Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Template:PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years[edit]

Apparently this is one the license templates which are too complicated for many uploaders. Looking at the hodgepdoge of files in Category:PD Switzerland (Individuality 50 years) which is populated by the template, I think the vast majority of the files, probably all of them, don't qualify for the template, which is for photographs of three-dimensional objects where the photographic depiction was created at least 50 years ago and the reproduction has no individual character, to paraphrase the template text. Most are either showing people (or animals), landscapes, street scenes or railway cars and locomotives out in the wild. The few which might actually be non-individual photographs of 3D objects appear to be less than 50 years old.

Do you agree with this assessment? And what should be done with the files? Delete the lot? --Rosenzweig τ 16:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template might indeed be too complicated, and I might have misunderstood it. Reading up on the official explanation for the 2019/2020 change in the Swiss copyright law, it appears they actually meant to include humans etc. as "3D objects". Are there any newer Swiss court cases about when a photograph has an individual character or not? --Rosenzweig τ 00:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Maybe this discussion is helpful? Basically, the template is the "spiritual successor" of {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} (my deletion request for the relatively few files still using that template, and where PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years isn't applicable, is still pending). Switzerland traditionally applies a very high threshold of originality for copyright protection of photographs, see the famous "Meili" decision by the Federal Supreme Court: A photograph of a man posing with documents was deemed to have no copyright protection whatsoever, as it lacked "an individual expression of thought" (in contrast, an expressive photo of Bob Marley was deemed copyrightable a year earlier). And as Switzerland didn't have an extra protection for simple photographs (unlike Germany's "Lichtbilder"), that photo was completely unprotected by copyright or related rights. As this was widely bemoaned as unsatisfactory by photographers and press agencies, the 2019/2020 law change introduced a new protection for such "unoriginal" photographs lasting for 50 years after creation of the photograph. So, the Meili image presumably is now protected by this new related right until 2047 (year of creation 1997 + 50 years), but still not protected by the full 70 years p.m.a. copyright, as the new protection for photographs was introduced for exactly this kind of case. So, the assumption for the template is that everything comparable to the Meili image which we previously wouldn't have seen as copyrighted in Switzerland at all has now that 50 years protection, but for older "Meili-like" images, the new template is applicable. As the law change came into effect only in 2020, I doubt there are already newer cases, at least I know of none. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gestumblindi: Was there ever a discussion about the US copyright status of these photographs which were not protected in Switzerland? One might think that because they were not protected on the Swiss URAA date in 1996, the URAA did not restore their US copyrights. But actually, only the US copyrights of works which had an expired copyright in their source country were not restored by the URAA (en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Five-point test: “Had the copyright expired in the source country on the date of restoration?”) and [14] “The work is not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection.”) The copyright of those photographs had not expired however, instead they were never protected. As photographs are generally copyrightable in the US, the URAA might have restored the US copyrights of these photographs after all. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosenzweig: This is nearly a philosophical question. If a photograph had no chance of its copyright protection ever expiring in the source country because there was no protection to begin with - is it really intended by the URAA (""teleologische Auslegung") to grant creators a protection they never had in the source country? However, the Meili image (shown in English Wikipedia as fair use) was actually deleted several times here on Commons on grounds that it would be likely protected in the US, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg. I, too, argued in the latest deletion discussion - only ten years ago, how time flies ;-) - that "it's probably protected in the US indeed, so it does seem to go against Commons policy". That being said, there might be files using {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} that are PD in the US, too, for different reasons. For example, File:Delegation mit Titel.jpg is a 1928 photo, so it would be {{PD-US-expired}} by now. Or File:Feldbahn im neutralen Gebiet zwischen Belgien und Deutschland (Ans 05358-015-AL).jpg, a 1915 photo (btw, I don't see why this should be considered a Swiss work - it's from a Swiss collection, but apparently taken in en:Neutral Moresnet - anyone familiar with Neutral Moresnet copyright law? ;-) ) . So, if we should arrive at the conclusion that files using PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years should be deleted even if they were not protected at the URAA date in Switzerland (due to lack of originality instead of expiration of protection), we need to assess all files using that template individually. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically, this would mean that this template would need to be kind of "tied" to the PD-US-expired template, and we would accept "simple" Swiss photographs if they are at least 95 years old. And sure, we would have to look at all 200+ of them individually. I've already added CC-BY licenses to some of them (that were from the ETH library) and nominated one for deletion which wasn't even a photo, but a drawing. Some others are probably not even 50 years old, and I saw at least one other file which didn't seem at all "Swiss" to me. --Rosenzweig τ 21:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also just now nominated one for deletion that is from 1978. No objections to individually reviewing them. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's my thought on this. I think that the photos that were subject-matter ineligible in Switzerland would not be eligible for URAA restoration, for the following reasons, in addition to the fact that the term of copyright was zero:

The clear intent of Congress at the time was to have minimal compliance with the Berne Convention's provision on the restoration of foreign copyrights. This meant both not extending protection to any work that was simultaneously a US work, as well as any work that was in the public domain at its coming into effect.
The ownership of a restored copyright "vests initially in the author or initial rightholder of the work as determined by the law of the source country of the work." But this is impossible when there was no author or rightholder according to that country's law. Since there is no owner according to Swiss law, there is no person who can become the first owner of the restored copyright.

However, the Meili photo is definitely not in the public domain in the US, since it was created after 1989, and no formality would be required after that date. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: Thanks for these thoughts. If we'd follow this line of thinking, we would have no URAA issue with PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years (provided the individual photos are indeed lacking "an individual expression of thought") until 2039, as all photos currently using that template (unlike the previous PD-Switzerland-photo) should be created before 1989 anyway, as they need to be older than 50 years. Only starting in 2040 we would get photos that are older than 50 years but created after 1989 and therefore would have protection in the USA. - What do you think, Rosenzweig? Following that approach, we could add an appropriate PD-US tag to PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah with the proviso that the photograph must have been published on February 28, 1989, or earlier, that Switzerland must be the country of origin under the URAA and that the US formalities must not have been fulfilled. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm. Sounds intriguing, but let's ask someone else well-versed in US copyright to be sure :-) @Clindberg: Can you agree with this approach? --Rosenzweig τ 11:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now, the counterpoint is that the "expiration of the term of protection" clause is, according to many interpretations, intended to prevent works which were in the public domain in the source country due to a failure to respect formalities from being in the public domain in other Berne countries, on the basis that the term of protection had not expired. This has been used to argue that (for instance) a US work which is in the public domain in the US due to a failure to renew its copyright would not be in the public domain in countries that apply the rule of the shorter term to US works.

However, I will draw a distinction here. In those cases, we would be talking about a work which could have had a 95-year term, but which failed to get it in the US due to the failure to comply with formalities. Nevertheless, such a work would be of the type that could receive such protection. The Berne Convention presumes that different kinds of subject matter may be subject to different term lengths. One type of subject matter in question is photographs, which, under Berne, must receive a 25-year term (at least to the extent they are protected as Berne Convention works).

Compare, on the other hand, the EU copyright directive, which says: "The protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes. A photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account. The protection of other photographs should be left to national law." Switzerland, of course, is not part of the EU, but its copyright law has close ties to that of its neighbors.

