Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Composers for silent films

For silent films without synchronized sound, are composers ever considered co-authors in the EU? The Copyright Duration Directive (Article 2) includes "the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work", which I've usually seen interpreted on Commons as applicable only when that music is part of the upload.

This question impacts several videos and images related to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (e.g. 1, 2, 3), but I imagine there are other silent films that are in a similar situation. hinnk (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the Copyright Duration Directive sets the same copyright term to the entire film, even if you don't use the soundtrack. However, I didn't realise that this was a silent film. I don't know if music for a silent film is counted as a part of the cinematographic work under the EU directive. I assume that the orchestra at the cinema theatre was meant to play the music when the film was shown. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes, although people did not reliably play the official score. First-run cinemas would, but after that all bets were off. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• I think that the problem here is the term 'work', which is what is protected under copyright law. The copyright applies to the work as a whole, and so the copyright of the entire work expires at the same time. Therefore, it is necessary to know what the 'work' is. This can be compared to free licences which normally apply to a 'work' - a few years ago, there was a long discussion when someone asked what a 'work' was in terms of resized photographs.

Article 1.1 of Directive 2006/116/EC states that the copyright to a work expires 70 years after the death of the author. However, if it is a joint work, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last author, and this applies to the work as a whole, so the heirs of the author who died first benefit from this by holding copyright until 70 years after the one who died last.

Films were notoriously complex in EU countries with differing interpretations of who the author is and what the work is, so Article 2.2 seeks to address the copyright term problem by setting a common copyright term.

Under old (pre-1996) Swedish law, the cinematographic work seems to have been the plot as a manuscript in text form, whereas other aspects of the film such as music, decors, dresses and animation frames were separate works, each of them with separate authors and separate 50 years p.m.a. copyright terms. I don't know how other EU countries handled this, but it is my understanding that it varied from country to country. If you leave Europe and go to the United States, you will find that a film which was registered for copyright was registered as a whole, i.e. the script, music, decors, animation frames (if it's an animated film) etc. were not separately registered for copyright, and there may have been EU countries who under the old law regarded the film in its entirety as a single work instead of treating the film as many separate works. It is my understanding that other EU countries may have either more or fewer film authors in their old copyright laws. For example, is the cameraman an author?

Article 2.2 fixes this by deciding that the film as a whole is a single work and so the copyright to the entire film expires at the same time, 70 years after the longest living of the listed people, even if you only use a part of the film which might not contain any contributions by some of those listed in the directive.

Article 10.1 then unfixes this by stating that for pre-1995 films, the directive doesn't shorten the copyright term. This means that you first need to wait for the expiration of the work (i.e. the film as a whole) under the EU copyright term, and after that you need to check what the definition of a work and an author was in the source country before July 1995 and determine if the copyright term also has expired under the old copyright law (i.e. you might need to verify that additional people have been dead for 50 or 70 years before you can use either the entire film or a part of the film).

The people in Article 2.2 are not necessarily authors of the film, and Article 2.1 only touches on the topic of authors. The director is one of the authors of post-1995 films, but there may be co-authors which are defined in national law, and for pre-1995 films the directive says nothing about who the author is. The copyright holder of a work would normally be the original author, but to avoid problems, I assume that companies producing films normally arrange to have the copyright transferred to the companies so that they won't risk having hundreds of rightsholders who own the rights to specific parts of the film and who therefore have the right to prohibit distribution of he film.

The question of what constitutes the work in the case of a silent film is an interesting question, as I don't know if the music can be argued to be part of the film or if it is treated as a separate work which is separately copyrighted for 70 years from the death of the composer. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Gnom or Pajz: Do you want to comment something about this question? --Rosenzweig τ 17:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably. The award of coauthorship to film contributors varies considerably within the EU. See P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2016) 145 ("Another difficulty of film protection lies in the determination of the list of co-authors of the film. The problem with audiovisual works is that there are very different requirements among jurisdictions concerning the nature of the contributions to a joint work, which results in disparities in the list of potential coauthors."). The legislative intent is, however, fairly clear in countries like France, where the law lists various contributors as presumed film coauthors, including "the author of musical compositions with or without words specially created for the work" (L. 113-7 CPI). That seems squarely applicable to somebody who, say, composes and arranges music accompanying a silent film. The same is not true in countries like Germany, where there is no statuatory presumption and coauthorship always requires that "several persons have jointly created a work without it being possible to separately exploit their individual shares in the work" (Section 8(1) UrhG). Of course, just because a composition may have been made specifically for a film shouldn't prevent it from being separately exploitable; therefore, the general view in Germany is that composers of film scores are not coauthors of the film (see eg D Thum, "§ 8" in A-A Wandtke and W Bullinger (eds), Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht (6th edn, Beck 2022) para 32). On the other hand, the Federal Supreme Court has held that the Tonmeister of a film may qualify as its coauthor (BGH GRUR 2002, 961 – Mischtonmeister), so even in Germany the "sound portion" of a film is not entirely irrelevant when it comes to film coauthorship. // As Stefan2 notes, the coauthorship question in conceptually independent of the individuals named in Article 2(2) of the Term Directive. Across the EU, in a post-1 July 1995 film the term of protection ends pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Term Directive, no matter if the people named there are coauthors or not. Who the coauthor is would only matter when we have, say, a release under a free license because that would have to come from the coauthors (or their licensees). Germany takes the same approach for pre-1 July 1995 works with the caveat that if there is a coauthor not named in Article 2(2) who lived longer than the people named there, then protection would expire 70 years following their death (Section 137f(1) UrhG). I'm pretty sure other EU countries follow a similar approach. // I would also point out that when you talk about "images" (as in: single frames) of the film, then at least in Germany, the general view is that using those does not infringe the copyright in the film, so it doesn't matter who the coauthors of the film or the Article 2(2) individuals are. The relevant rights in these cases are solely the photographer's copyright in the image (or their related right in the simple photograph if the originality threshold is not reached), typically acquired by the cameraperson (BGH GRUR 2014, 363 [20] – Peter Fechter), and the related right of the film producer (Section 94 UrhG; Article 2(d) Infosoc Directive) (BGH GRUR 2018, 400 [19] – Konferenz der Tiere). — Pajz (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pajz: Thanks. Follow-up question: You write “Germany takes the same approach for pre-1 July 1995 works with the caveat that if there is a coauthor not named in Article 2(2) who lived longer than the people named there, then protection would expire 70 years following their death (Section 137f(1) UrhG).” So would a film like de:Der letzte Mann (1924) still be protected in Germany because the film's cameraman de:Karl Freund (Kameramann) (1890–1969) died less than 70 years ago? Also, the film's composer (music for a silent film) de:Giuseppe Becce (1877–1973) is apparently not considered a co-author in Germany (if I correctly understood what you wrote above) and therefore not relevant for the term duration (in Germany) because it's a film from before July 1995? --Rosenzweig τ 10:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig, first point: Yes. Second point: No, I guess the idea is that if the film was still protected on 1 July 1995, then the new Article 2(2) scheme becomes applicable (but can never lead to a shortening of the protection term). So, in your example, because the cameraman died in 1969 and is a coauthor, the film was still protected on 1 July 1995. Therefore, the term of protection is now the "old term" (longest-living coauthor + 70 years) or the "new term" (longest-living individual named in Article 2(2) + 70 years), whichever expires later. As a result, ignoring all other contributors, the Term Directive would have led to an extension of the copyright term of that film. I just verified and indeed Dreier (T Dreier, "§ 65" in T Dreier and G Schulze (eds), Urheberrechtsgesetz (7th edn, Beck 2022) para 7) essentially gives this exact example (new rules led to an extension of the term "wenn einer der vier Genannten im konkreten Fall entweder keinen schöpferischen Beitrag geleistet hat und er von keinem anderen Miturheber des Filmwerkes überlebt wird, oder sofern er nicht als Miturheber des Filmwerkes angesehen wird (wie nach der hM der Drehbuchautor, der Verfasser von Dialogen und der Komponist der Filmmusik)"; internal references omitted, underlining added). — Pajz (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

