. The photograph can't be uploaded to Commons.

Do you have evidence of publication or display prior to 1949? From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

artworks in the United Nations Headquarter

Key 1: COM:FOP US is for buildings only, not for any other permanently placed works;
Key 2: But per Headquarters of the United Nations (Q11297), UN headquarter is not part of any countries, even the United States;
Key 3: At least I really doubt any templates mentioned by COM:United Nations can apply em, {{PD-UN-doc}} always used by literal documents, {{PD-UN-map}} is only for maps, so as per {{PD-US-no notice-UN}} I can only upload artworks completed prior to 17 Sep 1987, right? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations Headquarters is subject to United States federal, state and local law. It was part of the United Nations Headquarters agreement of 26 June 1947. In return for receiving the protection of the US police and fire service (and probably receiving other benefits from the host country) they accepted the application of US law to the site. Article 3, Section 7(b), "Except as otherwise provided in this agreement or in the General Convention, the federal, state and local law of the United States shall apply within the headquarters district."

Unless you have other evidence to the contrary, I'd advise applying US law to artworks within the UN Headquarters. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with From Hill To Shore on this. More specifically, the building is in, and subject to the laws and jurisdiction of, the Second Circuit (and the Court of Appeals for it), New York State, the Southern District of New York (and the United States District Court for it), New York City, New York County, and the Borough of Manhattan. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COM:Singapore#Definitions

I recently tried to update the contents on COM:Singapore, and I see there is a subheading copied definitions of different works as defined in their copyright law. As Singaporean laws are unfree (precisely, derivative works are forbidden according to their Terms of Use), should we get rid of that part for possible text copyvio? I also don't see these kind of chunks in other COM:CRT pages.

Please advise on what should I do, as I'm not frequently editing these complicated CRT pages, thanks!廣九直通車 (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@廣九直通車 Section (13) gives SSO users permission to reproduce legislation, but this permission does not seem to extend to non-users, and is revocable by section (14). :(

Having said that, reproducing relevant sections of legislation, where the precise wording of that legislation is important, seems to be standard practice. For example, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia#Freedom of panorama and even {{FoP-Australia}}. Brianjd (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianjd: Thanks, but are the terms in that part of COM:Singapore really relevant? I think a number of the definitions are relatively trivial and may be removed? Examples include those related to "Broadcast", "Cable programme" or "Television broadcast" — most of them can be understand with common sense.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@廣九直通車 Maybe, maybe not: I don't know how previous discussions of Singapore copyright issues turned out. I know that the definitions were included in the original revision of this page, by Aymatth2; perhaps they would like to comment. Brianjd (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure about this.

In general, all governments allow their laws to be freely copied and published, for obvious reasons of natural justice. I would have assumed that applied in Singapore when I started the page.
It is very hard to imagine the government of Singapore suing Wikimedia for violating copyright by publishing excerpts of their copyright law to educate Wikimedia contributors.
The copyright laws of Singapore apply to original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, sound recordings and cinematograph films, television broadcasts and sound broadcasts. "Literary work" is not defined. It is not obvious that a law would count as an original literary work.
The definitions may help to speed resolution of disputes. For example, a map is a drawing, and a drawing is an artistic work whether the work is of artistic quality or not, so a map is an artistic work and is subject to copyright. That might not be obvious without the definition.

That said, the definitions are easily accessible by following the link to the WIPO database. I would not object to their being deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2 Your second point seems to violation COM:PCP. Your first point deserves a section in COM:CSM. But before that, it deserves a section on this page. I'll add one. Brianjd (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See #Is legislation free?. Brianjd (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PD-old-assumed

Hi, File:Le-havre-Louis-Galibert-rue-des-drapiers-vers1904.jpg: Is this OK knowing that we have the birth date of the photographer? It is a bit less than 120 years after creation, but close. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright last for life+70 years. So, this file appears to be fine. Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For PD-old-assumed, you will need to wait a few more years. However, I have seen some unverified information online that a photographer named Louis Aimé Maxime Galibert was born in 1865 and died in 1945. Barring the complication of French law about extensions due to the World Wars, this would have become PD in 1995 (life+50) but may have been caught by the extension in 1995 to life+70, so would have become PD in 2015. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think that Geneanet is a reference good enough here. It is clearly the same person. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 120 years used in PD-old-assumed is basically 70 + 50 years after the creation of the work. There is a certain tail risk which the community has considered acceptable, i.e. the chance that a creator lived for more than 50 years after creating a work. We currently have no consensus-supported assumption on maximum lifespan (i.e. the risk of them living longer than X is considered reasonable), but we should develop one. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henrichsen

