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.

Copyright status of signatures in non-Latin script

It's not clear how COM:SIG Japan applies to File:Signature Hisahito.png, but it's clear that this is almost certainly not the own-work of its uploader Spectra321578 unless the uploader is claiming to be en:Prince Hisahito of Akishino. If it's truly the uploader's own work and they're not Prince Hisahito, it seems that Commons shouldn't be hosting it because doing so would be considered misleading at the very least. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The signature is based on his name, what's not clear? This is my own work, why are you butting in? Spectra321578 (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a genuine trace of his signature or an artists recreation Cyberwolf (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

genuine of course Spectra321578 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a grey area imo they traced the signature or photographed the signature which makes them the creator of said image and content but content was originally by someone else so… Cyberwolf (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is no problem with considering it "free," but it should probably be described as a "traced signature" rather than just a "signature", and both authors should be acknowledged. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do it interestingly? Spectra321578 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not responding earlier. I was away from a computer for a the past few days and couldn't respond. Are you en:Prince Hisahito of Akishino? If you're not, then this signature isn't your COM:Own work per se; it's either (at the very least) a slavish reproduction of Prince Hisahito's signature or (at the very worst) a en:signature forgery if you're trying to claim it's actually his signature. Most signatures (typically as the word signature is understood in English) aren't generaly considered creative enough to warrant copyright protection as explained in COM:When to use the PD-signature tag. In some cases, though, such as a signature that's more than simply a person's signed name (e.g. when it's done in en:caligraphy or in this case en:Shodo), it's possible that there's enough creative input involved to push it above the COM:Threshold of originality. In such a case, however, the individual who the signature belongs to would be its copyright holder, which in this case would be Prince Hisahito. So, if you're not Prince Hisahito, you shouldn't really be trying to claim copyright authorship over his signature. On the other hand, if your intent was simply to be your recreation or some kind of COM:Fan art of Prince Hisahito's signature, then you shouldn't have been trying to pass it off as his authentic signature by using it in the English Wikipedia article about him. It has basically zero encyclopedic value to English Wikipedia if it wasn't signed by Prince Hisahito's own hand. It's also questionable whether it has any real education value for the purposes of COM:SCOPE and is not simply just a case of COM:PERSONAL. You've uploaded several other files of signatures (e.g., File:Emperor Shijo.png) and other types of text (e.g., File:Urbi Et Orbi Leone XIV.png) as your "own work", which also have the same problems as this one. You might want to take a closer look at COM:L since you seem to be misunderstanding some important things about Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that COM:TOO varies among countries, and in the US, signatures and calligraphy aren't copyrightable. We need to be very careful about being specific about the country in these discussions, because there is a lot of variance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) This file along with several others by the same uploader are currently being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Spectra321578. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permissions/copyright status for File:Ano Soudena - Ano Pedina.jpg ?

File:Ano Soudena - Ano Pedina.jpg

File:Ano Soudena - Ano Pedina.jpg is marked at "own work". It was uploaded in 2017, with metadata showing it was taken in 2017. It appears to be a photograph of a 1930 poster, with writing in Greek at the bottom. User:Christtwice1 uploaded it marked as "own work", with permissions ... "I, the copyright holder of this work..." I'm not sure if this is a copyright violation or just an unclear attribution. (Note: The uploader has not been active since 2017.) - ERcheck (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It happens a thousand times every day and we can do nothing against it. Many uploaders simply don't understand that making a reproduction, a scan, or even uploading a copy found somewhere online does not produce an own work. The wrong date usually comes from the metadata written by the scanning device. When I stumble across such an image I silently change the date and replace the license with an appropriate PD tag, usually not even notifying the uploader. I never got any negative response for doing so. Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Herbert Ortner: yes, as far as that goes. But are you saying that the copyright status of this work is clear? If so, what is that status? - Jmabel ! talk 05:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion copyright status is not clear. I would use PD-anon-70-EU in cases like this but there's no real proof for an anonymous publication (or just an unknown author). That's just closer to the truth than any CC license given by the uploader. This one could be a postcard with the photographer's or publisher's name on the back - we just don't know. Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Herbert Ortner: "we just don't know" so under the precautionary principle, we delete. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Greece, copyrights last for 70 years after the creator's death. The upload offers no information about the photographer of the original image. Certainly, the original poster was not created by the uploader. As the uploader has not been active since 2017, sending a talk page message inquiring about the origin of the 1930 poster would most likely not be answered. - ERcheck (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple sheet music diagrams