We can say, looking at Switzerland (and other European countries, which themselves were the most influential on the actual creation of the Berne Convention, and in light of whose laws the Convention should be interpreted) that, much as some categories of work may receive longer or shorter terms than others in general, these countries have decided (where there is a dualistic system) that there is a category of work (original photos) which receives one term, and another (non-original photos) which receives another. In some countries, such as Italy, the latter term was non-zero. But Switzerland set the term for such photos (at the time, anyway — and only the law on January 1, 1996 is relevant) at zero intentionally and as a category; there was no formality which had been missed. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I had always taken "expiration of the term of protection" to mean that works that lacked subject matter protection could get restored in the US. But maybe that was simply the language in the Berne Convention so it was repeated in the law, letting courts decide what it meant if anything. Clearly, the Berne Convention did not require protection of photographs like that in the first place (they were not "works", though countries which adhered to Berne in the 1920s could grandfather their old treatment and were not subject to the minimum 25 year term). I would agree that the U.S. strived to only restore works which it absolutely had to per Berne, and used every clause in the Berne text it could to avoid restoring works. So maybe the "expiration of the term of protection" isn't particularly meaningful, and it would require that a term of protection existed in the first place. The interpretation of it referring to other formalities... maybe, but that was ignored in an actual court case -- in the ones mentioned at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/01#URAA_revisited_in_2019, there was a case where a few films were ruled not restored because they had been public domain in Mexico since 1948 due to failure to register per Mexico's old requirements. Berne did not require a country to restore its own works, just foreign works, so those remain PD in Mexico. Alameda et al v. Authors Rights Restoration Corporation et al. So, not sure we should take it to mean that either -- following the logic of the court decision would seem more authoritative. After all there was a term of protection, it was just not extended. We have always been resistant to delete the Melli photo for whatever reason (maybe illustrating the old Swiss law was important enough), though if it was after 1989 then it's always had U.S. protection for sure. But, I could buy that works not protected at all in the country of origin just have what protection the U.S. would normally give, which was subject to formalities before 1989. In the end, our policy on the URAA is a little reversed in terms of "proof", in that to delete we need to show something was restored, and so in that particular instance we have tended to keep works which are in legal gray areas, as we are not sure if they were restored -- thus keeping if they are PD in the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it's definitely the language used in the Berne Convention that is the direct source of this phrase. The other issue is that there is no owner under local law in which the restored copyright would vest. In any case, I doubt a US court would recognize the existence of a restored copyright in a Swiss photo that had no copyright in 1996.

The Meili photo is from 1997. It might be fair use to show it in the context of discussing Swiss copyright law, but its status in Switzerland has no bearing on its status in the US. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure a court would find a way to get to a copyright owner -- the same one which would own a work below the threshold in the source country, but above the threshold in the U.S. The Berne condition may be there for that situation, when the threshold is different between countries -- you can't use the rule of the shorter term to not protect such works in your country, if they are not protected in the foreign country -- you should protect them in yours, if you protect them for your own citizens. I don't know which way a U.S. court would go on that; make sure they get the protection they should have gotten under Berne, or (since such works were outside the scope of Berne in the first place) just allow the U.S. protection which existed (and required formalities). I don't think we should delete works in that area unless we get a court case, if they are PD in the country of origin. Agreed that the Melli photo we can only use under fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I didn't really want to discuss specifically the Meili image anyway. @Clindberg: As discussed above, it's actually deleted on Commons since 10 years per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg), I brought it up to illustrate the high threshold of originality requirements for photographs in Switzerland. In en:Copyright_law_of_Switzerland#Lack_of_originality, it's certainly used appropriately under "fair use" as an English-language Wikipedia local upload, as well as the Marley photo which the Federal Supreme Court found to be protected. This discussion is about images that are similar to the Meili image and therefore lack an "individual expression of thought" (will be hard to judge in many cases!), and are older than 50 years (date of creation, not of publication) per the recently amended Swiss law. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah right, forgot that had been deleted a while ago. I honestly don't know how a U.S. court would treat this situation, and seems fairly unlikely to actually happen for us to find out. Given our current URAA policy, that would make me lean keep on those, provided they were published before 1989 without notice, since we can't really say if the URAA restored them or not. There are some good arguments either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, so the preliminary consensus, in the absence of a US court decision, is apparently that either the URAA did not restore the copyrights of simple Swiss photos before March 1, 1989, or that at least as of now we should not delete them. What would be the best way to handle this in terms of license tag templates? Just add {{PD-1996}} to the files which are ok for the Swiss template? --Rosenzweig τ 13:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe we should make a specific template for such a case? PD-URAA-simple-photo? Arguably this should also be applied to other photos which weren't treated as Berne works in the source country. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eh, not sure we have specific backing for that. PD-1996 would explicitly work for most "simple photo" situations since they often did have a term, which would have needed to expire to use that tag. I would just use PD-1996, I think, unless you want an explicit PD-1996-threshold tag for this situation in case we ever do get a test court case. Not sure it's worth it, as the PD in country of origin tag would also have to be there, and that may document the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Booth Pictures" and U. S. Threshold of Originality.[edit]

I just closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg as delete because it was not a FBI-created photograph per license on the template. User:Yann raised a point that I hadn't heard before, that "booth photos" (like those created by a photo booth or passport/driver license photos) are below the ToO in the US. I have heard that in some European countries, simple photographs have a much more limited term of copyright protection that artistic ones (Italy comes to mind, which is 20 years from creation for simple photographs, and PMA 70 for artistic ones). So I figured I'd ask about whether "booth photos" should be considered {{PD-ineligible}} in the U. S. @Clindberg: @Jmabel: @Fourthords: @Feoffer: @Jeff G.: Abzeronow (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, a few points.

I don't know of any US court decision which specifically deals with ID photos; however, there is some pretty strong precedent which indicates that it may be possible for such photos to be uncopyrightable (see below).
If the photo was taken by a machine without human intervention, it may have no human author.
- You might be familiar with the machines in use at airports in certain countries which automatically take a picture of the subject. Such photos have no human author and are ineligible for copyright. However, passport pictures are not taken purely automatically.
Some photos are taken in photo booths or using similar static setups, with plain white backgrounds.
- I recall that for my (Hungarian) passport, I had my picture taken in such a booth — I think I pressed the button myself.
Some photos are taken by a photographer holding a camera manually, but the content of these photographs is still determined almost entirely by the specified requirements for a passport photo.
In any case, if a human still determines the timing of the photograph by pressing a button to take it at a particular time (which is normally the case for passport photos), then the minimal creativity requirement might be satisfied.
Still, the act of authorship, as defined in Feist, seems to require some modicum of choice. The taker of a passport photo has very little ability to make choices about the content of the picture, unlike the taker of a photo in any other context.

However:

Examine Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony. This is actually one of the earliest cases involving (as it would turn out) photography and the threshold of originality. This is also still good law (and is cited by Feist in the discussion of why there is a threshold of originality based on a "modicum of creativity"). Burrow-Giles leaves open the possibility that certain photographs may not be copyrightable (for lacking creative content). To quote the decision:

But it is said that an engraving, a painting, a print, does embody the intellectual conception of its author, in which there is novelty, invention, originality, and therefore comes within the purpose of the Constitution in securing its exclusive use or sale to its author, while a photograph is the mere mechanical reproduction of the physical features or outlines of some object, animate or inanimate, and involves no originality of thought or any novelty in the intellectual operation connected with its visible reproduction in shape of a picture. That while the effect of light on the prepared plate may have been a discovery in the production of these pictures, and patents could properly be obtained for the combination of the chemicals, for their application to the paper or other surface, for all the machinery by which the light reflected from the object was thrown on the prepared plate, and for all the improvements in this machinery, and in the materials, the remainder of the process is merely mechanical, with no place for novelty, invention, or originality. It is simply the manual operation, by the use of these instruments and preparations, of transferring to the plate the visible representation of some existing object, the accuracy of this representation being its highest merit. This may be true in regard to the ordinary production of a photograph, and that in such case, a copyright is no protection. On the question as thus stated we decide nothing.

The third finding of facts says, in regard to the photograph in question, that it is a "useful, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture, and that plaintiff made the same . . . entirely from his own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit." These findings, we think, show this photograph to be an original work of art, the product of plaintiff's intellectual invention, of which plaintiff is the author, and of a class of inventions for which the Constitution intended that Congress should secure to him the exclusive right to use, publish, and sell, as it has done by section 4952 of the Revised Statutes.

and, citing some persuasive British authorities of the time:

Brett, M.R., said in regard to who was the author: "The nearest I can come to is that it is the person who effectively is as near as he can be the cause of the picture which is produced -- that is, the person who has superintended the arrangement, who has actually formed the picture by putting the persons in position, and arranging the place where the people are to be -- the man who is the effective cause of that." Lord Justice Cotton said: "In my opinion, 'author' involves originating, making, producing, as the inventive or mastermind, the thing which is to be protected, whether it be a drawing, or a painting, or a photograph," and Lord Justice Bowen says that photography is to be treated for the purposes of the act as an art, and the author is the man who really represents, creates, or gives effect to the idea, fancy, or imagination.

