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.

Loesje and the TOO[edit]

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

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

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

It is certain that these are not copyrightable works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@D. Benjamin Miller: But COM:POSTER does not make an exception for non copyrightable content. So I read it as: "All posters are normally copyright-protected." The only exception that is made, is for "FOP not requiring permanence". JopkeB (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that rule of thumb is poorly written. In any case, it makes (indirect) reference to the fact that some posters are in the public domain (by mentioning pre-1989 US posters). In any case, let it be made clear: a poster is just like any other piece of paper, and it is the contents of the poster itself which may or may not be copyrighted. (Of course, besides uncopyrightable posters, there are many old posters whose copyrights have expired.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then I would advise to adjust this text, AFTER there is consensus about this matter, which has not yet been achieved. JopkeB (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text says: "Posters are normally copyright-protected even if the artist is unknown. Thus, images of posters cannot usually be accepted." These qualifiers already imply that some posters are in the public domain. And moreover, it is not debated (and cannot be reasonably debated) that there are some posters in the public domain, whether via expiry of lack of copyrightable content.

The purpose of COM:POSTER is not to address a particular legal rule which applies only to posters (since there isn't one). The purpose is instead just to remind people that posters can't be copied simply because they're in a public place. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intermezzo (2): Statements made on own authority[edit]

The above statement The opinion of the Loejse organization is irrelevant... D. Benjamin Miller (Overleg) 06:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) has puzzled me from the start and made me wonder if they where made on own authority or even are an other fallacy. Who is D. Benjamin Miller to say such things? After checking his given weblinks I found a thin website and thin X account with no further social media accounts, which made me realize D. Benjamin Miller is a pseudonym: It seems to be an anonymous Wikipedia user, who created that website and X account to maybe give authority or whatever.

Now I still could be wrong about this practice, and used to think that that is not allowed. Years of dealing with this kind of practice and practices alike made me realize they are actually holding up a mirror, bringing up things no one is prepared to say regularly. Personally I think there are more open and direct ways of bring forward those concerns, such as... "it is questionable... to take the position of the organization into account". But I will continue with this in my next comment.

If this would be Wikiquote I guess I would start a discussion whether this kind of possible deception should be allowed. I recently stated my opinion about these matters on Wikiquote, see here, that I would look into earlier contributions. But here I like to stick to the subject at hand. My conclusion about this particular intermezzo-matter is, that most likely these statements are not made on authority of a natural person, but on account of a anonymous Wikimedia Commons user. -- Mdd (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, this is my real name and identity. To accuse me of creating a fraudulent identity is outrageous. If you really want, I could certainly verify that I am really who I say I am.

Moreover, it is irrelevant and nonsensical. Users on Wikimedia Commons can be pseudonymous or use their real names. Nothing I have said depends in any way on my identity, and users who use their real name are not considered more credible than those who don't. I've never claimed that anything I said above was true because I said it; I argued for those points based on principles and precedents. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks and sorry for not been able to connect the dots before. I can explain some more, but you can start by that doing yourself. There is just one dead link in your Wikidata account, which can be replaced by the archive.org link. Your early graphic design is mentioned in an archive with your date of birth, and I would appreciate if you would or would not present that yourself. I am pretty sure that other people cannot connect the breadcrumbs you did present. People then jump to conclusion, to the false conclusion. Realizing your background gave me some more perspective. Thanks and good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When arguing it's always important to try to stay at the top of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further comment[edit]

With the two intermezzos I have tried to putt the initial discussion into some perspective. It made me realize that several statements by user:D. Benjamin Miller are shear denials:

It is certain that these are not copyrightable works... D. Benjamin Miller (Overleg) 00:41. 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The opinion of the Loejse organization is irrelevant... D. Benjamin Miller (Overleg) 06:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Kawara's writing of dates on colored backgrounds is not copyrightable... D. Benjamin Miller (Overleg) 03:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Now as I already mentioned before, I tend to agree with Jmabel !'s comment that it is "more complicated than that." Now I can add to this comment that there is a community-consensus that contradicts otherwise on all of these three points. Or at least there has been a community consensus so far. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mdd: You need to realize that people and organizations often claim a copyright which doesn't exist. And they pretend to give a license, free or for money, which they are not allowed to do. We have thousands of such files on Commons, copied from Flickr or elsewhere (i.e. [1]). See also Commons:How Alamy is stealing your images. What does matter is the law. Nothing more, nothing else. Yann (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up @Yann: . In the Netherlands and in the European Union as well you don't even have to claim copyright. You automatically receive copyright if you publish an creative product. The key question here is whether or not the posters by Loesje are a creative product. Now what determines a creative product? I can think of a thing or two:

A creative design process in which creative choices are made
A resulting product which explicitly expressed a certain threshold of originality

In these matters Wikimedia Commons sets their own standards, as any independent organization by law has to do, and upholds them and protects them after legal threads or whatever. This is all known, and general guidelines.

Now for example if we look at our policy regarding logo's, I guess we acknowledge that there always is a creative process, yet there is a lager part of logo's that don't express the threshold of originality in the graphic design itself. Now making the analogy towards the graphics alone of the Loesje posters, this can be the case as well, but this is questionable.

Now also these Loesje posters contain a text, a creative text, with 10 to 20 words in the center. The express an original thought which often comments a contemporary societal event or long standing state. This text is expressed in a non-trivial way, with twists of words you generally find in poems. Again an further analogy can be made with the copyright regulation and assessment made on this kind of artistic texts. For me this in evident that those texts fall under copyright, but again others may still stat that this is questionable.

Next there is the unique combination of both, which makes it into a unique mix which can be compared with minimalist works of art. And next those works have an element of performance art, that they are presented in open places in urban area's on certain moments in time. Take for example the Loesje posters which were left behind in 1989 on the Berlin wall. It is all part of an amazing societal adventure which I personally admire since the beginning in the early 1980s.