For Swedish films, I have always assumed, possibly wrongly, that a cameraman is a photographer and so you apply the copyright term for photographs, which in the German situation probably also means the pre-1995 threshold for differing between photographic works of art and simple photos. In the same way, I have assumed, again possibly wrongly, that you should not use the death year of a child actor but instead the much shorter copyright term for performances. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stefan2, hm, in Germany, the cameraperson would be a photographer of thousands of photos (photographic works or simple photographs) as well as, at least potentially, a coauthor of the film. I say "potentially" because as always, a coauthor still has to actually make an original contribution to the film. If the director leaves no room for the cameraperson's creativity, they cannot be a coauthor. (They also won't win an Oscar.) It's definitely possible for this to happen: Think of routine sequences in a documentary, or of some assistant camera operator in a movie who has no creative influence of their own. But I would say it's fairly obvious that a cinematographer responsible for a fiction film as in Rosenzweig's example would pass the bar under German law. Back to the initial point: If, say, you play the film in a cinema, you communicate to the public both the film and the thousands of photos it is made from, even though they are not perceived individually by viewers of the film (BGH GRUR 2014, 363 [21] – Peter Fechter). If you take one frame from the film and put in on Wikimedia Commons, it would not be a communication to the public of the film (because the elements justifying the film copyright are not present in a single screenshot) but the cameraperson's rights in the individual photograph would still be infringed. So the cameraperson is definitely a photographer in Germany as well, just not only a photographer. Again, the situation seems heterogeneous within the EU. For instance the cinematographer is not among the presumed coauthors in French law and, according to Kamina, French courts seem reluctant to treat camerapersons as coauthors (even though they've done so); on the other hand, again according to Kamina, the (principal) cameraman is specifically listed as a presumed coauthor in at least Croatia, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland (P Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2016) 174f). // As for the actors, they should typically not play a role for the copyright in the film (in their capacity as actors); I would be surprised if there is a EU country where this is different. — Pajz (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Pajz (talk · contribs) Thanks again. So basically, to determine the year in which German films from before July 1995 (and probably similarly in other EU countries) are free we have to a) calculate the term accd. to the EU Directive (last person with one of the four named functions to die + 70 years pma) b) calculate the old term (last co-author to die + 70 years pma) and then c) take the longer of those terms.

To do that we would need to know who can be co-author of a film (in Germany). The composer is not a co-author per the above. Director, screen writer and dialogue writer (all also mentioned in the EU Directive) would most likely be co-authors, as would the cameramen/-people and probably also sound engineers (Tonmeister) as mentioned above. Who else can be a co-author? Producers? Film editors? Makeup people? Production designers? There is quite a list of people who could be co-authors. --Rosenzweig τ 13:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This diverges enough from Article 2(2) that, whatever the answer is, we'll probably want to add a summary to COM:GERMANY and review all the PD-US-expired works in Category:Films of Germany by year. Cinematographers alone mean films by Fritz Arno Wagner, Karl Freund, Helmar Lerski, or anyone with an unknown death year would need to be deleted/transferred from Commons. hinnk (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, yes. Composers of music to accompany silent films like de:Willy Schmidt-Gentner (1894–1964) or de:Giuseppe Becce (1877–1973) are another group of people to be considered. --Rosenzweig τ 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

So probably everyone who made a contribution to the film which exceeds COM:TOO Germany needs to have been dead for at least 70 years before the full German film can be uploaded to Commons, whereas other rules apply for single screenshots? For Swedish films, I think that the corresponding rule is that all of the four EU people must have been dead for at least 70 years and that anyone else who made a contribution exceeding COM:TOO Sweden must have been dead for at least 50 years.

