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.

Kenhub videos

This discussion stems from Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices#Kenhub videos and Commons:Village pump#A dangerous precedent - DMCA after false relicensing, but I think the question of what to do with the other 90 videos is complicated enough to be worth a separate discussion. I would have opened a deletion request, but I'm not sure I actually think anything should be deleted.

The background is that in 2015, CFCF uploaded a bunch of videos from the Kenhub - Learn Human Anatomy channel on YouTube. They can be found with Special:Search/intitle:Kenhub. The uploader tagged them with CC BY 3.0, with a note saying "Licenced as CC-BY as of download date 3/1/15". But most of them didn't have a link to the source video and weren't licence-reviewed. Two of them were taking down in response to a DMCA request recently.

I've found 29 of the videos are still on YouTube and I've added added {{From YouTube}} as their source, which provides convenient archive links. In other cases (an in particular for all the "preview" videos I've checked) the channel has replaced the videos with newer ones at different URLs.

I've looked through the Wayback Machine archives for those videos, and very few of them were archived close to their upload date. But a few had archived versions from 2014 and 2015 and I've also found a few other old videos on the channel with archives from 2014 and 2015. The "show more" link on the archived pages doesn't work, but the licence can be found in the HTML source. This is what I found, sorted by the date they were captured by the Wayback Machine:

Capture	Commons file	Licence
20141009004017		CC BY 3.0
20141101193855		CC BY 3.0
20141106054704		CC BY 3.0
20141209091851	File:Pectoralis Major Muscle - Anatomy and Function - Human Anatomy Kenhub 1.webm	CC BY 3.0
20150116132344		Not stated(?)
20150125135848		Not stated(?)
20150609232518	File:What is the Anatomical Snuff Box - Human Anatomy Kenhub.webm	Standard YouTube
20150826061638		Standard YouTube
20151005221253		Standard YouTube
20151204184225	File:Teres Minor Muscle - Origin, Insertion, Innervation & Action - Human Anatomy Kenhub.webm	Standard YouTube
20151204193311		Standard YouTube
20151231013357	File:Pectineus Muscle - Function, Origin, Insertion & Innervation - Human Anatomy Kenhub 1.webm	Standard YouTube

So all the captures from 2014 show a CC BY 3.0 licence, while the ones from 2015 show either a Standard YouTube Licence or no licence at all. This would be consistent with all of Kenhub's videos being licensed under CC BY 3.0 at the date when these files were uploaded to Commons, and with the channel changing is licensing (including on older videos) in 2015.

So what can we do about this? Presumably File:Pectoralis Major Muscle - Anatomy and Function - Human Anatomy Kenhub 1.webm can be kept, since there's an actual capture of its page with the right licence. Can we keep the rest on the assumption that all the licences on the channel were CC BY 3.0 until some time in 2015? bjh21 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me close to certain that their claim is bogus. The question is: is it worth fighting, especially given that for the files they explicitly named in the takedown notice, our evidence is circumstantial? - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the only way to avoid this problem in the future is to always archive a copy of the page when it is uploaded or licence reviewed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a ping to User:JSutherland (WMF) as this might be interesting to him, in case he hasn't followed the related discussions closely, and User:BChoo (WMF) from the Legal Department as well. As I see it, per bjh21's research, it is most likely that these videos were all originally licensed under CC-BY at YouTube, just as the Commons uploader CFCF claims in the related discussion, and the license was changed later to non-free. As this would make the DMCA request which was grounds for deleting the two files bogus (CC-BY licenses are irrevocable), I would welcome it if the WMF would take a stand against this in some form. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Jmabel points out, it may not be worth pursuing. WMF should consider sending a letter to Pellonia Technologies LTD. demanding a declaration from the author that each of the videos was never released under a CC-BY 3.0 license. Glrx (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that last is a very good idea. Very good first step. If they won't do that, then there would presumably be a basis to object to the takedown notice. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, as bjh21 has shown, we do have evidence that at least some of the videos were originally licensed under CC BY 3.0, as per the Internet Archive's captures. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestumblindi: but not, as I understand it, the ones for which they sent a takedown notice. So all we really have is circumstantial evidence. I think it would be reasonable to press them for an overt statement that they never free-licensed those particular files. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work digging up the table above. I am quite pressed right now, and would not have had the time to go through all the files. I did not even remember uploading all of them. However, this does mirror my recollection - they were all CC-BY at the time of uploading, and later changed to Standard YouTube licences.

I'm not sure what the ideal way forward is, or what the legal implications would be of raising this as a case. I can restate, that I do not see myself in a position to counter the DMCA-notice, but if anyone else would do that, or if the WMF would see it fit to do so, I do not object. What is dangerous in not acting is that we open for others to do the same, and defending the CC-BY licensing process is certainly within the realm of what is important for the WMF. It would be very helpful to have a response from User:BChoo (WMF) or User:JSutherland (WMF) on this matter. Even if the WMF would choose not to prioritize this issue, I think the community would be quite happy with an acknowledgement that false relicensing followed by DMCA-takedown is an issue that is popping up. CFCF (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who has standing to contest a DMCA takedown notice, but I think what we (for variable values of "we") should do is to ask them to assert overtly that the files were never licensed CC-BY 3.0, and present our circumstantial evidence. I would hope they would be hesitant to stick their neck out and make a claim that is almost certainly false and could eventually somehow be proven so. (E.g. if this went to court, YouTube quite likely has backups that would prove the matter.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for a third party to file a counter-notice to a DMCA takedown. It is uncommon, though, since the party filing the counternotice must be pretty confident that the permission was right. Platonides (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SVG Recreation

If I create a recreation of an image that doesn't have a .svg equivalent, should I upload it as "my own work" or not? Dentsinhere43 (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There can be tons of work involved (unless some automated process is used) but one can argue that it is just a different format. Like changing a "jpg" into a "png". So I think you should not. Alexpl (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not that easy. Converting from PNG to JPG is a solely technical conversion process performed by a program. A manual conversion of the raster file to an SVG could make the underlying SVG code copyrightable --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss-klingenberg-003.jpg