Now if we want to assess the copyright statements of these unique works, we cannot assess every element on its own and take an average. Well, maybe we can, but I think this is not fair. We should take it as it is as a whole: a creative product of group of people in Arnhem in café Meijers which came up with a plan to shake up the world. And they did. -- Mdd (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't claim that this case is more complicated than that. This case looks like simple copyfraud. I was just saying that the prior statement was an oversimplification. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: , sorry for misinterpreting your initial word. You are familiar with the Loesje organization operating since the early 1980s in the Netherlands, and since the 1990s international as well? Do you still think it is copyright fraud? And why so? -- Mdd (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marginally familiar, but, yes, I think the assertion that (for example) their uncopyrightable logo is copyrighted is outright copyfraud; similarly for claiming to copyright formatting, simple sentences of no particular distinction, etc. Some of these things might be protected by trademark law, but they seem to me to be willfully misinterpreting copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for putting this into perspective, I can relate to most of your assessment, all but "simple sentences." This is a part I double checked several times with the Dutch posters. The phrases don't pop up in any other text. -- Mdd (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And take for example the first poster (see above) from 2005 that reads...!? Here is the thing, what does it actually reads:

"Ukraine. When democracy isn't working. People are. Loesje"
"Ukraine. When democracy isn't working. People are..."
"... When democracy isn't working. People are..."

All of those phrases are unique. They are statements commenting on a specific societal situation in time and place. And for these reasons I presume copyrighted protected. -- Mdd (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The phrases may comment on a societal situation, but ideas are not copyrightable.

For instance, a political scientist may devise a theory explaining some societal phenomenon and write a book elucidating the theory. The book, as a work of authorship (writing), is copyrighted. The theory itself is not. Accordingly, Wikipedia can write an article about the political scientist's theory which includes the entire idea (but not the entire original text).

In order to be copyrightable, these sentences would need to convey an non-trivial amount of originality as writings, above and beyond and distinct from any idea or observation contained within. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having said this all, I can also relate to the copyright-notification by Loesje claiming all of these copyrights. In the Netherlands the term with specific lettertype "Loesje" as a signature is so familiar, that everybody would think it originates from their Loesje organization. So I could image that they want to avoid this kind of in-personification. Also they don't want any printer starting selling birthday-wish postcards or whatever with their signatures. For these reasons maybe a de-minimis tag could/should be added with the posters presented at Commons. I am pretty sure their claim was never intended to be global for every situation. But now I am not sure if they have trademarked their name. -- Mdd (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Netherlands the term with specific lettertype "Loesje" as a signature is so familiar, that everybody would think it originates from their Loesje organization. So I could image that they want to avoid this kind of in-personification. Also they don't want any printer starting selling birthday-wish postcards or whatever with their signatures.

Source labeling is a matter of trademark law, not copyright law. Yes, Loesje may prevent other people from selling products which are portrayed as having been made by Loesje. But this has nothing to do with copyright! D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loesje posters are works of art and therefor under copyright[edit]

There is an amazing amount of denial in this discussion of which I just realized it started from the first introduction:

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

I guess there is a fragment in this initial introduction. I could/should have been written as:

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

I guess the obvious has been left out here. My conclusion is that this discussion started with a false dilemma ignoring the obvious. Works of art are being framed as a sum of graphic element. With the statement you can't copyright ©️ ideas the existence of the art work is being denied, but framed a idea. -- Mdd (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

of which their works are under copyright, as with the works of any artist collective

Things are only protected by copyright if they are works covered by the scope of copyright. You have repeated over and over that it is "obvious" that the phrases on these posters are copyrighted works (as evidenced, you say, by Loesje claiming that they are). As @Yann, @Donald Trung and @Jmabel have said, that is hardly obvious. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First (1st) of all, regarding the "polder model" comments, that concept is neither uniquely Dutch nor it supersede any laws. The "polder model" is just the Dutch name for a process that is akin to the Wikimedian concept of "building consensus" and every culture has similar concepts, it's just that the Dutch have named theirs, that's not unlike many Chinese people thinking that guanxi is a uniquely Chinese concept despite being identical to the Dutch concept of a social kruiwagen. Regarding establishing consensus and the restrictions of copyrights this can only ever go in a single direction. Imagine if a collective of Dutch artists would all engage in "the polder model" and conclude that something that is protected by copyrights isn't protected by copyrights, then anyone following their consensus would be open to a lawsuit. Therefore, any implementation of "the polder model" can only benefit copyright ©️ trolls and the most litigious of artists. At the Wikimedia Commons we therefore always build consensuses based on the Precautionary Principle (PCP), that is "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. This doesn't apply in the case of "Loesje" as I just cannot stress enough how uncreative the underlying idea of "black text on a white background with a signature underneath it" is, now "Loesje" would likely have trademark rights on its signature.

I would also hardly call it "consensus" if only 2 (two) users add an organisation's copyright ©️ notice on a category page without discussing it with anyone elsewhere, that would in fact be the antithesis of "the polder model". That's also why I brought it for discussion here so it can enjoy wider scrutiny from members of the Wikimedia Commons community that more often deal with complicated matters of copyrights and related rights. that is "the polder model".

Trademark (™️/®) rights are independent from copyrights and don't protect the same things. For example, the United States Bureau of Investigation issued a request demanding to remove the seal, the full text from Wikipedia is "In July 2010, the FBI sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation demanding that it cease and desist from using its seal on Wikipedia. The FBI claimed that such practice was illegal and threatened to sue. In reply, Wikimedia counsel Michael Godwin sent a letter to the FBI claiming that Wikipedia was not in the wrong when it displayed the FBI seal on its website. He defended Wikipedia's actions and also refused to remove the seal. From this version of the page "Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation". While the FBI seal is definitely in the public domain it is protected by a fairly largely number of non-copyright restrictions, if someone were to make a t-shirt that read "Artists are dumb - Loesje" then "Loesje" could easily sue and win against this, but trademark ® restrictions aren't the same as copyright ©️ restrictions and the threshold for trademarks are significantly lower, in fact there is no creativity threshold to register a trademark. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the lay(wo)man the term "intellectual property" and "copyright ©️" are synonymous and this is why it's not uncommon for corporations and groups to claim that "they hold all copyrights" for a work that is only protected by other rights such as moral rights, personality rights, trademark rights, Etc. Even though Mickey Mouse ascended into the public domain last month the Disney Corporation still has trademark rights over the mouse and I highly doubt that we'll see any Mickey Mouse comic books produced by any non-Disney producers.

