Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


Admin closing deletion discussions that they are a part of[edit]

I don't think it's proper (even if it's technically allowed) for an admin to close a non-trivial deletion discussion that they have voted and argued in. It's a conflict of interest at best and an abuse of power at worst. Such behavior does not encourage good faith discussion, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nosferattus:
  1. Seems to me in posting this here you should have tagged User:Yann, who is clearly the admin to whom you are referring.
  2. If there had been widespread disagreement, I think you would be right, but rereading that discussion you seem to have been a minority of one, so I don't think there is any significant chance any admin would have closed it as "delete" rather than "keep".
Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus: 1. Discussions are not votes. So there is nothing illegal to close a DR after having voted there. 2. Your arguments are complete nonsense. There is not any reason to keep it open any longer. Yann (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Commons:Licensing clearly states "Works which are not available under a license which meets the Definition of Free Cultural Works are explicitly not allowed." And the Definition of Free Cultural Works clearly states "There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied." Thus these files are non-free and unambiguously violate Commons' policy. You may disagree with my argument, but it isn't "nonsense", and your continued characterization of it as such doesn't seem like good faith engagement, nor does slapping it with a boilerplate close. I would like to ask you to reverse your closure and allow an uninvolved admin to close it as you seem to have strong feelings on the matter that have nothing to do with policy. Nosferattus (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you are wrong. Facebook license requirements are not compatible with a CC-BY-SA license, as it was clearly demonstrated on this very page. Yann (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Again, you are completely ignoring my reason for requesting the deletion (that the images are non-free). It doesn't matter if Facebook license requirements are not compatible with a CC-BY-SA license. Like any website, you can simply generate a DMCA notice and email it to them if they violate your license. They will then be legally required to remove the image. We cannot, however, preemptively prohibit uploading to Facebook, as that violates Commons:Licensing. It should also be noted that virtually every social network on the internet has the exact same wording in their terms of service. Instagram, Pinterest, etc. all say the exact same thing.[1][2] Uploading images to these websites does not, in and of itself, violate the license. It may violate the website's terms of service (depending on the exact wording), but that's a matter between the reuser and the website, not Commons and the reuser. Nosferattus (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, you are saying complete nonsense. Adding a "No Facebook" template doesn't make any free image nonfree. Yann (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Explain how "It is not permitted to upload this file to Facebook" is not "limiting where the information can be copied".Nosferattus (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because to me, that clause was not part of the copyright license, or a copyright restriction. It is simply stating that you can't upload it to Facebook without violating Facebook's terms of service, although a better wording is probably possible. The sentence immediately prior, referring to the terms of service, makes that clear. Of course, you are not committing any sort of copyright infringement by uploading to Facebook (provided you credit the author and name the license). However, if someone then uses the image relying on the Facebook terms of service, they could then well be committing copyright infringement (which it's up to the author here to enforce). Informing re-users about this problem seems fine to me. I simply do not take the statement as a copyright-based restriction, which would make it non-free, but instead just informing about other non-copyright issues. Singling out Facebook in particular to that extent does kind of rub me the wrong way, which is likely why the templates were deleted, but that is a different issue. Nothing about the statement makes it seem like a copyright-based restriction which is the only thing that would make it non-free. We can inform users they are not allowed to violate personality rights either, but that also says nothing about the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems like a poor interpretation of Facebook's term of service (not a lawyer and not giving legal advice).
To quote the relevant TOS passage:
Permission to use content you create and share: Some content that you share or upload, such as photos or videos, may be protected by intellectual property laws.
You retain ownership of the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and other Meta Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want.
However, to provide our services we need you to give us some legal permissions (known as a "license") to use this content. This is solely for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services as described in Section 1 above.
Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as Meta Products or service providers that support those products and services. This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems.
The contention of this interpretation is that only content that is owed by or (sub)licensable by the FB-uploader can be added to Facebook (according to the Facebook TOS). A particularly tortured reading of this passage would be that FB-uploaders warrant that they own the copyrights to works (or can sublicense them) uploaded to FB which are protected by intellectual property laws.
However, the phrasing is "Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights […] you grant us a […] license to […] your content" (emphasis added). Content that cannot be licensed by the FB-uploader is not covered by this license grant. (Of course, it cannot be.)
The FB TOS anticipates that users will upload content that is not their own:
You may not use our Products to do or share anything: […]
  • That infringes or violates someone else's rights, including their intellectual property rights (such as by infringing another’s copyright or trademark, or distributing or selling counterfeit or pirated goods), unless an exception or limitation applies under applicable law.
As long as the FB-uploader has complied with the CC license's requirements in their post (e.g., by giving attribution), the FB-uploader has complied with the creator's license and the creator has no grounds to object to the conduct by the uploader. Additionally, while FB can remove any content they want, they clearly do not interpret the provisions this way.
Note also the CC provision that (quoting again from 4.0):
The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures.
Surely Facebook is a "medi[um] […] now known." It is possible to comply with the terms of the license even when uploading to Facebook (since nothing prevents making the required attributions or indications to all downstream recipients). Also, CC clearly does not interpret the license as being incompatible with posting on social media. Nor does the WMF.