I didn't think that there would be any creativity in the cameraman's works. Maybe you are right about that. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig, I agree with your summary of the procedure. As for potential coauthors, the Federal Supreme Court remarked a few years ago, non-exhaustively, that "often, in addition to the director, the cameraman and the film editor may qualify as authors of the film work" (BGH GRUR 2011, 714 [58] – Der Frosch mit der Maske). I haven't done any in-depth research into this, but maybe this is a starting point just based on two or three legal commentaries:

(+) director (This is the only one that is de facto a given, as confirmed by the CJEU in C-277/10 – Luksan v. van der Let.)
(+) director of photography/cinematographer/(head) camera operator (If they had room for an original contribution. Some commentators say this is "usually the case" in a film work [JB Nordemann, "§ 89" in A Nordemann, JB Nordemann, and C Czychowski (eds), Urheberrecht (12th edn, Kohlhammer 2018) para 21], others emphasise that this is usually the case in cinematic productions, but less likely in daytime dramas or documentaries [U Dobberstein, M Schwarz, and G Hansen, "Die Inhaber des Urheberrechts am Filmwerk" in M Schwarz (ed), Handbuch Filmrecht (6th edn. Beck 2021) paras 10ff].)
(+) film editor (If they had room for an original contribution. Nordemann [op. cit., para 22] writes that this is "usually" the case, according to Dobberstein et al. [op. cit., para 15] "many times".)
(+) sound designer/sound engineer/Tonmeister (If they had room for an original contribution. This seems to be treated by commentators as less frequently the case. The Supreme Court held that the Tonmeister can in principle be a coauthor [BGH GRUR 2002, 961, 962 – Mischtonmeister]. Nordemann [op. cit., para 23] writes that the individual has to "create a distinctive sound world" for the film, which is more likely the case in cinematic films, less so in daytime dramas. Dobberstein et al. [op. cit., para 23] write that coauthorship can arise "on a case-by-case basis".
(+) special effects supervisor/visual effects supervisor (If they had room for an original contribution.)
(+/-) costume designer/make-up designer (usually not but possible in certain cases when the costumes/make-up have a particular impact on the atmosphere of the film)
(-) assistant directors, assistant DOPs, assistant film editors, assistant sound designers/engineers/Tonmeister (not enough room for original expression)
(-) actors
(-) producer
(-) set designer (separately exploitable work, hence no coauthorship. Note of course that if, say, an architectural work is created for a film and the clip/screenshot/... on Wikimedia Commons shows that work, that would infringe the set designer's copyright in that particular work. Same goes, mutatis mutandis, for composers and screenwriters.)
(-) composer (separately exploitable work; see note above)
(-) screenwriter (separately exploitable work; see note above)

So my personal take-away from this would be that, in practical terms, the most relevant coauthors are (1) the director (whose year of death needs to be considered anyway for the Article 2(2) test), (2) the DOP/cinematographer/(head) camera operator and (3) the film editor. Others seem to be more of a case-by-case consideration and I have no idea how that could realistically be done on Wikimedia Commons as part of routine checks. I guess if, say, a sound person received an important award for their contribution, they perhaps should be considered. — Pajz (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Several of those roles only apply to photographic films with actors, but there are also animated films where some of the roles are different. For example, there are no actors, the 'cameraman' only does the simple task of taking photos of animation frames created by others and there are animators producing art. There is also computer animation, but not a lot before 1995 and all of those will remain protected for many more decades anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to editing COM:GERMANY to mention this, we should probably edit COM:EU and mention both Article 2.2 and Article 10.1 because Article 10.1 probably messes up the copyright term for films in several other EU countries too and the laws of all EU countries would need to be investigated so that we can find out where there is a problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I managed to access the 2002 edition of Kamina's book and took a quick look at it. On pp. 17-18, it is suggested that the 1901 copyright law for literary works didn't provide any protection for films at all and that films therefore only were protected as photographs under the 1876 law. The copyright to photographs expired five years after publication and there were copyright formalities. Does this mean, for German films, that we can ignore the old law if the film is very old (created before some change to the law)? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't really say, but will remark that the 1907 law de:Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie did protect photographs for 10 years, and in 1940, the Gesetz zur Verlängerung der Schutzfristen für das Urheberrecht an Lichtbildern extended the protection to 25 years (per de:Bildrechte). The 1965 law, de:Urheberrechtsgesetz (Deutschland), finally had specific rules for films. In the official Begründung (rationale, justification ...) for the law (see here, II.8 Besondere Bestimmungen für Filme it says that accd. to the previous laws, co-authors of the film are all persons which made a creative contribution to the film. So at some point in time the co-authorship rules must have come into play. --Rosenzweig τ 18:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking further into Kamina's book, it seems that protection of films was added to the 1908 revision of the Berne Convention. Probably something changed at that point.

The link you provided states that Wer zu diesem Personenkreis gehört, ist streitig. Sounds like problems in deletion requests as we won't know if we are looking for the correct people's death years. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'm trying to apply the rules to a specific film, w:File:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920).webm. Do you think that I am doing it correctly? For credit see the first few minutes of the film.

Old rules

Ein Filmspiel in 6 Akten von Carl Mayer und Hans Janowitz: Not authors of the film, authors of a separate work. Full film: need to be dead for at least 70 years as the separate work is used in the film. Single screenshot: maybe need to be dead for 70 years (if the screenshot shows something creative from the script that they wrote). Died 1954 and 1944, so OK.

Hergestellt von der Decla-Film-Gesellschaft Berlin: A company is not an author, so OK.

Regie: Robert Wiene: Author of the film. Full film: needs to be dead for at least 70 years. Single screenshot: no creative contribution, death year does not matter. Died in 1938, so OK.

Dekorative Ausstattung: Hermann Warm // Walter Reimann // Walter Röhrig: Not authors of the film, authors of separate works. Full film: need to be dead for at least 70 years as the separate works are used in the film. Single screenshot: depends on what the screenshot shows. What if you don't know who did what decorations in the film? Warm died in 1976, Reimann 1936, Röhrig 1945. Reimann and Röhrig are OK, Warm is  Not OK.