I'm skeptical of the copyright status of simple sheet music diagrams and MIDI files like these:

Standard ukulele tuning (C6 chord)
Sequence of intervals
Another sequence of intervals
Bass guitar tuning
Honorable mention: this is a MIDI file, not a sound recording

They're basically sheet music representations of basic musical concepts and, imo, are copyrightable only to the extent that they consist of copyrightable musical works or creative arrangements or embellishments of musical facts (like layout or color coding). Merely representing them as sheet music images doesn't make them copyrightable. Likewise, a sheet music representation of a public domain musical work would be a faithful reproduction, not a derivative work, unless there is creative arrangement or embellishment involved.

The first image borders on {{PD-chord}} as it's a standard C6 chord on a ukulele, but the selection and arrangement involved (representing the same chord on a G clef above a tablature) might push it above the threshold of originality.

The second and third images are basically {{PD-tone row}}.

The fourth image is an arpeggio (possibly {{PD-chord}} or {{PD-musical set}}) but adds red to highlight the notes that are not always part of the bass guitar tuning. This too could be a sufficiently original choice, but I'm not sure.

File number 5 is a MIDI file, so it would only be protected as a musical work, not a sound recording - but it's just a representation of standard reentrant ukulele tuning.

I hesitate to change the license tags out of respect for the licensors' wishes, in case these files are indeed copyrightable, but I'd appreciate any guidance from others here as to whether they are in the public domain, and if so, which PD tags are the best fit for each case. Qzekrom (talk) 07:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the tag doesn't provide much advantatge to Commons, Wikimedia projects or reusers.

In Commons and Wikimedia projects which free license the media has doesn't matter much. The only difference I'm aware of is that PD images can be used without a link (for attribution) and that derivative works need to cite the original and license accordingly.
For reusers, the tag doesn't change the status of non copyrightable media. If the file is not copyrightable in the reusers'country, they can use it as PD, no matter what Commons says.

Therefore, I wouldn't change the tag unless I were very sure that the file is PD in all the world, and even then I would see the priority of that task as very low. Pere prlpz (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th example above might not be "simple" for some countries where TOO is said to be "very low" (a famous e.g. UK). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is citation allowed in image description?

I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it. Question: Is it a COPYVIO to use a short quote from a non-free literary work (e.g. a famous phrase from a novel, a line or several lines from a poem, with attribution to the author and work, of course) in the description of an image uploaded to Commons? Vsatinet (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsatinet: Typically not (such quotations can sometimes be used on a "fair use" basis, but Commons makes little allowance for any sort of fair use), nor does it seem like it would often even be appropriate to quote something literary here, copyrighted or not.

Can you give an example of where this would be useful? - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answer. You're right, in the vast majority of cases using quotation or other unusual description is inappropriate for Commons. But sometimes I really want to change obvious and trivial description of the depicted object with something more interesting. In fact it's related to Commons Photo Challenge which is run largely for the fun of the participants.