This is also without even getting into fair use or anything else beyond the strict text of the CC license and FB TOS.
N.b., FB TOS also says, "If any portion of these Terms is found to be unenforceable, the unenforceable portion will be deemed amended to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable, and if it can't be made enforceable, then it will be severed and the remaining portion will remain in full force and effect." A license grant to some content which the FB-uploaded cannot grant further rights cannot be enforced. However, the license to share the work and pass it on to downstream recipients remains valid, even though the FB-uploader cannot offer some other rights.
The notion that the FB TOS prohibits uploading content not created by the FB-uploader is just a nonsensical reading; a grant of rights to "your content" (n.b., not specifically defined) virtually surely does not cover content created by a third party, and the CC license's distribution rights remain valid and applicable to the FB-uploader and FB itself provided the requirements are met (even though FB does not gain the addition rights it receives when the FB-uploader is the creator and agrees to grant them via the TOS).
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any way to read that that makes sense that limits it to only certain files you upload. What does Facebook gain by getting those rights on certain works that are uploaded to Facebook that aren't tagged in any way? They want to use any work uploaded to Facebook.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's simple. Facebook requires you to grant a broad license to all the material to which you can grant a license. This cannot and does not apply to materials for which you can't grant a license. There are also elements used under fair use and other exceptions which the FB-uploader cannot license. The license grant applies whenever it can. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does Facebook know what content has such a license? If you post a picture of your vacation, did you take it, or did someone else? Not to mention all the stuff a reasonable human could tell whether Facebook has a license, but a computer can't. It's valueless to Facebook unless it covers everything you upload, or at least they can claim it's your fault for uploading something you shouldn't of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think if one tries to read the intent of the cited passage from Facebooks ToS rather than with the "Facebook bad" mindset, a valid interpretation of the passage is that Facebook is covering it's own ass when it comes to using the image to provide the services that makes up what Facebook is and that the user expects from Facebook. F.ex displaying the image in the users feed or in a Facebook group or even publicly available if that is what the user chooses for the visibility settings when adding a post. Facebook need to have a way to show that the user has given them permission to display the post on Facebook in accordance with how Facebook actually works. That doesn't mean that Facebook is going to start collecting all images uploaded to their servers and start a completely unrelated service selling these images as stock photos. This is also not something which is exclusive to Facebook and it doesn't make any sense to single out Facebook since you would find similar or nearly identical passages in any other social media platforms ToS TommyG (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is certainly the intention (for FB). In any case, the CC license applies to the downstream user (FB), and attribution, share-alike, etc., requirements for republication do apply to them for whatever reuse they might make — and the notice is made to them. Certainly the uploader to FB who includes the notice complies with the license. Could Facebook potentially violate the terms of the offer made by the FB-uploader and use the work in a way that doesn't align with the license? Yes, they could, as any downstream user could, but that is not on the FB-uploader. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It probably comes down to the interpretation of "your content". If that means content where you own the copyright, or rather simply content uploaded to your account. If Facebook allows you to upload other people's copyrighted works to your account without a sublicense, and are fine with that, then why do they need a license for your stuff? They don't tell you how to distinguish them in any way, really. You may want to license your own content CC-BY alongside someone else's CC-BY and they don't ask for any distinguishing marks. Thus, the question is if Facebook (or other users) assumes they have that sublicensing right on all uploads. They note that content will not be deleted from their systems if someone else started to use it -- where your content has been used by others in accordance with this license and they have not deleted it (in which case this license will continue to apply until that content is deleted). How would "others" tell the difference between content the uploader owns the copyright to, or content which they don't and therefore don't have those Facebooks rights? They should have some way of identifying the difference if they are going to treat uploads differently. The terms never explicitly defines "your content" as relative to copyright ownership, and don't always seem to use the term that way. It may be arguable, but you'd think they would be more careful to delineate the differences if they know they are working under different license situations. It appears in the past there was an explicit definition of "content" which means anything you uploaded to the account. That definition seems to be gone, making it more nebulous, but it may well still mean the same thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a non-involved administrator, I don't see anything wrong with Yann's close. "No Facebook" is a strongly worded request, and it appears that Facebook's TOS is in conflict with a Creative Commons license. Consensus on the DR was to keep the Template as well. the files.Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: What DR? The NoFacebook templates is still deleted: {{Nofacebook}}. And the only review I've seen closed as no consensus to undelete: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-11#Die_Löschung von Template:Nofacebook rückgängig machen. Nosferattus (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I striked where I misspoke, I only meant to comment on the very recently closed DR. Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh come on! "It is not permitted" is a request??? I'm not buying it. Nosferattus (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When the license says explicitly that "Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License," then yes. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur. A "no Facebook" request is a request, not a license restriction, if a free CC license has been applied. It is, however, potentially significantly misleading. See the CC licenses (text copied here from a version 4.0 license):
  • The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.
  • Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proper license for works created in one country but published in another[edit]

