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.

Maldive government website

I'm not seeing how {{Presidencymv}} is an applicable licence for images such as:

The text of the template reads:

The Government of the Republic of Maldives may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site can only be licensed for reuse through the independent consent of the original content owner.
Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to presidency.gov.mv under the Attribution 4.0 International License.

so the CC licence only seems to apply to submissions made by visitors to the website; in which case the attribution is missing.

The linked page prefixes the above text with:

Pursuant to law, materials to be published in the public domain produced by The Government of the Republic of Maldives appearing on this site are not copyright protected.

but in that case we need evidence that the images concerned are indeed "produced by The Government of the Republic of Maldives", not "third-party content" (unless separately "licensed for reuse through the independent consent of the original content owner.", and in that case would not be under a CC licence as claimed on the image pages.

Am I correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored from archive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't see the basis for the claimed licenses, but that is coming from zero expertise. Have you been in touch with the uploader? - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No; maybe User:MAL MALDIVE would like to comment here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response, was busy. I don't know. The presidency.gov.mv is the only website controlled by president's office, which mentions about copyright policy. The official website www.gov.mv does not mention copyright policy. The other official government news website Sarukaaru.gov.mv says it is copyrighted the same license as president's office in the footer in Dhivehi language. citizensvoice.gov.mv and cabinet.gov.mv also says it is licensed as president's office in the footer. All those websites are controlled by them, other than ministries websites. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information provided, the websites controlled by the President's Office of the Maldives, including presidency.gov.mv, follow a copyright policy similar to Sarukaaru.gov.mv, citizensvoice.gov.mv, and cabinet.gov.mv. These sites generally indicate copyright information in the footer, reflecting a consistent licensing approach. In contrast, the general government website, www.gov.mv, does not explicitly mention its copyright policy. For related information, including details about various topics such as the Dutch Bros Coffee Decatur menu, you might need to check specific sections or external sources. Decutar35 (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alien copyright works

I'm noticing files like File:Birkenau Three Jewish men holding an elderly woman looking behind her.jpg have been tagged with PD-US alien property, but there isn't any evidence of the Alien Property seized the copyright to this image. Was there ever a blanket seizure of enemy government intellectual property by the APC (incl copyright) during WW2? Otherwise this image shouldn't be allowed. I found this US government magazine which said During World War II, the U.S. government ... assumed control of the copyrights of alien combatant nationals. Citizens of Germany, Italy, and other countries at war against the United States lost their intellectual property rights in the United States, but I could be misinterpreting it. Thoughts? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any copyrights or claims to copyright owned by the German or Japanese governments during World War II were included within the scope of the Alien Property Custodian's control over government property. The APC controlled copyrights held by governments themselves in addition to those of citizens of enemy countries. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what happened to the copyrights after the war? I know that the State of Bavaria acquired the copyright to Mein Kampf and they used their ownership to block its publication in Germany. However its copyright expired in 2015 (70 years after Hitler's death) and this caused the Bavarian Government some concern. Furthermore, the Auschwitz Album was ever under US control until after the war. Its owner, a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz found it in a drawer after the SS had fled and before she was liberated by the Soviets. This suggests to me that after the war, the copyrights, along with all sorts of other objects were returned to their rightful owners. I know that when William Shirer write his monumnetal book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", he had a limited time to consult the original documents before the US Government retunred them to the Federal Republic of West Germany. As a result, I doubt that the US Government still controls such copyrights. Another point is that we do not know who the photographers were - two names were metioned, but it is not knows who took which photo (or even if they were the original photographers). All that we can say for definite is that the photogrpahs were taken as part of the official duties of employees of the Nazi State and as such are protected as annonymous photographs. Martinvl (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scenario probably falls under {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}, since I doubt the work (photo) itself indicated the name of the author. At least that's what DeepL translates this German law as, it could be a bit off. It's not relevant whether the US government returned the copyrights or not, because s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 104A#(a)(2) says was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian. Therefore, since the copyright would also still have been owned by the German government in 1996, there is no URAA restoration and since there's a very high chance US copyright formalities weren't followed for {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} to apply in the first place, it would be PD in both Germany and the US. Did I make a mistake in this comment? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} is very tricky. First of all, it only applies to regularly published works (“Juristische Personen des öffentlichen Rechtes, die als Herausgeber ein Werk erscheinen lassen, das den Namen des Urhebers nicht angibt, werden, wenn nicht ein anderes vereinbart ist, als Urheber des Werkes angesehen.”), not just any photo created for the state or by state employees. And by published I don't mean that some photographic prints were made and sent to others, which we often consider to be enough for publication in the context of US copyright law. I don't see PD-Germany-§134-KUG applying here. And that no names are indicated on a print does not necessarily mean we can consider such works to be anonymous. Per German law, if the author is known in some way that's enough for 70 years pma protection. It's very hard to find out if an author is known in some way, which is the main reason why the German wikipedia does not accept anonymous works which are only 70 years old; they need to be at least 100 years old and thoroughly researched. --Rosenzweig τ 12:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what this essentially means is that the Auschwitz album is technically unpublished, since the photos weren't published with the consent of the author. Therefore the photos would have to be considered 70pma works, and they should be deleted. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole APC scenario only applies inside the US. It does not affect copyright in Germany. So while the US copyrights to Mein Kampf were controlled by the APC, the German copyrights were transferred (by a tribunal decision) to the state of Bavaria (and finally expired at the end of 2015). --Rosenzweig τ 12:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Vaschem website Walters, in 1965/6, initially tried to deny taking the photos but eventually admitted to having taken some of them (we don't know which ones). According to Wikidata, he died on 7 August 1994. Ernst Hoffman disappeared after the war and could not be found in order to give evidence at the 1965/6 trial. Martinvl (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vivited the New York Digital Collections Website and found similar photographs by anther Hoffman (a very common German surname). This Hoffman died in 1957. The copyright status, as given by the library was "The copyright and related rights status of this item has been reviewed by The New York Public Library, but we were unable to make a conclusive determination as to the copyright status of the item. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use." In other words, they were ducking the issue. Martinvl (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be de:Heinrich Hoffmann (Fotograf), Hitler's favorite photographer. His photographs are still protected in Germany until the end of 2027. --Rosenzweig τ 16:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hoffman is a very common name in Germany. Ernst Hoffman and Heinrich Hoffman were two different people. Heinrich died in 1957 and nothing has been heard of Ernst since 1945, even though the Germans wanted him to testify at the Frankfurt Trial of 1963/5. Martinvl (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were writing about "anther Hoffmann" who "died in 1957". If this is not Heinrich Hoffmann, then who else? --Rosenzweig τ 07:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the website of the United Stats Holocaust Museum and their website stated that there were no known copyright restrictions on the Auschwitz Album. (See for example here). The image in question is from the same collection, so in my view it should have the same copyright notice (ie PD). Since Walters would not identify which photos in the Auschwitz album were his, and Hoffman wad dissappeared, we must assume that the photos are orphaned and that we should count 50 years from the time of the 1963/5 Frankfurt Trial. maning that they are now in the public domain. Martinvl (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original publication of these photos was presumably made without complying with the US notice and renewal requirements. And any work whose rights were ever held by the APC, and which would, if restored, belong to a foreign government or an instrumentality thereof (and these would belong to a government entity in Germany), is ineligible for URAA restoration.

This of course only speaks to the public domain status of these photos in the US. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about the copyright of these images. They qualify for {{Orphan work}}, and there is no way a former employee of a Nazi concentration camp could claim a copyright today. Yann (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German copyright law disagrees with that notion. Even Hitler's works were protected by copyright until the end of 2015. --Rosenzweig τ 10:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But you need to make the distinction between theoretical copyright, and practical possibilities of enforcing it. The potential copyright owner would need to prove that he is the author, which not only practically very difficult, but also very risky as implication for his criminal activities. There is no contest that Hitler was the author of My Kampf. It is very different for an obscure employee to prove his status, and that he was the photographer. Concretely for us, this is way beyond significant doubt. Yann (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should be keeping files like this if they are not PD in the country of origin. The question is about the US side of things, if they are. (This one seems to be PD-anon-70 in Germany, now.) The US and other allies did confiscate foreign copyrights[1], but I think they gradually restored the copyright of any private individuals after the war. Owners likely could not sue for infringement which happened during the war, but did get their rights back for any future infringements. I'm not sure if that happened for government-owned works though. Of course, those rights did include the requirement to have a copyright notice on published works, and file renewals, so most still fell into the PD in the US anyways. The British did something similar -- they extinguished the copyrights in their territory. They did restore copyrights of private citizens, but not sure they ever did for government woks (and the EU copyright restorations may have only applied to expired works, not extinguished works -- there was a scholarly article which argued that.[2]) The URAA of course restored copyright lost to lack of notice; it does have the exception that any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof was not restored. This particular work was never physically owned by the US government it sounds like, though became known, and used in evidence in some 1960s trials. The US copyright would have been conceptually owned by the Alien Property Custodian though, and it would be owned by a government today if it still existed. I'm not sure how such works would be treated, but of course the big reason behind that clause was to not allow suppression of Nazi materials via copyright machinations. It's a gray area, but you could make the argument that it was owned by the Alien Property Custodian. Not sure we should be deleting it, if the only reason is a maybe/maybe-not URAA restoration where we don't have any precedent. These copyright seizures of course only applied within the United States (and the British extinguishments within the UK) -- usage in other countries would not be affected, so we should be looking at the term in the country of origin as well. I would say the file in question is licensed OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we know the author, and s/he died after 1953, then it is clearly still under a copyright in Germany. I am talking about files for which authorship is unknown. For these World War 2 images, the copyright expired after 1996, so URAA may apply. If I understood correctly, that was the initial question, and that's why the Alien Property matters. In addition, for pictures of Auschwitz, Polish law applies, not German law. Yann (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to both Vashem and United States Holocaust Museum photos from the AUschwitz Album are Public Domain. Unless you have a qualification in copyright law (I don't), I believe that it is sufficent that we accept their word. In order to comply with Commons rules, I suggest that it is in order to place PD templates for both the United States and Germany wth a note stating that we are following the advice of Yad Vashen and of the United States Holocaust Museum. Martinvl (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't get the impression that either of these institutions particularly cares about German copyright, they focus on US copyright. In Germany, works by de:Bernhard Walter (SS-Mitglied) (who died in 1979, not 1994) are still protected until the end of 2049. Works by Ernst Hofmann (with one f, not Hoffmann with two f's) are also obviously not anonymous, since we do know the author. As long as we don't know when he died, the only way we could keep his photographs when applying German copyright is with {{PD-old-assumed}} after 120 years, so in 2065.