See Category:Henrichsen. Another issue with a photographer. I can't read Norwegian, but if he is Svend Jørstad Henrichsen, which is quite probable, we can't keep these images. Comments? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Copyright Act seems to make a distinction between between work of art ("fotografiske verk") and other photos ("fotografiske bilder"), see Copyright_rules_by_territory/Norway. If the photos by Henrichsen would be "fotografiske bilder", the term ended 25 years after creation. In any case: Svend Henrichsen died in 1952, so if deleted: undelete in 2023. Vysotsky (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in the public domain?

If a photograph was created in 1848 or earlier in the US but was first published in 1936 (in a book by someone other than its creator), has it entered the public domain yet, or will it enter the public domain only when the book in which it was published does? - LaetusStudiis (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The en:Copyright Act of 1909 would have applied at the time the book was published. According to that article and [1], unpublished works were covered by state copyright laws and only gained federal copyright protection upon being published with a proper notice or registered with the Copyright Office. This Senate study talks about the status of unpublished works circa 1961. clpo13_(talk) 20:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All this to say that if the photograph was never published or registered before that book was published, it would not have become public domain by that time and would have needed permission, as KoH notes. Unpublished works in the US didn't gain a fixed term of copyright protection until the en:Copyright Act of 1976 took effect. clpo13_(talk) 20:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it was published in 1936 with the permission of the copyright holder, then it is considered a 1936 work and does not expire until 95 years after publication. If it was published without authorization, then under the law it was never published at all, and it is {{PD-US-unpublished}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would also be worth checking to see if the book had its copyright renewed in 1963–1964. If it didn't, it would be public domain per {{PD-US not renewed}}. clpo13_(talk) 20:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If the 1936 publication is the first time it was published (with authorization from the copyright holder as you mention), then that is the start of the U.S. copyright term -- but it would have also needed to be renewed in 1963 or 1964, if it was a U.S. publication. If the book was renewed, it's still under copyright until 2032. If not, it's {{PD-US-not renewed}}. And I'm not completely sure if the book renewal would cover the photograph, if the copyright owners were different. If the photograph was generally distributed prior to that (how did the 1936 book author get access to it?) then it was published earlier. (And yes, if never published with permission, it's now PD.) It's rather unlikely an 1848 photo is still under copyright, though it's theoretically possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the case of the 1755 John Adams letter. Related to that, Peter Hirtle of Hirtle chart fame also wrote this blog article and a follow-up on the topic of very old works that are only relatively recently published. One point the latter article brings up is the possible need for a separate copyright notice for the pre-existing work (the photo). clpo13_(talk) 22:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was the term for unpublished works in 1936? If that term is shorter than 88 years, that picture was in the public domain before being published. Does the publication create a new copyright? In French law, it does, but for 25 years only. Yann (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, an unpublished work was subject to common-law copyright in the U.S., which was in theory indefinite (inherited from UK law). That law is per-state, based on judicial precedent, with unclear protections. The act of general publication terminated common law copyright, and started the statutory protections in the federal copyright law. If you published with notice, you got 28 years of copyright, after which you could then renew for (what eventually became) a total of 95 years. If you published without notice, it became PD immediately. You could not claim damages under the federal law until you published, or at least registered with the U.S. Copyright Office (which would also end common law copyright, and start the 28 year clock of federal protection). So if you managed to keep something private in a family for decades, it might possibly still have copyright. But if someone else got a copy, you'd have to explain how that copy existed without being published, which is probably hard. Most likely, it was PD before 1936. The concept of common law copyright was mostly eradicated in 1978, after which works are automatically under protection of the federal law. The last vestige was sound recordings, where common-law copyright is now being sunsetted after a recent law change (commercial music recordings had strong common-law precedents which record companies were reluctant to give up I'm guessing). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works by Mike Winkelmann

Hi, I don't see any free license at the source. Are these free? Am I missing something? If they are free, they should be {{Licensereview}}. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His profile at behance.net says he has released some works under Creative Commons licences, but there is no indication that the files uploaded here are included or which specific CC licence he uses for each work. It is possible that he uses CC NC licences, which would preclude them from retention here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Works by Mike Winkelmann. Yann (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is legislation free?