I was looking at some stamps recently and they were published in Afghanistan, but designed by a company based in London. So I'm wondering if they would be licensed in the United Kingdom, Afghanistan, or both. Adamant1 (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Normally, country of publication is relevant, not country of printing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: That make sense. What about in the case of something like where a work was created in a former colony? Say the Belgian Congo. Would the copyright be for Belgium or the Democratic Republic of the Congo in that case? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was published in the former colony, then the now-independent former colony would presumably be considered a successor state and its laws would apply. That is certainly how we handle the Philippines after independence from the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: What would your opinion about a DR like this one be then? I assume if what your saying is true then the image would have been deleted because the laws of Japan apply to works published in the Ryukyu Islands regardless of if it was under the control of the United States when the stamp was released there. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A particularly tricky one, because at that time U.S. stamps would have been PD at creation. I have no idea whether the Japanese administration restored copyright to PD-USGov works in the Ryukus. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it did, whose copyright would it be? - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cycling Jersey Icons[edit]

Continued from Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/07#Licenses_of_miniscule_cycling_jersy_icons - Due to illness, I wasn't able to continue the discussion before it being archived.

Summary: In 2006 I created a set of base Cycling Jersey SVG icons, such as File:Jersey yellow.svg (), File:Jersey red number.svg () and File:Jersey polkadot.svg (), all under CC-BY-SA 2.5+GFDL. Many people have made variants based on those icons (A non-exhaustive list of over 185 items is at User:IIVQ/Cycling Jerseys) almost all share the exact shape I created, and thus are a derivative work. Most do not cite my work, and some are even freed as Public domain or CC0.

I will contact the uploaders of all icons with the question to: (where applicable)

  • Refer to the work of the original creator, by including a little line such as "Based upon File:Jersey yellow.svg by User:IIVQ" (or another image or user, if the image is derived from a derivative).
  • Change the license to the current version of the CC-BY-SA

I have two questions about the latter:

  1. What is the correct way to do that? With the inclusion of {{Template:Change-of-license}} and {{Self |1= cc-by-sa-4.0|author= <AUTHOR> |attribution= Shape based upon [[:File:Jersey yellow.svg]] by [[User:IIVQ]]}}?
  2. If the authors don't respond within a reasonable time period (say, a month), is it ok for me to change the image license and attribution?
    • Special case: User:Maillotero~commonswiki (or is it User:Maillotero? I see multiple users with ~commonswiki in their name, what does that mean?) uploaded a lot of PNG icons (there's different problems with that, but that's not a copyright issue) in 2008. Maillotero doesn't seem active on Wikimedia Commons. They were blocked indefinetely on the Spanish wikipedia (es:Usuario:Maillotero), so very unlikely to respond. Can I go ahead and change the licence of those pages as well?

Thanks for your advise.

P.S. I do not in any way wish to go through the formal copyright claim process and try and remove the items - it is a minor issue and the items are used in way too many pages internationally, also many users did a great job in creating new icons. IIVQ (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't think {{Change-of-license}} is exactly what you want, but I'm not sure what is.
  • "~commonuser" arises when there were identically-named accounts on Commons and on another WMF wiki at the time that we unified logins, and either they were really two different people or the person in question chose not to unify their logins.
  • Sorry I don't have broader help on you main question, or I would have answered the first time you asked. - Jmabel ! talk 21:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thx for your remarks. The explanation for {{Change-of-license}} indeed points to the "licence review" process, but the actual template's text doesn't point to license review, and I think it's clear to show users that the license of this file has changes.
I really hope someone can answer whether it's ok for me to change the license to CC-BY-SA for people who don't do it themselves. IIVQ (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry I cannot answer your question directly, just thinking out loud. The uploader clearly intends to release their contribution to the public domain; however, they are not able to release the image to the public domain because it is a derivative work on which you (also) hold copyright. So I do not see how relicensing it to the appropriate CC-BY-SA license could in any way go against the wishes of the uploader, since they clearly do not intend to claim copyright on their own contribution anyway (and don't even mind not being attributed).
So for instance anyone (even IIVQ himself) could reupload their work under the correct license (since the contribution of the adapter is PD) and then we could delete their upload as a copyvio, which would lead to exactly the same final outcome. Felix QW (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that would work too. Except that the original works are used in literally 10000's of pages an many languages (and unfortunately, hardcoded, not by inclusion of templates).
And just changing the license on the image pages (with a link to this discussion in the change description) would have the same effect + added benefit of more history + less work for all parties
IIVQ (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. My argument was that since it has exactly the same effects + the benefits described, it should be okay too. Felix QW (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, now I understand what you mean. Thank you! IIVQ (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sent messages to the few biggest uploaders and those that participated in the discussion, and one (User:GAN) within minutes replied and sorted the license information of the image they uploaded! Thx everyone so far for advice and help! IIVQ (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Jamerson image[edit]

This image in Category:James Jamerson is a screenshot from this youtube video at timestamp 2:30. The youtube video description identifies it as a copyrighted work. Bammesk (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's clearly from the same original recording, but I don't see how you can with certainty claim that it was screenshoted from that specifc youtube-video. It's not given that the copyright of this work hasn't in fact expired (see: Duration of Copyright) but it's also not shown in the file description or license why they can claim the copyright has expired. The current cc-by-sa license is though clearly incorrect. TommyG (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok thanks, that makes sense. Should the file be tagged with {{subst:nld}} template for "no/incomplete licensing information" per Commons:Deletion policy#Missing legal information ? Bammesk (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a web search, and I opened a deletion request: here. Bammesk (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barbie[edit]

I was surprised to see several pictures of Barbie dolls in Category:Barbie dolls. Looks like they're from <1978, flagged for not having a copyright notice. Has anyone looked into this before? Just out of curiosity I dug up a photo of a box from 1971 (after seeing File:Vintage Malibu Barbie.jpg). There's clearly a copyright notice on the bottom of the box (see here and here, for example). This might be the worst moment, or the best moment, to bring this up, but there it is. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  12:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, Barbie goes back all the way to 1959, so non-renewal could be something to check for as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Barbie_dolls#Files_in_Category:Barbie_dolls. I see they've had to be deleted several times in the past, too. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US postage stamps[edit]