The concept of "it's art, therefore it's copyrighted" is too vague to work, anyone can call anything "art" and therefore claim copyright ©️ (in fact, as demonstrated above many already do). The art itself has to be sufficiently original in order to qualify for copyrights. Sentences and slogans are oftentimes not creative enough because theoretically anyone could have uttered them with minimal creative labour and most sentences or slogans that are legally protected tend to be protected under trademark law rather than by any form of copyrights. This is also why almost every "{{PD-textlogo}}" is followed by "{{Trademarked}}", "Loesje" has separate intellectual property rights that aren't covered by general copyrights and these should be respected, but those restrictions don't prohibit people from uploading those files to the Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An addendum, even as taken as the sum of their graphic elements, "Loesje" posters are still simple short sentences on an empty background with a simple signature underneath it. This concept is just too simple, I'm not saying that it's not "artistic", I'm just saying that it doesn't require much creative labour to come up with this. It is an idea so simple that anyone can come up with this by mistake. People typically put their signatures at the bottom of a text, I have some books with a short message by the author and then their autograph, these messages look identical to the works of "Loesje". In fact, the whole idea behind the "Loesje" posters is that they look like a stereotypical quote, it was never an original idea to begin with. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No evidence or indication that Loesje posters are not under copyright and treated as such[edit]

There is a ton of denial, second-guessing every word and building lager arguments. Yet the bottom line is these are works of art & literature and are under copyright. Donald Trung uploaded two of those works last year (1; 2) without permission. And in such situations it is up to the uploader to prove they are free of copyright. In a recent other case the Loesje posters were mentioned as example. If he proves the first are legal uploads here, he can use that result for the second. Good Luck. I rest my case. -- Mdd (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but this argument remains weak no matter how many times you reiterated it. I could write the word "renegade" 19 times in a row in a precise cursive hand and declare it a work of art, but that wouldn't make it copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Jmabel: for your explicit feedback, which I might mention in further discussion seeking second opinions (about the question whether or not these minimalistic works of art & literature generally fall under copyright, and should be treated as such here as well). I am well aware that on other larger recent copyright debates on Commons (for example [2], and [3]) and the Dutch Wikipedia (for example [4] and just last week here) I haven't been able to get through (yet) also. After resting this Loesje case here, I will move on looking at the bigger picture of creating more enduring circumstances for enduring collection building and government. I hope to present a more coherent vision by the end of the year or next year, but this all for the record. Thanks again. -- Mdd (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some more about On Kawara[edit]

For here and now I am not going to talk about Loesje anymore, but I would like to say a few words about the works of On Kawara, his work and it's copyright status. First some personal references. I am familiar with his work since the early 1990s and saw a larger exhibition of his work in Rotterdam in Museum Boymans in december 1991 (source [5]) when I was studying at the Academy of Art that year. Earlier that year I had received my Engineering Degree (M.A.) at the TU Delft in a Control Theory and Business Administration direction which had offered a course on Law as well. Later early 2000s I self-studied the institute of law and the whole of Ducth law book for multiliple months. By the end of the 1990s I had also taken two longer Art philosophy courses with a group of Rotterdam artists under Antoon Van den Braembussche at the Centre of Philosophy of the Erasmus University (of which I made some graphics see here).

Here on Commons, Wikipedia and Wikiquote over 15 years I have been involved in many copyright disputes with related to all kinds of articles and sections of the Dutch copyright Act. In this particular case however I think it relates to the basics. the first article of the Dutch copy-right act in the Netherlands that reads:

Het auteursrecht is het uitsluitend recht van den maker van een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst, of van diens rechtverkrijgenden, om dit openbaar te maken en te verveelvoudigen, behoudens de beperkingen, bij de wet gesteld.

Translation: Copyright is the exclusive right of the creator of a literary, scientific or artistic work, or of his successors in title, to make it public and to reproduce it, subject to the limitations, at the legislated.

Now as Roberta Smith in the NYT, July 15, 2014 said: "On Kawara, a Conceptual artist who devoted his career to recording the passage of time as factually and self-effacingly as art would allow, died in late June in New York City, where he had worked for 50 years..." (source)

According to Dutch law On Kawara was an artist, who as any artist made works of art that automatically fall under copyright because On Kawara made them. In the Europe it works the same, and in the rest of the world also. Now I am aware that this a s sort of circular reasoning, but that according to me is how law can/should be applied. Now of course we can decide to not uphold the law, but that is no enduring policy. People can deny that On Kawara's work is art. People can argue that his works don't express the threshold of originality (as well). Then again we could/should go into determining what is art, what is threshold of originality, why does that apply to his work, what does his work actually do? Which will be a never ending story.

Earlier on I had stated that his works falls under copyright. In stating so I also made them on my own authority, yet having in mind I could bring up all of the things mentioned here and start from that. Now I have added these personal details here so that other people can put my words in some perspective as well, or get some background where I got my ideas. I am no lawyer myself. I used to think I knew little about this, and didn't understood how it works. All of my experiences here and now made me capable of connecting the dots here as I did. Again I could be mistaken, and I am open for arguments, and preferable real examples that share some more light on these basic matters of art & law. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) / 08:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again you start with the premise that any art is automatically under a copyright, but this is not the case. Creative art is under a copyright. This may or may not be art, but it is obviously not under a copyright. Yann (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main point is that copyright is not about what is artistic, but what is copyrightable. Many things that are not artistic in any way are nevertheless legally works of authorship subject to copyright, and a some things that are considered artistic are nevertheless not copyrightable works of authorship.

"Art" is a really broad word, and can be used in many ways. In particular, performance art and conceptual art often don't involve the creation of a work of authorship. For example, you mentioned the Berlin Wall earlier, and how posting something there may be considered a form of performance art under some circumstances. However, copyright law doesn't cover the notion of doing or posting something at the Berlin Wall.

It is not really necessary (as far as copyright goes) to argue about whether or not On Kawara was an artist, or whether or not his writing down of dates was a form of art. Copyright protects works without regard for whether or not they are considered artistic by their creator (or anyone else), and without regard for whether or not the creator claimed to be an artist or was considered to be one without someone else.

The test for copyrightability you've proposed here isn't really based on circular logic. It has a fundamental principle: identification. Essentially, if someone identifies something as art, it is copyrightable (which leads, naturally, to debates about what is and isn't artistic, as you say). There are jsshes with this test. But in any case, it is not the legal test in effect anywhere.

The deal test is whether or not a work has the elements which make it a sufficiently original work of authorship (that is, above the threshold of originality). The exact terms used for this vary, as do the properties such a work must have, depending on the law of each country. But the legal test, it must be said, relies in no way on whether or not someone (including the creator) views something as artistic, but instead on the content itself and whether or not it contains a non-trivial element of original human authorship.

Of course, determining whether or not this is the case is not always entirely straightforward. We can compare things with examples we find in legal precedents.