Nach einem abgelehnten Löschantrag bleibt die Kernfrage unbeantwortet: Könnten diese Wappendarstellungen möglicherweise neueren Datums sein und somit urheberrechtlich geschützt? In Frage kommt zum Beispiel ein Rekonstruktionsversuch oder sogar eine eigenmächtige Ausschmückung des Kamins. GerritR (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are these coats of arms really as old as they look?--GerritR (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hat hier niemand eine Meinung dazu?--GerritR (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Neipperg-Wappen im Hintergrund ist zu einfach, um geschützt zu sein. Das blau-goldene Schwanenwappen auf dem Kamin sieht aus wie das Wappen einer Adelsfamilie, könnte alt sein, ist vielleicht aber auch pure Fantasie. Ich habe kein passendes Adelswappen gefunden. Womöglich hat sich da ein Hobbykünstler ausgetobt, man weiß es nicht. Zumal das Privaträume sind, das Schloss ist nicht öffentlich zugänglich. --Rosenzweig τ 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das geht eigentlich ganz in meine Richtung, und nach dem vorbeugenden Prinzip müsste man den Löschantrag eigentlich reaktivieren.--GerritR (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wahrscheinlich richtig. Gnom (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are these comics in public domain, if so, could you export them?

I was looking up info on what comic books and characters are in public domain for Commons:Character copyrights, and some say Namor is in PD because he was created for Motion Picture Funnies Weekly #1 before the wide release of Marvel Comics #1, and the former book didn't have its copyright renewed. But while many people claim the former book, and by extension Namor, is in PD because he first appeared in Motion Pictures Funnies which didn't have its copyright renewed, this link disputes this, saying that it may have been distributed after Marvel Comics, if at all. Do you think Motion Pictures Funnies is in PD, should the pictures on its Wikipedia page be exported to Commons? After all, the ashcan copies of Flash Comics/Thrill Comics/Whiz Comics #1 are also on Commons.

Moving on to Fawcett, Quality and Charlton. I'm led to believe that some comic covers up on English Wikipedia that are claimed to be non-free are actually free. Since the site Public Domain Super Heroes claim the issues are in PD, they have been up on https://comicbookplus.com/ for decades without problems (while DC has asked them to take down some comics many of them are still up) and these comics have also seen physical reprints from Gwandanaland Comics. Not only were copyrights not renewed, I've read that Charlton failed to put proper copyright notices on most of their comics in the 50s-60s to begin with. So if PDSH, CBP and GC are correct with their selections and assessments, it would be real helpful if someone with experience in exporting files could export the older pics at Captain Atom, Peacemaker (character), Question (character), Hoppy the Marvel Bunny, National Comics (series), Uncle Sam (comics), Doll Man, Firebrand (DC Comics) and Ray (DC Comics) to Commons. Grey ghost (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could use more help than I purported. As helpful as PDSH is, they're a wiki but they have few to no sources in their pages, so they're not completely reliable. And I'm still not sure if Motion Picture Funnies Weekly would be in PD since it was hardly distributed. Not sure either if Charlton put proper copyright notices on their comics. While they're up on comicbookplus.com at the same time digitalcomicmuseum.com say they cannot host some of the same comics. And some Gwandanaland books were taken out of print like this one with Ludwig von Drake. Grey ghost (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Character copyrights can be tricky. Each work that makes use of a character may add more details to that character; that effectively makes the character in that book a derivative work (expression added to an existing work). That additional expression may not be expired even if an early version was. For example, the first Mickey Mouse movie is now public domain, but any later additions to the character (such as a change in drawing style or backstory) remain copyrighted. A character copyright therefore often expires slowly, bit by bit. If the first publication of Namor did not have the copyright renewed, that particular comic is fine, but using any aspects of the character first added in later, still-copyrighted works is not OK. Works published *later* which were not renewed can still be derivative works of earlier works. When it comes to exporting, you have to go by the laws in the country of intended use. Many countries will protect a work for 70pma or other term regardless if copyright was renewed in the US or not. Per Motion Picture Funnies Weekly, that may have never been actually published, or maybe not published until the 1970s, so those may not be OK at all. One case that gets into a lot of details in this area is Warner Bros v. Avela, about reprints of publicity materials involving The Wizard of Oz, Tom and Jerry, and Gone with the Wind. Publicity material published without notice before the movies/cartoons were published were OK (but were not enough to create a character copyright), while ones from later were not. Even adding a (famous) quote from the movie to an otherwise PD print was enough to evoke the character copyright from the film (though characters from the book were public domain, the aspects added in the film are not). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.

Hi, s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. is not mentioned in COM:PACKAGING. I think that more information is needed in our policy about when this applies or not, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg. This has recently come into several DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heinz Yellow Mustard packet (20213949971).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg, etc. Yann (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably should be. That is saying that if the point of the photo is a larger subject, and the copyrightable element is incidental, i.e. unavoidably there but not the main focus, then the photo is OK. This is mentioned in Commons:De minimis although not really actually de minimis. The ruling is pretty much directly on point for copyrightable labels on otherwise utilitarian products. It can be difficult if the entire packaging is copyrightable, though. It's also still a problem if the photo is focusing on the label. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting my rationale for re-nominating another file for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg:
While the photographer of the Fanta can has released their photograph under a free license, the image still constitutes a derivative work of the copyrighted design on the packaging, and Wikimedia Commons’ policies do not allow such works without permission from the copyright holder of the underlying design. The reasoning to keep the image based on Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. is flawed because that case addressed whether a photographer could claim copyright over their own product photographs, not whether the underlying copyrighted design could be freely reproduced by others. Commons requires stricter compliance with copyright law, and derivative works—such as images prominently displaying copyrighted packaging—cannot be freely hosted without authorization from both the photographer and the copyright holder of the derivative work (think photo of a 3D artwork). Unlike in Ets-Hokin, where the focus was on the photographer’s copyright claim, the issue here is whether the photograph infringes on the copyright of the label itself, which it does under Commons’ rules. Freedom of panorama does not apply to product labels or packaging, and keeping the image risks violating copyright law. Commons operates under the precautionary principle, meaning that any uncertainty about copyright compatibility should result in deletion, and the copyrighted design on the Fanta can creates legal uncertainty regardless of the photographer's intent. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've written User:Josve05a/Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. about this. I'm very open for feedback on the subject, if I have misinterpreted the case law and/or Commons policies. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is also the case of the Pokemon Jet with a similar situation. Yann (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what has not been addressed is if the photos are derivaritive works at the first place. The essay centers around the limits of derivative works on Commons, which I believe misinterprets Ets-Hokin v. Sky.