A later case Aalmuhammed v. Lee has to do with what we might call contributions which fall below the level of authorship. Aalmuhammed made what might be copyrightable contributions in themselves, but, because he was not the mastermind of the work (with the ability to make the ultimate choices), he has no authorship.
We could conclude from Burrow-Giles that the person who takes a passport photo acts solely according to the uncopyrightable and precise instructions for how to compose and light the photo. They are, in this sense, not an author with the ability to make creative choices, but more akin to an amanuensis taking dictation, or a someone following the instructions of a director. The person who presses the button in such circumstances does not superintend the work, does not have the ability to make a creative choice and does not engage in an act of authorship. The photographer has no artistic control over the photograph, despite pressing the button, because the photographer must follow the instructions exactly. (However, this particular line of reasoning would only apply for photos taken in accordance with ID photo instructions — because there is no act of authorship. Another photo that is sort of like an ID photo but where the photographer has the creative latitude to determine whether or not the photo should be like that is different.)

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to also point out that in Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel's case the photo was taken from here, the FBI Multimedia database, and as the footnote at the main page states, "These images are for your use in publicizing the FBI and may be used without cost or permission. Please credit the FBI or the appropriate individual/organization listed in the description field.". So since FBI confirmed this photo is free to use and it's a booth photo and there is no appropriate individual/organization listed in the description, therefore we can treat it as official confirmation that booth photos are PD-ineligible. --Czarnybog (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The FBI will get any good photo they can. It was probably a passport photo. It would be fair use if used for the purpose of apprehending a fugitive. Use in other situations, not as clear. But, the FBI would not own the copyright (if it exists) so can't license it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In France that may be true -- they may not have any copyright for "simple" photos. There are Switzerland rulings along those lines. In other places, not as sure. If it's a true photo booth, where everything is under control of the person being photographed (posing themselves etc.) not sure it's much different than a selfie. Unless there were contracts signed, I would imagine the people pictured would own the copyright. For a perfunctory ID photo, where there is a fixed camera and the subject is just positioned to be in the frame, it's quite arguable there is no creativity -- there isn't much framing, and the angle is straight on, there is no posing of the subject, etc. But, I'm not sure there is a court case or Copyright Office guidance which could help us. User:D. Benjamin Miller gave one of the foundational decisions on what constitutes "copyrightable expression" in a photograph -- angle, framing, lighting, posing the subject, etc. When all of those elements aren't there, or maybe most of them, it can be ineligible for copyright (such as the photographic reproductions of paintings). It does get down to some very technical on if we can identify any authorship in such photos. Of course, it's virtually certain that such photographers would never sue for copyright, so it's unlikely we'll get a court case on them. It may be a difficult rule for us, if we don't know the circumstances of how the photo was taken -- a selfie cropped to conform to passport or other ID standards may well be copyrightable, but a perfunctory photo taken by someone else may not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I think conclusion of Burrow-Giles is that a photograph produced according to a specifically delineated uncopyrightable procedure would not be eligible for copyright. Much like in Bridgeman, there is no opportunity for creativity. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I had to guess I'd say you're right. I do think an actual photo booth, where the subjects pose themselves, may actually have some copyright. If the arrangement of the subject is part of the photographer's expression in a studio portrait (which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, [...]) then I don't see why folks can't have the same copyright in posing themselves. It's basically a selfie. But dry ID photos taken by someone else, sure. Maybe booking photos too. Knowing the difference could be a bit difficult in some situations. Without a precedent, we are just guessing though -- we have no decision or guidance from a government authority to stand on. Whether that passes the "significant doubt" threshold is the harder question, and may be up for debate. I would not vote to delete such photos (though I may not upload them, either). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree that there can be a copyright in photos taken in a photo booth, just as you say — in instances where there is creativity exercised by a human author who determines the content of the image. So I think that "booth photo" is a poor choice of phraseology to refer to the kind of photo that can't be copyrighted. The key element is not the tool that is used to express the creativity (that is, whether or ont a physical photo booth is involved). It's just whether or not there is an act of human authorship. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is not only the fact that the picture is taken by a machine, but also that, at least for some official ID pictures, there is absolutely no possibility of originality or creativity. No accessory (hat, glasses only if the person wears usually them, etc.) is allowed, makeup should be minimal, facial expression should be neutral, place of the head in the frame is strictly defined. See the rules for France: [15], [16]. Yann (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IK they're public domain in France, but in the vast majority of situations even in America ID photos and passport photos and the like would fail the minimum creativity aspect, given that the vast majority of photos are taken in an extremely strict formulaic manner with little or no room for creativity, except in some very strict countries. Are there really no rulings on this kind of thing in the US? Has anyone ever sued/won/lost over mugshot/ID/passport photo copyright? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible copyright infringement... by me.[edit]

Hello, I uploaded a lot of time ago a series of mythical creatures or cryptids, drawn by me but directly copied from possibly copyrighted images found on the web. I was not aware at that time of this possibility. I think they should be deleted, just like happened to my Altamaha-ha.

[1]
(original version) [2]
(version by me) [3][4]
[5]
(original version) [6]
(version by me) [7][8][9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]

Thanks.-- Carnby (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carnby

Question There are from random websites? Don't you remember the source for these pictures? Ruthven (msg) 12:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow the links below the images.-- Carnby (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carnby: For the images on Wikia, please also include the pages they appeared on. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruthven and Jeff G.:

Done-- Carnby (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carnby: Thanks. Each page of It's Something Wiki (and most wikis on Fandom) says "Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted." That page indicates "the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported) (CC BY-SA)" or {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Please license your contributions sourced from that wiki with that license or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and indicate the sources for all your uploads per COM:EVID. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruthven and Jeff G.:

Done--Carnby (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carnby: Thanks. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Portrait_head_of_Barry_McGovern_(Imogen_Stuart).jpg[edit]

Am I missing smething that explains the copyright status of the bust? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you're missing anything. Even if the free license for the photo is correct, we can't keep it since it since the photo is a derivative work of the sculpture Portrait Head of Barry McGovern created in 1992 by the still living artist Imogen Stuart. I can't find any indication that her works, or Portrait Head of Barry McGovern in particular, are freely licensed. —RP88 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, nominated for deletion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisiting SOHO warning (in template talk)[edit]

Hi all. I recently opened a discussion Template talk:PD-USGov-NASA#Revisiting SOHO warning: redux pertaining to the copyright of data/images from the w:Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. I would appreciate if someone could weigh in. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public domain camera footage[edit]

It is listed on {{PD-automated}} and {{PD-CCTV}} that footage captured on a bodycam, CCTV camera, dashcam or traffic enforcement camera without creative input is in the public domain in the United States. Does this also apply to footage from a doorbell camera, photo booth camera or webcam? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably it does, though it is my personal opinion. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say that footage from a doorbell camera is analogous to a security camera, and as such would likely be below the threshold of originality (TOO) in the US. The term "webcam" is pretty context dependent. A webcam that is an outdoor camera with fixed framing is probably below the TOO in the US, but one that can be remotely pointed by the user may not be. Similarly, I could easily see someone paying close attention to a desktop webcam's framing, lighting, and maybe even the background before an setting up a videoconference call — this would probably be above the TOO in the US. With regards to photo booth cameras I've actually seen and read lawyers familiar with US copyright law argue both for and against there being sufficient creative input — so this situation is likely dependent on context as well, particularly in the case of manual trigger photo booths. —RP88 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Files from Junta de Andalucía Flickr stream[edit]

I came across this photo of a lynx and translated the description to get a better sense of where it was taken. I noticed, however, that the description says: La fotografía no puede ser manipulada de ninguna manera y no se puede utilizar en materiales comerciales o políticos, los anuncios, productos, promociones que de alguna manera sugieran aprobación o respaldo de la Junta de Andalucía. It was uploaded to Flickr with a CC BY-SA 2.0 license, but the very same Flickr page includes this notice. Clearly it was intended to be CC BY-NC-ND, which of course is not compatible with Commons. I checked a couple other photos in the category, and both had the same notice. There are 7,674 photos in the category, and it seems like perhaps they should all go to DR. Posting here, however, on the off chance there's a strange Commons precedent to consider. Also pinging the uploader (of the files I checked, anyway), Killarnee. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went through some images in the category and the text isn't in the description for all images, but it is in the description for some.