Yann claimed that for Auschwitz photographs, PD-Poland applies. Inside Poland, certainly. For us – I do have my doubts. The Auschwitz camp was located in a part of Poland that had been formally annexed by Nazi Germany. It's debatable of course if that annexation was legal, but it happened, and I've used the fact to actually keep files (not photographs, but stamps from there with PD-Germany-§134-KUG, one of the cases in which that template does apply). If these were photos taken by Poles somewhere in that annexed territory (not necessarily just the camp), I'd be less hesitant to apply PD-Poland than in this case, where the known authors were Germans taking the photos in a territory which had been officially declared to be a part of Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 11:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These would have been simple photos in the pre-EU German law I think, maximum 50 years from publication, or 50 years from creation if not published. (At the time of creation, that term was 25, not 50. I can't remember exactly when the extension to 50 happened.) After the EU directive they would be anonymous, 70 years from publication, or creation if not published in that time. If Walters did not identify which photos were his, then I'm not sure that's enough to remove the anonymous state (the author must reveal their identity). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Simple" photographs that were "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" (documents of contemporary history) were protected for 50 years in 1985; then in 1995 the distinction was dropped and all "simple" photographs were protected for 50 years. And then the courts basically abolished simple photographs (by declaring them to be photographic works with 70 years pma), with only few exceptions. The protocol of what Walter (not Walters) said is here. To me, it reads like Walter claimed these photos of prisoners arriving at the Rampe were taken by Hofmann. --Rosenzweig τ 14:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality is not a criteria used to determine copyright. It is the place of publication which matters. So unless we would know that the pictures taken in Auschwitz were brought to actual Germany and first published there, and never used at the time in actual Poland, I don't see any reason to doubt that Polish law applies. Yann (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we assume that they were first published in Poland? Even if they were developed in Poland, where they were handed to a publisher and reproduced is the question, and I can't see that being in wartime Poland.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was the purpose of these pictures? Were they not used within the Auschwitz camp itself? IMO that would count as publication. Yann (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Auschwitz, at that time, was in a territory which had been officially annexed by Nazi Germany. See above. --Rosenzweig τ 11:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Using that excuse for deleting images of Auschwitz is certainly not right for me. Do we use Russian law for historical images of Baltic states, or for the part of Poland which was annexed by the Soviet Union at the same time? In addition, you seem to change tactics when one doesn't work: first saying nationality matters, and then annexation of territories by Nazi Germany should be taken into account. What next? Yann (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using any "tactics" here, so I don't see how I could be changing them. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. --Rosenzweig τ 19:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Call it what you want, but you made arguments not based on copyright law. And you didn't answer my questions. Actually, after reading en:Auschwitz Album and fr:Album d'Auschwitz, I see that you could have made a useful argument. It is said there that these pictures were made to be shown to high-level Nazi officials, or in French, to "be shown to his superiors in Berlin" (montrer à ses supérieurs à Berlin). So one could indeed argue they were never used in Auschwitz, and that first publication occurred in Berlin only. Yann (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moral outrage is also not a criterion of copyright. And what "arguments not based on copyright law"? You mean your remark about nationality? Please take a look at the Berne Convention, Article 5 (4) (c) about the country of origin for unpublished works (as these may well legally be), saying that the country of origin in that cases shall be "the country of the Union of which the author is a national". And yes, in the case of territories which belonged to different states over time (and I'm not talking about a "mere" occupation), we should consider which law to use when a specific period of time is concerned. I've applied German law to works published in the German empire in places which are now a part of Poland or Russia (or Denmark, Belgium, France), but were not in 1910 or 1925. Or take a place like Lemberg/Lwów/Lwiw, which changed hands several times. Between the World Wars, the city belonged to Poland, and if we have a work originating or published there in that time, we should consider using Polish law. --Rosenzweig τ 09:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hoffman never claimed authorship himself -- so I do wonder if under German law they are still technically anonymous, thus PD-anon-70-EU. The English translation of the German law says it moves to 70pma only if the author reveals his or her identity within the period designated. The "leaves no doubt as to his or her identity" part seems to be only for a pseudonym, not purely anonymous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: The relevant law for these old works is the old version of the Urheberrechtsgesetz before it was changed in 1995, see [3]. And § 66 about anonymous and pseudonymous works in that version says (2) Die Dauer des Urheberrechts berechnet sich auch im Falle des Absatzes 1 nach den §§ 64 und 65, [...] wenn innerhalb der in Absatz 1 bezeichneten Frist der wahre Name oder der bekannte Deckname des Urhebers nach § 10 Abs. 1 angegeben oder der Urheber auf andere Weise als Schöpfer des Werkes bekannt wird, [...] The important part is the last one: or if the author becomes known as the creator of the work in another way. No need for the author to reveal himself. --Rosenzweig τ 11:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the old version of this law they became PD in 1970 or so (25 years after publication, or if not considered published, then creation). So not sure the older situation there matters -- just what is the law after the EU directive, since that is the only thing which could give it a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes, that is a bit of a quandary in this particular case. The rule is (COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works) to apply the old version of the law if the new version would shorten the term of protection. For most kinds of works, that is the case, since Germany had introduced terms of 70 years (pma) in 1965. Not for photographs though, because while the 1965 law already defined photographic works, they had the same term of 25 years (not pma) as the "simple" photographs. The 70 years pma for photographic works came in 1985, along with the 50 years for "simple" photos that were "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" (which those arguably are). If we take the year 1944 as the start year for the 25 year term, it would have expired in 1969. If we take 1965 as suggested somewhere above (and still within 25 years from creation), the original term would have lasted until 1990, and they would have received the new 70 years pma term introduced in 1985 (because the author had become known, and the change which eliminated that clause from the law happened only in 1995). So it seems to depend on what year is defined as the year of publication. Per [4], the publication history is somewhat convoluted, and I'm not sure which of the events mentioned there (copying, use of some photos in books and trials etc. until there was a book in 1980/1981) count as proper publication per German copyright law. --Rosenzweig τ 13:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they would have been "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" even in 1985 -- it would not be until the EU directive went in, which also changed the threshold of originality, that their restored copyright would been longer. The old term would not have depended on the anonymous definition, at all -- before the EU directive they were (at most) 50 years from publication, or creation if not published. Even if not published until 1965, the maximum old term would have expired in 2016. So the only copyright is from the restored copyright in the EU directive. At that point, the question is if it's still anonymous (under the new law) or if 70pma applies. If 70pma, we are in orphan work territory, but with a government-owned copyright. If anonymous, then the publication date matters a lot -- if in 1944, or technically never, they are PD. If 1965, they would still have a copyright. It's on the fringiest edge though. I would care more about a private copyright, rather than government-owned where there are all sorts of additional gray areas and uncertainties. If the government issues a take-down (or DR) with supporting logic, we could analyze it better then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A demand by the German government for Auschwitz photos to be taken down is extremely unlikely :-) --Rosenzweig τ 19:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig @Yann @Prosfilaes

Parts of this discussion highlight some more general problems with "country of origin" debates on Wikimedia Commons.

The purpose of the Berne Convention was never to designate a single country of origin in the way that Wikimedia Commons users would like (for finding that photos are in the public domain in the United States and the country of origin). Before Berne, countries' copyright laws often only protected works published in that country and/or published abroad by nationals of that country. The purpose of Berne was to provide for protection beyond what was already provided for in those older laws. The "country of origin" provisions have a fairly limited purpose. Their main function is to determine the minimum term of protection for a work not considered a domestic work under Berne.

Many countries' laws consider creations by that country's nationals, or first published in that country, to be domestic works — like under pre-Berne laws. For instance, the current German law provides for protection of all works by German nationals, persons eligible for restoration of German nationality, and EU/EEA nationals (§120), irrespective of where the works were created or published. Only in other cases do §§121–123 (on copyright protection for foreign nationals, stateless persons and refugees) apply, which include the provision (§121-4) that provides for protection according to the terms of copyright treaties (including the Berne Convention). When dealing with a work by a German national, the terms of the treaty never come into play.

The EU Copyright Term Directive, likewise, says, "Where the country of origin of a work, within the meaning of the Berne Convention, is a third country, and the author of the work is not a Community national, the term of protection granted by the Member States shall expire on the date of expiry of the protection granted in the country of origin of the work, but may not exceed the term laid down in Article 1." Technically speaking, this does not say that a work published by a Community national cannot have a third country as its country of origin, but it does mean that this fact cannot be considered whenever the author is a Community national.

Imagine the case of a German national who moved to Canada, and published a book in Canada before dying in 1971. That book's Canadian copyright has expired, because Canada had a Life+50 copyright term before a non-retroactive extension in 2022. But under German law, the author's German nationality means that the country of origin (and Berne Convention altogether) never enters into consideration, and the copyright will only naturally expire in 2042. Other EU/EEA countries would also have to treat this work by similar rules — that is, treating them like works by their own nationals — even if they would not extend protection to the work if its author were not a Community national. You'll find similar provisions in the copyright laws of many countries. In short, the question of "country of origin" generally only comes up for works that fall outside of the scope of that (historic) domestic protection.

You can easily find works that are treated as domestic under the copyright laws of multiple countries. (This is quite common for simultaneously published works as well.) The text of Berne says that the country of origin, when simultaneous publication occurs, is the country in which the term of protection is the shortest. However, my understanding is that this definition is only used in countries besides those in which (due to simultaneous first publication, nationality or other factors) the work is treated as domestic. This reflects how these provisions have actually been implemented. For instance, if our hypothetical Canadian author's work were published simultaneously in Canada and Germany, §121-1 of German law would seem to indicate that it would be treated the same way as a German national's work (under German law itself, without depending on the national treatment provisions of the treaties), since §121-4 (treaty-based protection) only applies in cases where §121-1 (protection for works first published in Germany, etc.) does not apply. (As you might imagine, the question of country of origin becomes significantly more complicated for recent works, thanks to the internet, but I'll leave that topic for another time.)

As applies to the Auschwitz Album, there are both factual and potential legal questions here. The factual questions are about the exact circumstances of the photographs' creation and first publication (who made them, where were they published, when were they published, was it a lawful publication, etc.). Legal questions could follow based on what the facts are (is this considered an anonymous work, etc.). The relevant questions depend on the jurisdiction in which copyright is being discussed.

Finally, we have an extra-legal question, "Whose rules should be taken into account on Commons?" I say this is extra-legal because Commons has no legal obligation to follow any non-US copyright law; Commons does so voluntarily. Should German or Polish law be taken into consideration? That's totally up to Commons. If these works were created by Germans, then they'd be treated as domestic works under German law, no matter what — though Germany might or might not be the country of origin under other countries' laws, depending on the precise facts. While the Nazi regime considered the area where they were made to be German territory, this annexation was not recognized as valid by many other countries. I don't think that is really relevant in this case, in all likelihood — I assume they were not published until after the war — but we must consider that, in a hypothetical scenario where a work was first published in that territory that Germany claimed to have annexed, during the time it was controlled by Germany, in those rare instances where country of origin is actually taken into consideration by actual law, a country that does not recognize the validity of the annexation would probably not consider it to have been published in Germany.

But, in the end, the country of origin rules were never intended to serve the purpose for which they are used on Commons.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So basically: Copyright law (of all nations) was not made for the age of the Internet. I'd even say it is ill-suited for almost anything except published books. --Rosenzweig τ 19:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. While copyright law was not made for the Internet, and there are definitely many problems that might arise from its application online, this problem comes from a Commons community rule, not copyright law. Wikimedia Commons has to care about US law, because it's hosted in the United States. However, since Commons could be accessed from anywhere in the world, the community chose to adopt further restrictions based on foreign law. The most conservative policy would be to reject any content that isn't in the public domain everywhere. But this rule would be extremely restrictive, so it doesn't have much support from users. There are other potential general rules, but any general application of non-US copyright to all files would preclude the addition of many items that are in the public domain in the US due to a lack of notice or renewal.