But for example, On Kawara writing a plain date is definitely not a copyrightable work of authorship, because the painting does not include any creative element of original authorship (nobody owns the date). Part of conceptual art can be rejecting the elements of creation found in conventional artworks. But not creating things is — whatever commentarial value it may have — is not a form of creative authorship. If it were, then anyone could claim to be an artist who makes minimal art and lay claim to exclusive ownership of basic geometrical forms, writing the date, etc. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Yann, indeed this is my premises, yet I am struggling with that as well. So there is an element of struggling or uncertainty. Now first, I would like to illustrated this with a real example about the question if "any line" an artists draw falls under copyright. This example is It is about a Colombian artist (see image), which I met (in 1990) around the same time I saw that first work of On Kawara (1991). I will upload two more picture first to get the picture(s) and this story on one place. -- Mdd (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, de minimis is a different principle.

The basic idea there is that incidental copying, especially if that copying is not of much of the work, is OK (with a few different potential legal-theoretical justifications). Here, the photo is clearly of Calero, not a copy of his work overall, even though some of his work is visible in part. Since the artwork is particularly obstructed, not in focus and not the central part of the image, it is probably not an issue. The painting in question is still subject to copyright, but the way in which it is present is minimal enough that it is negligible. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, done. This example is about the time I was observing artist's real close, not knowing I was destined to become one myself. Now to set the scenery in the North of Portugal a Danish student, a German art-student and Jorge Calero (first image first three from left to right) around the campfire early evening. The next day we sat at the coffee-table of a local bar, were the German art-student was drawing in her dummy. I guess after Jorge spoiled some coffee, in some split seconds he took that coffee and started drawing the German artist as you can see only using his one finger. In those split seconds I was playing with my Canon camera noticing that scene. I took a photograph of Jorge drawing [2], the subject he had drawn [3] and his final drawing [4]. Now I cannot have been more then a few minutes all together, now 32.5 years ago:

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

Now I brought this up just to illustrated that I have been struggling for some time, if I could share one or more of these pictures here. It is clear to me that the forth image [4] is under copyright with he even signed... But I am struggling about the second image [2]: does this fall under copyright as well. There are just a few lines there, and only if you see the result, you can make it out. If I would have taken this picture earlier noting would have been seen. Now in my perception there can be such moments of uncertainty, where the situation remains questionable.

Now Yann brought up that "Creative art is under a copyright," suggesting we could make a division between creative and not creative art. This questionable. This example can also remained us that there is always a creator, which can be an art student, a young professional artist or an engineering student. If I am not mistaken in the picture [2] in the left side corner in the bottum there was also some drawing by me, which doesn't look like much. A bee of a bug maybe? I would not claim copyright on that part myself. Now by to the signature on the right bottom corner, Jorge did, or maybe I even asked him to sign it, before I took the photo. But there he did claimed the drawing.

For me this was an experience once in a lifetime, an unique experience. And that is an important aspect of art, that it is one of a kind. Original. Back to Yann's statement. I can agree with that "Unique works of art are under copyright". And that "all finished works of professional artists are under copyright". -- Mdd (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legally, copyrighted works are not required to necessarily be particularly unique (although pure copies cannot be copyrightable). For example, under US law (and the law of at least some other countries), if two people write the same poem entirely independently, then they both hold a copyright to two legally distinct poems (even if the words are the exact same). Of course, this sort of identical independent creation is incredibly rare. There must be the ability for the artist to make some kind of choice which is manifested in the result, but it is more complicated than that.

As your last point: whether or not someone is a professional artist definitely does not matter under any circumstances at all. The works of amateurs and professionals are treated exactly the same under the law with respect to copyrightability. The macaroni art of a kindergartner is exactly the same, legally, as the work of a professional painter. The only relevant fact is that both authors are humans.

As for these photos, [4] is definitely a reproduction of a copyrighted work, fully subject to copyright, and must be speedily deleted, unless you have permission from the artist to release his work under a free license. [2] is less of a straightforward reproduction, but the work is still too central and the same probably goes for it (permission is likely required, unless the art is blurred out/removed). Photos [1] and [3] are both perfectly fine. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, it doesn't matter whether or not a work of art is finished per se; it matters whether or not the work present in the copy is enough to qualify as a work on its own. Many works of art are never finished by their authors, but nevertheless have enough content such that the unfinished portion is legally copyrighted.

The test here (in the EU) is actually the exact same one given in Infopaq. Take, for example, a novel with 100,000 words: that's a copyrightable work. The first word by itself is not. Nor are the first two by themselves. At some point, there will be enough authorship to constitute a copyrighted work. The first 500 words of the novel are virtually certainly enough to constitute a work, and are thus protected by copyright, even though that would only be 0.5% of the full novel. Similarly, an incomplete artwork is subject to copyright if the portion in question has enough original authorship to be a work by itself. The first stroke in a painting, like the first word, is not copyrightable, but at some point, even an incomplete painting becomes a work.