Are US postage stamps free from copyright? And then specifically, "forever"stamps"? I see that the Category:Stamps of the United States by year ends at 2014. Is there a reason for this. I want to upload the Edmonia Lewis stamp to the commons if possible. Otherwise fair use? Thanks for any assistance or enlightenment. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates: Pre-1978 U.S. postage stamps were (and are) free from copyright. Starting that year, they are copyrighted, and of course any fair use would have to be outside of Commons, and not our issue. - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Jmabel! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass deletion[edit]

Hello folks, I'm taking this to Village Pump because I don't know of any other place to take it. I discovered User:Remko1982's contributions (User contributions for Remko1982 - Wikimedia Commons) all seem to be personal photos, which are banned under image hosting policy. I need to individually copy every file name for mass deletion, which seems tedious given the sheer number of affected files. Is there any way to just get a repository of all the file names or even better, to just delete all files uploaded by this user (they are all of the same genre)? Bremps... 02:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you go to Preferences and Gadgets, you can enable the "VisualFileChange: Perform batch task" gadget, which will give you an interface to a mass deletion (adds a "perform batch task" element to the sidebar, one option of which you can use to browse through the user's uploads, and check the ones you want to include in the DR). The user's first upload looks to be his own photo, and the rest similar ones that indeed look more like advertising or web hosting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, it worked Bremps... 19:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-US-1978-89 for murals?[edit]

I would like some other opinions on the licensing of File:Trains mural.jpg. Since the uploader doesn't seem to be the person who took the photo, and the photographer is a Richard Guy Wilson as shown it the source url provided for the file, then that would make Wilson the copyright holder of the photo. According to the source url, the photo is released under an acceptable license for Commons. However, there's no automatic FOP for murals in the US per COM:FOP United States and this mural appears to have been created in 1989 per en:Trains (mural). That would seem to make the photo a COM:DW in which the copyright status of the mural itself needs to be assessed. The creators of the mural were Jeff and Gregory Ackers, and Gregory restored the mural in 1998. Gregory Ackers is also listed as the artist for File:Union Station Mural.jpg and File:Union Station Mural by Gregory Ackers Columbus, Ohio 1987.jpg, which also appear to be derivative works. Could {{PD-US-1978-89}} be applied for murals shown in these files? Would the restoration of Trains in 1998 possibly effect it's copyright status if the mural was not copyright protected were originally unveiled? This appears to be a local newspaper article about the selection of Gregory Ackers as the artist for Train (it's cited as a reference in the English Wikipedia article about the mural). If its date is correct, then mural would seem to haven't been created prior to March 1, 1989, which means it would still be protected by copyright even without a notice and even without registration, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not answering the question, but the 2012 newspaper article, about another project, does not seem to specify a precise date for the Trains mural. It vaguely speaks of a year after 1987, which could imply 1988. But if it was in 1989, painting an outdoor mural may be more likely after 28 February, although I don't really know what the weather is like in Ohio in winter. The reference links in the Wikipedia article are not very practical. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US (summarized in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Artworks and sculptures seems to say that the display of public artworks does not constitute in itself publication and a copyright notice is not required. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1978 is the cutoff year for public art without a copyright notice; that was when the definition of "publication" changed from mere public display to actual distribution of copies. So public art installed 1978 or later is generally not OK, regardless of notice or registration status. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment The publisher of File:Trains mural.jpg is the University of Virginia, so I don't see any reason to doubt the free license at the source. I don't know about the copyright of the painting, but again, I suppose that the University of Virginia knows what it does when publishing pictures on the Internet with a free license. Yann (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose that the University of Virginia knows what it does when publishing pictures on the Internet with a free license. I wouldn't presume that for a moment. Plenty of people don't understand the issues around derivative works, and who knows just who posted this (could even be a student intern). I've even seen Seattle Municipal Archives get this wrong (and fix it once I pointed it out), and they are generally very competent in copyright matters. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of creation vs. date of publication for non-US image?[edit]