You could say that once there is a CC license, the license is valid forever and the text was added later and thus is void. But you probably can't prove that.

Or if there are two licenses available you can choose one. Strictly speaking, the text is also a license. Just because one license says something different doesn't mean the other license is invalid. Killarnee (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The presence of that notice outside of the license is not relevant. As the CC BY-SA 2.0 license says, "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here."

The existence of a separate license offer with different terms does not in any way invalidate the CC BY-SA 2.0 license offer. Incoherent multi-licenses are not that uncommon, even if they don't make a lot of logical sense. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the text was added later - We don't know which was added first. It was there with the earliest version of the file, which means when the License Reviewer approved it, they saw the text "can't be used for commercial purposes" and approved it anyway. That is a failure of the license review process IMO. Of course, in this case, FlickreviewR 2 is a bot that only looks at the license field. I'd like to think if a human reviewer saw it, we would've been here discussing what to do instead of rubber stamping it.

Looking through the Flickr stream, it looks like the oldest photos do not have the text, but newer photos do. This suggests to me that they instituted a new policy but didn't update the license parameter in Flickr.

with different terms does not in any way invalidate the CC BY-SA 2.0 license - this presumes the BY-SA license was first. What evidence is there of that? If the entity's policy is noncommercial, when the photographs were created they were contractually licensed as noncommercial. If the employee who then uploaded them to Flickr chose the wrong license, that doesn't invalidate the existing license. Now, it's also possible the order is the other way around, in which case yes, we'd have an irrevocable BY-SA license. But that's not clear.

At the end of the day, we effectively have a statement along the lines of "this image is licensed with a CC BY-SA 2.0 license, which means it cannot be used for commercial purposes or modified without permission". i.e. obviously someone clicked the wrong license, didn't understand what they were clicking, or there are exceptions to the text. In situations like that, we typically err on the side of caution. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loesje and the TOO[edit]

There is an international artist collective which calls itself Loesje that claims copyright ©️ on all their works, the style of the texts is simply black text on a white background with a signature below. The argument goes that "There is copyright on Loesje's signature, texts and ideas." but the text is usually only a single sentence, the signature is just the generic name "Loesje", and you can't copyright ©️ ideas. So why are we upholding this organisation's claims to copyright?

According to this article, in 2013 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled the 16 Juli 2013 lawsuit Endstra heirs vs. Nieuw Amsterdam Publishers that unusual expressions are not enough to warrant the creation of copyright. Neither are the fonts or styles protected by copyright in the Netherlands. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a related discussion, please see "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Personalised St. Valentine's Day message, Rotterdam-Centrum, Rotterdam (2021) 01.jpg", though this discussion is about the general TOO in the Netherlands and whether or not the "Loesje" artist collective has any broad claim to copyright ©️ as they state on their website (as the category just seems to take "Loesje" at their face value). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is certain that these are not copyrightable works.

All the "works" by Loesje are short phrases/slogans.

In the United States, the Copyright Office says, "Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases."
In the Netherlands, the government says that works must be "original and personal" and "[not] similar to works of others." In line with CJEU decisions, the work must be an "intellectual creation of the author." A single-sentence slogan or phrase will not be copyrightable in the Netherlands either.

The fact that Loesje members may claim that catchphrases and slogans are copyrightable does not make it so. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D. Benjamin Miller, thank you for your explanation. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U.S. law is more complicated than that. An epigram may be very short, and copyrightable. I believe Ashleigh Brilliant has had copyright upheld for epigrams as short as seven words. - Jmabel ! talk 07:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One judge in the 1970s (one time) found that there is a difference between an "epigram" and a "short phrase." Ashleigh Brilliant is, in the opinion of a Copyright Office representative on the record, essentially a copyright troll: his collections are copyrightable, but the individual phrases are not, they say. The Copyright Office has since refused registration of individual phrases and (as you see here) simple decorative tee-shirt designs featuring such phrases and clip art submitted by Brilliant.

But what Brilliant really is is a person who — as the Washington Post says — writes epigrams and claims copyright on them for the purpose of getting users of those short phrases to pay him money for their use (e.g., as titles of creative works). He threatens to sue, and people pay up. It's your classic copyright troll operation. The fact that he has won once is, to me, hardly a point showing that his contention is really so correct.

Even Melville Nimmer, who was more open to the idea of short phrases being copyrightable than the Copyright Office (and others who, you'll find, sometimes call the notion that short phrases are unprotectable is an "axiom" of copyright law), and upon whose judgment the reasoning in the one case that Brilliant has won was based, wrote that a short work, in order to be copyrightable, would need to show an exceptional amount of creativity in its few words.

In any case, a phrase like "When democracy isn't working, people are" is hardly exceptionally creative. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason I started this request was before the change, the category "Loesje's" description read like this:

"

English: Loesje is an international free speech organisation, mainly known by their posters.

Note: There is copyright on Loesje's signature, texts and ideas. Freedom of Panorama is not applicable because the posters have not been made to be permanently located in public places. So posters and poster images should NOT be included here unless there is express permission from the organization. See https://www.loesje.nl/informatie/copyright/ (in Dutch)

Loesje in 2020 explicitely released 14 posters that are used in pictures on Commons under CC-BY-SA-4.0: the information on the release is stored in Wikimedia's OTRS mailsystem, under ticket:2020080910004614.

Nederlands: NB Er rust copyright op de handtekening, teksten en gedachtegoed van Loesje. Freedom of Panorama is niet van toepassing omdat dit niet gaat om kunst die permanent in de publieke ruimte is. Dus posters en afbeeldingen van posters mogen hier NIET opgenomen worden, tenzij er uitdrukkelijk toestemming is van de organisatie. Zie verder https://www.loesje.nl/informatie/copyright/

In 2020 zijn 14 bestanden op Wikimedia Commons door Loesje expliciet aangemerkt, als dat de posters die erop te zien zijn gebruikt mogen worden onder CC-BY-SA.40. De mail hierover is beschikbaar voor vrijwilligers met toegang tot Wikimedia's OTRS mailsysteem, onder ticket:2020080910004614. "

Which seems to have just taken "Loesje's" claims to copyright ©️ at face value. Several users actually used "Loesje" as "the standard" for Dutch TOO simply based on the claims of this organisation and the admin who created this category claimed that this logo is "too creative to be below the TOO" and is therefore copyrighted in the Netherlands, essentially claiming that there is no such thing as a PD-textlogo in the Netherlands, so, I nominated it for deletion to get wider consensus on it as a large number of logo's deemed "below the TOO" from the Netherlands are way more complex than the Women's March Groningen and we typically use case law as a standard. The issue with copyright ©️ troll organisations and individuals is that they are very litigious while most of their lawsuits are almost always settled out of court. Several years ago a copyright ©️ troll by the name of Marco-something from Germany would upload educational content to the Wikimedia Commons and import his works from Flickr, then sue anyone for money if they made even the smallest attribution mistakes and while a lot of his claims wouldn't actually hold up in an appeals court most of the people he sued ended up paying up because it's cheaper to just settle out of court.

I actually went searching for any case law involving "Loesje" and despite their claims of often suing people I wasn't able to find anything meaning that they probably just settle out of court a lot with the people they scare into paying. Once people add bold claims of copyright ©️ to categories without bringing it up for discussion an informal standard is set that people will then follow. Even admins tend to follow this as I found that people prefer to work with precedent. As the European Court of Justice unified the European Union's threshold of originality I think that it's important to try to establish what this TOO is, as user "Eric Luth (WMSE)" pointed out here. With those United States we have clear examples but we haven't done this for the European Union yet. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is at least somewhat (supposedly) harmonized by Infopaq, though the decision says "[something is protected by copyright if it is] the expression of the intellectual creation of their author; it is for the national court to make this determination."

Whether or not this is actually harmonized in practice is another matter. Here's a nice little article which discusses the question. In short, different national courts have continued to have different ways of interpreting this notion. See also (in German) Schöpfungshöhe, which discusses current German decisions on this subject.