It is true Commons requires photographs to be its own original work. If it is a derivative work, the underlying work must either be in the public domain or is freely licensed. Thus, the notion of whether the label on the bottle is a question of whether it is a derivative work or not; if so, it cannot be hosted on Commons. This is because companies have certain degree of control on derivative works.

However, in my view, there must be another reason why these images cannot be hosted. This is because the pictures are not derivative works.

For a work to NOT be a derivative work, it must pass a test, whether the original work is copyrightable. The 9th circuit effectively counters the claim that the pictures are derivative work. It rules that the picture is on the bottle, which is a utilitarian product that cannot be copyrighted, thus warranting copyrightability of the image. The bottle's labels do not matter, as "Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label." I.e. we are taking pictures of the bottle, not the label. Of course, this comes with trademark concerns, but that is beyond the scope of copyright. Commons is only interested in copyright and thus, whether a work is a derivative work.

Thus, it could be said that since any reproductions would not be a derivative work, it affords the author liberty to license and distribute the picture as they please, GIVEN that there is no modifications to close in on the lable to a 2d representation. This is quite in line with Commons policy, and should be added as an exception to packaging. Takipoint123 (💬) 12:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, the 9th Circuit's ruling in Ets-Hokin does not state that photographs of objects like bottles cannot be derivative works. Instead, the court specifically ruled on the copyrightability of Ets-Hokin's photographs of the Skyy Vodka bottle, not on whether the bottle's label or design was copyrightable. The court avoided deciding the copyright status of the label itself, noting that the "whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety," and thus granted copyright protection for the creative choices made by the photographer, such as lighting, composition, and angle. The case did not establish that product photographs can never be derivative works, nor did it address the implications of distributing such photographs under a free license.

Second, the assertion that bottles as "utilitarian products" cannot be copyrighted is only partially correct. While the functional aspects of a bottle, such as its shape for holding liquid, are not copyrightable, creative or artistic elements—such as logos, labels, and unique ornamental designs—remain protected by copyright law if they meet the threshold of originality. Commons policy explicitly recognizes this distinction and treats such creative elements as potentially copyrightable, meaning they may restrict the free use of photographs containing them.

Third, the idea that photographs capturing the "bottle as a whole" are immune to claims of derivative work because the label "does not matter" is not consistent with how copyright law views derivative works. A photograph of a bottle with a prominent label is effectively reproducing the label as part of the image. If the label or other decorative elements are copyright-protected, the photograph is inherently reproducing that copyrighted work. The question of derivative work, then, depends on whether the copyrighted element is sufficiently prominent and central to the photograph. This is where Commons applies its policies on freedom of panorama, threshold of originality, or de minimis use—not as an automatic exemption for product photographs.

Fourth, the conclusion that reproductions of these photographs "would not be a derivative work" misrepresents Commons policy. Commons does not evaluate whether a work is derivative solely on the utilitarian nature of the object depicted; instead, it assesses whether any copyrightable elements (such as logos, labels, or designs) are reproduced in a way that infringes copyright. Ets-Hokin does not grant carte blanche for photographers to freely license and distribute photos of copyrighted designs simply because the overall product is utilitarian.

Finally, regarding the suggestion to add an exception to packaging on Commons, this would conflict with Commons' precautionary principle, which requires that any content uploaded be demonstrably free of copyright restrictions. If the label or design on a bottle is copyrighted and prominently featured in a photograph, the image cannot be freely licensed without explicit permission from the copyright holder. This is distinct from the copyright protection granted to the photographer's creative elements (e.g., lighting and composition) under Ets-Hokin. Both the photograph and the underlying design must meet Commons' requirements for hosting.

TL;DR Please see https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/labels/ --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to accept this as a correct way to assume legal interpretations. Intellectual property law is inherently case based. Just because the case did not specifically say it applies to all cases does not mean it's inappropriate to take the case's interpretation that the bottle is not a derivative work. Court cases are vague for this exact reason. They "never say never" because every case is different; this doesn't prevent us from making reasonably close connections.

In fact, we don't go around deleting every file out there just because it might be an exception (Commons:copyright paranoia). It is quite clear the 9th circuit used legal methodology to dismiss claims that the work is a derivative work, and so is any other pictures of bottles out there. The 9th circuit did not comment on the label because it simply didn't matter, which they specifically point out.

I don't necessarily argue that bottles cannot be copyrighted. But, a regular clear PET bottle we see everyday is likely not, while a bottle that resembles Michaelangelo's statutes probably will. Nonetheless, this is out of the scope of the discussion for most cases.

Ets-Hokin (2003) specifically rules that the threshold of originality is very low for photographic reproductions of objects such as bottles[1].

I do believe the need for more community input on this matter, however. These are just my personal opinions. Takipoint123 (💬) 12:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: FWIW, your conclusions are the exact opposite of what the ruling says. Now, the issue is whether these pictures meet the criteria: "the whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety", or not. I could agree that the objective of these pictures were to photograph the labels, and are therefore not OK, but that's a different reasoning. Yann (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Please help explain how I misinterpret it, I don't think I am? Also please read the bottom part of https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/labels/. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: You say that the pictures are derivative works of the products. The whole point of the ruling is that it doesn't matter if the objective is to take the whole bottle. Yann (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from the ruling:

We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works.