A book published in 1987 in New Zealand is the first known "publication" of a certain photograph of a New Zealander who died in 1910 (photographer unknown). The photograph no doubt qualifies for {{PD-New Zealand}}, but what exactly is the US copyright status of the image? The book's author merely states the photograph was sourced from NZ's National Library. Muzilon (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • According to the Hirtle chart, if the author of the photo (not the subject) has a known death date it's only protected 70 years after the death of author; if not, it gets a full 95 years from publication. - Jmabel ! talk 01:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the Hirtle chart, this situation seems a bit ambiguous (to me anyway). The Hirtle chart says for a non-US work published 1 January 1978 – 28 February 1989 with copyright notice, "Use the US publication chart to determine duration". The corresponding US chart for works published 1978 – 28 February 1989 says "Known author with a known date of death: 70 years after the death of author. Other works: 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first." OK, the publisher may be able to claim a 95 year copyright for the author's text - but can they really claim copyright over an old photograph taken 120+ years ago that the book happens to include? Muzilon (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main question is whether this 1987 publication was really the first. In most cases, it is not. How the picture was transferred from the photographer to the publisher? Yann (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned, the author says in his acknowledgements that he sourced the photograph (which was obviously taken c. 1900) from New Zealand's national library. However, I wouldn't know whether the photo was published elsewhere prior to 1987. Muzilon (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, and how the New Zealand's national library got it? You could contact them. Unless they got it directly from the photographer's heirs, it was most probably already published at that time. If the date of creation is more than 120 years old, {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} applies. Also New Zealand has a shorter copyright duration than Europe, so it is also probably {{PD-1996}}. Yann (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was truly first published in 1987 then (since it was created before 1978) it's in a special category which won't expire for quite a while yet. However, that is far from definitive. How did the National Library get a copy of it, if it wasn't published? Was it available for anyone to look at in the archives? If the 1987 publication was not done with the permission of the copyright owner, then it wouldn't count as publication. Most likely, if it was unpublished then it remained unpublished through 2003, meaning it would be 70pma if an author was known, or 120 years from creation if not (or it was a work for hire). If published long ago, then most likely PD via one mechanism or another. Do we know when the photo was actually taken? And what other provenance information is there? There are lots of ways it could have been technically published. And some ways it could still be technically unpublished. These aren't easy questions to answer with almost no information. It would not qualify for URAA restoration, if it ever did become PD before 1989. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're being very secretive about the photo, the subject, the book, and everything. It might help if you disclosed the information. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) I have added the photo to w:Henry Scotland under "Fair Use"; (2) the book in question is Dick Scott's Seven Lives on Salt River (1987); (3) oddly, the specific photo of Mr Scotland as published by Scott does not appear to be listed in the NZ National Library's online catalogue, although the photo was supposedly sourced from that library; (4) the National Library does have a different photo of Scotland available online, but with a non-commercial license. How the library can assert copyright over a digitized photo taken 120+ years ago is another matter. (I'm guessing NZ copyright law may recognise w:sweat of the brow, perhaps). Muzilon (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one at the library source is from a "General Assembly Library: Parliamentary portraits" collection. That would have to be Crown Copyright (don't think that status was formalized until the 1911 UK laws, but it would qualify thereafter, and regardless the copyright term was the same). They call the copyright status "unknown" so they just default to a non-commercial license I guess. The one you posted looks very, very similar in type. Don't think it was the same day, as in the online photo he's wearing a vest/waistcoast and in yours he is not, but maybe possible. More likely a similar type of portrait in a different year, though he looks a very similar age so 1890s seems like a decent guess for yours as well. I would be fine with {{PD-New Zealand}} and/or {{PD-old-assumed}} for either -- it's a photo which expired in New Zealand long, long ago and there would be no URAA restoration. I can't imagine an official portrait being unpublished. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I contacted the NZ National Library about their online image of Henry Scotland, they asserted the right to impose a "non-commercial, no derivatives" license on it, and therefore refused permission for it to be hosted on Commons. (This sounds somewhat similar to the NPG vs Wikimedia case, where the NPG asserted w:sweat of the brow for digitizing old portraits, despite the originals theoretically being public domain.) I haven't pointed out to them that Commons has sourced other old images of NZ politicians from the National Library. Muzilon (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, NZ would have inherited the definition of "original" from the UK, and not have to take any of the EU directives which (in the past) could modify it in the UK. Even there though, the act of digitization creating a new copyright is far from a proven thing, but they are protecting a revenue stream. Nobody here would delete on that basis, I don't think -- we reject that argument even if valid in New Zealand, per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. So they would be fine per our policy. But any risk would be taken by an uploader, so a New Zealand resident may have some risks that others don't, remote as they may be. And you may not want to antagonize anyone there, even if they are in the wrong, if you are working with them at all. So, entirely up to you. If you want to upload your own digitization of the other one from the book, I think it'd be fine. New Zealand photographs once were based on date of creation, with publication not mattering at all, and it became PD long before that situation changed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If it was truly first published in 1987 then (since it was created before 1978) it's in a special category which won't expire for quite a while yet."
 *Sigh*, well, I'll just leave the book's image as Fair Use on Wikipedia then. That should sidestep any disputes about whether it was technically "unpublished" or not. Muzilon (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The odds of 1987 truly being the first publication (by the U.S. definition) is bordering on zero. I would simply use {{PD-1996}} for the US side of things, if you must. It's about as theoretical a doubt as you can get. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're quoting a part of a comment that was made before you shared the information. Now that we know what this is about, it may not apply. It seems reasonable to say that Dick Scott is not the copyright owner of the photo and that he did not obtain a publication authorization from a hypothetical owner of a hypothetical U.S. copyright who is apparently unknown to him. It seems unlikely that this photo was first published outside New Zealand and it seems unlikely that it was published by the owner of the copyright in a manner and in a year that would make it copyrighted in the U.S. It looks like a photo taken circa 1890 and the likely situation is that it was probably published in New Zealand during the term of Henry Scotland. You did a research and found no useful information. It's hard to imagine what more can be reasonably required. I think it could be uploaded to Commons, under a filename different from the Wikipedia version, and you can mark the Wikipedia version with the "keep local" template there, in case it gets deleted from Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AntiCompositeBot, but providing proof[edit]

Hello! I have uploaded many pictures from Estonian volleyball team players that AntiCompositeBot has marked as To be deleted in 7 days (this will be tomorrow). But the owner of the pictures has sent a letter of confirmation to permissions-et@wikimedia.org. Can this deletion be put on held or was it not enough or what can I do? Angmar Brekker (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Angmar Brekker: see Template:Permission pending, I think it will be clear what you have to do. - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status of FC logos[edit]

JonayGM10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has recently uploaded a number of football club logos that are claimed to be in the PD. Is it really the case? Wcam (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elfriede_Wendtlandt_-_Ex_libris_Marie_Duca.jpg[edit]