So the Commons community instead decided on the "US plus country of origin" rule. But the country of origin provisions in the Berne Convention were not intended to be used for this purpose, and they often don't matter for determining the copyright status of work X in country Y. Moreover, Commons community decisions regularly fail to conform to the actual Berne rule. Commons users frequently fail to distinguish between a work's country of origin (under Berne, or US law) and other countries (such as the country where it was produced or where the author lived or was a national). In particular, the FoP rules are almost always applied based on country of production, even though that's not the country of origin. Arguably, all files first published on Commons are US works, but putting that aside... if an American visits France, takes pictures of buildings and returns home to the US before uploading the photos to Commons, the photos' country of origin is indisputably the United States — but such photos would uniformly be deleted because France is treated as the country of origin by Commons users.

By contrast, most other free-content sites only focus strictly on the copyright law in the country in which they are based. For instance, the major institutional and university library repositories of digitized content in Germany follow only the German law. Even the English Wikipedia allows for any PD-US content to be added there — and it of course is not legally distinct from Commons at all. There's no legal reason Commons couldn't decide to host any file that is PD in the US — the WMF already does this. Any problems resulting from difficulties in determining the correct country of origin arise only because of the community's rule. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a totally different approach that can be taken - at the Frankfurt Trial Walter denied taking the photos, though he later admitted to having taken some, but did not clarify which ones. If his statement to the court is interpreted that he did not want to be associated with the photographs that he took, then he effectively put them into the public domain (or was happy for Hoffman to be credited with taking them). The copyright of the photographs that were taken by Hoffman however remained Hoffman's property. We know that Hoffman was born in 1901 and that he was last seen in 1945 when the Russians were advancing on the eastern parts of Germany. Under the German law of presumption of death, Hoffman would be presumed to have died on 31 December 1955, unless his presumed death was under "other disappearances under life-threatening circumstances [in which his death is assumed to have occurred] 1 year from the end of the mortal danger (one year after 8th May 1945) - ie 8th May 1946.

If the latter case were to be accepted by the courts, then any photos taken by Hoffman are out of copyright as 70 years have passed since his death, otherwise they enter the public domain on 1 January 2026. In summary then, we don't know which photos were taken by Walter and which were taken by Hoffman. Walter's performance in the Frankfurt Trial was tantamount to renouncing his claims on the photos that he took and there is a good case that Hoffman's images are already in the public domain. Therefore, either way, the photos are in the public domain. Martinvl (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Hofmann (not Hoffman) was declared dead by a court, there must be a record somewhere. From what I know, such cases were recorded in the death register of the Standesamt I of Berlin (the civil registration office I). The records of that register from 1939 to 1955 are online at Ancestry, I could not find him in there. Maybe he was declared to be dead after 1955. Or maybe he was not. Such a declaration is only made on request (§ 16 of the Verschollenheitsgesetz) by either a state attorney, a legal representative of the missing person, family members or someone else having a legal interest in the matter. --Rosenzweig τ 18:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate: Werner Würbel was declared to have died on December 31, 1945 by a court declaration dated May 21, 1976. That death was recorded in the 1976 volume of the Buch für Todeserklärungen (book of death declarations) by the Standesamt I in Berlin. It was also added to the birth and marriage records of Würbel. I couldn't find those for Hofmann either, probably because he was born in a small town and those records are not yet available in digital form. --Rosenzweig τ 19:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other alternative is that Hoffmann died in the general upheaval of 1945 and was buried as an unidentified person (or his ID papers were lost). I have not seen anything about where he was last seen, though his case might be similar to that of Martin Bormman who, in May 1945, committed suicide by biting a cyanide capsule. Borman was sentenced to death in absentia at Nuremburg (1946) on the assumption that he was still alive. His remains were found in 1972. Of course, Hoffmann might have fled to South America as did Adolf Eichmann, but unlike Eichmann, was never found. Unless there is a lead, no-one will put much effort into finding out what really happened to Hoffmann unless money is involved. Martinvl (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this article by historian Christoph Kreutzmüller credits many photos to either Hofmann or Walter and only a few to Hofmann or Walter. I don't know how he arrived at these conclusions. Christoph Kreutzmüller is the co-author of a thorough book about the album published in Germany in 2019, maybe he and his co-authors, while researching the book, found records allowing them this attribution to the photographers. --Rosenzweig τ 18:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That book is apparently not available online, but the en:Federal Agency for Civic Education offered a special edition for a rather low price. I've went ahead and ordered it; should arrive in a few days (Thursday or so). --Rosenzweig τ 19:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see what the legal pages of the book have to say. As I have said before, Yad Vaschem have stated that the images in the book are in the public domain, though we don't know how they came to that conclusion or whether there are any limitations as to what they mean by "public domain". I kinow that certain publishers are very careful about attributing the correct rights to the creators of images. As an example, in 2020 I received e-mail asking for permission to use an image that I had donated to Commons. The writer's publishers would not accept a Creative Commons licence, so I gave him explicit permission to use the image. One hopes that the authors of the book that you have ordered also give explict information about the copyright status of the photos that they have used. Martinvl (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have received the book and will report on what it has to say after I've had some time to look at it. --Rosenzweig τ 12:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I could not find anything about the copyright status of the photos in this book. Which does not really surprise me. Most likely they didn't even consider that there could be copyright problems. The authors are historians, and for important historical photos of that kind, German copyright law offers various exemptions/exceptions (similar to US "fair use") which they can use to publish them. None of these would cover use for all purposes (including commercial/advertising etc. like we want), but reprinting such photos in a scholarly book discussing them in detail would be fine.

They did research the biographies of the photographers. That of Walter is well known (see de:Bernhard Walter (SS-Mitglied)), while Hofmann's is a bit more obscure. I've condensed what they report into a Wikidata entry, see Ernst Hofmann at Wikidata. Born in 1901, he did not die in the war, but got taken as a prisoner of war by Western Allied forces near Hildburghausen, Thuringia (close to where had been living before) on May 20, 1945. He was released from French custody in 1948 in the town of Tuttlingen in the French occupation zone, and that's the last trace they found of him. They go on to speculate (they have no evidence) that he may have lived out his life in West Germany (not East Germany because they think that the Soviets would have imprisoned him again or killed him).

The POW info came from the de:Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), where records about millions of POWs are kept. They also inquired at his birth town and at the city archive of the city where he had worked before joining the SS, but they had no additional information. Ernst Hofmann was a rather common name in Germany in those days, even today it is not what I would call rare. He could have changed his name as well. That was apparently very easy right after the end of the war, but I can imagine it even in 1948. More information may be found at some point in the future, but right now the story ends in 1948.

They do identify the photographers for several of the photograph, mostly based on the style of photography it seems. I'll try to add that information to the files we have. --Rosenzweig τ 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh

COM:Bangladesh is already outdated; the country introduced a new copyright law last year (Copyright Act 2023, in Bengali text unfortunately and I can't find an English translation online).

Screenshot-"ing" and translating parts of the law using Google Translate mobile app, especially those at Sections 70–73, made me guess that there may be no more Freedom of Panorama there. My guess may be wrong though, it is very hard if there is still no available English text that is reliable, whether official or unofficial translation.

Though this Daily Star article may give a clue: the new law abolishes majority of the British law-inspired exceptions and limitations (including fair dealing ones), replacing with a fewer list inspired by American fair use concept. Since copyright laws patterned after the U.S. law are notorious for lacking Freedom of Panorama (see also COM:FOP Sri Lanka; U.S. FoP itself is not emulated outside the U.S. as it is subject to scholarly criticism within the U.S. itself), my guess is that FoP has ceased to exist in Bangladesh since last year.

Though I would want to have Bangladeshi users analyze the Bengali text of the law. Ping the organizer of Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2024 in Bangladesh, @Aishik Rehman: . Ping also @আফতাবুজ্জামান and Mrb Rafi: from the talk page of WLM-2024 to help in finding a Freedom of Panorama clause in the new (2023) law, if it still exists (hopefully it still exists). Ping also @Moheen: whom I recently interacted on Messenger about FoP. Again, here is the official Bengali text copy of the new law, from the Bangladeshi copyright office website.

Note to Bangladeshi users: the lack of FoP only impacts the inclusion of recent monuments and architecture of Bangladesh in WLM events, typically those whose architects, sculptors, and artisans (of artistic craftsmanship works) have not yet died for more than 60 years (consistent with the copyright terms of Bangladesh). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping peeps who regularly discuss FoP-related things @Clindberg, Adamant1, Yann, and Jmabel: . It's frustrating that there is no immediate English translation that is available online, and I instead rely on news or online articles, one of which (that I mentioned here) implies that the 2023 Copyright Act of Bangladesh eliminated the long list of exceptions based in British-style fair dealing regime, replacing these with U.S.-inspired fair use exceptions, and it is worth noting that U.S.-inspired laws do not permit FoP (regardless of AWCPA amendment of 1990 which introduced architectural FoP in the U.S.), like the case of Sri Lanka. Even the Philippine law, which is heavily inspired by the old U.S. laws (with roots in the 1909 Copyright Act of the United States), does not allow FoP too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explicitly stated in this another online source, the new law introduces protection for folk works like folk songs, thereby introducing a domaine public payant regime. Some changes to note include the introduction of site blocking provision, provision for non-commercial uses of works by the PWDs (persons with disabilities), and higher and stricter penalties for infringers. The standard copyright duration is apparently still 60 p.m.a.. But without a reliable English translation, it is difficult to know whether FoP remained intact in the new law or not. My wild guess is that they abolished it (considering they are abandoning the U.K.-influenced fair dealing clauses and are embracing U.S.-style fair use principle). My guess may be wrong though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably if their embracing U.S.-style law then I assume FOP would only cover buildings like in the United States. It's hard to say without an English translation of the law though. So hopefully someone who speaks Bengali weigh in. The guideline should probably be changed to "unsure" or whatever it is for the status of 2D works though if no one ever responds to this. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 applying the old 2000 law, then 2D works are technically not OK, as indicated at the current version of COM:FOP Bangladesh. Architecture, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship are only allowable copyrighted works in public spaces that can be freely depicted and published for any purposes, identical to the British FoP model.