In other words, yes of course labels can be copyrightable. However the photo was not focusing on the label, but a larger work of which the label is on. The ruling in that case is that the photo is a derivative work of the bottle -- the element being focused on -- but since the bottle is not copyrightable, there is no issue there. But, the photo is not a derivative work of the label, regardless if it's copyrightable or not. The label is incidental, i.e. is unavoidably there when the focus is a larger subject. That was also in question with Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc, a photo of a motorcycle with a very copyrightable bit of artwork on it. That overturned a lower-court ruling where photos could almost never be derivative works, but did state: Further weakening defendant-appellees argument is the fact that the ZX-14 motorcycles were the subject matter and primary focus of Latimer's photographs. Latimer's photographs can best be described as being "based upon" the ZX-14 motorcycles, useful articles not subject to copyright protection. The fact that Hathaway's artwork appears in the photographs is merely incidental. The ruling ended up being on a more narrow contractual issue, so did not make a binding ruling on the matter, but it seems clear they ended up about where Ets-Hokin did -- a photo of a larger subject is not derivative of something unavoidably there. This is also about the same as the French ruling on the "theory of the accessory", where a photo of a street with a prominent skyscraper at the end was not derivative of the building. In all cases, a photo focusing on the copyrightable label/artwork/building itself would be derivative, but not if focusing on a larger subject. That seems to be the balance of photographer's rights versus other artists rights, where that artwork appears in public or everyday items -- not everything is a derivative work. Should the designer of a copyrightable sports logo be owed royalties for every photograph of an athlete wearing that logo? That seems to be roughly the best "line" that I have seen, given that there are not many cases like this -- most photographic derivative work photos are about a photo focusing on a particular copyrighted work. I'm not aware of counterexamples to that. If the photographer deliberately includes a copyrighted element for effect though, that can be different. There was a US case of a fashion photograph where the photographer had the model wear a pair of very fancy glasses even though the point of the photo was the rest of the outfit -- but in that case, the addition was completely under control of the photographer, and they were adding the expression in the glasses to enhance the photograph. When photographing a product, labels are there regardless -- they are incidental. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: The interpretation provided overlooks a critical nuance: the extent to which a copyrighted element is central to the identity of the subject in a photograph. While cases like Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. and Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc. suggest that certain copyrighted elements may be considered incidental, this depends heavily on the nature of the product being photographed and whether the copyrighted element is intrinsic to identifying that product.

Take, for instance, a CD album where the entire surface is covered by an album cover design. A photograph of this product inherently captures the copyrighted design because it is inextricably linked to the product itself. Removing or obscuring the album cover would render the photograph unrecognizable as being of that specific CD—it would no longer represent the product in question but a generic plastic case. In this context, the copyrighted element (the album cover) is not incidental but central to the subject of the photograph.

Similarly, in the case of a Fanta bottle, the label is a defining feature of the product—it identifies the brand, the flavor, and the drink itself. If the label were to be Photoshopped out, the photograph would cease to depict a Fanta bottle and would instead show a generic PET bottle. This demonstrates that the inclusion of the label is not incidental to the photograph; rather, it is integral to the subject of the image as a product photo.

Contrast this with the examples provided, such as a motorcycle with a copyrighted artwork or a jersey with a sports logo. In those cases, removing the artwork or logo does not fundamentally alter the identity of the subject—the photograph would still depict the same motorcycle or jersey, albeit with less detail. The copyrighted elements in such cases are indeed incidental because they do not define the object being photographed.

The distinction, then, lies in whether the copyrighted element is intrinsic to the identity of the subject. If the copyrighted element is integral to identifying the product (as in the case of a labeled beverage bottle or an album cover), the photograph cannot reasonably be considered free of derivative work concerns. On the other hand, if the copyrighted element is merely an accessory or incidental to the broader subject (as in the case of a motorcycle or jersey), it may fall outside the scope of derivative work concerns. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling makes no distinction like that. The ruling specifically says a copyrightable label would have been irrelevant to the ruling -- it was simply not a derivative work to begin with of the label, no matter the aspects that you list. US copyright rulings actually make sure to mention that the visual impact or symbolic importance is completely irrelevant to copyright. Things like "defining feature" are more trademark, not copyright. This is US law specifically -- a work must be "based on" another to be derivative, and the ruling was that it was based on the bottle and not the label, so nothing about the label could make the photo derivative. It does say a work focusing on the label itself would be an issue, or a photographer intentionally including an avoidable copyrightable work for effect can be an issue. I am aware of no court case that makes the distinctions you do -- do you have examples? If not, that seems like a distinction invented here; I prefer to be able to point to actual court decisions to show that things like that can be an actual problem. It's entirely possible that something where the copyrightable design covers the entire surface of say a packaging box may be different -- not sure we have a test case like that. But it may not, either. There are further US rulings that are harder to apply here, where if the point is to illustrate a product no matter what it looks like, the photo is not trading off the actual expression present in the design -- the photographer would have taken the photo no matter what expression the product designers chose. It's really where the photo is trading off the specific expression of the underlying work that it's a problem. A similar aspect to that can be damages -- the Baltimore Ravens football team once had a logo contest, and the final logo was based off of one of the submissions but they failed to obtain copyright, so they were sued. They lost -- it was clearly derivative -- but the damages were $1 or something because the judge ruled that all merchandise was sold due to it being the Ravens (whatever logo they chose) and not because of the specific expression in that logo (and the submission was not registered for copyright, so no automatic damages). Some of those questions get into fair use territory too, so are hard to apply here. But the two cases cited above, plus the French one, seem to come down around the same lines of what makes a derivative work -- and I'm not aware of any counterexamples. If you can show a court case where stuff like that was ruled derivative, then we can look at the court case reasoning. If not, then I'm not sure we should be inventing definitions that may or may not exist for real. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most of the arguments I find are very general concepts that could be broadly construed in nearly every case. In general, given all other circumstances equal, the most similar case shall prevail when making decisions on copyright. Concepts like TOO and focus of the image is a guideline courts use to make decision and when specific decisions are made, should not be used for "what if" situations when a specific judgement was already made. This case makes it clear that the 9th circuit considered relevant guidelines, and made a decision that the label didn't matter. Unless this decision is overruled by a higher case, I don't find it plausible to argue on whether this case is in line with other copyright principles: I'd put my trust in the judges. Takipoint123 (💬) 01:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My last reply to this (promise), since I admit I now start writing in circle, and Carl above is far more knowledgeable than me with case law. But I still have another case to bring up.