Leider gibt es wegen mangelnder Kenntnisse mehrfach Lizenzverletzungen auf Seiten mit Werken der Künstlerin Elfriede Wendtlandt, die erst 1960 gestorben ist, nicht 1916 o.ä. (DAS habe ich schon 1x berichtigt.) Sie ist die Großtante meiner Frau. Bitte berichtigen Sie also freundlicherweise die Fehler! Erst 2030 werden Werke von Elfriede Wendtlandt gemeinfrei. Vorher dürfen sie in Deutschland nicht von irgendwem ohne Lizenz genutzt werden! Kleeblatt1 (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Könnten Sie uns bitte kurz darauf hinweisen, wo Sie das schonmal berichtigt haben, oder woraus das Todesdatum hervorgeht? Dann kann ich gerne den förmlichen Löschantrag für die Bilder stellen. Felix QW (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graph: daily sea surface temperature 1970-2023[edit]

Is it OK to upload this image of daily sea surface temperature from https://climate.copernicus.eu/july-2023-sees-multiple-global-temperature-records-broken (3rd image)?

The answers seems yes based on

See talk at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sea_surface_temperature#Image_used_in_lead Uwappa (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this a standard sign?[edit]

If so, is the stylised landscape PD?

(crossposted from commons talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Is this a standard sign?) Arlo James Barnes 13:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Where does the claim of CC-0 on that come from? Kartaview says (section: what is the license of the data) "Images you are uploading are available under the Creative Commons Attributions-ShareAlike 4.0". Is this your own work that you are deliberately licensing differently on Commons? If so, it would be good to mention that in the permission portion of {{Information}} and/or clarify that the Kartaview account is you (see the way I handle this at File:2022 Fremont Solstice Parade - 004 (52159149779).jpg, for example.
  • I'd say the sign is de minimis; I don't understand what you mean about the "landscape" being PD. You can't copyright the land, and the photo is apparently your own. Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You are correct that I release it under CC0, and I have edited the template as you suggested to that effect. I am not concerned about the COM:DM status, but rather whether a diagram of the sign ought be made based on this image. By 'landscape' I mean the hills and stream on the sign, not the real-life road. Arlo James Barnes 15:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'd presume that to be copyrighted unless we had specific evidence to the contrary, but someone else may know something I don't. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Krisztina Csáky[edit]

Hello! As I am from Zakarpattia Oblast of Ukraine, I've read news about the restorating of a XVII century portrait and I would like to download new version of it to the Commons. As it is XVII century work, it should be in public domain. Nevertheless, I decided to ask for advice in Ukrainian Wiki copyright Village pump. However, I was advised to ask about it here.

Well, the restoration work was made by AI. Thus, as I was answered, whether I have right to publish it here or not depends on the copyright policy of AI which was used to restorate the portrait. On the other hand, as I said, it should be in public domain. So, this is the biggest dilemma of my question.

Can you give me advice or explain Commons policy in such situations?

P. S. I'm sorry for my English if there are some mistakes in my message. And please use {{Reply to}} writing an answer, it would be better for me. Markverona (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Markverona: normally work by AI can't be copyrighted, and certainly the original image is in the public domain. Do have a look at Commons:AI-generated media#How should AI-generated media be handled? for attribution and required tagging. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thank you. If I got it, I may download this to the Commons saying this image is in public domain and was restored by AI at the same time. Can I just say AI because there is no information about what AI system did it exactly? Markverona (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Markverona: Yes, just provide as much info as you have. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, thank you! I've published an image File:Krisztina Csáky. Portrait in Uzhhorod Castle restored by AI, 2023.jpg. I would also ask you to check if I did it correctly. I'm so greatful for assisstance Markverona (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Markverona: other than my edit turning "restored" to "retouched" (a minor detail), what you did was entirely correct. - Jmabel ! talk 16:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. Thank you once more for assisstance! Good luck! Markverona (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missouri Digital Heritage[edit]

The Missouri Digital Heritage project contains tons of photos. Some of these state archives tend to be public domain (a la Florida Memory) but I'm not sure of the status of these photos. Many of these photos, such as this one, include under "Rights" a link which appears to no longer be working. Please let me know of any insight or thoughts anyone might have. Denniscabrams (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Churches and Dutch FOP.[edit]