As for examples let consider such (theoretical) cases: photo of burning paper (there was a challenge dedicated to fire) with description "Fahrenheit 451" (the title of a famous novel by Ray Bradbury); landscape or vegetation of tundra described with lines from poem "Tundra Shadows" by poet and songwriter Alexander Gorodnitsky. And so on. Maybe it's my personal quirk, but sometimes I like such associations and I think it's quite possible to use them where appropriate. Vsatinet (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the descriptions and captions should be free or freely-licensed too. Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia#Requirements of frequently-used licenses states that text in Commons is CC BY-SA and GFDL, and confusingly the Upload Wizard says that text and data will be licensed as CC0, but either way including copyright content could cause problems for re-users. I don't know where to draw the line between providing the title of a book (probably OK), a line of a poem (?), a few lines of a poem (maybe not OK), the whole poem (not OK), but it's generally better to err on the side of caution. Consigned (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsatinet: Just grabbing a title like that is probably legally OK (pretty much what Consigned said, in that respect), but is usually not what would make a good description for Commons' purposes of discoverability and of clarity as to what the image shows. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Consigned: the CC-zero thing refers to the caption and other SDC. - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frame challenge suggestion: There are a few thousands of years worth of literature that may provide great public domanin captions for photo contest images. Pere prlpz (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, colleagues. I thought so, but sometimes I want something non-standard. Pere prlpz you are quite right, but I do not look for quotes specifically, they pop up in my mind spontaneously :-). Vsatinet (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo question

Is this this logo unoriginal enough to be considered public domain? Thanks! Rainsage (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What country is it from? Nakonana (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

according to the organization's facebook page, it is based in the United States and provides services in Gaza, Palestine. Rainsage (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For U.S. (which is probably what is relevant) it's near the border, so precautionary principle probably means don't do it without getting a license. - Jmabel ! talk 04:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks! Rainsage (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainsage a version only containing the letters (without the watermelon half) would be PD-textlogo certainly. Bedivere (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright registration and an invalid notice if the registration was before the book was actually published

If a book was registered validly with the US copyright office in 1985, but was only published in 1987 and all copies carry an invalid registration (they do not name any claimant), would that repair the copyright notice? I know from 1978 to 1989 you had a 5 year time period to repair an invalid notice by registration {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but the way the COM:Hirtle chart is written, it does not seem to me that this would apply to pre-registration? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which book? Personally, I doubt I'd touch it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure 80s American occult one entitled The Templar Tradition in the Age of Aquarius. The cover is PD for sure (because it needed a separate notice and one did not exist) but I was curious about the book.

I felt it raised broader questions and I have never seen a prior registration on something with an invalid notice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can register an unpublished work just fine. The federal copyright clock started then. What year was on the copyright notice? Registering before was one step you needed to take to save the copyright, but not the only one. The other steps are harder to prove though. The circular says copyright could be saved if the work was registered before or within five years after the publication without notice and a reasonable effort was made to add notice to all copies or phonorecords distributed in the United States after the omission was discovered. So the earlier registration would serve for that requirement. If just a relatively few copies were without notice, that would also be OK.

The Compendium does say: Separated name -- When copies or phonorecords contain a name, abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alterna tive designation of the copyright owner, that is separated from the other elements of the notice, but that could reasonably be considered part of the notice, the notice is acceptable. Where the copies or phonorecords contain two or more names abbreviations, or alternative designations that are equally identifiable with the rest of the notice, the notice is sufficient if any of the names, abbreviations, or alternative designations is capable of identifying any person or entity as an owner of copyright. If none of the names, abbreviations, or alter native designations is identifiable with the rest of the notice, the same action is taken as where there is an omission of the copyright notice. 17 U.S.C. 406(c).

Also: Identity by reference. A notice that identifies the copyright owner by reference, such as, for example, "Copyright by author," or "Copyright by the publisher," is considered acceptable by the Copyright Office, if the copies or phonorecords contain a name, abbreviation, or a generally known designation which is identified by the reference as the author, publisher, or other referenced person or legal entity. If no such name, abbreviation, or generally known designation can be identified on the copies or phonorecords, the same action is taken as where there is an omission of the copyright notice. 17 U.S.C. 406(c) and 405.