The ruling in Ets-Hokin does not categorically rule out the possibility of a photograph being a derivative work when it incorporates a copyrighted element that is integral to the subject being depicted. While the court in Ets-Hokin determined that the photograph in question was not "based on" the label, this conclusion was tied to the specific facts of that case, where the focus was deemed to be the uncopyrightable bottle as a whole. However, this reasoning cannot be universally applied to all product photographs. For instance, in Rogers v. Koons, the court found that a sculpture was derivative of a photograph because the creative elements of the photograph—such as its composition and subject matter—were central to the resulting work. This demonstrates that when a copyrighted element is integral to the identity of the subject and meaningfully contributes to the resulting work, it cannot simply be dismissed as "incidental."

In the case of a Fanta bottle, the label is not an incidental detail—it is the defining feature that distinguishes the product as a Fanta beverage. Removing the label would transform the image from one of a Fanta bottle to that of a generic PET bottle, illustrating that the photograph is inherently "based on" the copyrighted label. This aligns with the standard for derivative works under U.S. copyright law, which considers whether the resulting work is substantially derived from the original copyrighted material. The argument that the focus is on the bottle as a whole does not negate the derivative nature of the photograph when the copyrighted label is integral to the subject.

Furthermore, while the counterargument claims there are no examples where such distinctions have been upheld, it overlooks the nuance in case law. In Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., for example, the court acknowledged that photographs focusing on useful articles like motorcycles are not derivative of incidental copyrighted elements, such as artwork on the motorcycle, unless the artwork itself becomes the focus of the photograph. This principle supports the idea that the role and significance of the copyrighted element within the work must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A Fanta label is far more integral to the product's identity than incidental artwork on a motorcycle, placing it outside the incidental-use doctrine.

Finally, Commons policy adds another layer of scrutiny. Even if U.S. copyright law were to deem the photograph non-derivative, Commons operates under a precautionary principle. Any ambiguity in whether a copyrighted element is integral to the subject or incidental should err on the side of caution to avoid hosting content that may infringe on copyright. As such, product photographs where the copyrighted design is integral to the subject, like a labeled beverage bottle, shoulld be deemed incompatible with Commons policy unless both the photograph and the underlying design are freely licensed or meet other exemptions.

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers v. Koons was an example where the photographer had control over the composition of the photograph, not simply the angle and framing like snapshots. They specifically arranged the people and dogs; that is a "selection and arrangement" copyright, and it was that aspect which was copied into the eventual sculpture, and why the sculpture was derivative. That is copying of specific expression, to enhance the expression of the sculpture. This can happen in studio portraits too -- why those are usually considered "works" and not "simple photos"; they are creating particular poses and facial expressions. If the specific curves in a logo (i.e. the actual artistic expression) are the reason it was included in a photograph, and not a logo's symbolic value, then it could be arguable. But a photo simply depicting a product as it exists may well not be. Arranging a bunch of copyrightable toys on the other hand, is a photograph selecting copyrightable expression because it makes a better photograph -- that can be a problem. As for the precautionary principle, that is for significant doubts, not theoretical ones. Situations in the middle of gray areas of existing court cases, sure. Situations where we invent an argument that courts have not, then claim that is enough doubt to delete because a court in the future might theoretically rule that way, I think we should avoid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ets-Hokin is over generalized. The opinion describes the label as only text and argues the minimal text is not copyrightable. Only after that argument does the opinion pronounce that it does not need to find that the text is not copyrightable because the label is incidental. It does not describe how much of the bottle was covered by the label. Skyy bottles do not have a large label. I accept that a small Nike swoosh on functional sports uniform should not produce a copyright claim, but I do not accept the notion that I can say I'm just photographing a utilitarian bottle and not the elegant floral design plastered on it. Glrx (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, it does not rule or argue that the label is uncopyrightable (though strongly hints that it is). Rather, it explicitly rules that even if the label was copyrightable, the photo is still not a derivative work. This is the paragraph of the ruling starting with We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable, quoted earlier in this discussion. This may be a somewhat technical ruling based on US law, but since the photo is "based on" the bottle and not the logo, it cannot be a derivative work of the logo. It cannot be construed to be "based on" the label, thus is not derivative no matter what the label is. Somebody other than the photographer put the label there, and they have a right to photograph the bottle, basically. This is about balancing the rights of a photographer versus other copyright owners -- the owner of a logo does not get to control photos of their products just because of a copyright in the label, it would seem. The Berne Convention is 150 years old and in all that time, you'd think there would be *some* cases out there which ruled something like this as a derivative work and thus infringement, if there was a likely problem here. Instead, we have three cases which have ruled along more or less the same lines -- the Roaring Toyz case was a definitely copyrightable design, and prominently on a motorcycle, but a photo of the motorcycle was likely not derivative (as again, they did not explicitly rule that but just strongly hinted). A photo focusing on the label itself is an issue, per Ets-Hokin, though -- at that point it is "based on" the label, so the copyrightability of the label then comes into play. I agree it may get harder when the entire item is covered by copyrightable work since it may be harder to distinguish what the photo is "based on", though again we don't have a ruling which definitively says that is a problem either, in say the case of livery on a plane where the photo is of the whole plane. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argues but does not find. From the decision:

Turning next to the bottle's label, which the district court also cited in part in categorizing Ets-Hokin's photos as derivative works, we note that "[a] claim to copyright cannot be registered in a print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter." 37 C.F.R. § 202.10(b). Although a label's "graphical illustrations" are normally copyrightable, "textual matter" is not—at least not unless the text "aid[s] or augment[s]" an accompanying graphical illustration. 1 NIMMER § 2.08[G][2], at 2-136. The label on Skyy's vodka bottle consists only of text and does not include any pictorial illustrations.