Die Hauptrollen: many names: Not authors. They may have held rights as performers, but those rights expired many decades ago. OK

Photographie: Willy Hameister: Author of the film. Also created thousands of separately copyrighted photographs. Full film, film authorship: needs to be dead for at least 70 years due to being an author of the film. Single screenshot, film authorship: not relevant as the film is not used. Full film, single photographs: the copyright term expired 10 years after the film was made or published and you probably only use the old law here? Single screenshots, single photographs: Here you probably use the new law which says that the cameraman needs to be dead for at least 70 years? He died in 1938, so OK.

Giuseppe Becce, who made the music, isn't credited in the film. Not an author of the film, author of a separate work. Full film: only relevant if the music is included. Single screenshot: not relevant. He died in 1973, so  Not OK if the music is included.

EU rules

The cinematographic work enters the public domain 70 years after the death of the last to die of Mayer, Janowitz, Wiene and Becce.

Full film, with sound:  Not OK as Becce hasn't been dead for at least 70 years.

Full film, without sound: still  Not OK due to Becce even though his contributions haven't been included?

Question

The EU copyright term applies to the EU cinematographic work. What is the EU cinematographic work? Is it the same as the cinematographic work under the old law? In other words, are the separate works under the old law part of the EU cinematographic work or not? I don't see a definition in the directive of what a cinematographic work is. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• When is it that we need to consider the copyright of additional authors for a screenshot? Is it when it contains artworks (File:The Cabinet of Dr Caligari Holstenwall.jpg, plus the background of text frames such as File:Ende V. Akt Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari.jpg, File:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari intertitle.png and File:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari intertitle.png? Do we need to wait until all three of Hermann Warm, Walter Reimann and Walter Röhrig have been dead before we can host these four pictures? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion. It does look likely that Nosferatu, after all, will become public domain in Germany only in 2029. FYI, I posted a pointer / attempt at summary in German-language Wikipedia's copyright forum at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Nosferatu_reloaded,_oder:_Altes_Urheberrecht_für_Stummfilme. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have started Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Der letzte Mann (1924) based on this discussion. @Yann and Reneradelsilver: FYI as uploaders. --Rosenzweig τ 15:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I propose that we add something to COM:EU about the problems with films. Does the below proposal sound fine?

Cinematographic and audiovisual works

Article 2.1 of Directive 2006/116/EC states that the copyright to a cinematographic or audiovisual work expires 70 years after the last person to survive out of the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work.

Article 10.1 of the directive states that the directive does not have the effect of shortening the term of a work which was created before 1 July 1995. The old laws of some EU countries required that other people, in addition to those listed in Article 2.1, had been dead for a certain number of years, usually 50 or 70 years. In order to determine the copyright status of a cinematographic or audiovisual work, it is therefore necessary to also consult the old law of the source country.

Note that Article 2.1 does not define what a cinematographic or audiovisual work is, or what constitutes a separate work with a separately running copyright term. Furthermore, this doesn't seem to have been standardised in the former copyright laws of EU countries, which could lead to interpretation problems.

Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but we should add something like “some EU countries (like Germany and ...)” as an example. Germany because we have discussed the situation there extensively (above). Maybe other countries if we know more about the situation there. --Rosenzweig τ 15:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there other types of works where the second paragraph would be relevant, or are audiovisual works the only form of media where we expect to have this kind of issue around changes to joint authorship? If we're not worried about other types of media, I'd support adding the first two paragraphs. The third paragraph doesn't provide any solid guidance, so at this point, I'd suggest omitting it. hinnk (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If you mean Article 10.1, there are a few other cases where the old law had a longer copyright term:

• The main copyright term is 70 years p.m.a., but it's 80 years p.m.a. in the old Spanish law.
• The UK (which has left the EU but has kept this part of law), certain works get a minimum copyright term of 50 years from publication, which is longer than 70 years p.m.a. if the work was first published more than 20 years after the death of the author. This rule is as far as I know only relevant until 2040 or similar as the UK fixed this at some point.
• As I understand it, while you use the rule of the shorter term for foreign works with regard to the standard 70 years p.m.a. term, you can't use it for the previous UK term of 50 years p.m.a.
• The copyright to an anonymous work expires 70 years after publication if published within 70 years from creation, or otherwise 70 years from creation. However, the old Swedish law says that the copyright expires 50 years publication if it was published during the lifetime of the anonymous author, otherwise 50 years after the death of the anonymous author. I think that there was also a modification of the definition of anonymous, so maybe someone could be anonymous under the new term but not under the old term. I think that Germany also has complex rules for anonymous works which sometimes results in a longer copyright term than the standard EU term.

There are probably also other examples of this, some of them possibly very uncommon. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Two copyright notices

The new version of the website of the Parliament of Moldova (https://parlament.md/) has two copyright notices in the footer:

• Parlamentul Republicii Moldova © 2025 – transl. "Parliament of the Republic of Moldova © 2025"
• ©Toate materialele de pe acest site sunt disponibile sub licența Atribuire - Partajare în Condiții Identice 4.0 Internațional (CC BY-SA 4.0). – transl. "All materials on this site are available under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license."

Without any other context, would it be ok to upload materials from this website to Commons?

Now for the context: this version has recently been launched to replace the old site – now hosted (for a while) at https://old.parlament.md. There is one copyright notice on that version and it's unambiguous:

• ©Toate materialele de pe acest site sunt disponibile sub licența Atribuire - Partajare în Condiții Identice 4.0 Internațional (CC BY-SA 4.0).