The amount of the total work used can be a component of a fair-use analysis, but that's a different subject. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just chiming in to say reading your explanations along the way through this chat was so helpful for my broader understanding of these issues and principles, so thank you! I only wonder, on the topic of On Kawara, irrespective of his following or not following of copyright notice/registration rules: would examples of his date paintings not have been eligible for copyright under the assumption that the individual brushstrokes on the painting combined to constitute a sufficiently creative work? That's been the logic used by others in deletion rationales around images of work by Ellsworth Kelly, for example - the basic forms and colors Kelly used (simple geometric shapes often in monochrome) were inherently uncopyrightable, but because he hand-painted them the detail of his brushstrokes allowed for the works to be eligible. Feel free to ignore as this seems to have already been a long discussion prior to my chiming in. 19h00s (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading through the pages "Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Untitled' (2005) by Ellsworth Kelly -- Glenstone (MD) October 2018 (45168025595).jpg" and "Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Untitled' (2005) by Ellsworth Kelly -- Glenstone Museum Potomac (MD) October 2018 DSC 1502 copy copy (45168024205).jpg" I would argue that the works by Ellsworth Kelly discussed there are fundamentally different from "On Kawara", the "On Kawara" works are always simple dates with only a singular background, that is, the strokes of the brush made to get to these colours aren't unique or creative in any way, it is just a fully red or black background with a date written using white paint. The works by Ellsworth Kelly here involve significantly more mental and physical labour to produce. And as you noted in the latter discussion "Crucially, the notice says "sculpture in plaza," not just the sculpture itself. Given the context of Serra's original arguments against the government's decision and the timing of the filing, it seems like Serra may have copyrighted the site-specific sculpture, i.e. Tilted Arc when installed in the plaza, not just the sculpture itself. I have to think that's why the Copyright Office let it pass ToO muster if other similar simple sculptures have not been deemed copyright-able." which makes me wonder why this specific art piece is copyrighted but not similar pieces of art elsewhere. In some countries brush strokes fall under the "sweat of the brow" doctrine and I'm sure that "On Kawara" might be copyrightable in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I sincerely doubt that something as simple as a date on a background is copyrightable in any other jurisdiction. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I'll be honest the case of Serra's Tilted Arc still baffles me as to how it was eligible for copyright, and it essentially feels like a "hinge" registration in terms of how it's used by notable minimalist and conceptual artists' estates as an "ipsto facto" for their own holdings' copyright status. But I was mostly referring in my comment here to user:Toohool's previous comment about the surface of the Kelly sculpture being painted. Point taken though, the On Kawara paintings are markedly different in the way they come together (or don't) as a "creative" work, defined under US law.--19h00s (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Tilted Arc registration (1) predates Feist and (2) would not, if found to be invalid, be the only registration found to have been granted for an uncopyrightable work. I don't think that the existence of a registration for Tilted Arc should be taken to indicate a such a low TOO, especially given the current Copyright Office guidance in the Compendium. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The UK does not accept the "sweat of the brow" principle, and hasn't since, at the very least, 2009, with Infopaq, which was incorporated into UK law and remains incorporated post-Brexit. UK cases since then have affirmed this. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By no means can the fact that he made a bunch of brushstrokes in itself result in a work of authorship under US law. Per Feist, the amount of effort put into something is irrelevant. The only factor which can be used for judging copyrightability is the amount of authorial creativity present in the final product. Whether the process for producing the painting was easy or hard is not really important: there is no question that the final product has nothing more than the basic writing of the date. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @D. Benjamin Miller: for your further response. However you brought so much interference that with my dyslexia I cannot make up the discussion any more. I will leave this discussion for now and copy/pasted the text to Category talk:On Kawara, and rearranged it in a form I can still comprehend. Also I will give my response to your comments over there. Thank you. -- 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdd (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

The Berne convention says that the country of origin was the country where the work was first published. The rule under Yann's #2 applies only if the work was simultaneously published in two countries. That's not the case here -- they were first published solely in the US. Some of the works in the DR may have been published earlier, if so the comments above do not apply, but it is my understanding that all such works were removed from the DR. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Assuming they were never published, these files were {{PD-US-unpublished}}. How can a publication makes them under a copyright again? Yann (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template you cite applies to works first published after 12/31/2002. We are told above that the family published these in 2002, so they are copyrighted until 12/31/2047. See the third box on File:PD-US_table.svg. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screenshots from Italian films (revisited)[edit]

If a 1969 Italian film was released without copyright notice, was screened in the USA in the 1970s, and was belatedly registered for US copyright in 1990, are screenshots from that film allowed on Commons? Or is this going to fall foul of COM:URAA? I refer specifically to these screenshots from Boot Hill. There have been previous cases where other Italian film screenshots were deleted - but those were more clear-cut because those films did have a US-compliant copyright notice. Muzilon (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Muzilon: URAA restores all works that were still in copyright in a country on its restoration date regardless of whether it complied with U. S. copyright formalities or not (U. S. copyrights for Alfred Hitchcock's The 39 Steps and Fritz Lang's Metropolis had been expired for years before URAA had restored copyrights for them. Metropolis is once again public domain in the U. S. but is still copyrighted in Germany since Lang died in 1976.) So it basically comes down to whether the 1969 Italian film was in copyright in 1996, which it would have been. Abzeronow (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the confusion on Commons arises from {{PD-Italy}}. Italy has an unusual copyright law regarding "film frames of film stocks" (i.e. production stills), which uploaders are interpreting (rightly or wrongly) to mean "screenshots". Stills are copyrighted for only 20 years in Italy, even though the entire film they are sourced from is copyrighted for "Life+70" of the film-maker. There have been many such Italian screenshots uploaded to Commons on the assumption that this is OK. However, these screenshots may not be public domain in the USA as required by COM:Licensing. Muzilon (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But since it would only be 20 years, the still itself would have not been under copyright in Italy on the URAA date, no? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The film itself is still under U.S. copyright though, and thus we cannot host the film still here. Abzeronow (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, I think Commons will need to take a long, hard look at the plethora of screenshots from Italian movies. Muzilon (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OpenAI generated videos[edit]

OpenAI has released the first news of Sora, their text-to-video generator [6]. I would believe that anything it generates would generally fall under {{PD-algorithm}} and would be okay to upload at the Commons? However, it makes me wonder how much of these demonstration videos were trained on existing copyrighted stock/video footage. PascalHD (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think OpenAI has addressed the issue of potential copyright infringement in their training data, or is there a risk of uploading copyrighted content to Commons unintentionally? 70.68.168.129 03:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the answer is the latter, please read Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem > Experiments with Midjourney and DALL-E 3 show a copyright minefield, by Gary Marcus and Reid Southen. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank god it's not our problem what training data they use Trade (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trade: Oh, but it is, see COM:VPP#Ban the output of generative AIs, extrapolated to videos. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License clarification for Template:MSC[edit]

Hi. Please see the discussion at Template talk:MSC#License clarification. A clarification for the license is required. Thank you! -- DaxServer (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musixmatch logo[edit]

Might File:Musixmatch-logo-panoramic-Brand.png qualify as PD-ineligible? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't say what country, but I'd think no problem in U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubt about the rights of an image[edit]

Hello! I'm from Argentina, sorry in advance for my English (I'm using a translator). I have doubts about whether I can upload the image found on this website (http://luzyfuerzapa.com.ar/institucional/hugogiorno.aspx) since there is no information about its permissions. Thanks! -- Máxsipoz (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since images by default are protected by copyright, lack of any licensing information == the image cannot be uploaded. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, okay! Thanks for the information. Greetings! --

Máxsipoz (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Máxsipoz: Por lo que vale, las preguntas en español, alemán y francés tienden a obtener respuestas bastante rápidas aquí. No dudes en utilizar el español.