Glrx (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph after that is the important one and the actual ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is just a picture of plane that I do not believe belongs on Commons:

File:Transaero (Siberian Tiger livery), EI-XLN, Boeing 747-412 (21110098603).jpg

Glrx (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That one is more arguable to be a problem. It's focusing on the artwork in particular, not the entire plane. That is probably fair use in most cases but would be a derivative work, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so too. Most importantly, we're missing significant portions of the plane (i.e. the wings are mostly cut off). Takipoint123 (💬) 01:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thats not really what the 9th circuit says. The court only commented on the label because the defence counsel probably argued in that way. Courts work in a way that presents full counter arguments to every single aspect that has been argued to prevent misinterpretation and/or it going unnecessary to appellate courts. The court adds for further clarity that labels would not have mattered anyways. Us, as regular users (and not lawyers) should find the decision "as is" instead of making up potential nuances in the decision.--Takipoint123 (💬) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: who closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg as kept. Yann (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @King of Hearts: I apologize for taking your time, but I thought you might have a say as you used Ets-Hokins in your vote Takipoint123 (💬) 23:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg are exactly the same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, where Carl Lindberg says it should be kept. Could you please undelete these so that we could evaluate if Ets-Hokin applies there? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing of Salome - simultaneous publication

We keep the score of Archibald Joyce's Passing of Salome, which was published in 1912. One can see the title page here: https://musescore.com/user/64608175/scores/10757761. Archibald Joyce died in 1963, so it will still be in copyright in the UK. On that title page, both London and New York are named as places, although it is "printed in England". What are peoples' opinions on whether this is "simultaneous publication" and allows us to keep this image? Given that this is more about Commons policy rather than copyright law, I am not entirely sure if the legal 30 day window or the simultaneous publication doctrine are even relevant. Felix QW (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons policy is that we use the copyright term in the U.S. and the Berne "country of origin". The "simultaneous publication" and 30-day window is straight from the Berne Convention on how to determine the country of origin. Why do you think those are not relevant? It should be relevant in any country (which is not the country of origin itself, or the country of the author) which uses the rule of the shorter term, even if the "country of origin" result can seem illogical. As for this... unsure the mention of a New York office directly means it was definitely published in the U.S. within 30 days, but it is suggestive that it's very possible. They have a copyright notice on there, which (particularly for 1912) means they were intent on maintaining U.S. copyright protection specifically. It does appear that other copies were printed in the U.S. as well.[2]. (The 1909 Copyright Act had a "manufacturing clause"[3] that put some limits on copies made outside the U.S. but distributed to the U.S., so there was an incentive to actually manufacture copies in the U.S. as well.) I see U.S. registrations for it -- [4] has:

7945: Passing of Salome; waltz by Archibald Joyce; pf. © Apr. 3, 1912; 2 c. Apr. 4, 1912: E 282740; Ascherberg, Hopwood & Crew, ltd., London.

10320: Passing of Salome; Evening news waltz no. 2 by Archibald Joyce; band. (Boosey's supplemental military journal, no. 103.) © May 18, 1912; 2 c. May 20, 1912: E 286042; Ascherberg, Hopwood & Crew, ltd., London. [Copyright claimed on new band arrangement.]

10321: Passing of Salome; valse by Archibald Joyce; orchestra. 4to. © Apr. 24, 1912; 2 c. May 2, 1912; E 281442; Ascherberg, Hopwood & New, ltd., London.

14681: Passing of Salome; the Evening News waltz No. 2, by Archibald Joyce, [arr. by J. Old Hume;] band. 4to. (In Boosey & co.'s brass and reed band journal, no. 524.) © July 27, 1912; 2 c. July 29, 1912: E 287776; Ascherberg, Hopwood & Crew, ltd., London. [Copyright is claimed on new band arrangement.]

The "2 c" means the date two copies were received at the U.S. Library of Congress (another condition for full protection). I think the "pf." means pianoforte. There is no mention of an "ad interim" copyright, which was needed for books or periodicals first published abroad but which would be manufactured in the U.S. later and needed protection between those two dates (and should give the publication date in each country), though I'm not sure that was needed for musical compositions. That basically says though that the U.S. publication date was April 3, 1912. I can't find exactly when the UK publication date was, but your source says "April 1912" which would seem to indicate it was first published in the U.S., or very very close together at the very least. We would probably need evidence it was published before March 4, 1912, in the UK I think, to make the UK the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed reply and diligent research! I was mainly aware of the Berne Convention from URAA considerations, so I was unsure whether we use the same standards for our own Commons policy (especially since the UK will presumably still treat it as copyrighted regardless). Felix QW (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we use it primarily because becoming PD in that country *should* mean it also becomes PD in a good number of other countries (rule of the shorter term ones). But yes, a country will always give its own nationals the full copyright term so the rule of the shorter term would not apply in the UK in a case like this. It would not have been public domain anywhere in the EU either before Brexit; that could be an interesting question there as well (although many EU countries had old copyright treaties with the US which mandated they protect US works for those countries' own full terms so that may still apply here too). I'm not sure there has really been a test court case anywhere which involved the Berne "country of origin" when it comes to simultaneous publication for situations like this, so the best we can do is go by the letter of the Berne treaty (though, once we pick a country of origin, that country may have special-case longer terms). US law explicitly does not use any text from the Berne Convention as being legally effective; the URAA though uses the Berne definition of "country of origin" to maximize the number of works which are "United States works" and avoiding the need to restore those. When it comes to picking a "source country" between multiple non-U.S. countries a in a simultaneous publication situation though, they do not use Berne's definition but rather a more common-sense definition. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish cartoon

This cartoon of late Bulgarian violinist Michail Boiadjiev was apparently given to him by a fan after a 1968 concert in Goteborg; he did not get the fan's name. He subsequently gave the cartoon to his friend, user:CorosanD, who uploaded it after Boiadjiev's death.