COM:FOP Netherlands does include in its description that interiors of public buildings are covered by FOP. And Commons:Deletion requests/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-2.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-3.jpg were both decided as keep that church interiors are covered by Dutch FOP. Should it be made more explicit that church interiors are covered by Dutch FOP? @Ellywa: @Jameslwoodward: @Vysotsky: @Mdd: @JopkeB: @Adamant1: as interested parties. Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'd say no since according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands there are to two criteria the building has to satisfy in-order to qualify as a public place "whether an entrance fee was charged, and whether access may be denied on private law grounds." While churches might satisfy the first one since they don't charge an attendance fee clergy can (and do) deny access to whomever they want to for whatever reason they feel like. So churches aren't public buildings regardless of if they charge a fee or not. Otherwise you might as well say places like private residences are public buildings just because people don't charge their friends to come over for a visit. That obviously not how the law works though. There's no reason churches should get a special pass either. It's clear they are private buildings because they can deny access to whomever they want to based on private law grounds regardless of if they charge an entrance fee or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: just wondering whether that is true that churches in the Netherlands can arbitrarily deny someone admittance. I'm sure they can have rules for entry, especially ones about dress or behavior (but so can a stadium, or even a government building), but can they really arbitrarily tell an individual they may not enter? Would it then be legal for a church in the Netherlands to exclude a racial group? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think this is correct. Excluding a racial group would most certainly be illegal. (I live in the Netherlands). Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's essentially what I was going to say. A museum can't legally deny someone entry based on their race but are still considered private buildings because there's other criteria like hours of operation, dress codes, Etc. Etc. I assume the same applies to churches since they have services at specific times and can deny someone entry if they aren't dressed for the occasion or whatever. I'm not really sure how that would apply to government buildings or stadiums but Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands doesn't say either one are public places to begin with anyway. So... --Adamant1 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anything can be closed at certain times. That really doesn't seem to me like a decisive argument. What's the status of train stations or pedestrian underpasses? Would they have to be open 24 hours a day to be "public"? Even a public street might be closed to set up for a street fair, or to shoot a film.
I know that in the U.S. for purposes of FoP (which is only for buildings in the U.S., not for art) a space like (both indoors and out) is considered "public", even though they have the legal right to exclude someone for what they consider "inappropriate" behavior, and even though the indoor part closes at night. - Jmabel ! talk 21:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true. I don't think its the main or only factor by any means. Certainly the general ability to deny a member of the public from entering the building is more compelling. Opening hours a part of that though. But I definitely wouldn't write or modify a guideline based purely on it. The United States is more liberal for most things so I wouldn't neccesarily think they are comparable. Maybe a place like Germany or another European country since they all have extremely similar laws. Although Germany seems to be a little more strict with FOP then others. So perhaps not them. Im interested to know exactly you think the criteria is though. The fact that museum aren't covered at least narrows it down to not being purely based on if members of the public attend the place and only so many things it could be based on outside of that. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
museum[s] aren't covered: I think that's pretty universal on places with laws allowing FoP, but you are right that it does make it hard to say where the line is drawn about interior spaces. Or even what defines a "museum" in this respect: presumably in both Germany & the Netherlands, FoP would apply in a free outdoor sculpture park even though it's a type of museum. I doubt that would be less so if they closed a gate at night. FoP in both of those countries certainly applies to cemeteries, which really aren't that different than churches in terms of being able to enter, they just happen not to be indoors. I bet a lot of this is unclear and poorly tested in terms of case law. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. I think with the free outdoor sculpture park it would depend if it was fenced off and their was an entrance gate with attendants or not. In that case I assume it would be private regardless of it was outdoors. I think German FOP takes a similar stance with private parks, where they aren't considered public places even though they are outdoors and allow public access because the owner can deny access if they want to. If it's not fenced off and/or attended to maybe though. Cemeteries are kind of a weird example. I image there it's more to do with respect for the dead and their family members then anything else. It's possible you could make the same argument for churches, but I wouldn't hinge anything on it. Tangentially related but part of what instigated the discussion was this DR. In that case the building is an old monastery that was converted into a museum. Surely it's at least a bit of a stretch to say museums in old church buildings qualify for FOP even though they don't otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. For churches in the Netherlands I think we should differentiate between protestant and catholic churches (and perhaps other denominations, but I do not know them well).

  • Protestant churches have very limited opening hours, just when there are services, usually once or twice on Sundays, and incidental for other occasions (like weddings, funerals, Open Monument Day). But during services it is not respecfult to act like a tourist (which I guess is implicit to FOP: that you can wander around, look in detail to the works of art and make pictures). If you want to visit the church on other times, usually you can make an appointment with the sacristan of the church. There also may be concerts, but then there is a fee involved. Visitor attractions like the churches in Naarden and Gouda have longer opening hours, but then you have to pay an entrance fee.
  • In general catholic churhes have longer opening hours, usually daily several hours.