I said that if the 2023 law aligns with the U.S. law, then possibly there is no FoP. The U.S. architectural FoP exception courtesy of 1990 AWCPA does not seem to be widely accepted elsewhere (and so not a model that other countries would want to follow): per COM:FOP Sri Lanka, the revised law (from 2003) abolished the British-style fair dealing provisions as well as the limited FoP for audio-visual media only (similar to South African one), replacing these with U.S. law-inspired fair use exceptions (like research, educational use et cetera) sans FoP; the Sri Lankan legislature does not seem favorable to any use of their public spaces (not wanting to follow U.S. 1990 AWCPA exception model). Assuming my guess based on this Daily Star source is correct, then Bangladesh becomes Sri Lanka v2.0, in terms of departing British law-inspired fair dealing and embracing U.S. law, abolishing any reference to FoP as a result. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping and apologies for the late reply - was busy with my academic work. The previous law restricted 2D art. I am a native Bangla speaker and a quick read suggests that we probably don't have FoP in Bangladesh anymore. The Bangla text is unclear about whether there is FoP or not. I'll refrain from commenting definitively until I hear from a copyright lawyer. I am trying to contact a few professionals and will update you once I have more information. -- Mrb Rafi (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrb Rafi thanks for the response. If FoP provision (e.g. "the reproduction through photography...of works of architecture and sculptures in publicly-accessible premises is not copyright infringement") is no longer present in the new (2023) law, then Bangladesh is going to be considered as a "no FoP" country for Wikimedia Commons (just like Maldives). For Commons purposes, it is no different from countries that do not allow commercial uses of buildings and monuments (like France and Kazakhstan) or that only restrict FoP legal rights to traditional media (broadcasters and newspapers for example, like the Emirates and Nigeria), and all are the "red countries" of the FoP world map. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated parts of the CRT page, based on the information available. The other parts, I'll leave to other editors. The page is being referenced in some active DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moumita Debnath's in graffiti at Dhaka University.jpg, so I felt it is necessary to update the page itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made some modifications. It appears the law was passed in September last year, and news reports that time suggest it was awaiting President's signature. I cannot find online sources on when did the President approved the law in finality. Perhaps is it still at his table, or was it already passed but not covered in English-language news sources? Still, the link to the copyright law in the website of the country's copyright office already refers to the 2023 law, not the 2000 law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're raising a valid concern regarding the new Copyright Act 2023 of Bangladesh, particularly about the potential absence of Freedom of Panorama (FoP). Given the shift from British-inspired fair dealing exceptions to a more Americanized fair use system, it's possible that FoP has indeed been affected. However, it would be best for Bangladeshi users familiar with the Bengali text of the law to provide a detailed analysis.

In the meantime, while this matter is still being clarified, those interested in online earning games in Pakistan or other regions can keep contributing to projects like Wiki Loves Monuments. Let's hope the new law still accommodates such exceptions! Game9000 (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a moment to understand that this message is an AI spam lol. Mrb Rafi (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992)

About Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Copyright status of photos by French photo studio Harcourt.

Following this previous discussions on the subject, here are sources to demonstrate that Studio Harcourt has officially released the rights to photos dating from before 1992. This evidence is based on two distinct elements: an article published in 2019 in the Canadian national newspaper (Quebec) "Le Devoir", specifically presenting as an example, a portrait of the film director Abel Gance, the date when this picture was taken, and the file uploaded and signed by Harcourt itself in Commons.

The source of the file also distributed by RMN (Ministry of Culture): [5] with precision of the date (1957) by the RMN archives for the same series of Harcourt photos: [6].

The source on Commons with uploaded by the official account of Studio Harcourt in 2010: File:GANCE Abel-24x30-.jpg.
The article published in 2019 by Le Devoir (national French-language daily newspaper of Canada / Quebec) about Wikimedia Commons and the public domain: [7] where its very last paragraph states that:

"In France, Harcourt studio in Paris has released (has freed), since the beginning of the decade, magnificent black and white portraits of stars. Hundreds of uploads now make it possible to illustrate pages on Abel Gance or Roger Federer in dozens of languages.".

This article therefore clearly states that Studio Harcourt has formally “released” (had freed) the rights of the photographs, including the portraits taken as an example, that of the director Abel Gance (died in 1981) whose Harcourt photo is dated 1957 which illustrates his Wikipedia page and which is cited as a reference in this article; this file was officially uploaded in 2010 to Commons by Studio Harcourt itself File:GANCE_Abel-24x30-.jpg. How can we explain that a photo dating from 1957 and uploaded in 2010, would be the only exception to the rights released and fallen into the public domain among all the photos dating from before 1992, then entrusted to RMN?

This clearly demonstrates that as an author, the current Studio Harcourt has clearly released the rights to the photos it holds concerning the archives dating from before 1992. These photographs have therefore been in the public domain since 1992. In its VRT ticket (#2020112910005534), the statement of the person in charge of the valorization of the collections, Mrs. Agnes BROUARD of Studio Harcourt Paris, also confirms this free status: "I must inform you that our archives from 1934 to 1991 are now the property of the Ministry of Culture, preserved by an entity called the Media Library of Architecture and Heritage and distributed by the RMN-Grand Palais photographic agency. This photographic collection is not subject to property rights, so anyone who has a portrait from the 1934-1991 period can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet." (notably cited here: File:Marcel Vaucel.jpg (« Il me faut vous indiquer que nos archives de 1934 à 1991 sont désormais propriété du Ministère de la Culture, conservées par une entité appelée Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine et diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais. Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial donc quiconque possède un portrait de l'époque 1934-1991 peut l'utiliser librement et vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet. »).

I will leave it to the admins and contributors more experienced than me, to definitively close this contradictory debate on Commons and why not, define a specific model for Studio Harcourt's files (PD-Studio Harcourt?). Tisourcier (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you claim, Studio Harcourt " has officially released the rights to photos dating from before 1992", why did they upload this 1957 photo in 2010 with a cc-by-3.0 license tag and not as public domain? That is not the same. --Rosenzweig τ 11:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig Without saying that the public domain dedication is definitely correct, I don't think this disproves it either. It's pretty common for organizations to mistag PD items as CC-BY or similar when uploading. (You also see this on library/institutional websites, where the wrong copyright tag is put on some files.) A lot of the time, it is because the person using the wizard doesn't understand how it works or doesn't know the difference. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean that anything Studio Harcourt says is apparently not exactly trustworthy, and an offhand remark by a Harcourt employée (as discussed earlier) is not a solid enough basis to host hundreds, potentially even many thousands of files. --Rosenzweig τ 11:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't indicate anything about trustworthiness (which is largely irrelevant, frankly, when it comes to licensing to anything for which Studio Harcourt might own a copyright). In any case, a mistake made by a user uploading a file on Wikimedia Commons, even on behalf of Harcourt, cannot invalidate a statement from the studio on the photos being in the public domain. (You might argue that the statement itself was never properly given by someone with the authority to give it, but that's another matter entirely.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such mistakes (there is at least one other, a ca. 1980 photo also among the 2010 uploads) do make me doubt how serious we can take anything coming from that user. And I think it's one more reason that we should have a proper declaration, with all the legal trimmings we usually demand for VRT permissions, by the current or former copyright holder of the images in question, precisely spelling out the copyright status of these images. For (right now) hundreds (and potentially even many thousands) of images we should not rely on guesswork and vague claims. --Rosenzweig τ 09:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we just ask Ministère de la Culture for confirmation of the tag to use for the 1934 to 1991 collection?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999 :

This point has allready been discussed. On December 17, 2014, this official information report filed with the National Assembly under number 2474, publicly reveals that RMN (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Ministry of Culture) commits multiple "copyfrauds" and that it is appropriate to put an end to them (page 42, proposal No. 9 of the official national publication, here)[[8]].

For intellectual and industrial property in France, unlike the "copyright" of English-speaking countries, the "droit d'auteur", that is to say the recognition of the author of the work, can never be assigned. In this case, because the official "author" recognized by French regulations is not RMN (Ministry of Culture / French State) which manages this "patrimoine" (patrimonyy/legacy), but remains necessarily Studio Harcourt. The quality of author can never be granted, in accordance with French regulations.
Given that the Studio Harcourt company has never been put into "liquidation" (closeout) but has been taken over several times by various successive shareholders and that this company still exists today, the declaration it made to Wikimedia Commons confirming that all photos dating from before 1992 are indeed free of all rights, there is no valid reason for RMN or the French State to disclose a contractual document dating from the same period and covered by business secrets ("secret des affaires"). Since the official "author" recognized as such provides a declaration attesting that the Studio Harcourt photos from before 1992 are free of rights, is therefore clearly sufficient.

Tisourcier (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim “that the Studio Harcourt company has never been put into "liquidation" (closeout)” clearly contradicts what Günther Frager wrote here, namely that

“The current company, Studio Harcourt,  was established in October 30th, 1992 [9]. The previous company, Studios Photographiques Harcourt, was established in 1980 and closed in November 7th, 1991 [10].”

Technically, it would be correct because the "old" Harcourt company was apparently not officially named Studio Harcourt (its name was Studios Photographiques Harcourt), but according to that info the current company was founded in 1992 and is apparently not the author of the pre-1992 images. Which makes one wonder how they could upload that 1957 Abel Gance photo (and another ca. 1980 photo I found among their 2010 uploads) with a CC license. --Rosenzweig τ 11:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I would add yet another reference, in this official document from the Ministry of Culture summarizing the achievements during the period 1988-1993 mentions Liquidation judiciaire des studios HARCOURT. Günther Frager (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The research I had done in the past concluded that the images were released into the public domain by the French Government for the pre-1992 tranche that they have in their possession. I don't have the time to start the research all over again. The issue in the past was if the images were "public domain" or released under a "creative commons" license. I had a conversation with the current copyright holders, who have been posting more recent images that were not part of the government tranche. They were not sure what the terms of the transfer were. Has anyone been in contact with them more recently? They may have found out more details since my last contact. --RAN (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have claimed that the French state released all of those photos under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. See here and here. But you provided zero evidence for that claim. See also the previous (now archived) VPC Harcourt thread linked at the beginning of that thread. --Rosenzweig τ 10:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Canadian article mentions the 100 photos that Harcourt uploaded to Commons (and that you can find in the category Uploads by User:Studio Harcourt), what is adding to the discussion? Nothing. Nobody is trying to delete the images uploaded by that particular user. Jumping to the conclusion that 5.000.000 images are in the public domain because they licensed 100 photos under CC-BY is a fallacy. Also, an image with a CC-BY license is not in the public domain, it is a copyrighted image with a license that has few restrictions and no monetary obligation. Releasing a 1957 photo under CC-BY gives evidence that it is copyrighted. Günther Frager (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> Also, an image with a CC-BY license is not in the public domain, it is a copyrighted image with a license that has few restrictions and no monetary obligation. Releasing a 1957 photo under CC-BY gives evidence that it is copyrighted.

It is true that CC-BY is a license that can only apply to a copyrighted image, but uploading a file to Wikimedia Commons with such a tag isn't evidence that is it copyrighted. Many users have erroneously uploaded public domain images under CC licenses (on Commons and elsewhere). Such a license tag has the effect of granting a license if the user is a copyright holder, but doesn't provide evidence of anything in particular. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about "releasing" not about tagging files in Commons and I'm doing so to point out the faulty reasoning used by another user. I'm neither claiming that the 1957 image is copyrighted nor that it is in the public domain nor that its copyright holder is the company legally established in 1992 under the name Studio Harcourt. Discussing the verity of a conclusion is pointless when the reasoning is invalid. Günther Frager (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference source highlighting that Studio Harcourt was never liquidated but was successively taken over by different shareholders, up to the current owners, is clearly developed in detail in the book by Françoise Denoyelle (historian of photography, university professor at the École nationale supérieure Louis-Lumière, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, exhibition curator and expert with the Paris Court of Appeal), published in April 2012 by Nicolas Chaudun Editions, ISBN:978-2-35039-132-8. So, Studio Harcourt is still owner of the "droits d'auteur". The question of determining which model or PD license label might be suitable on Commons for Studio Harcourt files, is a very different point to debate. Tisourcier (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Harcourt vs Mélodie
I found an interesting judiciary case (Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 4 février 2003, 2001/17786)[11] that finally settles the question of who is the copyright holder of pre-1992 photos. In 2001 the French label Mélodie published a box set named "Collection Harcourt" that compiled the music of famous French artists from 1930-1950 and used their Harcourt portraits. The Studio Harcourt sued them for trademark violation. The lengthy verdict states:

That the original Studio Harcourt established in 1934 was liquidated and the company Financieres Harcourt acquired its trademark in an auction:

-la société FINANCIERE HARCOURT a été immatriculée au registre ducommerce en novembre 1992 avec pour objet social "l'acquisition, la souscription, la détention, la prise de participations ou d'intérêts directes ou indirectes dans toute société et plus généralement toutes activités rentrant dans le cadre d'une société HOLDING";

-le 22 septembre 1992, cette même société en cours de formation acquiert par adjudication différentes marques de la société STUDIOS HARCOURT PARIS mise en liquidation judiciaire, dont une marque "Studio Harcourt" déposée le 2 octobre 1989 et enregistrée sous le numéro 1627192;

This information is not really new, I already provided several references to it.