It served the basis to create {{Parlament.md}} here on Commons. To me it's clear that the Parliament intends to continue publishing their materials under CC-BY-SA-4.0. I want to import some useful photos from parlament.md (the new version) and I'd rather confirm here, now, that they won't be deleted because of this technicality. Gikü (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand that as a claim of copyright, and then releasing their copyrighted contents (which remain copyrighted even if licensed) under the CCBYSA terms. Bedivere (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You should probably find the small print somewhere on the website, and read it carefully. Russia has ministry websites that also have a notice that claims the website's contents are published under a Creative Commons license, however, in the small print or terms of service of the website it says that only the texts of the website are licensed as CC — images are explicitly not licensed as Creative Commons and thus can't be uploaded here. The parliament of Moldova might have a similar notice somewhere on the website. Nakonana (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Thanks for pointing this out. I am unable to find a page detailing copyright matters, on both the new and the old versions. Gikü (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good! Nakonana (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

More generally: you can only offer a CC license on materials where you own the copyright. So this is simply normal. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

In general, sign © (in combination © Name YYYY) and CC-license do not contradict each other. Former one designates copyrightholder and year of publication. Later one designates rules/terms of use.
At the same time, if combination © Name YYYY is accompanied with phrase "en:All rights reserved", then that complex combination and CC-license contradict each other - because CC-license uses conception Some rights reserved. Alex Spade (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" does not contradict either. That is basically the same thing as a copyright notice (but under the Buenos Aires Convention). Similarly, you had to reserve the rights in order to license them later. The CC licenses used that as a pun with the phrase "Some rights reserved" but it doesn't actually mean something isn't licensed as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It is better to qualify the terms in these cases (All rights reserved, or in Russian Все права защищены) for post-Soviet states, especially for Russia. The practice of Ru-Wiki shows, that cc-license had been withdrawn after qualifying request to copyrightholder in several cases. Alex Spade (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You needed a phrase like "all rights reserved" to preserve copyright under the Buenos Aires Convention. You needed a copyright notice to preserve copyright in the U.S. (and later the Universal Copyright Convention). Eventually, the habit was to use both of them together. It long predated Creative Commons and has no bearing on whether a license exists or not. But yes as always, authors should be aware of what a free license actually entails. If they were confused on the rights they were licensing, they should be given a chance to pull the CC license back. A government work and license though like the one in question, would be using that phrase in the long-understood meaning, and does not invalidate a CC license where they would be well aware of the full meaning. Amateur photographers, it's good to double-check, sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

USSR and post-Soviet states were not members of the Buenos Aires Convention (Panamerican treaty). For USSR and post-Soviet states the phrase All rights reserved / Все права защищены is short form (generalization) for phrases like Все права защищены. Использование допускается только с разрешения (All rights reserved. Use is allowed with permission only). Alex Spade (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

Commons:Freedom of panorama, Proposal for abolish acceptance has been raised on the discussion page. I am looking forward to receiving various opinions on this matter.--Y.haruo (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Logo de 4fiber (Fiber ISP) en Líbano

Buenas se puede publicar el logo de 4fiber (proveedor de servicios de Internet en Líbano) como este (https://www.instagram.com/4fiber.lb?igsh=YW9lcnZqYjFlcG43) el logo es simple o complejo? (Si es simple se puede publicar?) (Notas:El TOO de Líbano usa el mismo TOO de Francia porque Líbano se considera un estado de Francia antes de su independencia)? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

En Francia, se trata casi enteramente con la originalidad. El tratamiento del número '4' me parece original. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Osea es simple?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Como dije, la le en Francia (y, presumo, en Liban) no trata de "simplicidad" o "complejidad", sino con "originalidad." Y me parece original. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Taivo:any opinion?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Question about a PD-signature file

There seems to be no problem with the licensing of File:Angelyne signature.png per se, but I'm wondering about the file's description. Can this be claimed as "own work" if the uploader isn't en:Angelyne? Does there also need to be a source provided to establish this is really en:Angelyne and not a "forgery" or "tracing"? FWIW, this signature seems to be the same as the one shown here, and that signature can be downloaded as file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I created regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Logo ITA Airways inspired by Alitalia

Buenas se puede publicar el logo de ITA Airways inspired by Alitalia como este (https://cdn.businesstraveller.com/wp-content/uploads/fly-images/1552675/Logo-e1727677642949-916x516.png) ,si es logo simple se puede publicar?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: No se puede acceder al enlace. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Aquí está (https://www.ita-airways.com/en_en) en la parte arriba aparece ITA Airways inspired by Alitalia. AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Los logos de ITA y de Alitalia me parecen demasiado simples para haber derechos de autor, pero el mini-logo "Skyteam" puede ser un problema. - Jmabel ! talk 07:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel:Te refieres a este (File:Skyteam Logo 001.svg) dice claramente {{PD-textlogo}}. AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Me sorpresa. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Switching to English here, because this is for a more general audience. Do people think it is correct that this logo is considered below TOO? - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

 Question Pinging @Abzeronow @Yann @Bastique@Bedivere@Taivo@Glrx:any opinion?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Italy has a relatively high ToO. It's possible that it might be OK for Italy. But SkyTeam is headquartered in the Netherlands and I have doubts about that being below the ToO in the Netherlands. @Ellywa: Abzeronow (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Per COM:TOO Netherlands the work has to "bear the personal mark of the maker" to be eligible for copyright. IANAL but I am an amateur in drawing and painting, therefore I usually appreciate the design effort and creativity of logo's and other seemingly simple designs. Try for yourself. This logo is not simple at all imho.. it is very subtle... so it cannot be kept without permission. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @Abzeronow that Skyteam logo would meet TOO in the Netherlands. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 22:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion this is complex logo, it does not consist of simple geometrical figures. Taivo (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Info @Bastique@Abzeronow:look in enwiki (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