I reasonably anticipate that the image is still under copyright; when is the earliest that the copyright will expire on a cartoon drawn by an unidentified Swedish citizen in 1968? DS (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess 70 years from then -- 2039. That would be the date if the 1968 act counted as "making available to the public", or it never gets legally published before 2039. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot more complicated.

First, there's a signature in the bottom right. If it's a famous illustrator, this could be a well-known signature. In that case, the author isn't anonymous, which means that the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author.

Secondly, Commons requires PD-US in addition to PD-Sweden. PD-US means 120 years from creation (assuming not published within 25 years from creation), or, if not anonymous, 70 years from death (if not published before 1978).

Third, the standard term in Sweden is 70 years from creation, if the author is anonymous and the work isn't published within 70 years from creation.

Fourth, Article 10.1 of Directive 2006/116/EC states that Where a term of protection which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive was already running in a Member State on 1 July 1995, this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State. According to the old law, the copyright to an anonymous work expires 50 years after publication. If the work is unpublished, it is my understanding that the copyright expires 50 years after the death of the anonymous author. This means that you won't know if it has expired or not until you are sued by the heirs of the anonymous author. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are pictures from this California local government website in the public domain?

I would like to add a picture from this website in United States, California, San Mateo County to Wikimedia. Are the images here in the public domain? https://www.smcsheriff.com/sheriff-christina-corpus PacificDepths (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The website is claiming "© Copyright 2024 by San Mateo County Sheriff's Office" at its very bottom, but that won't matter if this falls under {{PD-CAGov}}. Whether a local sheriff's office is considered one of the "Agencies permitted to claim copyright" is unclear. Even if it is, however, it most likely would only be so in the case for 100% original content created by the sheriff's office, and not for anything hosted that was created by a third-party. I tried Googling "Are sheriff office websites protected by copyright in California?" just to see what came up, and it appears that quite a number of sheriff office's are claiming some form of copyright ownership over their official websites. For example, this one appears to allow for non-commercial reuse (which is too restrictive for Commons) except when clearly indicated otherwise, with the same applying with respect to this one as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old maps of Dili

In this book (Dili's Architectural Heritage of Portuguese Origins) there are a number of map images from very old (centuries) maps. Is screenshotting these and uploading them acceptable under Public Domain, or is this affected by the republishing? (I don't think the full maps are on Commons, if anyone knows how to get them that'd be great.) Also double checking if the US army maps at this page can be uploaded. Best, CMD (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I can't access the first link you give. What is the publication date of this book? All works by the US government are in the public domain, so maps from the 2nd link (CIA maps) should be OK. Please check first that they are not already on Commons. Yann (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I seem to have the same situation. I am told "Publication access is currently limited" and "Limitation will be handled by the publisher, and the publication may be accessible again later.", and strangely, I am not allowed to copy that text. However, according to https://issuu.com/incidentaldoc if I search for the text "Dili's Architectural Heritage ..." (which hides "Dili's Architectural Heritage of Portuguese Origins"), I see that it was published October 14, 2015. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, it was working before. I checked the Commons maps before asking this question, although no guarantees I didn't miss it I suppose. CMD (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image can be seen here, but there is no information about it. Yann (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few maps, or parts of maps, within the book with captions. Page 14 has "Dilly's Port and City Plan, Second Edition, 1895. © IICT". Page 18 has a map just called "Dili map © AHU", but it's possibly the 1834 plan discussed in page 19 or otherwise a map from that period. Page 24 has "Dili's Urban Plan, 1972 © IPAD", probably too new for our purposes. Page 26 has an unfortunately low resolution scan of "Hidro-topographic Plant of the city and port of Dili and surrounding area of Timor" 1841, made by the Lte Coronel and Governor of the Province of Timor Island Frederico Leão (1839-1844). © SGL". The front cover you link is a part of that image (although in much higher detail). Page 29 has "Schematic plat of Dili, 1942. © Isabel Boavida." Page 56/57 has a detailed scan of "General Urban Plan of Dili, 1951. © IPAD." Page 59 has "Schematic plat of Dili, 1975. © Isabel Boavida.", again possibly too new. As can be seen, it looks like they listed copyright by whoever provided the image, not the original artist. (There are some old images and drawings as well, but the maps are easier to start with.) The overall book is © Copyright Secretaria de Estado do Turismo, Arte e Cultura Timor-Leste, 14 de Outubro de 2015. CMD (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: IMO, everything before 1930 should be OK (unless there is an author mentioned, and this author died after 1953, quite unlikely for a map). Yann (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:CUR Macau

I have not exanimated the referred Decree-Law No. 7/95/M of January 30 completely, but it was repealed and replaced by the Law no. 10/2023 (Chinese version & Portuguese version) thus has no legal status (regarding copyright) any more. Furthermore, on the website of AMCM there is a reproduction guide(Chinese version & Portuguese version) stating that it is exempted to request for presenting Pataca images on a electronic monitor/screen and shall deemed to be approved. Hence, I wonder would this means it is now ok to upload some Pataca images here? — An Macanese 08:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of scans of installation media

Hi! I would like to know if files like this Windows 1.xx disk, this Windows 3.11 diskette, this Windows CD, or this CD fall under PD-scan?