That the patrimonial rights (droits patrimoniaux) of the pre-1992 photographs belongs to the French Ministry of Culture:

Les défenderesses ne sauraient opposer les droits de l'auteur originaire, le STUDIO HARCOURT créé en 1934, sur ces clichés, dès lors qu'elles n'en sont pas titulaires et que seul le Ministère de la Culture est propriétaire des droits patrimoniaux attachés au clichés réalisés de 1934 à 1992 par le STUDIO HARCOURT

In particular the user Studio Harcourt made copyright fraud uploading pre-1992 Harcourt photos with a CC-BY license.

That the moral rights of the pre-1992 photographs belongs to original Studio Harcourt and not the one that bought the trademark in 1992:

En l'espèce, le tribunal considère que la reproduction du nom commercial "Studio Harcourt Paris" pour désigner des clichés photographiques ne remplit pas les conditions précitées. En effet, si effectivement cette reproduction peut conduire le consommateur à penser que ces clichés proviennent du Studio demandeur, cette confusion ne cause à ce dernier aucun préjudice dès lors que lui-même dans toutes les présentations qu'il fait de son activité se situe comme héritier du Studio Harcourt originaire et joue de l'homonymie avec son illustre prédécesseur pour jouir de la renommée de celui-ci. (Cf. article Chasseur d'Images).La reproduction de son nom commercial sur des clichés dont le Studio Harcourt de 1934 est l'auteur ne saurait en conséquence lui causer un quelconque préjudice.

The previous three points makes it clear that the email from Agnes BROUARD is devoid of value as she was making claims about the intellectual property of a completely different company.

That the photographs are still copyrighted as the French Ministry of Culture authorized the reproduction of the images on the box set:

l'absence de contrefaçon de marque, la marque opposée ne désignant pas les disques ou phonogrammes du commerce et les clichés photographiques reproduits étant d'authentiques clichés provenant du Studio HARCOURT, dont les droits appartiennent à l'Etat qui en a autorisé la reproduction.

All in all, the copyright holder of the pre-1992 Harcourt photos is the French Ministry of Culture and only a handful of images are in the public domain, the pre-1937 ones. Günther Frager (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem mostly correct, but I have no idea where you get the 1937 date. The correct cutoff date would seem to be 1945 (with items from 1946 and later being deleted). On the URAA restoration date (January 1, 1996), the term of copyright for collective works in France was 50 years from publication. So, any collective work published in 1945 or earlier was in the public domain in France as of that date. (Copyright on some of those images was later extended retroactively before expiring again, but that doesn't matter for URAA purposes.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: it is 50 years + 8 years of wartime extension, see the original discussion linked at the beginning. Günther Frager (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I see it too. Note that in France Harcourt photos older than 70 years are in the public domain as collective works accd. to French law since a court had decided that Studio Harcourt photos qualify as collective works. Thanks @Günther Frager for finding that court decision. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these allegations are unfounded and partial.

No, in this judgment, it is not the court that determined the identification of the author but it only confirms that the rights are indeed managed by RMN (Ministry of Culture). At no time can the authorship be transferred to RMN and it remains with the true "author" Studio Harcourt. Then, this judgment dates from 2001-2003, while a 2014 judgment confirming precisely the "collective" nature of the author in favor of Studio Harcourt and not that of its manager (RMN) established it, in 2014.

Once again, the detractors of the public domain Studio Harcourt, shared their understanding of (incomplete) texts, to distort the facts: Studio Harcourt still exists, has never gone into complete liquidation, and has been the subject of multiple takeovers as demonstrated by the detailed historical study published by F. Denoyelle. The Studio's rights manager is therefore perfectly entitled to confirm the freedom to reproduce photos dating from before 1992, as she has done (see VTR ticket). Tisourcier (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the officiel successive takeovers history of Studio Harcourt, since 1992 [12]. The Financière Harcourt SA is clearly mentionned as the Studio Harcourt owners in the same jugement used in reference : [13]. This to confirm that Studio Harcourt never been completely liquidated. Tisourcier (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I see there is that the current Harcourt company, which was founded in 1992, owns the Studio Harcourt brand. Which, as explained above by Günther Frager, they bought in an auction. I don't see anything here that the current Harcourt company is identical with the earlier one and that this earlier company was "never liquidated" as you claim. I do get the feeling that you're mixing up the brand and the company(ies) here. --Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No : see "Etablissements de l'entreprise STUDIO HARCOURT" wich is the administrative history of Studio Harcourt company and not the "brand" [14]. Tisourcier (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That section starts on the day 30/10/1992, so exactly the date the "new" company was created. It does not go back to the days of the "old" company. So I still don't see anything to back up your claim that the earlier company was "never liquidated". --Rosenzweig τ 12:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://www.pappers.fr/entreprise/studio-harcourt-389202177 we can see that:

"Studio Harcourt Paris" was established in 1992 (see report 13/01/1993)
"Studios Photographiques de Paris" was established in 1995 (see report 22/11/1995)
"Studios Harcourt Paris" was renamed to "Financiere Harcourt" in 1996 (see report 10/01/1996)
"Financiere Harcourt" and "Studios Photographiques de Paris" were merged into a new company "Studio Harcourt" in 2009 (see report 27/07/2009)
They had the trademark "Harcourt" and "Studio Harcourt" created in 1989 (the ones they bought in the auction)
They had the trademark "Studio Harcourt Paris" created in 2009
They had a bunch of other trademarks created after 2010.

As Rosenzweig said they own the brand Harcourt Studio and can use their trademark to sell their products. They are not the company established in 1934 nor the one that initially registered the Studio Harcourt trademark in 1989. The court case also remarks that the new company using an homonym, the trademark and the same photographic style tries to leverage the prestige of the original Studio Harcourt. Günther Frager (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your research about Studio Harcourt vs Mélodie. For me, this only confirms what Agnès Brouard, the person Responsible for the promotion of [Harcourt] collections says, that the assets of Harcourt up to 1991 were brought by the state, and then released to the public domain. I don't see how this court case could prove or disprove anything else. This person is certainly the one who knows best about this, and I don't see any reason to doubt her statement. Yann (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: How does this court decision in any way confirm that the French state released the Harcourt assets up to 1991 into the public domain? It says que seul le Ministère de la Culture est propriétaire des droits patrimoniaux attachés au clichés réalisés de 1934 à 1992 par le STUDIO HARCOURT and clichés provenant du Studio HARCOURT, dont les droits appartiennent à l'Etat qui en a autorisé la reproduction. I don't see anything there about the state or ministry releasing them into the public domain. --Rosenzweig τ 17:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: It doesn't say that, but as I said above, it confirms Agnès Brouard's statement. You try to dismiss her statement as not valid. But the Ministry of Culture has all the right to release the rights, since it owns the assets. Yann (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not confirm it. In fact, it says that as of the time of the court decision, the rights belong to the state. If they had released those rights, they would not be the owners anymore, and as that would be a relevant fact for such a court decision, it would be mentioned. The state could have released the rights into the public domain at some point after that court decision, but there is no evidence for that as well (except perhaps the Brouard statement, which does not contain such details).

In any case, the court decision shows that a person employed by the Harcourt company in 2010 or 2020 was not working for the original company who created the photos, but for another company who acquired the brands/trademarks and assumed the name. So any statement by said employee is just an opinion and, yes, not legally valid in any way. So I'll stand by what I wrote some time before:

“For the third point, the theory that Harcourt photos from 1934 to 1991 are in the public domain, we have exactly one piece of evidence: that a Harcourt employee claimed so in an e-mail that the VRT has in its system. Some people want to believe it, but there are no details how and why all those photos would be in the public domain, who put them there and where that would apply (France only or also in the US?). COM:VRT demands a rather detailed and outspoken declaration from anyone wanting to release media under a free license. I don't see why there should be a lesser standard for the Harcourt photos, especially considering how many images we're talking about here. Only a part of the 5 million images will be relevant for Commons, but as Harcourt was considered a celebrity studio, that might still be a few percent. Even 3 % of 5 million are 150.000. [...] My opinion is that for so many files, we should have a PD declaration which is at least as solid and explicit as those usually demanded by the VRT. What we have at present is nothing of the sort.” --Rosenzweig τ 18:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you are trying all sorts of bad excuses for not accepting Agnès Brouard's statement. She is certainly one of most knowledgeable persons about this, at least outside of the Ministry of Culture itself. Actually I find her more reliable, as she doesn't have a conflict of interest. As we say in French, qui veut noyer son chien l’accuse de la rage. Yann (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Saying that her statement is simply not a legally valid permission of the kind we usually demand per our VRT standards is not in any way a bad excuse. And do you know her background, her qualifications? Or how else can you declare that "She is certainly one of most knowledgeable persons about this" and has no conflict of interest? Just because she works or worked for the current Harcourt company? --Rosenzweig τ 19:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is the person Responsible for the promotion of [Harcourt] collections. Managing copyrights is exactly within her responsibilities. She is certainly aware of history of copyrights managed by her company. So yes, her statement is not in the form usually accepted in VRT, but I don't see it as less valid than VRT declarations. The content of her statement is clear. So in brief, she has the expertise to give that information, and she did it without any ambiguity. And since, the copyright status of these pictures is not managed any more by her company, she has no reason to say something different than the truth. In the opposite, the Réunion des musées nationaux (RMN), which is the organization managing copyright for the Ministry of Culture, is known for making false statements about copyright. RMN regularly claims a copyright for documents on which its doesn't have any right, or for documents centuries old. Yann (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't really know anything about this person except her name and job title at the current Harcourt company and only make assumptions based on that. That's not good enough. --Rosenzweig τ 20:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann, you are clearly wrong here, both substantially and procedurally.

For starters, everyone agrees that the copyright of certain older Harcourt photos expired naturally. Those photos are OK to keep. However, there are many other Harcourt photos to which the copyrights have not naturally expired. It is alleged by some that these photos were dedicated to the public domain. However, we have no actual evidence whatsoever of that dedication taking place. All the available evidence would seem to indicate that the copyrights were never disclaimed by the French government. Additionally, even if they were, the VRT statement from Agnes Brouard is of absolutely no value (even if she happened to be correct).