So if we are deleting it, we should move it to en-wiki as a non-free logo, or possibly as below U.S. TOO if they don't care about the Netherlands' status. - Jmabel ! talk 02:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has a template {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} that they use (We have one as well but ours is automatic deletion) - Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 04:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like there are similar issues in quite a few other languages. - Jmabel ! talk 02:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow@Bastique:I've created this logo (File:Logo "ITA Airways inspired by Alitalia" (2024).png) whitout a logo of SkyTeam (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Ask a question

https://www.flickr.com/photos/abulic_monkey/1801769029

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sarcmenswear/41400634044

Can these two photos be uploaded legally? One is a broken poster of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, and the other is a person wearing clothes with a photo of Mahathir on it. Baginda 480 (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No to the first and I'm inclined to say no for the second. The T-shirt is the point of the second photo. Abzeronow (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of BBL Drizzy

Can the song BBL Drizzy be uploaded onto Commons? It is an AI-generated song released by Willonius Hatcher, and a Billboard article reports that "Working off recent guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office, Woodard [Willonius's lawyer] says that the master recording of 'BBL Drizzy' is considered 'public domain,' meaning anyone can use it royalty-free and it is not protected by copyright". However, the article also states that as "Willonius did write the lyrics to 'BBL Drizzy,' copyright law says he should be credited and paid for the 'U My Everything' sample on the publishing side", which made me wonder if such a law or anything else about the song would restrict Commons from hosting the audio. Endof (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on the details of the song, but human-written lyrics or human singing would be copyrightable and presumably not freely licensed. We could only host the parts done by AI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Some files on en.wikibooks

I was looking into emptying b:Category:Presumed GFDL images when I found three files. I'm coming here because I'd like to ask of they're {{PD-ineligible}}.

• b:File:Programming-game maker-main GUI-Add.PNG - Screenshot of non-free program
• b:File:Xml voicexml architecture.png - Relatively simple diagram, part of ND-licensed W3C document
• b:File:Indonesian-alphabet-a-m.ogg - Audio of someone reciting the Indonesian alphabet

This investigation also led me to another question: Are images of sheet music for public domain compositions themselves in the public domain? See b:File:Polyphonic Bach Invention.JPG. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, b:File:Cht7.JPG appears to be {{PD-chart}}, but it's also a screenshot of Microsoft Excel. Does that render it nonfree? JJP_Master (she/they) 23:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the first file, that's not too simple and therefore can't qualify for PD-ineligible. The second one it simple enough and qualifies for PD-ineligible. The audio one does not qualify for PD-ineligible. The sheet music qualifies for {{PD-music-ineligible}} or a similar template, in combination of PD-old (the musical arrangement is old enough to be public domain I presume). The chart is fine, but could be wrapped with {{Free screenshot}}. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no additional creative input into that sheet music, it's definitely PD-music-ineligible. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 22:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

PD-CAGov, PD-FLGov and copyright preemption

From what I see, the rationale in {{PD-CAGov}} and {{PD-FLGov}} is that some subset of public records in California or Florida is denied copyright protection by state law or courts. I wonder if, despite this, such public records that are not government edicts could still be protected by copyright through section 301 (a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, which says that:

On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.

This is because what California and Florida are doing--determing what works aren't protected by copyright--might intrude on an area "governed exclusively by" federal law and thus be preempted. prospectprospekt (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what's happening here. The California and Florida statues do not create any sort of right under state copyright law of the sort that would be preempted by federal law. They only regulate the conduct of the state government itself in relation to claiming (or disclaiming, or enforcing) federal copyrights. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. A private company could have the policy that it, and its subsidiaries, will dedicate every copyrightable work it produces to the public domain; the fact it is a state government doesn't change that. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess it makes sense for a state law to act as a public domain dedication for copyright owned by a state government. I've also realized that this issue is really not in dispute: the first circuit said in Bldg. Officials Code Adm. v. Code Tech., Inc. that "Works of state governments are therefore left available for copyright protection by the state or the individual author, depending on state law and policy" (emphasis added). prospectprospekt (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Aren't {{PD-CAGov}} and {{PD-FLGov}} just variants of {{PD-self}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of TikTok error when accessed in US.png

Hello. Kindly check the license tags and relicense to proper tags if appropriate, or if the file itself contains non-incidental copyrighted elements, it needs to be taken down. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Since the app originated from China, it has lower COM:TOO, which would be copyrightable in China. If it's the case, it should be deleted on Commons, and if ineligible for copyright in the US, it should be reuploaded locally on English Wikipedia. --Stylez995 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I cropped it and deleted the previous version. And I adjusted the author, source and license. Feel free to be BOLD. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion for a Philippine copyright chart similar to COM:Hirtle chart

The chart can be found here. Maybe this could work as a guide when uploading Philippine works to Commons. I have started on photographic, audiovisual, and anonymous works for now. --Aristorkle (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Created without registration or renewal on November 14, 1972. — really only on that particular date? Or rather: "between August 1, 1951–November 13, 1972"?

Generally speaking, I like the idea of having a guide. Nakonana (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I see problems.

1. Unpublished works: It doesn't matter if the work was in the public domain in the Philippines on the URAA date or not. If it doesn't meet {{PD-US-unpublished}}, then it's not in the public domain in the United States.
2. Unpublished works: If I have an unpublished work created in 1950, then it is in the public domain. However, if I publish the work today, the work will switch to the published works section, where it says that the copyright expires 50 years after publication. This is probably not the way it is supposed to be.
3. Published works before 14 November 1972 says 50 years after the death of the author. However, published works since 14 November 1972 says 50 years from publication. Isn't it 50 years after the death in both cases, or 50 years from publication if the author is anonymous?
4. If the work was first published on 21 October 1948 or later, the work may have a subsisting copyright because of a bilateral treaty between the United States and the Philippines. This means that a work from the Philippines would be copyrighted in the Philippines if it was published with a valid United States copyright notice and, where applicable, with a renewal to the United States Copyright Office. The chart misses this part.
5. Government work: It says that if a government work is created today, then it was in the public domain in the United States on the URAA date. This doesn't look correct.
6. The section Works Published in the United States is not correct. The United States column is not correct either as you miss COM:SC. A work first published in the Philippines on 21 October 1948 which was published in compliance with all United States copyright formalities is copyrighted in the United States irrespective of what the copyright status was on the URAA date. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