Thanks and regards --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Gnom (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die prägnante Antwort :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit too wordy. How about ✓ ? ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or "1" as binary sequence :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent the installation media is just uninteresting, factual, text, there should not be a problem. Figures raise a problem because they must be below ToO or have a free license. The first image has a tulip, and the last image has Microsoft's flying Window. Both might be above ToO. Glrx (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closely traced species plate artwork

Hello, I've been looking for images of a species for a while (Dactylomys boliviensis) and have come up with nothing. A book I have, Handbook of the Mammals of the World Vol 6, has plates that show a nice illustration of each species (see example in this book preview). Would it be an acceptable "derivative work" to copy individual species by hand in grayscale, possibly in different positions, similar to this work File:Dactylomys dactylinus.JPG? Reconrabbit (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work carries the copyright of the underlying work plus the copyright of the person making the derivative work, so if the book in question (or, more precisely, its illustrations, which could be older) is in the public domain or (very unlikely) free-licensed, you can do this and then license your work in a way acceptable to Commons. However, if the original illustrations are still copyrighted, then you cannot upload your tracing, because it would be derivative of a copyrighted work. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Then, would be able to create an original work depicting the species with the plate as a reference work, as few to no photographs exist? This book is copyrighted 2016. Reconrabbit (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your own drawings would need to be recognizably different from the original, ideally relying on other sources as well. Gnom (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicling America

There was a recent discussion on the main Village Pump about whether a custom license tag should be created for content hosted on the Chronicling America site. As is the case with a lot of discussions there, we saw a lot of idle chatter with no tangible results. Since CA's coverage of newspapers ends with 1963, would the content fall under {{PD-US-not renewed}} or some other circumstance? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they are a mix of {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}}. {{PD-US}} is a generic tag that encapsulates those, but specific ones are better if possible. Newspapers from before 1929 (increasing each year) can use the expired tag, and any others on the site before 1964 (which does not change) we can assume were not renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous licence

Someone might wish to take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard files where there is an ambiguous licence: If anyone wants to release these albums, you’re free to do so. Here you’ll find links to audio files and cover art. Feel free to get creative with it if you like - it’s yours.

Problem 1: What about material which is not part of these albums, such as photos of events? They seem to be unlicensed.

Problem 2: What does the licence actually allow you to do? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Edwards sculpture

Hi all, hoping to get some help figuring out the rights status of some images uploaded to Commons via the Columbus Metropolitan Library (CML).

Several slide images (1, 2, 3, 4) of a public sculpture by American artist Melvin Edwards were included in a batch upload from CML via DPLA last year. There don't seem to be any issues with the licensing for the photographs themselves, but they contain a possibly copyrighted sculpture by a living artist. The sculpture pictured, Out of the Struggles of the Past to a Brilliant Future, was created in 1982 and permanently installed in a publicly accessible plaza in an apartment complex in Columbus, Ohio; Edwards regularly publishes images of his work with copyright notices, so my baseline assumption was that the work was in copyright. But I've seen the sculpture in person and the plaque next to it, and I didn't see any copyright notices (although I didn't inspect the entire surface of the work). I also can't find any record of a copyright registration. I think it would be correct to assume the various circumstances combine to mean the work is in the public domain, and thus images of the work like the ones uploaded from CML can also be freely licensed without permission from the artist, but I just wanted to check here to be sure before I actually use any of these images in the Melvin Edwards article on English Wikipedia.

Any insights appreciated. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. A 1982 sculpture was not published by display in a public location and could still be in copyright. Selling tangible copies of the work (including photographs) to the public would have constituted publication, and then registration would have been necessary to maintain copyright protection. Unless first publication happened on or after March 1, 1989. So it depends on a lot of things we do not (yet) know it seems. --Rosenzweig τ 18:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I had the '78 and '89 rulings dates mixed up in my head, thanks for the clarification! 19h00s (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick follow-up, would publication of a photo in an exhibition catalogue count? It was pictured in a 1984 catalogue for an exhibition at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris (OCLC 68026649). I know this is a pretty murky part of the law so there may not be a satisfying answer here. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I'm not sure. Maybe Clindberg knows something? --Rosenzweig τ 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might but I'm not sure a lack of copyright notice on the catalog (if it is in fact missing one) would mean the sculpture is PD. Sculptures put up 1978 and later are harder due to the newer definition of "publication" in the law which went into effect then. The photos are unfortunately problematic without permission from the artist, it would seem. The SIRIS page is here but that pretty much just confirms the above -- no inscription (meaning no copyright notice) but only installed in 1982 where that act did not lose copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sad because the pictures would have been useful, but that's copyright for ya. Thank you very much for your help here, I guess someone should go ahead and start a deletion request for the images with a reference to this discussion. Pending any additional change to the law/new information about the circumstances of the work's publication, I imagine these should be undeleted around the year 2100 (lol), dependent on the creator's final few years. 19h00s (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Marino's signature

is Tom Marino's signature on page 6 here protectable by copyright due to the slash through the underscore on the M? Or is it OK to upload to the Commons? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Therapyisgood: There is pretty much no such thing as a copyrightable signature in the U.S. There might be a few exceptions (e.g. Pete Seeger sometimes used a signature that incorporated a drawing of a banjo, and that might be copyrightable) but this doesn't get close to that territory. - Jmabel ! talk 19:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 or 2076 (?) for the city hall of Le Havre

It's 2025 and w:en:Auguste Perret's public buildings in France are now in public domain. However, per the deletion request concerning one of his works, another architect was involved in the building. Yet, according to w:en:Hôtel de Ville, Le Havre#History, Jacques Tournant "supervised the development of the design until the building was officially opened on 14 July 1958." Does this mean the city hall remains copyrighted until 5 more decades later? Or is the architectural authorship still Perret's (since, as per my comprehension, Tournant was only involved in the design development, and may only had adapted the original design by Perret)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]