Copyright to images transferred; corporate succession irrelevant. We know from the court case cited by @Günther Frager that the copyrights to the old Harcourt images were sold to the French government in 1989. The company itself wasn't even dissolved until a few years later. Whether or not the original Harcourt had any legal successor as a company, however, is totally irrelevant, because, as soon as the ownership of the copyrights had been transferred to the French government, it was the government, and not any company called Harcourt (same or different, old or new), which would have the authority to release the images into the public domain.
French government seems unlikely to have dedicated copyrights to the public domain. As you note, the French government has a business selling copyright licenses. And all the Harcourt images on the French government-affiliated websites contain claims that the French government owns the copyright. You are correct to say that the government often overstates its rights. Where images are, in fact, in the public domain, we can ignore these overstatements. But this is an instance where the images could only be in the public domain if the government, after purchasing the rights, explicitly disclaimed them — there has certainly been no natural expiration of copyright. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the government would have done this, as it's inconsistent with not only their current claims on these particular photos, but also with the fact that they have have a business doing photo licensing more generally. I cannot find any instance where the French government has made any similar donation. Additionally, the French lawsuit which refers to the government as the current owner of the copyrights implies that the photos were not in the public domain at that time — which this does not prove that this hasn't changed since, we have no evidence for that. (As an aside, the rights page on the site of the Réunion des Musées Nationaux seems to draw a distinction between when a reprocuction fee is charged and when the copyright itself is included within the reproduction fees: La mention Droits : Etat, signifie que le droit d'auteur est inclus dans le droit de reproduction. Droits : Etat is found on all Harcourt images from the RMN.)
Purpose of VRT; effect of statements. The purpose of VRT is to collect proof of permission from the copyright holder. When a copyright holder sends permission to VRT, this is self-executing; the message is the grant of permission. This archived permission could be used in court if contested. Brouard may have had the authority to act for her employer (New Harcourt), but her employer was certainly not the copyright holder. Even if she had some sort of expertise, VRT is for permission statements, not commentary from third parties, even experts. If Brouard had some proof of the Harcourt photos being dedicated to the public domain (actual evidence), that would be one thing. But we have no such thing. Brouard may in fact believe that these photos are in the public domain. Additionally, Brouard may have no incentive to lie about this. But that doesn't mean that her statements are factually correct, and, unlike those of the copyright holder, which grant permission in themselves, her statements have no effect, and thus do not align with the central purpose of the VRT permissions system at all.

In short, these images are clearly not naturally in the public domain. We haven't seen any evidence of them having been dedicated to the public domain (as opposed to Brouard's hearsay), and all indications from state sources seem to indicdate that such a dedication is, at best, extremely unlikely. Especially in light of the active and explicit claims by the owner (as identified by a court in a lawsuit), we can't accept hearsay like Brouard's as evidence of a permission grant. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument of "we should trust someone because they don't have conflict of interest" is easily refutable: I don't have any conflict of interest with the heirs of Picasso, can I send a VRT ticket claiming all his works in the public domain? Besides, she does have a conflict of interest: she is working for a company that is profiting from the prestige of the original Studio Harcourt. They probably wouldn't be charging what they charge if their commercial name were Studio Hardcore or if they were unable to use Barthes' quote. Moreover, they do find valuable to have Harcourt photos on Wikipedia as they licensed some of their images with CC-BY. Günther Frager (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are two different companies. It is like Pepsi having a VRT ticket claiming some intellectual property of Coca-Cola has such or such license. The company established in 1992 only has a trademark (that is a logo and a name), they didn't sell the assets that the Ministry of Culture acquired in 1989 or the assets that AFDPP acquired in 1991. They were not even established. The court case does state that the patrimonial rights belongs to the Ministry of Culture. Moreover, it mentions that Mélodie used the images with the authorization of the Ministry of culture in 2001. If it were in the public domain, they wouldn't have to ask for a permission. Günther Frager (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The court case does state that the patrimonial rights belongs to the Ministry of Culture. Yes, that what I am saying. Asking for a permission doesn't prove anything. I regularly get emails from people asking me a permission to use my images on Commons. It doesn't prove that my images aren't under a free license. They are probably more comfortable by my permission by email than the CC license displayed on Commons. Yann (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, where is the resolution from the French government that states that any person or company is free to use the images from the collection without authorization? You are comparing information that is available online (the license of your photos) with information that apparently is not public. Perhaps Melodie asked for permission precisely because they didn't find such resolution from the French government. Günther Frager (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed the indentation and separate the responses from Rosenzweig and mine because it was very difficult to follow the arguments.

It is incomprehensible to see arguments concerning the filing of trademarks now arising in a debate dealing with the public domain status in France of Studio Harcourt photos dating from before 1992; not to mention the fact that the French and international laws governing at that time (1992) the intellectual property of photographs, and more, falling before, under Law No. 57-298 of March 11, 1957. Tisourcier (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pro Wrestling Illustrated

I've just created Template:Pro Wrestling Illustrated. I don't have much experience in creating templates here on the Commons so could a veteran editor please just double check that the rendering/wording is correct and that there's no technical errors with it please? Thank you very much CeltBrowne (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No major issues I can find, although I made two small changes: (1) I simplified the code with {{Other License-Layout}} and (2) I changed the wording at the end from "license" to "reason" because public domain isn't a license. (The exact wording I used comes from {{PD-Art}}.)

The only other thing I would suggest is adding some basic documentation at Template:Pro Wrestling Illustrated/doc (using something like {{TemplateBox}}).

Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 09:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of Commons CC-BY-SA files uploaded to Commons without correct attribution

Hi. A Commons user has taken two CC-BY-SA photographs of mine from Commons, applied a mask to separate the subject from the background and then uploaded the results to Commons. They have noted them as "own work". They have provided a link back to the original Commons files but I am not credited as the original author on the file's page. How do I help the uploader (who was acting in good faith) correct that? Here's an example: File:Vickers_anti-aircraft_predictor.png
Quilt Phase (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quilt Phase. Assuming that you're the person who took the original photos that were posted to Flickr, then files aren't the other uploaders "own work". They really shouldn't be claiming them as such just because they removed the background; instead, they should be using something like {{Retouched picture}} or {{Derived from}} and attributing themselves as the "modifier" and you as the "original author". Have you tried asking the uploader to properly attribute the files to you and fix the files' descriptions? The links back to the original files might, in principle, be sufficient for Commons purposes, but I can't see why adding your name to the files' pages and cleaning things up should be an issue for the uploader. FWIW, I guess that anyone technically could add the attribution and fix this if it really came down to it, but it would probably be better to ask the uploader to do so first. If the files are being used outside of Commons by others on third-party websites as well, then that's not really something Commons can take care of as explained in COM:ENFORCE. In that case, you might try and contact those websites directly yourself and ask that they fix the attirbution; if they can't or won't, then a DMCA take down notice might be your only option. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Marchjuly. Both I and the uploader are technically unsure of how to do this, ie exactly what to type in the Summary section such that the uploader and I are credited correctly. Quilt Phase (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quilt Phase and Mummelgrummel: May I take the liberty to edit File:Vickers anti-aircraft predictor.jpg accordingly? It's much easier than explaining in the abstract. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! And many thanks. Quilt Phase (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except the two files that need editing are in fact File:Vickers_anti-aircraft_predictor.png and File:Vickers anti-aircraft predictor 2017 auf Wikipedia (freigestellt).png Quilt Phase (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quilt Phase: I have edited File:Vickers anti-aircraft predictor.jpg and File:Vickers anti-aircraft predictor.png. Feel free to make the analogous edits on File:Vickers anti-aircraft predictor 2017 auf Wikipedia (freigestellt).png and whatever it might derive from.

Since all of this was cc-zero, there was nothing wrong with failing to give credit. If you want credit, don't license your work as cc-zero! Plus, certainly no credit is (ever) due you as an uploader of someone else's work. - 21:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)

Thanks, you are right about CC0, I missed that. The other is CC-BY-SA. Have edited the derived image summary using your work as a template. A very useful discussion, thanks again Quilt Phase (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can suggest to the uploader to update the file's description to properly attribute you as the original author, as required by the CC-BY-SA license. They can edit the description to include a line like: "Original photo by [Your Username], modified by [Uploader's Username]." This way, proper credit is given to both parties. It's great that they acted in good faith, but it's important for licensing compliance. For further clarification, they can refer to the Commons guidelines on attribution. This helps maintain a healthy community and proper crediting, similar to maintaining accuracy in something like a chron age calc tool. Fintech55 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non policy based closure decision

Hi, I'm not sure where to post this but I'm concerned that the decision to close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pétain - portrait photographique.jpg is not policy based. Specifically, if you compare the closing rationale to what it actually says in COM:PRP. If the French state is the copyright holder and will probably not enforce its copyright, or alternatively the copyright holder is unknown, that is not a reason to keep the file. "The copyright owner will not bother to sue" is specifically given as an example of arguments to avoid. Buidhe (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this closure is based on Commons policies. We need a significant doubt, and this is clearly not the case here. Yann (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we do not apply URAA when the copyright holder is a state. But moreover here, even if the current French state is the legal successor of the Vichy state, there is no way that it would enforce in USA a theoretical copyright which has expired in France. It is bit similar to the case discussed above (see #Alien copyright works), but even more unlikely.

More generally, we need to stop paranoid behavior towards copyright, and take into account practical possibilities for a copyright to be really enforced. Yann (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea to take into account practical possibilities for a copyright to be really enforced is not what Commons copyright policy currently says—indeed it says the opposite. Our servers are based in the US and the copyright policy doesn't allow for the type of exception to URAA that you suggest above. Deletion discussions should be closed according to the current policy and any changes should be made by actually changing the text of the copyright policy, according to community consensus and in agreement with WMF legal. Buidhe (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You don't understand Commons policies. Asking for deletion of these portraits is a perversion of the form and the spirit of Commons rules. Commons policies exist to protect users. There is no reason to delete a file where users do not need to be protected. In addition, WMF legal expressly says that URAA must be proved, not the other way round. Yann (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The URAA applies fully to copyrights owned by states. And you're wrong about the policy, just as @Buidhe says; we don't give a pass just because we don't think a copyright will be enforced.

However, this image is likely PD-US, so it can be kept. This is an official portrait of Pétain. Any potential copyright to this portrait probably would have been administered by the Alien Property Custodian during World War II. The URAA does not restore any copyright in a work which had been subject to Alien Property Custodian Administration and to which the rights in the country of origin belonged to a government or instrumentality thereof. If the would-be rightsholder in 1996 was the French government, then this image is in the public domain in the US. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to know quite a bit about French history and politics to understand why the current French state would never claim a copyright once owned by the Vichy state. Yann (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That the copyright holder has no interest in enforcement is never a valid argument. That is a black-letter rule in COM:PRP. In fact, the Free French government accepted various administrative acts of the Vichy regime, while rejecting the validity of constitutional and certain other laws.

Les actes de l'autorité de fait, se disant "gouvernement de l'Etat français" dont la nullité n'est pas expressément constatée dans la présente ordonnance ou dans les tableaux annexés (annexes non reproduites), continueront à recevoir provisoirement application.