CC-0 images from the National Portrait Gallery

Hi, I wonder about the CC-0 license for images from the National Portrait Gallery, i.e. File:Louis Armstrong in Color (restored).jpg, currently nominate at FPC. While it is quite possible that this image and other with the same license claim are in the public domain due to lack of copyright notice or renewal, there is no publication information at the source. The source says gift of Elsie M. Warnecke, who is probably the heirs of Harry Warnecke, but nothing else. I also wonder who is Gus Schoenbaechler, and what was his role. It is quite unusual to have two photographers for one image. Opinions? Yann (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Does CC-zero mean that the National Portrait Gallery owns the copyright and that they decided to license the image? Or is CC-zero for the restoration work?

I'm unsure how a photo could have multiple authors. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly what I am wondering. Yann (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It could be a collaboration or one may have taken the photograph and the other made the Cabro print. Glrx (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, if a photo was published attributed to a studio, rather than to an individual at that studio, it is a collective work for copyright purposes. This has been part of the ongoing mess we are trying to sort out about Studio Harcourt. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of them have even 3 authors: File:Mildred Didrikson Zaharias, NPG 97 211.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Studio Harcourt is a French studio, but this is presumably not a French work. It is probably either a British work, as it is sourced to a British institution, or an American work, as the subject lived in the United States. If French law states that works attributed to a studio are collective works, this does not mean that British or American law does the same. It sounds like an odd rule; I've never heard of something like this before.

For example, Article 1 of the Swedish copyright law says that the copyright belongs to the one who creates the work. Article 7 states that the one who is credited as author is to be treated as being the author unless otherwise proven. If several people are listed as photographers of a photograph, it should be quite easy to prove that the credit is incorrect as a photo can't have multiple photographers. Probably it would then count as anonymous authorship.

Another thing about studios: I've seen lots of files on Wikipedia which are credited to Bassano Ltd, and w:Bassano Ltd redirects to an article about a person who died in 1913, but many of the photos were created after 1913. Do we have any information on who the photographers might be or if we can treat this as anonymous authorship? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Who is the photographer if there are several people making adjustments to framing and camera settings? It also seems possible that there were multiple photographs merged or manual editing to the photos; some of Ansel Adams' pictures are composites of multiple photographs, and some degree of manual "photoshopping" went on since the first days of photographs. It could be a boss demanding to be credited alongside an underling, but there seems to be many options with reasons to credit multiple people for a photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stefan2: These are purely US works, taken in USA by US photographers, and offered in a US institution. I don't see what Harcourt has to do with these, and it is a completely different situation. Yann (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I read National Portrait Gallery as the National Portrait Gallery, whereas in this case it seems to be the National Portrait Gallery. How confusing! --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I found one with 4 credited people: File:Jackie Robinson, NPG 97 135.jpg. I could understand credit for 2 people: one assistant for lighting, etc., but 4? Yann (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If you list unreasonably many people, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes treated as an anonymous work at some point. Let's say that someone would list everyone in the entire world as a co-author.

@Stefan2: Well, that is what the source says. Yann (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Algorithms-NetFlow2.png

This file was first uploaded to en.wikibooks back in 2004 as {{PD-chart}}, but was uploaded to Commons in 2016 as CC BY-SA 4.0, and the new uploader claimed to be the copyright holder, even though they are a different user than the one who uploaded it to en.wikibooks 12 years prior. Is the new uploader's CC BY-SA claim valid? JJP_Master (she/they) 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This new uploader (NatasaVuksanovic123) did this with many files from b:Algorithms. See the first eleven files here. JJP_Master (she/they) 21:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The license on the files should be corrected to PD-chart and the Wikibooks image as the source. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 04:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: I warned them for that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini portrait

With all the recent fuss with the Donald Trump official portrait, it has come to my mind this portrait of Benito Mussolini. Is it in the public domain? Photographer is G. Caminada (apparently Gianni Caminada, I could not find death date). It was published pre-1930 (see for example this one in the Spanish periodical press). Does {{PD-Italy}} applies as "simple photograph"? I do not know how high is the threshold in Italy with regard to photographs and so. Strakhov (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Almost certainly not a "simple photograph"; it's a pretty deliberate portrait. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Strakhov PD-Italy do apply to simple photographs, and as Jmabel said, this is not the case. There are 3 options.

1. it's a work for the Italian Government, thus its Template:PD-ItalyGov (20 years after publication)
2. it's a work for hire for Mussolini, then the rights belong to his heirs 70 years after death (1943)
3. it's a work for Gianni Caminada, then it's like above: PD 70 years after his death

All of them are possible, because Mussolini was prime minister in 1922, and Gianni Caminada was active in the 1920s. I am leaning more toward the second option: Mussolini was also a well known journalist and it's possible that the portrait was commissioned by him. Ruthven (msg) 09:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 2 (commissioned photographs) exists or did exist similarly in other countries, and it usually means the rights are with the person who commissioned the photo. But is the term duration really 70 years after the death of the person who commissioned the photo? Or rather the usual 70 years after the death of the author, even if the copyright is owned by someone else? In which part of Italian copyright/authorship law can this be found? --Rosenzweig τ 17:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Directive 2006/116/EC seems rather clear that the copyright term depends on the author, i.e. the photographer, not on the one who commissioned the photo. If the former Italian law states that you should use the death year of the one who commissioned the photo, then I think that it becomes 70 years after the photographer or 50 years after the death of the one who commissioned the photo+war extensions, whichever is longer, per Article 10.1 of the directive. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Photo off of social media