I would suggest that the interpretations of the Infopaq decision and more recent CJEU jurisprudence indicate a high standard of originality, rather than a low one. The notion that a work must involve the expression of the author's personal intellectual creation through free and creative choices is the kind of standard found on the continent, far from being a low standard as was (formerly) applied in Britain. In British cases since Infopaq, such as SAS Institue v. World Programming Limited, it has been remarked that the Infopaq standard is higher than the old British one: "If the Information Society Directive has changed the traditional domestic test, it seems to me that it has raised rather than lowered the hurdle to obtaining copyright protection."

Or, as Advocate-General Mengozzi is quoted in this same decision I just linked (which is quoting Football Dataco Ltd. v. Yahoo! UK Ltd.)

It is common knowledge that, within the European Union, various standards apply as regards the level of originality generally required for copyright protection to be granted. In particular, in some EU countries which have common law traditions, the decisive criterion is traditionally the application of "labour, skills or effort". For that reason, in the United Kingdom for example, databases were generally protected by copyright before the entry into force of the Directive. A database was protected by copyright if its creator had had to expend a certain effort, or employ a certain skill, in order to create it. On the other hand, in countries of the continental tradition, for a work to be protected by copyright it must generally possess a creative element, or in some way express its creator's personality, even though any assessment as to the quality or the "artistic" nature of the work is always excluded.

Now, on this point there is no doubt that, as regards copyright protection, the Directive espouses a concept of originality which requires more than the mere "mechanical" effort needed to collect the data and enter them in the database. To be protected by the copyright, a database must—as art.3 of the Directive explicitly states—be the "intellectual creation" of the person who has set it up. That expression leaves no room for doubt, and echoes a formula which is typical of the continental copyright tradition."

Additionally, in particular, the fact that EU Copyright Directives imply the existence of categories of photographs, editions, etc., which would not be protected by copyright per se (but only by 25-year related rights, in some cases) implies that the threshold of originality is fairly high, in line with the continental traditions (e.g,. the German one) which draw such distinctions. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up after the discussion started with this deletion request and thanks @Jmabel: for your critical note. There is no doubt here, that the works of Loesje are the result of a decades-long artistic venture. The Loesje organization itself has rules these works as copyrighted, see also here. If we look at another such an artistic venture as On Kawara it is also clear that we don't just collect his work en masse because of the common sense around such works: Products of artistic ventures fall under copyright, no matter how minimalistic. -- Mdd (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The opinion of the Loejse organization is irrelevant. The fact that they claim that their "ideas" and the signature are copyrightable demonstrate that they cannot be taken seriously. Of course, every person who claims copyright in uncopyrightable things will rule that their works are copyrighted; Rural Telephone claimed that their phone book was copyrighted in Feist, too. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Netherlands there is a consensus decision-making among social partners, called the Polder model, which stretches into the realm of culture as well. Here on Commons we have established good relations with mayor cultural players in the Netherlands in cooperation with Wikimedia Nederland, which brought us millions of images already. And if I am not mistaken such a connection has been made with the Loesje organization as well, who have given us permission to share some of their works here.

In order to establish more and more diverse relationships with cultural organization allows us to collect more images of cultural events, of which most are under copyright. I think there is an inter-dependency here, that we either respect the choices every organization make and profit, or reject their own choices. If I have learned one thing over the years is, that copyright is no exact science. There are different approaches toward copyright and copyright control. And different approaches to building respectable and enduring relations with cultural partners. -- Mdd (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What licenses are granted and for what is subject to relationship-building. Different approaches to licensing are one thing. If you are talking about repositories of copyrighted work, then to receive permission is important.

But that is when you are talking about about things which are protected by copyright. But what is and is not protected by copyright is not decided by consensus; it is a matter of law. We certainly do not have to respect assertions just because some organization has made them. As far as I am concerned, the most important thing we can do is to make it clear what is and what is not covered by copyright, just as it was in the NPG case. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intermezzo: The use of analogy to get a better grasp of situation[edit]

St. Valentine's Day-wish posters in Rotterdam, 2021

On Kawara, June 19, 1967 from Today Series, No. 108, 1966.

In this discussion so far a couple of analogies have been made, or at least stipulated in the different comments:

First previous to this discussion I made an analogy between the St. Valentine's Day-wish posters, see image, and the Loesje posters now a week ago, here.
Second Donald Trung in his first comment made an analogy between the Loesje Poster design and the 16 Juli 2013 lawsuit Endstra heirs vs. Nieuw Amsterdam Publishers
Third, Jmabel ! brough up the example of the work of Ashleigh Brilliant with "epigrams as short as seven words" of which no examples are present at Commons.
And forth I brought up the example of On Kawara
In between Donald Trung (18:09, 10 February 2024) brougt up the examples of a logo, a (fragment) of a Dutch municipal elections 2018 poster, and one talk item at COM:THRESHOLD

The reason for bringing up those analogy (or just making these compartments) is clearly to get a better grasp of situation. In general, we choose the most like analogy and its copyright regulation. However when false analogies are made, they can keep us of track.

Now I am telling all this, because it rather shocked me when I realized what kind of analogy or comparison Donald Trung made in his first comment. The 2013 lawsuit Endstra heirs vs. Nieuw Amsterdam Publishers is quite a famous lawsuit in the Netherlands, which made the news. It was related to the famous murder trail to get the notorious Willem Holleeder convicted of killing Willem Endstra. There were tapes made of him talking in the back of the car, and those where used as evidence. In order to get rid of that evidence, they tried to get them dismissed as evidence... because they where so called "copyright protected" and used as evidence without his permission, and therefor inadmissible.

Maybe people get the picture already. There is a very strange analogy made in the above discussion to begin with. (I will continue later). -- Mdd (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From this perspective I tend to believe that this discussion made a false start to compare the Loesjes posters with a case of plain simple text, which is generally not under copyright. It is suggested that there are similarities with the work of artists, who have used text in their artworks. Yet so far this is neither confirmed nor denied. Therefor I see no reason to depart here from the standards set in COM:POSTER. -- Mdd (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The standard in COM:POSTER has to do with posters that have copyrightable content. For example, many posters feature photographs or drawings on them. It is not the medium of being a poster, but the copyrightability of the content, which matters.

By the way, no, On Kawara's writing of dates on colored backgrounds is not copyrightable, either. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

remove logo from his girl friday[edit]

Could someone please remove the Criterion logo from this edition of His Girl Friday? SDudley (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SDudley: I suggest you ask for this at Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. Also (explain this there, not here) I would guess you mean you just want to remove the first several seconds of the video, but whether you mean that or something else, please be specific when you make the request there. - Jmabel ! talk 07:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the instruction. I’ll hold for now since it seems @D. Benjamin Miller will be working on it. SDudley (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This video is ridiculously smoothed out... I will prepare, encode and upload a much better version. Will need a while to do so, however. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: I have a 4K version from the same source, but it is over 4 GB, so it needs a COM:SSU. Yann (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have only the 1080p version, albeit in much better quality. Can you upload your 4K source to archive? My source file is a 25GB h264 rip. I will trim the proper frames + give it the HQ AV1 treatment to get it under 4GB. Compare with this 3.5GB file representing one of my encodes - https://ia601305.us.archive.org/12/items/cyrano-de-bergerac-1950_202402/Cyrano%20de%20Bergerac%20%281950%29.webm (which I'm currently trying to upload). I find that doing a manual encode produces much better quality results (smaller + higher quality) vs. using video2commons conversion defaults. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. May be you could suggest changing V2C with your parameters? Here is the request: phab:T357218. Yann (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah. Here are a few tips. The main thing is that I am using AV1 (using libsvtav1 in ffmpeg). Video2commons encodes to VP9, which is not as good a codec as AV1. (Actually, I think one problem is that — correct me if I'm wrong — video2commons thinks it needs to transcode AV1 WebM files, while it will accept VP8 or VP9 WebM files).