About access: I think owners have the right to deny access to their building. Usually the municipality (civil government) owns the chuch tower (dates from the Napoleonic time, see for instance Planviewer.nl) and the church community owns the rest of the building, which are private parties in the Netherlands. And in principle private parties have the right to deny access to their building. Perhaps they rarely exercise that right, but they do have it.
So I doubt whether churches in the Netherlands can be considered public places for FOP, perhaps catholic churches, but protestant churches certainly not. --JopkeB (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps @Arnoud Engelfriet: has time to add his insight on this matter: can we publish photos of artwork in churches? He has published about panoramafreedom in the Netherlands before: https://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/foto/openbarekunst/ . I decided to keep these photos. But I am in doubt now. Ellywa (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is complicated and has no legal precedent as far as I can tell. The issue is that while churches are publicly accessible, they are also places of worship where rights to privacy and right to exercise religion are very important. It's therefore debatable whether the inside of a church can be seen as a public place with all that implies for FOP. My position is that if you don't photograph during services, do not photograph worshippers (e.g. people burning a candle or praying in a corner) etc then I would consider your photo as legitimate under FOP. If you then can get in without asking permission or paying a fee (church-museum) then it's a public location.
It is not relevant for FOP whether the owner can deny you access. The legal standard is whether the public in principle has access, like with the grounds of a castle that has a sign "Open between sunrise and sundown". True, the owner can still kick you out, but this is "public" for purpose of copyright law. If it has a fence, you have to ring and discuss before you're let in, then it's not public. Arnoud Engelfriet (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much User:Arnoud Engelfriet. I think we can keep these images based on your view (who else could give a better view, if there is no legal precedent?). I do not want to bother you any further, but I noted some time ago photos of one of the Goudse Glazen, File:SintJanskerkGouda-Glas1c-Erasmus.jpg, designed by Marc Mulders, somewhere before 2016. You can only visit the Church where it is located by paying an entrance fee, so possibly that photo's will have to be deleted (I hope not; perhaps somebody can reach out to the artist). Anyway, many thanks! Ellywa (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks indeed User:Arnoud Engelfriet.
@Ellywa: Is it possible to include this new insight in Commons:Freedom of panorama/Europe#Netherlands and/or Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands#Freedom of panorama?
So: photos of church interiors in the Netherlands are legitimate under FOP if:
  1. the photo was not taken during services and does not show worshippers (for privacy reasons) AND
  2. you can get in without asking permission or paying a fee (then it is a public space). My addition: on a regular basis, not only on Open Monument Day(?)
JopkeB (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JopkeB: , I did include this insight on your second link already, in the English and Dutch versions. However not including Monument Day and privacy to keep it consize. I think it is transcluded on your first link. Ellywa (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to question Arnoud Engelfriet's knowledge here, but their opinion doesn't at all sound like how the law works. For instance Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands pretty clearly says "Parliament and the literature explicitly mention that schools...are not public places" and you don't usually have to pay an entrance fee to go on school grounds. I don't think anyone needs to get permission to do so in most cases either. Let alone are a lot of schools fenced off. There's also issues with the whole thing about making it contingent on if the image shows a person doing worship or not. Although I'd be interested to know why exactly Arnoud Engelfriet thinks schools are not considered public places even though they seem to meet his criteria for a place to qualify as one. Also, I reverted Ellywa's edit at least to the English guideline. I don't think a single comment is enough to justify changing the guideline at this point. Especially since it's questionable and the conversation clearly isn't finished yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: Typically a person unconnected to a particular school is not welcome to just walk into the building, whether fenced or not. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Admittedly it's been a while since I've been to a school but at least in the United States people can usually walk onto school grounds and play on the equipment or use the sports pitches if they want to. Plus with most colleges and universities anyone can wonder the around campuses pretty unabated. Including going into buildings or whatever. I'm sure it's harder to do for most schools under the college level now with school shootings being common and whatnot, but most small schools aren't really attended by anyone after hours or on weekends anyway. Really, they barely are during school hours. Colleges and universities definitely don't check people at the entrance to the campus. Maybe it's different in other countries though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does Open Monument Day (or Open Church Day, for that matter) make a difference on policy grounds? ReneeWrites (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you may enter a church as a tourist only on one or two days a year, on Open Monument Day and/or Open Church Day, it cannot be considered as a public place and so there cannot be FOP. That is why I brought this element in the discussion. JopkeB (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @SRientjes: @Romaine: and @Germien Cox: for this discussion, on the grounds that they organised Open Kerken Nederland 2023, which had a focus on indoor church photography. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"whether an entrance fee was charged" -> In the Netherlands there is a national park where an entrance fee is asked, otherwise you can't enter the area. Still the area is still considered a public space.
"whether access may be denied on private law grounds" -> This is so far I can see not connected with FOP. A castle garden, owned by a private organisation/family, generally open for the public, is considered to be public space. Even while private law applies. Commonly at the entrance a sign shows what the "house rules" are.
What is more relevant is if the location is considered to be destined for a closed group of people or to be open for the public. A school is destined for a closed group of people (the students who registered + parents). Churches are commonly open for everyone who wish to attend a service, but some churches may be not. Some churches are always open during the day. Most churches are closed because of the risk of vandalism and thieves (and lack of staff), but during some hours they can be visited freely.
What Arnoud Engelfriet is saying is the key here for churches: "If you then can get in without asking permission or paying a fee (church-museum) then it's a public location. It is not relevant for FOP whether the owner can deny you access. The legal standard is whether the public in principle has access, like with the grounds of a castle that has a sign "Open between sunrise and sundown". True, the owner can still kick you out, but this is "public" for purpose of copyright law. If it has a fence, you have to ring and discuss before you're let in, then it's not public." Romaine (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess that sorta makes sense. I don't see how basing it on if they charge a fee or not would be a workable policy regardless though since most of the time that type of information isn't readily available and varies depending on the particular circumstance. Also in a lot of cases, for instance museums, some parts of the building are free and some aren't. Although I still don't think it matters, but there's no way to base a policy on if a places charges or not anyway even if it does. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many, if not all, churches in the Netherlands have a website on which the opening hours are mentioned, as well as whether there is a fee involved outside service hours. So this information is available, at least for the majority of the churches. The same for parts of museums that are free. JopkeB (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most people on here including me don't speak Dutch. Nor is it necessarily easy to find or navigate non-English websites in a lot of cases to begin with. So I don't know how that would be workable for deciding DRs. Except for people who don't speak the language would having to just take the word of people who do, which clearly isn't a functional way to do things. The outcomes of DRs shouldn't hinge on specialists or people from a single country who are going to bias toward keeping photographs taken there. Really, someone should be able to tell if an image is a copyright violation or not simply by looking at it. That's usually how FoP is. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading scans from an old racing program[edit]

I am wondering if there is a permission level which would allow me to upload a cover scan from the program of the 1957 USAC Trenton 500 stock car race. The program appears to have been published by the track, the Trenton International Speedway, which is no longer in existence (it was closed circa 1980). The program has no publication or copyright information in it, and contains non-credited images of racing drivers. RegalZ8790 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=792114363"