Hello people of Wikipedia, I am quite new to editing Wikipedia articles and I have a question. I would like to upload a photograph of someone onto a Wikipedia page, it is taken directly from the individuals twitter and I am not familiar enough with the rules that apply to freely licensed or public domain content to know if I should upload this image or not. Advice would be appreciated, thank you. Djsnaggletoof (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A photo uploaded to social media like Twitter or Facebook cannot be assumed to be freely licensed. Do not upload this photo to Commons unless you have specifically confirmed that the author (who may not be the user posting it!) has released it under a free license. Omphalographer (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: over 95% of images on the Internet are neither in the public domain nor free-licensed. If you don't have a specific reason to believe a particular image falls into one of those two categories, it is very unlikely that it does. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Eat Bulaga logo

Hello! I'm asking if this following logo can be fall to PD-textlogo? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] Thank you. Royiswariii Talk! 10:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Royiswariii: You don't say what country. Threshold of originality differs by country. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's the Phillipines. Bedivere (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Jmabel It's from Philippines. Royiswariii Talk! 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Internet Archive copyrighted books- with public domain images.

Some searchable copyrighted books in the Internet Archive only have access to a limited number of pages, due to their copyright. Some books contain "public domain" photographs. For example, there are World War II photographs, reproduced within some books, that have attribution or credit to various U.S. Government agencies. So, can I take a screenshot of these Public Domain photos and upload them to the Commons with links to the Internet Archive photo source page as well as a link to the photo credit page? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: Absolutely. Just make sure to give the correct PD tag. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to check. Thanks, Jmabel -- Ooligan (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Threshold of Originality query - Ellsworth Kelly

This is somewhat of a philosophical question, so I apologize in advance. Was wondering how to assess some modern/contemporary works of art by a recently deceased American artist, Ellsworth Kelly. Kelly's estate and foundation (the owners of his intellectual property) and commercial gallery generally claim copyright on all works the artist produced in his lifetime. But there seem to be some strong questions about his work in regards to the threshold of originality requirement in U.S. copyright law. Specifically, many of Kelly's works comprise monochromatic or multi-color paintings, sculptures, drawings, and prints comprising simple geometric forms with uniform, flatly applied color and no visible creative/hand-made flourishes. Obviously we can't make any sort of blanket statement about the totality of his work, but I wanted to ask about a few examples (from the collections of the US National Gallery, Museum of Modern Art, and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art) to get a sense of what might be allowable on Commons. Listed from most likely below the threshold to most questionable. The works toward the beginning of the list seem straightforwardly below the threshold of originality, as they are nothing more than simple geometric lines or shapes with uniformly applied color and no visible elements of creative authorship. Further down, I have to think there's a possibility of copyright based on the arrangement of PD elements, as many of his multi-form works comprise several monochromatic geometric forms as opposed to just one. Thank you in advance to anyone who can offer some analysis, I'm just hoping to figure out which of Kelly's bodies of work would be allowable in images here.

• Ex. 1: Diagonal Lines (1951), ink on paper (MoMA).
• Ex. 2: Dark Green Panel II (1981-1982), painted aluminum (NGA).
• Ex. 3: Stele II (1973), weathering steel (NGA).
• Ex. 4: Color Panels for a Large Wall (1978), oil on canvas (NGA).
• Ex. 5: Colors for a Large Wall (1951), oil on canvas (MoMA).
• Ex. 6: Spectrum I (1953), oil on canvas (SFMoMA).
• Ex. 7: Three Panels: Yellow, Orange, Blue (1997), oil on canvas (NGA).

19h00s (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Kelly's work is frankly a pain in the butt in that respect. I think how I'd handle it would not be driven by law. I would not upload these to Commons as Kelly's work until such time as we could if they exceeded the threshold of originality. On the other hand, if someone were to upload a similar image—possibly even for most of these an identical image—in a context unrelated to Kelly, I would never say "that's a copyright violation, copying Ellsworth Kelly's work." - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg

Hello,

this image, File:台美國會議員聯誼會訪美團記者會 01.jpg, is declared as being in the public domain. But it does contain a derivative of a CC-by-SA 3.0 licensed work, File:中華民國第12、13任總統馬英九先生官方肖像照.jpg. I do not think that this mix-up is legally possible. Am I mistaken, or what kind of action is to be taken? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

YouTube license verification assistance

I'm unable to find any mention of a CC license on the YouTube source provided for File:Jakefuture27.png. The uploader says they used filtered searching to find the video on YouTube, and I can replicate that; however, I still can't find any mention of a CC license. So, perhaps some others can take a look at this just in case I'm missing something. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

YouTube shorts doesnt show the license. You need to go on the regular video view in this caseː https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1NLQKEpbZ8, open the description and scroll down to the end of the description and it is there

JavaScript to go to go from shorts to regular video, you can save it as bookmarkː

javascript:(function() { window.location.href = window.location.href.replace('shorts/', 'watch?v=') })();

 $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   12:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Gaining Wikipedia written permission for photos.

I have incorporated 52 pictures from Wikipedia Commons into my history book of people and events from the 1600's to 1865. My publisher would like either a written permission, or something similar, from Wikipedia for them to use the pictures. How can I get such permission. Raymond A. Kreps (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Raymond A. Kreps: Please see COM:REUSE, and notice the "m" in Wikimedia.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that almost any image created before 1865 is likely to be in the public domain, so permission is not necessary (you can just tell your publisher that the photos are in the public domain and therefore free of copyright restrictions). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Logo de DP en Venezuela

Buenas, se puede publicar el logo de DP venezuela como este (https://http2.mlstatic.com/D_NQ_NP_689093-MLV75599031079_042024-O.webp) si el logo es simple se puede publicar con PD-textlogo? AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Copyright question

Would any of these violate any copyright rules on Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia? I ask this mainly due to branding and logos etc and anything else in the images I may have missed.

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/weedporndaily/38811949701/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/weedporndaily/38781594772/
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/dankdepot/5500915851/

Helper201 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)