We also have a lot of files which use VP8, which is far worse than VP9. See File:Cyrano de Bergerac (1950).webm, which is a 1.32GB file (frame-matching my Cyrano encode here, except I properly blacked out the logo in the beginning). That is a 1.32GB encode for a 720p version, while my encode, about twice the file size, is a 1080p version.

However, I always tune svtav1 to the video I am using. One thing AV1 is very good at is grain synthesis. We can set the grain from the video to be encoded in a separate layer from the underlying content. Look at the grain in this video, and compare it with the unnaturally smoothed-out VP8 encode we have here. This is simply not possible with VP9.

However, not all videos are going to benefit from this setting. The grain separation settings depend on the source. If you have a clean video shoot with a digital camera, or generated using presentation software or 3D animation, then the proper settings would be different. AV1 is very good, and you can squeeze a lot out of it (as you see here), but it works best when you have specifically tailored settings.

Perhaps the best way to set this up would be to have av1 used as a baseline, and let the user set custom svtav1 parameters (or really, just choose between a few different preset profiles: let's say, between "grainy old film" and "non-grainy/generic video") in video2commons. (We would also need to set the bitrate or rate factor to come in under the size limit. For best quality, I prefer to use CRF and then estimate after letting it encode a few minutes of representative video. I also set the encoder to a relatively slow speed.) There are some improvements that could be made, for sure. Still, the best results will always come from you have the opportunity to mess around with the encode locally and see what gets the best results. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, looking at this file... no, no, this is an extreme AI-denoised+upscaled version of the film. I have a much better source... I can even render to 4K with a better upscaler than this, although it would not really make sense to do. — Indeed, the YouTube source says "This an upscale from 1920x1080 to 4K using Topaz Video Enhance AI with Artemis Low Quality." If I am going to do a 4K upscale, I will do it using DaVinci, which is much subtler, but even then, I think I will skip that and just do an actually good 1080p encode. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw, afaik, 4GiB is the hard limit, even for SSU files. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now the limit is 5 GB: phab:T191804. Yann (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, nice! I can use a higher bitrate in future files, then. Still, using chunked uploads, I am unable to upload more than ~1GB with any reliability these days... I put in my server-side requests, but there's always a wait for that. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a much better version already cut. The encode will be finished by the morning (Montreal time) and I'll upload it tomorrow (probably just to archive, because chunked uploading is not really working for me now...). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SDudley @Yann Here is a better encode I made of the movie. I'm going to have to put in a server-side upload request. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Looking forward to seeing it get on the page. SDudley (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

réutilation d' un fichier Wikipedia dans un livre papier ?[edit]

Bonjour Actuellement dans l'écriture d' un ouvrage papier sur une série de locomotives (aux Editions La Vie Du Rail -Paris) , je souhaiterais éditer dans cet ouvrage la photo suivante. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jungang_Line_Baecheok_Bridge_and_Spiral_Track_with_Electric_Locomotive_Pulling_Passenger_Train(Late_1970%27s_-_Early_1980%27s).jpg

Après recherche, l'auteur Konarail ne semble pas avoir de lien direct pour le contacter. Les réponses sur la FAQ concernant les droits d' utilisation ne comportent que des réponses qui concernent une republication internet. Pourriez vous me donner les précisions pour un livre papier. La mention de l'ensemble du lien comme pour un repost internet suffit t'il ? Cordialement. Bruno LEGOUEST Bruno Lgst (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vous devez suivre les directives de CC BY-SA 4.0. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abuse detection related to fake copy file[edit]

The copyright of prof mehrdad R. Izady has been violated by tampering with the map file named Iranian languages, which belongs to prof mehrdad R. Izady, by the Wiki user named Ispah and falsely presenting it as his own research. original: https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Iranic_Languages_lg.png Mustafa urgun (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mustafa urgun: To which file on Commons does this refer? Is it File:Distribution of Iranian Languages.png? Why did you revert that file to an earlier version? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I accidentally converted to an older version while trying to fix it. Yes, the file that needs to be fixed or removed is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Iranian_Languages.png

The dossier was falsified by misappropriation of Prof Mehrdad R Izady's research. Mustafa urgun (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original File:Iranic Languages.png Mustafa urgun (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The uploader credits Izady as one of his sources. I see no copyrightable expression copied; none of the outlines match the other image you gave (so data from other sources is used as well), and the style/color/etc. are all different and not copied. You can't copyright facts. Obviously the two maps are of the same concept, so they will look vaguely similar, but that is not copyright. Azady has a copyright on his particular map (meaning we can't copy it here without a license from him), and maybe even his particular language area outlines, but I don't see anything which is copied. This other seems like an independent map to me, with a slightly different interpretation of areas, and I don't understand what you think needs "fixing". Others are free to make their own map of the same idea. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kurdish dialects are shown as separate languages on the map, but this is not the case, Prof. Izady showed it as a single language in the red area, the outlines of the map are the same, but ethnic languages and groups are shown incorrectly. I think this is sufficient evidence that it is a copy file and it should be removed. Mustafa urgun (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have utterly no knowledge of this area, but from afar it seems like different scholars can have different opinions on such things -- at Commons we would try to have images showing multiple sides if there are scholarly disagreements. Or even older theories which were once held, even if proven false later. It's true that Wikipedia does have the Kurdish groups as dialects and not separate languages, but the distinction can be arguable (Kurdish languages does say Kurdish is a language or a group of languages indicating there is some disagreement), and maybe the file could simply mention that aspect in its description. I see no reason, at all, for deletion or even reverting to an older version -- this file seems to be as the uploader wanted it, based on the sources they were using. If the file is accurate per its sources, it would seem to be fine. You can put a {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} tag on the image to explain the above and discuss with the uploader. But disagreements of this nature are never reasons for deletion -- perhaps more explanation in the description, on which sources say what on the matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you are right, but this research and effort belongs only to Prof Mehrdad R. Izady, it is definitely not the right attitude, it is clearly an action against ethical principles. In order for Wikipedia to be a reliable source, it must be treated sensitively. Thank you Mustafa urgun (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your specific complaint above was that it wasn't copying an opinion from Izady. In terms of research, the resulting facts and data are not copyrightable. Claiming the research as your own is unethical, but I thought I see Izady among the sources credited; the map from my perspective appears to try to be a synthesis of several sources, with Izady being one of them. The copyrightable "work" in question is the specific representation of the map, which was not copied. Ideas are not copyrightable (nor is effort; see Sweat of the brow). Izady cannot prevent someone from making a similar type map; he can only prevent the copying of specific expression from his own map. There certainly could be something that I'm missing here, and maybe it's hard to explain, but it would need to be explained to justify reverting the file to an older version (let alone deletion). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I mentioned above, reverting to the old version was just a keyboard error. I'm trying to prevent Izady's efforts from being exploited by others. Mustafa urgun (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's part of research, having other researchers build on top of it. I'm just not sure what is being exploited here. Copying Izady's specific map (or substantial portions) is not allowed, but using any facts he uncovered (or his opinions or ideas, if credited) is normally quite valid. The facts, opinions and ideas are not subject to copyright though and thus are not a reason for deletion (they would however be a reason to update the description to credit them properly, if not already done). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, if that's all we can do, I won't try. Thank you for your attention Mustafa urgun (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mustafa urgun: How do you know Izady? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 22:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. I know Mehrdad Izady indirectly, I can say that this is his wish. Don't you think it's outrageous enough to falsify someone's research and cite the researcher as a source? (even if everything is fine) Prof. Dr. Mehrdad is a very valuable research historian and a very conscientious person. Mustafa urgun (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What research is falsified and not credited? That would certainly be bad, and I could be missing it, but it seems as though the file in question is combining the opinions of several researchers. It would stand to reason that some aspects will be different than Izady's, if that part is drawn from other researchers. It would certainly be valid to mention the dialect/language question on the Kurdish portion in the image description, particularly if citing which researchers argue for which side. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AndyMabbet Mustafa urgun (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News re the long-running claims over Crown Copyright from the IWM[edit]

Can the IWM *really* claim © on Crown Copyright images etc where copyright has long expired?

https://twitter.com/ReassessHistory/status/1756642082905542955

Interesting long Twitter thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short answer: no. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps a royal decree would stop them. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why doesn't s163(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 [17]:

(3) Crown copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work continues to subsist—
(a) until the end of the period of 125 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or
(b) if the work is published commercially before the end of the period of 75 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was made, until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was first so published.

apply? I'm aware that COM:CROWN says otherwise, as does the National Archives' flowchart depicted there. But why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because when the law was modified, it was specified that the Crown Copyright term would only be applied for works that were created after a certain date, with a different term applying for older works.