Según el Convenio de Berna, cualquier cosa que pueda ser protegida por derechos de autor, es protegida desde el momento de su creación. Hoy en día, ese es el caso en prácticamente todos los países importantes del mundo, por lo que cualquier cosa creada en las últimas décadas, casi no hay posibilidades de que sea de dominio público. Si no ve una licencia explícita, Commons no puede usarla. (Hay unos pocos gobiernos que colocan su mismo trabajo en el dominio público automáticamente, pero incluso allí, la mayoría no lo hace). - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aahh, genial! Muchas gracias por la respuesta y la información. Un saludo! --

Máxsipoz (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Annalisa logo[edit]

Hi, is there a free font matching more or less Annalisa official logo in order to upload it as an SVG {{Textlogo}}? Otherwise only the initial letter A. Thanks.-- Carnby (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[edit]

The source site of this PDF says "Licença: Domínio público" but it also has the CC BY-NC logo at the bottom. The PDF's first page says "1. Você pode utilizar esta obra apenas para fins não comerciais". But the file is also just a facsimile of an old book (in public domain, for sure). This other file is in a very similar situation. Should they be deleted? Enaldo(discussão) 18:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first file is dated to 1648; I am not aware of any legal jurisdiction in the world that would retain copyright from so long ago. The website's claim to release it under a Creative Commons licence would only be valid if they have altered the work to make it a derivative of the original.

The second file appears to have been published in 1903, so is PD in the United States. The author appears to have died in 1934, and the country of origin licence template says the copyright only lasts 70 years after death, so PD in the source country in 2005. Again with the first file, the only way a Creative Commons licence would be valid is if they have altered the work to make it a derivative of the original. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@From Hill To Shore: On possible alterations, they say: "Trata‐se de uma referência a um documento original. Neste sentido, procuramos manter a integridade e a autenticidade da fonte, não realizando alterações no ambiente digital — com exceção de ajustes de cor, contraste e definição." (Pinging @Erick Soares3) Enaldo(discussão) 01:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@From Hill To Shore In Brazil, who died in 1934 entered PD in 1995, due to the 1973 copyright law (Life + 60 years - the maximum death date for this earlier law is 1937). The 1998 law extended protection into 70 years after death, suspending PD from 1999 until 2009, the year the PD releases restarted. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-US-1978-89[edit]

I just discovered {{PD-US-1978-89}} at File:Dave Jamerson 1989 01 (cropped).jpg. Does this mean you can crop images out of newspapers between these dates for use on WP? I am looking for an image for w:Gary Bossert. I was wondering if I could just clip an image from the sources in the article (sources 1,2,8,14,25 all have images of him between these dates, with the first couple being the highest quality).-TonyTheTiger (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a file has a legitimate PD "licence" template on Commons then you can do anything you want to it (while following COM:OVERWRITE). If you are asking a broader question about any newspaper in that period, then no. You would first have to establish that what you want to upload qualifies for being Public Domain (or has been released under a free licence we can accept). From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you can't just crop images out of newspapers from that period. The newspaper needs to be (generally) first published in the US and not have a copyright notice anywhere in the paper, or the photo needs to be shown to have been distributed to newspapers without a proper notice.

As noted here, there was no copyright notice for the newspaper itself, so the photo is PD-US-1978-89 as a result. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are the odds images in w:Buffalo Courier-Express (sources 1, 2 and 8) or w:Tonawanda News (source 14 and 25) qualify for PD use?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Always low, because there just had to be a copyright notice for the newspaper as a whole, and most did, especially by that era. But you'd need to see the entire issue to tell -- usually around the masthead, but publisher credits could be elsewhere. Advertisements did need their own copyright notice, and could not rely on the overall notice ({{PD-US-1978-89 advertisement}}). If the newspaper did not have a notice, and the article/photo was from a service like AP or UPI, then I'm also not sure it lost copyright (copyright was not lost on a "relative few" copies without notice, and it's likely those were published in many more newspapers which did have notice). Newspaper renewals happened less often, but that can only help with issues before 1964 -- you can look at UPenn to see about renewals for periodicals. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Courier-Express did have a copyright notice in their masthead, looking at source 1. Can't see the full newspaper on the other one given the source links. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The images in the other one are pretty poor.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about the copyright of a photo which is in the public domain ?[edit]

Hello everyone,

I have a question about a photo that I had imported into Commons and which has just been deleted. I found this photo on the website of a Russian museum. It was taken over 70 years ago and the author is unknown. In my opinion, it is free of copyright, however, the photo was deleted for the following reason: everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here.

My question may be easy to answer and I am sorry in advance if i did not understand something which is basic for experienced users. Thanks Penastal (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the cases on your talk page, I am guessing this relates to File:Gorbatchev 1950.png. The justification for deletion was given as, "Copyright violation: Wrong license, the source is non free." Only administrators can see the details of deleted files but if you can reply here with a link to where you found the image, a non-administrator may be able to provide comment on why it was deleted. Alternatively, an administrator may be willing to take a look at it for you. There is also a formal process to request undeletion but, if this is an "obvious copyright violation" as tagged, the formal process will be a waste of everyone's time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for answering.

I didn't want to start the process because yeah, it's probably obvious why this was removed and it would be a waste of time.

What is strange about this story is that this morning when I tried to go to the URL of the source of the image (the one I wrote on Commons), the link ended up on the new version of the museum website, and the article in question no longer existed.

It looks like the site has changed during the same time period that I uploaded the photo (weird?)

Despite everything, I managed to find a version of the page with the Wayback machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20221021010400/https://stavmuseum.ru/news/?ELEMENT_ID=34516 Penastal (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that it was still under copyright in Russia in 1996, the U.S. copyright would have been restored and probably exists for 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation, if shorter). That is regardless if it has since expired in Russia, which is possible but not a guarantee. If the photographer is known, the term could be based on their lifetime. Determining public domain status can depend on date of publication, and if an author was named on those earlier publications. From the looks of it, guessing probably a college yearbook photo or something like that, so we could probably assume publication in 1950 with an anonymous author. Unless the author became known, that has just recently expired in Russia by the terms of {{PD-Russia}}, but copyright would still last in the U.S. until 2046. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg

which amounts to saying that regarding photos by anonymous Russian authors, it is not possible to import photos more recent than 1926 (1996-70)? Penastal (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, a work first published in Russia by an anonymous Russian author in 1927 or 1928 would now be in the public domain in the US, because even if the US copyright was restored in 1996, the US copyright has since expired. That is the difference between {{PD-Russia-expired}} and {{PD-Russia-1996}}. —RP88 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sort of. The Russian term in 1996 was 50 years, so anonymous works published (or made available to the public) 1945 or earlier had expired before the URAA date and would be OK (they got retroactively restored to 70 years in Russia after that, but the U.S. status was unaffected). But yes, some countries (mostly in Europe) were 70 years on the URAA date. The U.S. limit is 95 years from publication, so that line that line is now 1928 or earlier, moving up one each year. So say an anonymous German work first published in 1926 did get restored by the URAA in 1996, but would have re-expired in 2022. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT not clear[edit]