Is there an author name anywhere on the publication? Even if not this seems difficult to prove, at best. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clindberg "clark" => "clock"? (my first thought was "clerk" but I couldn't make any sense of that.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, "clock". Just fixed that. Well, I guess that was before 1978 -- the 28 year term until renewal requirement started then. Since 1978 it's automatically under federal protection from creation, and the term is based on the author's lifetime, and not date of registration. (Works for hire are still based on date of publication; before 1978 that could mean date of registration if registered as an unpublished work). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an obvious author or publisher? Particularly one that matches the name on the registration? Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's right here: https://archive.org/details/delaforge-gaetan-the-templar-tradition-in-the-age-of-aquarius-threshold-books-1987-ocr/page/n5/mode/2up . The name on the registration is Gaetan Delaforge (TXu000246675), and that's the name on the other side of the copyright page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't on the copyright page, though, which is the issue. The above copyright says "but that could reasonably be considered part of the notice, the notice is acceptable." I don't think not being anywhere on the page counts, because you cannot. If it was at the top you could construe that as being "part" of it but without it on the copyright page entirely?

It's also a fake name, but I don't think that really matters. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox

Is there any consensus about how to deal with Roblox screenshots

I understand that with almost every game Roblox is licensed under a proprietary license. However Roblox is also a game relying entirely on user-generated content. In cases where someone uploads a screenshot of something they themselves have created in Roblox would we be justified in deleting said image? Trade (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Roblox, so I can only speak generally. Per the Roblox terms of service, with some exceptions, users own the user-generated content (UGC) that they make available through the Roblox services. That said, works incorporating pre-existing material (including both derivative works and compilations) are subject to both the copyright in the pre-existing material (owned by Roblox and/or other users) and the copyright in the derivative or composite work (owned by the user).

So a screenshot from a Roblox game should be fine as long as all the visual elements in it are (a) owned by the user, (b) uncopyrightable elements like basic geometric shapes, or (c) released under a free license. The template {{Free screenshot}} has some further guidance on when screenshots are okay. Qzekrom (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Bursi photographs --> Commons

Are any of the black and white ID style photographs here (on the Turin Polytechnic site) picturing the Italian mid-century modernist architect w:Ada Bursi acceptable for use on Commons? [NB: The Italian version of this page shows 4 photos, while the English page only displays the first (1/4).] Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginably, but they don't provide the information that would let us determine that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Best way to solve? Image 1/4 is presumably the oldest (late 1920s or early 1930s), would it be safe to use that one? Need an image to ID the subject in enwiki article. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright term for photographs in Italy is 70 years after the death of the photographer (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy). Therefore, without even knowing the photographer those images may not be in the public domain and therefore they aren't safe to upload to Commons. Pere prlpz (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The images are from the Archivio Storico del Politecnico di Torino, which is presumably a public institution ("università statali") of some sort. Is there anything concerning the use of works held in the archives of Italian public educational institutions that might apply in this case? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of anything where an institution obtaining a copy of a photo would change its copyright status. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Government works" section of the Italian copyright rules, esp. clauses relating to academy, or private legal entities of a non-profit-making character, as well the various clauses about [works] made for the public administration or for non-profit organisations [and] non-creative photographs, etc. If 1/4 is a university ID photograph, then would it not fall under some or all of the above definition(s)? (Bear with me, I'm not an attorney.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you found those images in a university website doesn't make them government works. In fact, if you are right that those images were made decades before Ada Bursi became architect, it's very unlikely that any government photographer took them.

That is, we shouldn't mix "created on behalf of the government" with "there is a copy of the image in a government website". Pere prlpz (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last shot at this: 1/4 appears to be a typical (for that era) ID photograph of a very young Bursi, so at the very least it is non-creative (which would mean a term of 20 years since creation, per above). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, in Italy the definition of non creative photograph is vague but very narrow. If it were a Spanish photograph I'd say it is non creative but for Italy it's not so clear cut. Pere prlpz (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I suppose unless somebody is inclined to pursue this directly with the Archivio Storico del Politecnico di Torino, it's a dead-end then. Too bad, it seemed like a good bet (especially 1/4). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Archivo is unlikely to have the rights, although it could provide more information.