The claim of the IWM here is not that the original photos are still protected by copyright. They are instead claiming that the digitizations have their own separate copyright (which is BS and has been rejected by British courts and the British IPO). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but where does it say that? (I'm not defending the IWM position - far from it - I just want to be well informed when someone else does). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: Which section? What date? What term for older works? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends on the details which are given under "Crown Copyright." Then you need to check the6 and 1911 acts where their rules are applicable. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)5Reply[reply]

1 D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schedule 1, paragraph 41 [18] Nthep (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are CCTV images PD in Turkey?[edit]

Just curious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're meaning the television-related CCTV, Clearly-Than-God wrong, they are absolutely and exclusively copyrighted by the China Media Group. If you mean the surveillance cameras, that could be an interesting thing on whether they're human-controlled or not. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean surveillance cameras. We have {{PD-automated}} which I think would hypothetically not get the file I'm thinking about speedily deleted, but I have no idea what the precedence for this in Turkish law would be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rhapsody in Blue[edit]

Happy Birthday to Rhapsody in Blue, premiered 100 years ago today.

BBC Radio 3 just played a recording of George Gershwin's own performance of the jazz band version of his Rhapsody in Blue, with Paul Whiteman and His Orchestra, from a 78 RPM gramophone record (according to their website, from a NAXOS release).

Is that recording now out of copyright? Can we find a version we can upload? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the recording is not in the public domain. The first recording was released in 1924 and thus will be in the US public domain in 2025. (By the way, the recording of the 1924 jazz band arrangement by Ferde Grofé, the first of a handful of arrangements Grofé made of the piece. While the copyright in the recording has expired in many countries, since Grofé died in 1972, that arrangement is not in the public domain in any life+70 countries.)

There are no earlier recordings of Rhapsody in Blue than that one. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What Benjamin Miller said, happy 100th birthday to Rhapsody in Blue. Can't wait for the 1924 sound recordings to enter public domain next year. By the way, a version that people are familiar with was arranged by Grofé in 1942, and that arrangement enters the U. S. public domain in 2038. Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New York Scale Model of New Amsterdam in 1660, Museum, c1930[edit]

Hello, this is a postcard of a scale model of New Amsterdam in 1660. The scale model was at the Museum of the City of New York in 1930-1933. There's a few more postcards of the same such as this and this one. Can it be used on Commons? -Artanisen (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Artanisen: The postcard was published ca 1930 without formalities, so I think it's PD now. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US election campaign graphics[edit]

User:Born to Endless Night has uploaded many hundreds of US presidential campaign graphics recently. Some are correctly tagged as {{PD-shapes}}, but others (such as File:Dean24-Healthcare.jpg) feature photographs and other complex graphic elements which are clearly not just "simple geometry".

Would these all fall under {{PD-USGov}}, or is campaign material technically outside of that? Belbury (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not just "technically." Campaign materials are not PD-USGov — simple as that. PD-USGov only applies when the work is being done by someone in an official capacity. Campaign materials are not included. However, some materials are not eligible for copyright. For these posters that feature photos, the question is, who made the photos? If the photos are from federal government sources, then a poster like this is not eligible for copyright. However, the photos probably do not come a federal government source. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a scroll through, I see a lot of White House published material which would fall under {{PD-US-Gov}}, however the campaign material could possibly be copyrighted. As @D. Benjamin Miller stated, anything not eligible for copyright is fine. I do see some campaign material that is most likely under Copyright and should be deleted. Also, there are no source links for anything that has been uploaded from what I see. PascalHD (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes: White House (and Congressional) materials are fine. Campaign stuff is not. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please Help[edit]

I added some image files licensed according to the law in force in my country, as more than 50 years have passed since the images were published in newspapers, so the images became free according to Iraqi law, and there are those who added in the same way and were able to publish them here and they were not deleted, and I have no experience in explaining this License according to the law before deleting the images.

These are the files I added and I was warned to delete them after 7 days:

File:Minaa1953.jpeg
File:Minaa1950.jpeg
File:Minaa1954.jpeg
File:Minaa1951.jpeg
File:Minaa1948.jpeg
Here is the license in effect in my country, according to what was published by one of those who added similar images, and it was accepted because he knew how to add the license.

Please help me add the license before deleting, or guide me if there is something I don't understand. SonOfBasra (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SonOfBasra: unfortunately, theses also have to be public domain in the U.S. (where Commons is legally located). The URAA copyright restoration in 1996 would have given these U.S. copyrights good for 95 years from initial publication, so the first of these will come out of copyright in 2049, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: Iraq is not subject to URAA. They are not currently a Berne signatory, and we don't have reciprocal copyright agreements with Iraq. They may be subject to URAA in the future, but these would not be restored by URAA as there isn't an URAA restoration date with Iraq yet. Abzeronow (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iraq doesn't have copyright relations with the US, so the URAA doesn't apply. If/when such relations are established, these photos would be URAA ineligible, since they're in the public domain in Iraq, assuming Iraq does not retroactively extend domestic copyright to these items before the hypothetical future URAA date. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SonOfBasra: The licence was added in this edit, for example. I made some further changes here. Thank you for your contributions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: thank you very much, Andy. This is the first time someone has helped me seriously. Thank you again. SonOfBasra (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SonOfBasra: However, one other thing is that there is no source for the image, so please add the newspaper they cam from and if possible the correct date in the source and date fields. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I didn't realize there were any significant countries that were still not signatories to the Berne Convention. Do we have a list of what other countries are not subject to URAA? - Jmabel ! talk 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-Iraq lists "East Timor, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Marshall Islands, Palau, Somalia, Somaliland, and South Sudan." But en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights only lists Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nauru, Palau, and Somalia. The Wikipedia page assumes East Timor (Timor Leste) inherited its Berne signatory status from Indonesia, Somaliland is unrecognized, and I bet South Sudan was not added to the Wikipedia page or inheritance from Sudan's Berne status was assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: At least in English, {{PD-Iraq}} transcludes {{Copyright notes}}, which has our guidance re the USCO's Circular 38a, indicating all the exceptions. We are waiting at Template:Copyright notes for the USCO to update that circular (last update 11/2023) if and when East Timor enters into bilateral (with the US) or multilateral copyright treaties. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can this photo of Elvis be overwritten?[edit]

I've seen old photos like this one of the Beach Boys (originally in B&W, now in color thanks to a more recent upload) be overwritten with better versions found somewhere on the Internet. Now, there are better versions of this photo of Elvis Presley from 1958 (for example: [19]) that I'm not sure if are also in the public domain or allowed in Commons, because of differences in color and such. The license template reads that the photo is "in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1963, and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed". However, I'm afraid that was also the case for this image of The Beatles, deleted in January 2024 (which had also been overwritten with higher quality versions).