In #COM:Singapore#Definitions, Aymatth2 wrote:

In general, all governments allow their laws to be freely copied and published, for obvious reasons of natural justice.

Is this true? Either way, it deserves a section in COM:CSM. Brianjd (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a generalisation that may apply in some countries but not others. Until about 15 years ago, UK legislation was released under Crown Copyright and was printed in physical books. Readers had to buy the printed copies or access them in libraries (whether through taxes or sales of the books, the government has to cover the cost of printing). In the UK the development of the internet has allowed the majority of legislation to be published online, which can be accessed for free. It is still subject to Crown Copyright but is usually available under the UK's Open Government Licence (OGL). That is the situation in just one country. There may be many others that have yet to make their legislation accessible for free. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it applies in most countries, but agree that each country has its own laws. I imagine that some repressive regimes make and enforce laws that they do not publish at all. See Commons:Unprotected works for an incomplete country-by-country list. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the US, inaccessible legislation would not be due process under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and thus would not be enforceable. I also think that it is a basic human right to have access to legislation that affects us. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some US legislation incorporates other material by reference, but that material isn't freely accessible. That material might be from a third party, who only provides access at a high cost. Various independent code-setting organizations come to mind, though some are now providing free access to individuals. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, edicts of government aren't copyrightable; see w:Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. I know of no ruling as to foreign laws, but the Copyright Office won't register for copyright any government's laws, foreign or domestic. So Singapore would have an uphill battle suing in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very important side issue here if we are talking about storing legislative documents on Commons. Every country I am aware of has a right for people to access legislation, though not necessarily for free. However, even for countries that allow "free" access, the terms of access may not be compatible with our licensing policies for files. For example, a government may release legislation under a non-commercial licence to prevent someone from trying to resell the "free" legislation. While we could argue that all legislation in the world meets PD terms in the US, do we set aside normal Commons policy of ensuring suitable terms are available in both the country of origin and the US? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting legislation in Commons namespace for our own purposes seems quite different then storing it in File space.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think fair use text is something we've always de facto allowed in the Commons namespace, even if there is no explicit policy on it. We have quoted from several opinions from legal scholars, for instance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@From Hill To Shore, Prosfilaes, and King of Hearts: I think these comments raise a number of issues. For example, even this page says at the top:

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.

Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia#Requirements of frequently-used licenses says:

The text on Wikimedia Commons is owned by the original writer and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GNU Free Documentation License.

Obviously, Commons take copyright very seriously in files, and it seems reasonable to expect Commons to take copyright just as seriously in text, noting that text actually has stricter rules about how it must be licensed. And if we somehow decide we want to allow "fair use" in text, we need to make that clear. Brianjd (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MLSZ.hu

On COM:Forum, the question arose whether the terms of use for the website of the official Hungarian football association are compatible with Commons. https://en.mlsz.hu/imprint states that "Articles, photos and videos on this site may be used free of charge, with the reference to the source." If this does include derivative works and commercial reuse, it would be a {{Attribution only license}}. So how do we usually interpret the "use" in such permissions? @Grin and Regasterios: Maybe the original Hungarian imprint is a bit more specific? De728631 (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least in post-USSR countries copyrights laws by default allow only quoting. So use must be explicitly defined and existing well-know licenses are good on that. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The City at World's End

Hi, Audio recording by LibriVox on IA says this book is in the public domain in USA (it is a US book). Can someone confirm please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a renewal for the original 1951 book. Several of Hamilton's books were renewed but not that one. No idea about the status of the recording itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain by design. Thanks Carl, Yann (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spick 1.png

File:Spick 1.png was uploaded as "own work" which seems unlikely and also uploaded under a {{CC-by-sa-4.0}} license which seems incorrect because of the copyright notice at the bottom of spickmediagroup.in/Index/. It might be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States and COM:TOO India, but I'm not sure. Tagging the file with {{Npd}} seems a bit pointless because the uploader hasn't edited on either Commons or English Wikipedia. The file is currently being used in en:Draft:Spick Media Network; so, it probably could be re-uploaded locally for use on English Wikipedia is it can't be kept on Commons for some reason. Any opinions on whether this is "PD-logo"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]