There was never any express renunciation of Vichy state-held copyrights, and so the succeeding French governments would explicitly claim ownership over them. The relevant fact here is that, since such copyrights, even if not yet expired in France in 1996, would have been government property once administered by the APC, they are not subject to URAA restoration in the United States. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do in fact treat state actors a bit differently, by necessity. For example, the UK government could claim perpetual copyright on the works of Shakespeare with the stroke of a pen, so we don't require government licenses to be irrevocable, because the government can always revoke the free status of any work (unless released explicitly by the copyright holder under a free license, but we don't require everything to be freely licensed, cf. all the public domain works we accept). So for example, we accept a promise by the UK government not to enforce expired Crown copyrights worldwide as valid. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is, I think, mixing up two things. Commons has to follow US copyright law. It doesn't have to follow foreign copyright law, legally, although it chooses to do so in the vast majority of cases, on top of US law.

The perpetual-copyright example is essentially just asking, "If a rogue foreign government declared works to be in copyright perpetually, should Commons voluntarily follow this restriction?" I think the right answer is "no." And if a rogue state did that, it wouldn't result in the US copyright term being extended. (For the record, the UK is such a rogue state; it has done exactly this for the King James Bible and Peter Pan! However, both of those works are in the public domain in the US, and we, in practice, don't choose to follow UK restrictions that go beyond life+70 for those two specific works.)

The question here is about when a foreign government owns a valid US copyright (which isn't the case in this instance, but is the case in some others). The UK crown copyrights are only expired in the US because they made a statement disclaiming them upon their expiry in the UK. You can't take back a public domain dedication under US law. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. Benjamin Miller Thanks for the info. I know about APC and I generally assume it applies when we're dealing with images uploaded via NARA or other US federal government sources, but this is a Gallica image. How did you come to the conclusion that the APC administered this image? Buidhe (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

APC administration has nothing to do with whether a copy of the image was digitized on Gallica, NARA or elsewhere. It instead has to do with the history of the ownership of rights to the image during the relevant period (World War II).

Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the administration (under US law) of property (including any copyright or potential claim to copyright) of an enemy government vested automatically in the APC under Section 5(b). See discussion of this section in US law as of 1943 by John Foster Dulles.

While the United States did not declare war on France, courts held that the (Vichy) government of France was an enemy alien under the Trading with the Enemy Act. See Government of France v. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co. (1943). Since the Vichy government was an enemy for the purposes of the Trading with the Enemy Act, the right to administer any copyrights it owned would be vested automatically in the APC.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The URAA exception is for any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof. Technically, the U.S. copyright of any author from an enemy nation was seized and conceptually owned by the US, and thus the Alien Property Custodian. By that wording, it does not necessarily require that a physical copy of a work pass through the APC (though that would make things obvious, if it was). There is some other info (and links) as part of the #Alien copyright works discussion above. There is other gray area too, such as if the French government would give their wartime extensions to such works or not, and if not then it was PD by the URAA date (since their anonymous terms were still 50 years until April 1, 1997). But the Alien Property exception seems the easiest to rely on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that applying URAA to works from a state, especially in the case of the Vichy regime, raises complex issues. Even if the current French government is the legal successor, enforcing a theoretical copyright in the U.S. for works whose copyright has expired in France seems highly unlikely. We should indeed move away from overly cautious attitudes towards copyright and focus on the practicalities of enforcement. After all, just as people share funny birthday memes without concern for copyright, we should recognize when works are safely in the public domain. Thomson70 (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I'd like to repeat that our policies includes that there should be significant doubt for deletion, and that in the case of URAA, it should be proved that URAA applies, not the other way round. Yann (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Do you have a link to this "significant doubt" standard? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiya1980: Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ::@The ed17, Freedom4U, and Hydrangeans: Seeing as how it was these editors' whose votes were unilaterally overruled, I think it's fair they be notified about this discussion.Emiya1980 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, Emiya1980. Let me say that I'm very troubled. Even after reading the above discussion, I think it remains the case that we do not have confidence that the image is in the public domain. That the image was 'probably' administered under the Alien Property Custodian doesn't inspire my confidence. Wikimedia Commons exists to accessibly host materials; not to function as a copyright laundering engine. I have no doubts about the good faith of those who advocate inclusion and overruled my policy-based reason for supporting deletion, but I am not persuaded that we are not, in practice, inappropriately disregarding copyright. That other Internet users breach copyrights by sharing funny birthday memes is not a reason for us to be derelict in our respect for copyrights. Hydrangeans (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1, thanks for the ping. Yes, the precautionary principle requires significant doubt—but Yann's discussion closure was not primarily based on any lack of doubt. Their argument was actually along the lines of 'the copyright owner won't sue us', and that's explicitly disallowed in the bullet points right below our precautionary principle.

I very much understand Yann being frustrated when a policy seems "utterly absurd" (their quoted words from below). I've been there myself. The solution is not to ignore them, but to propose changes to those policies. In that spirit, I look forward to seeing Yann's specific proposal on the PRP talk page or elsewhere, and ask that they ping me when they do so. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is agreed upon that the work is legally protected in the United States. The only doubt raised by the closer is whether the copyright holder would exercise their rights under US law, which, as far as I know, is not a good reason to keep the copyrighted work. Freedom4U (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard of doubt

Thanks Carl and Benjamin for your messages. So my initial argument is now moot. But I maintain, as well as for the "#Alien copyright works" thread above, that we should not use the same standard of doubt as for recent works. Most of the pre-World War II pictures are in the public domain, mostly because the authors are unknown, and will always be. Any recent work is by default under a copyright (except a few exception). But public domain is the default for these old works, except for some where is the author is known. I find utterly absurd to use the same criteria to evaluate the copyright of these files as we do for recent files copied from the Internet. Yann (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is significant doubt. I do wish we'd treat government works a little differently, but going by strict rules, they aren't different than private copyrights. When it comes to the URAA though, it does seems as though the burden of proof is flipped around a little bit -- whoever is claiming it was restored needs to show that. Works PD in the country of origin but there is a lot of doubt on the URAA either way may not be the types of files to delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Miniatures games

Hello, I think we will have to delete quite a few photos in this category because they depict copyrighted miniatures and game designs. What do you think? Thanks, Gnom (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see COM:TOYS. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I just filed a deletion request on these (we do have a VRT permission from Games Workshop, though). Gnom (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of a Celeb's Stories

Hi I d kike to upload on Common Screenshots of a Celeb's Stories which shows illegal Ads. Can I do this on Common? What do I register as? If not where else? It is to illustrate the controversy of a otherwise praised Celeb. Cheers Forward Forward umbrella 2024 (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Forward umbrella 2024: Almost certainly not. It is pretty unimaginable how such a thing could be free of copyright, or how we could get a free license from the copyright-holder(s) if it is not.

You don't say what language Wikipedia you are writing in. Some Wikipedias have an "Exemption Doctrine Policy" that allows them to host certain non-free content. See meta:Non-free content for a language-by-language set of links to such policies. - Jmabel ! talk 08:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you find copyright information about an image?

I'm wanting to post an undated photograph of John Wayne Gacy victim Robert Piest standing with his sister and an unknown man at an undisclosed event (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9c/8b/b8/9c8bb8a2828a91316f79cad4572c181b.jpg) on a draft I've been working since a couple months ago, but most information about it has been completely lost to me. I've seen cropped versions of it used in a number of Sun articles (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16536930/victim-of-john-gacy-revealed/), someone's personal blog (https://theshadowreports.com/2011/02/07/exclusive-find-the-bodies-if-you-can-should-the-john-wayne-gacy-case-be-reopened/), and if my memory serves me, Paul Bentely's 501 Most Notorious Crimes book (https://www.amazon.com/Most-Notorious-Crimes-Paul-Donnelley/dp/0753717670). This particular version though was originally shared in the first episode of Netflix's Gacy Tapes docuseries.

Thus, I'm not at all certain on the image's original source, but my assumptions is that it might've been shared with by Piest family with the investigators. As a quick question coming from someone that knows nothing about the original source and the general subject of wikimedia's copyright policies, how do you find copyright information about a photograph? Randomuser335S (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomuser335S: my first thought is, "that sounds like a really tough research project". I assume the photo if from the U.S. I take it you do not know who the photographer was. Looks like 1970s. Do you know when it was taken? The Sun story there gives no date and does not credit a photographer, so there's a fair chance they just took a "publish and be damned" attitude.

You might be able to get some information from someone who previously published it, though probably not the Sun. - Jmabel ! talk 08:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I publish photographs of Italian municipal flags or not?

I had uploaded more than 60 of own photographs of Italian municipal gonfaloni (official flags), mainly for use at the Armoriale_dei_comuni_della_provincia_di_Trento page. I was planning to upload another batch soon.

However, according to this discussion these may not be published here, because some people, including administrators (@Ruthven and @Krd) think that these would be derivative works.

Most of them were deleted after tagged with {{subst:dw-nsd}}.

1. I take issue with this stance, because none of the involved people have spelled out,

who exactly would be the author or the one who holds the "copyright" (in Italian case "diritto d'autore") of the flag/gonfalone that I had photographed
when this copyright would expire, i.e. when these would be in the Public Domain
if there are (or not) special rules for municipal/provincial/regional symbols (flags or coats-of-arms)
how to handle modern symbols derived from or modernized from ancient ones, involving (among others) issues with threshold of originality

2. I take issue with the procedure of deleting these photographs after 7 days without any proper discussion. Sorry, folks, this is not okay! It is not okay to use the {{subst:dw-nsd}} tag without examining the points above and clearly stating the results of the examination. Generally speaking, copyright issues are usually not easy and straightforward, and have to be examined carefully. Sukaq (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One must check the Italian law on copyright. On inspecting [Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy], I found the following:

National, provincial and municipal administrations are entitled to copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and expense, as are private non-profit entities, academies and other public cultural bodies.[633/1941 art. 11] Copyright on such works expires after 20 years from first publication. Copyright on writings (communications and memories) published by academies lasts two years, after which the rights revert to the author.

This tells me that the copyright on coats of arms created for Italian provincial and municipal administrations are copyright for 20 years, so if you can show that they have been in use for more than 20 years, your should be OK and shoudl be tagged with "PD-ItalyGov" which generates

Public domain	This work was created by or on behalf of either the government, the former national Fascist Party, an academy, or a non-profit organisation of Italy. It was published prior to 1976, and has no known US copyright registration associated with it. It is now in the public domain in Italy and the United States and possibly elsewhere because its copyright term has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941, revised by the law of 6 February 2016, copyright in works created and published under the name and at the expense of national, provincial and communal governments shall belong to the relevant administration; the same right shall also belong to private legal entities of a non-profit-making character, as well as to the academies and other public cultural organisations (Art. 11). The duration of the rights belonging to the government, the former national Fascist Party, academies and non-profit or public cultural organisations shall be twenty years from first publication, whatever the form in which publication was affected (Art. 29).	Italy
	This may not apply in countries that don't apply the rule of the shorter term to works from Italy. In particular, these are in the public domain in the United States only if: wasn't in copyright in the United States due to being registered for copyright there (see Commons:Copyright tags#United States for most cases) and was created prior to 1976 and published prior to 1978 — then it was out-of-copyright in Italy on the URAA date of restoration (January 1, 1996) (17 U.S.C. § 104A) (in most cases; for all cases, see Template:PD-Italy/US). If so, please add {{PD-1996}} in addition to this copyright tag. If the image was created on 1976 or later, please add {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. italiano ∙ English ∙ +/−

. Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, according to the template, this only applies to works created before 1976 and published before 1978 (otherwise they cannot be uploaded to Commons as per the URAA restoration). In any case, proof of the date must be provided by the uploader. Arrow303 (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Weather Service images

Should we remove the part on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States where it says that images submitted to the NWS have been explicitly released into PD? See this RFC. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we clearly should. - Jmabel ! talk 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I’m removing the mention of NWS images explicitly being released into the public domain. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the US templates list to reflect the ongoing discussion around {{PD-NWS}} and to link the two newer templates. Berchanhimez (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on Army icon copyright?