Kaushik.atulya (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user - Last first 4 files' licensing seems unclear as per source as the source did not give proper licensing. What to do in such case? ~AntanO4task (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see only four current files uploaded by this user. Two are marked with {{No permission since}}, one has VRT pending, and the other is File:Delhi Meerut RRTS and Metro Map.png. Based on the link, that last appears to be eligible for Commons, but the wrong licensing template was used, which I will fix. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US Painting Copyright Q - Do exhibition pamphlets count as publication?[edit]

Wondering whether reproductions of paintings produced in pamphlets distributed at an art exhibition count as publication. Sam Gilliam painted Red Petals in 1967 and first publicly displayed it at the Phillips Collection in Washington, D.C. the same year; it was reproduced in a black and white photograph on the cover of a single-sheet folded pamphlet distributed at the exhibition, which I viewed in a library - there is no copyright notice on the front, verso, or interior of the pamphlet. The pamphlet does have an OCLC number (I viewed it in a different institution than the single museum listed on WorldCat), but I'm just not sure if this would constitute publication - the work was never registered but republished many times since its first appearance, often with a claim of copyright. Any insights? Thank you! 19h00s (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's certainly publication of the black-and-white image in the pamphlet, but presumably not of the underlying work.

Whether exhibition at that date constituted publication under U.S. copyright is a separate question, and I don't think it has ever been well settled. - Jmabel ! talk 07:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahhh, so black and white reproductions of a 2-dimensional work of art don't strictly count as "publication" of the underlying work? Do they have to be full color to pass that threshold? If it's way more complicated than that, don't feel like you have to dive super deep, I'm happy to do some more reading if you can point me in the right direction on these more nuanced technical aspects of what constitutes publication. Thank you so much! 19h00s (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's publication, but only of the expression seen in the distributed pamphlet. If there is expression in the painting which is not in the pamphlet (color, details visible at higher resolutions) then the pamphlet did not publish that. So we should be free to scan the image from the pamphlet and upload it. Usually the color is not part of the expression when it comes to photographs (that aspect is not part of the human authorship), but in theory if only a crop of a photo was published, the cropped-out portions could remain unpublished. Or for an unpublished screenplay, everything that ends up in the movie was published, but if there are parts of the screenplay not in the movie, those remain unpublished. For paintings though, everything you see is part of the human expression. The painting itself may count as published from that point, but losing copyright required distribution of actual copies without notice -- so only the expression in those distributed copies was without notice, and only that expression lost its copyright protection. If the painting was permanently put up in public before 1978, then a notice on the painting itself would be required. Some further details at copyrightdata.com. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

El Gráfico images[edit]

I was checking the images taken from El Gráfico archive, an Argentine sports magazine. A lot of them have a heavy watermark covering part of them. Do you think they should be tweaked, deleted or left as they are?

An example:

-- Carnby (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly not deleted, unless we have a clean copy without the copyright to replace it. - Jmabel ! talk 07:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, this image should be deleted, albeit for a reason that has nothing to do with the watermark. This 1988 image (uploaded in 2019, long after Golan v. Holder) is certainly under copyright in the US (even going by the 25-year term provided in Argentina, it was copyrighted in 1996). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At a minimum, the watermark should be replaced with a solid block of one colour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about a {{Watermark}} tag?-- Carnby (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tucker Carlson interview with Vladimir Putin[edit]

Hello, I am unsure as to whether I can upload the recent Tucker Carlson interview with Vladimir Putin. I do not know about its copyright status and couldn't find anything about it. Thank you for your help. Sussybaka6000 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sussybaka6000: , please read COM:L. If you don't know its copyright status, then it is very likely unfree and therefore we cannot host it on Commons. It would have to have an explicit free license, and I doubt Tucker Carlson would grant one for his work. Abzeronow (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. I hope you have a great day. Sussybaka6000 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sulambek Susarkulowitsch Oskanow.png[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen! I've recently uploaded the above mentioned file. I got two questions concerning this file: - Is there anyone at Wikimedia that knows about russian copyright law? I created this file in consideration of all the legal information i could find on Commons, but i'm only 99% sure this file is actually not an object of copyright even though denomination and country name are preserved. - This file is an adaption of File:Sulambek Oskanov (marka).jpg. I'm not sure i uploaded my file as intended. If i made any mistakes concerning the upload, please let me know. Thanks a lot, greetings from Vienna - Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should read the last warning on Template:PD-RU-exempt page. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü: Ah, I'd never noticed that either. So even with the cleanup I did, this is probably still not valid. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that's my question, cause Template:PD-RU-exempt clearly states concerning stamps: "denomination and country name must be preserved on postage stamps". Is the file still violating copyright? - Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: File:Sulambek Susarkulowitsch Oskanow.png. It looks like you preserved the denomination, but not the country name. @Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü: You'd have to restore the upper right portion of the stamp to make this legal in Russia. - Jmabel ! talk 23:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you click on it, you can see i also preserved the country name. It's only badly visible since it's white. Will upload a new file tommorow. Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruslik0 @Jmabel I just uploaded a new version of the file. Could you please reevaluate? Please mind: Due to some technical issue you need to click on the file to see its blue background which is important for the visibility of the country name. Please either delete the file due to copyright violations or reply here. I'm very thankful for your help, best regards - Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I honestly have no idea whether duplicating the text of the country name in a different color, etc., complies with the law or not. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright statues of magazine advertisement for Head-On (1979 arcade game)[edit]

I'm curious if under American copyright law this ([7]) magazine advertisement for the 1979 arcade game Head-On would be public domain due to a malformed copyright notice. The copyright disclaimer reads "MULTIPHASE and HEAD-ON are 1979 copyright names of Gremlin/Sega" which sounds to me like it is referring to the trademark status of those particular phrases rather than the copyright status of the advertisement. I understand American copyright notices had to follow strict formalities back then, but it's unclear to me if this meets those formalities or not. Suspiciouscelery (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on what I see, if it is infact considered an advertisement - I would say that notice is probably not suitable to cover that ad. It appears that copyright is being claimed on the names "Multiphase" and "Head-On" - not the AD. Short names cannot be copyrighted, only trademarked [8]. The notice doesn't appear to be applying to the ad itself, and may not stand in a court of law. On page 2, the Midway ad gives an example of a proper notice. Can give a read through Ch 2200 about Copyright Notices, might be of help! If it is PD the correct template would be {{PD-US-1978-89 advertisement}}, will also need to see if it was registered within 5 years. The rest of the magazine outside of ads, is covered by Copyright as seen on page 3. PascalHD (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with dating[edit]