About the id photo, you can wait for input from somebody mor knowledgeable than me on Italian copyright, or you can research on past deletion requests on similar Italian cases, or, if doubts persist, you can try to upload it and see if somebody requests its deletion. Pere prlpz (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. I may just try to use it locally on enwiki with a "Non-free" template (which would be a shame, as it's much preferable to have these things here, as we all no doubt agree). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Street View

According to a law journal article, Google Street View images in the US could be public domain, at least if I have understood it correctly. Can Commons allow US Google Street View photos? See here. Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's arguable, since the driver is simply driving on the streets, with the rest being automated. Not sure we have allowed those though. I'm even less sure on the argument about aerial photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly human involvement in the process, unlike a CCTV camera - All the Ways Google Gets Street View Images | WIRED PascalHD (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the Hughes article being cited here is essentially an opinion piece, not a ruling. Some of the other positions it takes, e.g. that aerial and satellite photographs are inherently uncreative and should not be protected by copyright, are significantly at odds with the reality that copyrights on this types of images are claimed and enforced. Omphalographer (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where can we find more information about the enforcement of copyright for aerial photos? Howardcorn33 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what makes an aerial photo any different from other photos. I presume they mean methodical aerial photos over an entire area, but you still have a pilot positioning the camera even if everything else is automated. Obviously you can't stop anyone else from making very similar photos but I'd have to imagine they would have copyright on the precise ones they took. I've not seen anything like that in there copyright appeals decisions where they don't give a copyright to a photo. They have given copyrights to security videos. Outside of straight-on photographs of paintings, and things like x-rays, not sure we have any evidence of photos being denied registration. I do see a registration of a "AerPic Aerial Photography", among many aerial photos. I see one registration VA0002409890 which is a set of 744 aerial photographs (750 is the max you can register in one group), with a title of "aerial photographs 2024" and it covering three months. It would help to know what the law journal is basing their opinion on -- were there rejections or a court case or something? Google has registered precious little, and I don't see anything like their street view stuff, but they don't really have to. They certainly have a copyright notice on the aerial photography and street view parts of Google Maps. You'd have to prove that wrong in court. Basically, without some solid backing where a similar copyright got denied by a court or at least the U.S. Copyright Office, I think such things would have significant doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for this response. I now agree with you that we should have more solid evidence than the journal's opinion. Howardcorn33 (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian army unit X account images

The description of File:White Knight Corps.jpg states it's sourced to "Official Twitter account of 16 corps, Indian Army". Ihaven't (so far) been able to find anything to suggest the image has been released under a {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} as claimed by the file's uploader. Given that the same uploader has uploaded many other files using this same license and that pretty much all of them have questionable licensing, I think this one might too. However, the difference between this and the others, is that this could be possibly with in the public domain per COM:India#Copyright tags if {{Indian Army}} is a valid copyright license (which seems to be the case per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Indian Army) and social media accounts of individual units would be covered by said license. Does anyone have a opinion on whether it would be OK to convert this to the "Indian Army" license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos in Édith Piaf article

re the (English) Wikipedia article en:Édith_Piaf, the four photos of Piaf from 1950 and earlier all have tags explaining why they are public domain in France, but no confirmation about their copyright status in the U.S. Because public domain images from other countries than the U.S. must meet public domain requirements from the U.S. as well as from their country of origin in order to be considered freely usable on Wikipedia, I'm not certain whether these French photos also meet American public domain requirements- I'd welcome any advice on this. The pictures are:

PS File:Edith Piaf enfant.jpg is presumably pre-1925, but does 'presumably' suffice? Yadsalohcin (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yadsalohcin: is this about the Édith Piaf article in en-wiki or elsewhere? The link you provide is to a Commons gallery page.