Hi, I'm trying to promote Starship Troopers to Featured Article and I have used the following images in it: File:Emblem of Italian Blackshirts.svg and File:Heer - decal for helmet 1942.svg which appear to be vector recreations of the original icons. I've received feedback that I need to add a copyright tag for the icons themselves which I believe refers to the original image on which the vector graphics are based. Can anyone point me in the right direction to what tags would be applicable? I have tried looking at the German specific tags but the closest I can find seem to relate to corporations sanctioned by the government which does not seem accurate. Any advice? TIA. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German (army) eagle may have been a part of some decree or edict of the 1930s. If that is the case, {{PD-GermanGov}} might fit, or {{PD-WH}} if it was part of a military service regulation. I've searched a bit, but could not find anything. There were lots of regulations though, so it might simply be obscure and hard to find. --Rosenzweig τ 20:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did go with {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} which seemed...reasonable. It is a complex thing identifying copyright. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Germany-§134-KUG is not applicable here. It's a very tricky template, and not all of the necessary conditions are fulfilled here. Specifically, no legal entity under public law is named. --Rosenzweig τ 11:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-AR-Photo + Berne Convention

I investigated the history of Argentina implementation of the Berne Convention and I wrote my finding in Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina#Berne Convention duration for photographs. My conclusion is that clause 7(4) that establishes a minimum protection for photographs was never implemented in Argentina. This effectively shrinks the period of URAA restoration by 5 years. People interested in Argentina copyright or URAA restoration may want to provide feedback on that thread. Günther Frager (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no objections from my part so the explanation has been very clear and descriptive enough. As the template {{PD-AR-Photo}} is currently blocked, a request to an admin should be done to change the license information there. Fma12 (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page of the template, request a specific edit. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC -- second call

Hi all -- the RfC on third-party images published by the National Weather Service has been open for a couple of weeks now, and most of the activity was on the first couple of days. The outcome of this RfC impacts a few hundred files currently on the Commons, plus how we handle files from weather.gov in the future. Broader community input would be great! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann: I have opposed each of the statements as unreliable. We have no proof any of that third-party content hosted by NWS is free enough for Commons. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eintracht Frankfurt Logo.svg

Can anyone give this file a suitable German and US license based on the two deletion requests in which it was kept. {{PD-textlogo}} is obviously incorrect. Jonteemil (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eintracht Frankfurt Logo.svg (Withdrawn.)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eintracht Frankfurt Logo.svg (Kept as a derivative of an old coat of arms.)

Image is derived from page 25 of https://s.bundesliga.com/assets/doc/440000/434069_original.pdf

CoA may be ancient, but this may be a modern derivative that would have its own copyright. I would delete based on COM:PCP unless date of origin can be shown.

Glrx (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adler klein.png claims that this logo version is from 1911. I don't know if that is true. --Rosenzweig τ 19:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date of logo is 1998: https://1000logos.net/eintracht-frankfurt-logo/ Glrx (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or 1999 per [15]. Not 1911 anyway, that looked different. See also [16] and [17]. --Rosenzweig τ 19:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below ToO mod of 1970. Glrx (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking your time to reply. For it to have its own copyright, copyrightable elements need to be added to the work of which it's a derivative work. I don't really see that. But nevertheless, this is not a deletion request, if you think it should be deleted you may nominate it for the third time for deletion. All I'm asking for here, is for someone to license it correctly, with the two already kept deletion requests as basis. Sorry if this came off as harsh. Jonteemil (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the above material, there is not a correct license. Glrx (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated both files for deletion. Glrx (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jennifer Lopez at the US Capitol.jpg

This photo is taken by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II, and is released under a CC-BY license. Is this eligible for {{PD-USGov}}? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Flickr profile (where this photo can be found) they state:

"These images are made available for publication by news organizations and/or personal use by our constituents, the U.S. taxpayers. The photographs on this site may not be used in materials, advertisements, products, or promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Staff, or anyone depicted in any of the imagery."

Does that change anything? // Kakan spelar (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed PD-USGov. (CC licenses on USGov flickr accounts are redundant with PD-USGov, at the very least in the US; the US government could theoretically potentially pursue copyright claims abroad, depending on foreign law, but they're not known to do so. However, historically, Flickr didn't always have a public domain/US gov work option, so some older government accounts chose CC-BY labels). The restrictions mentioned are warnings related to personality rights (and implying the organization or person endorses the production), and have no connection with copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that mean that we could change the license to PD-USGov for, I guess, almost all photos uploaded by this Flickr account? // Kakan spelar (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be dual licensed (give reusers the choice of the CC license or the PD-USGov one). Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-USGov isn't a license, but a statement that the file is ineligible for copyright, so it's not really a dual license. The fallback can be noted, but there is no binding copyright possible where something is not protected by copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would prevent claims of infringement in other countries, if the U.S. government claims protection elsewhere, as was thought about during discussions around the 1976 Act. Don't think anything like that has ever happened, but doesn't hurt to have both. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of WW2 euthanasia victims on a website

I'm wondering whether the images on this site would be safe to upload to Commons. A lot of them depict Category:Ernst Lossa, of whom we don't have any images, or documents related to him. The disclaimer at the bottom of the page says, "Pictures used on this webiste are owned by the veterans who made them or by whomever made the pictures/videos (mostly these images are in the public domain and can be freely used).", but doesn't specify exactly which images exactly are PD. Maybe there's some source code that marks which images are free to use? I think, at least Lossa's death certificate would be safe to upload as an NS-document? As for the portrait, it's from his patient file in the hospital. The German newspaper Tagesspiegel tags it with © Krankenhaus Kaufbeuren (Hospital Kaufbeuren). But a hospital cannot be the copyright holder of a photo, I think? OVB-online has marked it as "© -". It also looks like the photo has been used for a book cover. The case of the boy was also subject of a 1949 trial. The museum website of Kaufbeuren says "Panoramabild: © Historisches Archiv - Bezirkskrankenhaus Kaufbeuren" (Panorama image: © Historic Archive - District hospital Kaufbeuren). The US Holocaust Memorial Museum has a few photos from the Kaufbeuren hospital that are either marked with "copyright: unknown"[18][19] or public domain[20], but they don't have the photo of Lossa. Nakonana (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright problem with the death certificate, but not because it is "an NS-document" (these are not generally free of copyright as some people seem to assume), but because the text is just formulaic and below COM:TOO Germany, so the license tag {{PD-text}} applies. As for the photo(s?), that depends on who took it and where and when (not later than 1944 obviously in this case). I see that it is credited to the archive of that hospital. Is the hospital also where it was taken? Who took it? --Rosenzweig τ 12:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is from the patient file (Krankenakte). I've found websites that had several photos of the boy and all the other photos there were sourced as "private pictures", while the one from the patient file was attributed to the hospital, so I'm guessing that it was indeed taken there. There are also other photos of other patients out there where it's clearly stated that they were taken by someone in the hospital. However, none of the photos name the actual photographer(s). Nakonana (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jemima Rooper

Actress Jemima Rooper was in Welsh video game The Isle Tide. Is there a way to obtain a pic suitable for Commons? Thanks.--Carnby (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this album cover PD?

https://ia800507.us.archive.org/32/items/mbid-cbb9b062-9d4f-42c5-bfda-64291fdb6964/mbid-cbb9b062-9d4f-42c5-bfda-64291fdb6964-37082925560.jpg

Seems like it's just a little {{PD-shape}} and {{PD-text}}, but I wanted to solicit feedback before I uploaded it locally. The recording artist and label are Canadian. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the perimeter text falls under {{PD-text}}, but the central figures give me pause. If they are ancient characters, then {{PD-text}} would also apply. Otherwise, they are not randomly placed lines and circles. For me, the figures are at the border of ToO, so I would follow COM:PCP and not upload. Glrx (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo_NCWiki.png

I don't get what kind of tag I need to use can someone please help me? It got tagged by a bot. Kroeppi (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The stethoscope is not a simple shape. I believe that puts this image above COM:TOO-US. Glrx (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is to say it appears to be a copyrighted image, so the only way we could host it is a free license, which must come from the holder of the copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 21:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can get everything I need from the holder of the copyright, but isn't there a possibility for Logos of clubs to use them without a free license only for the article or would I need to only upload it on the german wiki. I am really new to this. I thought the Trademarked Template is there exactly for that. Kroeppi (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarks and copyrights are separate. A work being released under a free copyright license doesn't affect trademark rights. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, I found something on the website of ncwiki that says it has a free copyright licence (CC BY-NC 4.0). Kroeppi (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a free license which is acceptable for Wikimedia Commons, because of the NC (non-commercial) part. See Commons:Licensing#Forbidden licenses. --Rosenzweig τ 11:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuad shukr 1.png

I've been having some problems figuring out the validity of declaration/release for the image File:Fuad shukr 1.png. I started a DR about it. This is complicated by me not speaking farsi, but based on the translation provided by the uploader I don't think it provides all the conditions for an acceptable license. I can't find a massive number of images from this website on commons so would be interested if this has come up before. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Contents

Maldive government website

Alien copyright works

Bangladesh

Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992)

Template:Pro Wrestling Illustrated

Derivative of Commons CC-BY-SA files uploaded to Commons without correct attribution

Non policy based closure decision

Standard of doubt

Files in Category:Miniatures games

Screenshot of a Celeb's Stories

How do you find copyright information about an image?

May I publish photographs of Italian municipal flags or not?

National Weather Service images

Advice on Army icon copyright?

PD-AR-Photo + Berne Convention

RfC -- second call

File:Eintracht Frankfurt Logo.svg

File:Jennifer Lopez at the US Capitol.jpg

Photos of WW2 euthanasia victims on a website

Jemima Rooper

Is this album cover PD?

File:Logo_NCWiki.png

File:Fuad shukr 1.png

Navigation menu

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Maldive government website

Alien copyright works

Bangladesh

Studio Harcourt (PD before 1992)

Template:Pro Wrestling Illustrated

Derivative of Commons CC-BY-SA files uploaded to Commons without correct attribution

Non policy based closure decision

Standard of doubt

Files in Category:Miniatures games

Screenshot of a Celeb's Stories

How do you find copyright information about an image?

May I publish photographs of Italian municipal flags or not?

National Weather Service images

Advice on Army icon copyright?

PD-AR-Photo + Berne Convention

RfC -- second call

File:Eintracht Frankfurt Logo.svg

File:Jennifer Lopez at the US Capitol.jpg

Photos of WW2 euthanasia victims on a website

Jemima Rooper

Is this album cover PD?

File:Logo_NCWiki.png

File:Fuad shukr 1.png

Navigation menu

Search