Hello, I found this picture of the Lot Smith Cavalry Company (third picture in the article), but I can't tell if it is in the public domain. I am still new to uploading pictures to Wikipedia and could uses the help. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LuxembourgLover: Sorry, it appears that painter Frank Thomas allowed editorial use of his modern painting on this page, so you would need permission from him or you could make fair use of it on projects that allow it (Commons doesn't). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 00:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that at least at one point the painter Frank Thomas was an official artist for the US Army, as a US Federal Government employee. The paintings he made as a federal government employee are in the public domain. Whether or not this painting is one of them, I don't know. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What would be the best way to find out who made the picture? LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are photographs of UK police crests derivative works?[edit]

Hi all, finally got a picture of (the side, at least) of a Humberside Police van today with their new force crest - see the Wikipedia page infobox for reference. This features the CIIIR cipher with the Tudor Crown, and I think it might be a good fit on Wikipedia for articles relevant to the new cipher/monarch transition such as Tudor Crown (heraldry). The thing is, though, would photographs focused on UK police crests on the side of a police vehicle be considered a derivative work?

I read somewhere that police crests were protected by Crown copyright, and I'm also assuming they are copyright to the police force themselves, yet I'm finding photographs of British Transort Police crests (File:British Transport Police (3932766140).jpg and File:British Transport Police (3932766204).jpg) seem to have been uploaded fine onto the Commons. Technically, being on the side of a marked vehicle, would that would mean they are in "a public place"? Can't seem to find much precent anywhere else, but I know for sure for how close up the photo is, it certainly isn't de minimis. Hullian111 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I use a published photo (e.g. from a magazine) as a reference object when I create of my painting, how should I give credit to that photo when making a submission to publish my painting in Wikimedia?[edit]

As an artist, in the creation of my painting, if I use a published photo from a magazine, newspaper or encyclopedia as a reference object, how should I give credit to that photo when making a submission to publish my painting in Wikimedia? Please note I am not including any part of the photo in my painting, and photo is not published in the Wikimedia Commons. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Erol Karacabeyli (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What counts as "with notice" for the cover art of books?[edit]

My basic assumption would be it has the same copyright as the book but I'm not sure if this is the case. What counts as giving notice for a 1970 American book cover? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody would provide a separate copyright notice for a book cover. So, this is the same notice as one for the book. Ruslik (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But I believe a book jacket (a physically separate object, removable from the book) required a copyright notice of its own. Does anyone know something definitive on that? - Jmabel ! talk 07:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about copyright and terms of use[edit]

I don't know if this is the best place to ask this, but a prior section written here (Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#Wiel van der Randen (fotograaf 1897–1949)) inspired me to. I have bought a CD containing 1924 recordings by Carlos Gardel published by Ediciones Altaya under license from EMI Odeón (to be more specific, this one has the right cover, but this one has the right track list) which will enter the public domain in the United States next year (with the situation varying overseas per song). I don't know if I will keep the disc in the future, and I would like to know if I can upload the tracks now, mark them for deletion request and have them being undeleted in the proper years without this having an effect in my account. Lugamo94 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, if you have only a limited period to do this, that is acceptable. Otherwise, you could presumably save the files locally and upload them a year from now. - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, but some recordings have their underlying music and/or lyrics not expiring in Argentina in several decades. For example, works by José Bohr (composer of Cascabelito) won't enter the public domain until 2065. The likelihood of myself keeping this particular copy for so long (or that it survives for that long) are very dim. Lugamo94 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Contents

Loesje and the TOO[edit]

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

Intermezzo (2): Statements made on own authority[edit]

Further comment[edit]

Loesje posters are works of art and therefor under copyright[edit]

No evidence or indication that Loesje posters are not under copyright and treated as such[edit]

Some more about On Kawara[edit]

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

Screenshots from Italian films (revisited)[edit]

OpenAI generated videos[edit]

License clarification for Template:MSC[edit]

Musixmatch logo[edit]

Doubt about the rights of an image[edit]

Annalisa logo[edit]

Question[edit]

PD-US-1978-89[edit]

Question about the copyright of a photo which is in the public domain ?[edit]

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT not clear[edit]

US Painting Copyright Q - Do exhibition pamphlets count as publication?[edit]

El Gráfico images[edit]

Tucker Carlson interview with Vladimir Putin[edit]

File:Sulambek Susarkulowitsch Oskanow.png[edit]

Copyright statues of magazine advertisement for Head-On (1979 arcade game)[edit]

Help with dating[edit]

Are photographs of UK police crests derivative works?[edit]

If I use a published photo (e.g. from a magazine) as a reference object when I create of my painting, how should I give credit to that photo when making a submission to publish my painting in Wikimedia?[edit]

What counts as "with notice" for the cover art of books?[edit]

Question about copyright and terms of use[edit]

Navigation menu

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

Loesje and the TOO[edit]

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

Intermezzo (2): Statements made on own authority[edit]

Further comment[edit]

Loesje posters are works of art and therefor under copyright[edit]

No evidence or indication that Loesje posters are not under copyright and treated as such[edit]

Some more about On Kawara[edit]

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

Screenshots from Italian films (revisited)[edit]

OpenAI generated videos[edit]

License clarification for Template:MSC[edit]

Musixmatch logo[edit]

Doubt about the rights of an image[edit]

Annalisa logo[edit]

Question[edit]

PD-US-1978-89[edit]

Question about the copyright of a photo which is in the public domain ?[edit]

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT not clear[edit]

US Painting Copyright Q - Do exhibition pamphlets count as publication?[edit]

El Gráfico images[edit]

Tucker Carlson interview with Vladimir Putin[edit]

File:Sulambek Susarkulowitsch Oskanow.png[edit]

Copyright statues of magazine advertisement for Head-On (1979 arcade game)[edit]

Help with dating[edit]

Are photographs of UK police crests derivative works?[edit]

If I use a published photo (e.g. from a magazine) as a reference object when I create of my painting, how should I give credit to that photo when making a submission to publish my painting in Wikimedia?[edit]

What counts as "with notice" for the cover art of books?[edit]

Question about copyright and terms of use[edit]

Navigation menu

Search