So, to put it short: What would be the rules (or prohibitions) to upload a better/different version of this image of Elvis or similar cases? JBOOK17 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Normally, it should be the same photo at a higher resolution (or color vs black and white), with the same crop, and the same copyright status. A black and white photo which is colorized (versus a color photo simply published in black and white) may have a copyright difference; those should not be overwritten. In most cases, we don't overwrite. The guidelines are at Commons:Overwriting existing files. The Beach Boys photo was overwritten by the original uploader a month after the original upload. Normally, we'd want both versions to be available as a choice (one is a bit of a wider crop) if the copyright is fine. The Beatles image was from after 1963, so does not qualify for the no-renewal tag. It was uploaded under "published without notice" logic. Someone then found an earlier publication with notice. But... all copies had to have a notice, so they may have still lost copyright on that photo with a later publication without notice. Courts did rule that forgetting notice on a "relative few" copies was OK, and did not lose copyright, but not sure how widespread the ad was. So that may have lost copyright, and the deletion not quite right. As for the Elvis photo... it's best to stick to the versions that were actually distributed. If there is another version of the photo with a wider crop, other portions of that photo could have technically been unpublished for longer, and may have a different copyright status. See some of the info on this page. If you want to crop that other photo to the same boundaries which were in the original magazine (which was not renewed), that should be OK -- but don't overwrite, upload as a separate file as the source would be different. Just note the intentional crop to the published version. But if you have separate evidence of the wider crop also being distributed without notice (or not renewed itself), then it could be uploaded separately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! But to get sure I understood your point: If I upload the linked B&W picture of Elvis, but cropped to the same dimensions of the magazine version from 1958, it won't count as copyright infringement in case the HQ version turns out to have a different copyright status? JBOOK17 (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that would have the same copyright status, yes. Not sure I could identify any copyrightable expression in there which was not present in the magazine version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the source reads "John Springer Collection/Getty Images", does it mean the copyright was renewed? Or is it just source attribution? JBOOK17 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JBOOK17: It probably means that the heirs of John Springer are having Getty Images manage rights they may not have. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Springer was a collector of photographs, not a photographer, so neither Springer nor Getty would have owned copyright in the first place. For example, this photo is from that same collection, but the actual photographer was John Engstead. Per here, John Springer (1916-2001) was a New York film and theater press agent, producer, film historian, author, and collector of publicity film still photos. That is circumstantial evidence this photo was distributed as a print without notice, as otherwise Getty would have no rights to sell it from the sounds of it. The Getty page is here. That may not stop some automated photo detector of theirs from flagging it, and without seeing a copy of an actual print not sure it's proof of publication without notice itself, so I would still keep to the known-published version. Make sure it's the same photo as the one published, not a very similar but different photo from the same session, which would have an independent copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carl Lindberg With all things considered, I think I'll refrain from uploading the better photo. Although it is a really nice looking picture (and it might indeed be suitable for Commons), I get the feeling it might one day be marked for deletion because of the unclear copyright status. However, I learned some valuable information from this thread, so I thank you for all your responses very much. JBOOK17 (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

High quality image of Conquista-de-Tenochtitlan-Mexico.jpg[edit]

This image of Tenochtitlan is a low quality version of the original. The original image is located here. This illustration is from 1900, in a picture library of Agostini. Here's a link to Getty images. However, since it was made in 1900 it should be in public domain. The low quality version has been used on Commons since 2013 so it should be allowed to use the original too? -Artanisen (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you can use a better copy of the same picture. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licence[edit]

Bonjour,

Est-ce que quelqu'un peut me donner la licence de cette image

S'il la trouve...

Merci

Hello

Can someone give me the license for this image

If he finds it...

Thank you Elrohir de Fondcombe (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elrohir de Fondcombe: Hi, and welcome. The images there are still copyrighted by the estate of J. R. R. Tolkien through 2043 per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Hobbit, so you may not upload them here until 2044 because they are nonfree. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok Thanks Elrohir de Fondcombe (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anonymous change of a file[edit]

Someone anonymously put a screen in front of the lower part of the uploaded file „Saint Patrick's Day in San Francisco, 1970, 005.jpg“ How can I find out who is the author of this change, to tell me the reason why. In particular I would like to know why I was not given any notice about the change. Best regards Foeniz (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Foeniz: File:Saint Patrick's Day in San Francisco, 1970, 005.jpg was uploaded by you yesterday and no one has changed the image. If the solid grey bar at the bottom of the image is not intentional, it is possible that there was an error in uploading the file or the source file was corrupt prior to upload. As a first step, I'd suggest using the "Upload a new version of this file" option on the file page to see if that fixes it. You may need to purge your browser cache after reupload, as your cache will try to show you the original upload. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much! The new upload was successful! But as you presumed, when I try to open the file from "the bottom" it shows the old version. So: how do I "purge" my "browser cache"? Foeniz (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Foeniz: You should see your new version at the top of the page and then lower down the screen there should be a table showing both the old and new versions. If you are seeing something different, try the guidance in Help:Purge. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's all right! Thank you! Foeniz (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone check this photograph?[edit]

Please look at this: File:Potrait of Yu Yin-pei.jpg. Does anyone share my feeling that the photograph looks like it came from a slide?--125.230.66.175 09:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impossible to tell, because it is full of diagonal striping artifacts. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not a reproduction of a slide but it does look like a photograph taken of some sort of video display or other type of screen. The own work is likely just them photographing the screen but who is the creator of the image on the screen. Without better information at this stage I would concur with the deletion nomination. Ww2censor (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where these are from?[edit]

Does anyone know where these images are from? They seem like copyright infringements. Enaldo(discussão) 19:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs by Lewis Carroll[edit]

Hi, I just came across this old DR, and the closure as Delete seems weird to me. There are two facts which didn't seem to have been taken into account: 1. The impossibility that these images from the 19th century reached the editor of these books if they were never published until 2001 or 2002. 2. That, in case of 2 or more countries of origin (UK vs. USA), the Berne convention says the shorter term prevails. Yann (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: I think the conclusion was a solid one, the UK has a 2039 rule for unpublished works and these could have been closely held by the Dodgson family until they agreed to have the editor publish the photographs in 2002. Abzeronow (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Double-checking that Template:PD-CAGov applies to a California Secretary of State video[edit]

The California Secretary of State published a bilingual YouTube video with American Sign Language interpretation and English voiceover covering an aspect of 2024 California elections.

I wanted to double-check that this video is OK to upload to Wikimedia Commons under Template:PD-CAGov. Lovelano (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Contents

Template:PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years[edit]

"Booth Pictures" and U. S. Threshold of Originality.[edit]

Possible copyright infringement... by me.[edit]

File:Portrait_head_of_Barry_McGovern_(Imogen_Stuart).jpg[edit]

Revisiting SOHO warning (in template talk)[edit]

Public domain camera footage[edit]

Category:Files from Junta de Andalucía Flickr stream[edit]

Loesje and the TOO[edit]

Intermezzo: The use of analogy to get a better grasp of situation[edit]

remove logo from his girl friday[edit]

réutilation d' un fichier Wikipedia dans un livre papier ?[edit]

Abuse detection related to fake copy file[edit]

News re the long-running claims over Crown Copyright from the IWM[edit]

Are CCTV images PD in Turkey?[edit]

Rhapsody in Blue[edit]

New York Scale Model of New Amsterdam in 1660, Museum, c1930[edit]

US election campaign graphics[edit]

Please Help[edit]

Can this photo of Elvis be overwritten?[edit]

High quality image of Conquista-de-Tenochtitlan-Mexico.jpg[edit]

Licence[edit]

Anonymous change of a file[edit]

Could someone check this photograph?[edit]

Where these are from?[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs by Lewis Carroll[edit]

Double-checking that Template:PD-CAGov applies to a California Secretary of State video[edit]

Navigation menu

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Template:PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years[edit]

"Booth Pictures" and U. S. Threshold of Originality.[edit]

Possible copyright infringement... by me.[edit]

File:Portrait_head_of_Barry_McGovern_(Imogen_Stuart).jpg[edit]

Revisiting SOHO warning (in template talk)[edit]

Public domain camera footage[edit]

Category:Files from Junta de Andalucía Flickr stream[edit]

Loesje and the TOO[edit]

Intermezzo: The use of analogy to get a better grasp of situation[edit]

remove logo from his girl friday[edit]

réutilation d' un fichier Wikipedia dans un livre papier ?[edit]

Abuse detection related to fake copy file[edit]

News re the long-running claims over Crown Copyright from the IWM[edit]

Are CCTV images PD in Turkey?[edit]

Rhapsody in Blue[edit]

New York Scale Model of New Amsterdam in 1660, Museum, c1930[edit]

US election campaign graphics[edit]

Please Help[edit]

Can this photo of Elvis be overwritten?[edit]

High quality image of Conquista-de-Tenochtitlan-Mexico.jpg[edit]

Licence[edit]

Anonymous change of a file[edit]

Could someone check this photograph?[edit]

Where these are from?[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs by Lewis Carroll[edit]

Double-checking that Template:PD-CAGov applies to a California Secretary of State video[edit]

Navigation menu

Search