I've taken the liberty of turning your mentions of filenames into links. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All: with apologies; @Jmabel thanks for converting the files to links... yes, I meant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89dith_Piaf (I've tried linking that in an edited version of the original now... Yadsalohcin (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

& I fixed that to an internal link. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who was more involved in the protracted discussion of Harcourt pictures from this era say whether that ended up with a solid resolution that would cover the fist three here? - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:1951 La P'tite Lili - Théatre ABC retouched.jpg should almost certainly be deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by J.B. ARRIEU ALBERTINI. - Jmabel ! talk 20:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel thanks for this - file removed, which leaves questions about

Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As well as: File:Edith_Piaf_Harcourt_1950_1.jpg and the 'enfant' photograph, File:Edith Piaf enfant.jpg. Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ps sorry I'm struggling with this editing box in the mobile interface. Never been here before and it seems thoroughly unpredictable... Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Status of File:Edith Piaf enfant.jpg is unclear, and PD in the U.S. seems unlikely to me. "Before 1925" seems safe but irrelevant. Uploader made an obviously false claim of being the author. With no known author, how can we say the author has been dead 70 years? and we know nothing of the publication date, relevant to U.S. copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: The three remaining Harcourt deletion requests were closed by Krd on April 7 after no other admin had decided them for over five months (so re-nominating the files seems rather pointless because apparently no-one wants to touch the case). Krd closed them as keep, not based on the merits of the case (because “tldr” – too long, didn't read), but merely because “There appear a lot of votes for keep and no consensus for deletion. If this keep is wrong, please nominate again with summary of prevailing arguments.” So my take on the status of the 1946 and 1950 Harcourt Piaf photos is that they are in the public domain in France now, because of the 2014 French court decision declaring Harcourt photos to be collective works, and those enter the public domain after 70 years. On the URAA date in France (January 1, 1996), they were not yet in the public domain in France – unless you accept the claims that they somehow were in the public domain because the French state released them into the PD after it had bought the negatives in 1989/1991, or that the Harcourt entity which existed at the time released them into the PD. There is no properly documented evidence for those claims however, which is what the deletion requests were all about. --Rosenzweig τ 09:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt says "The French state bought the photo archives of Studio Harcourt in 1991 and released them under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license". Is this just wrong or am I missing some reason it would not apply here?

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@999real: It is just wrong. I have removed that claim. --Rosenzweig τ 15:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should create an index of all the discussions we had about the Studio Harcourt images over the years... I am sure in one of those I contributed, and I think I also followed up with the studio through the VRT ticket system, to clarify the permission, but I might be mistaken there. Ciell (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least two (maybe more) should be in the COM:VPC archives, I think were shorter ones at the VRT noticeboard, and then of course the various deletion requests. --Rosenzweig τ 15:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here's my analysis of the VRT permission we received from the Studio in 2010. I think images uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt are covered by the permission we have stored in VRT. Anything beyond those needs to be covered by general copyrights or additional permissions in order for us to host. Their archives were indeed at one point transferred to be kept by the French government, and that is where their copyright status becomes very complicated and statuses unclear.

Imho Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle could apply here. Ciell (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these various thoughts on the matter - precautionarily, therefore, I'll remove these pictures from the article. Yadsalohcin (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook photo query

The EXIF data for File:Oba Ajibade Gbadegesin Ogunoye III during Igogo 2020 Festival in Owo.jpg indicates the photo comes from Facebook. It's possible it comes from this account, which seems to be the account of the file's uploader, but I'm unable to find this exact photo. There are other images of en:Oba Ajibade Gbadegesin Ogunoye III uploaded to that Facebook account. Some appear to be "own work", but others are watermarked and look like they probably come from somewhere else; moreover, none of the posts associated with the photos/posts include any references to a copyright license. Is it OK to assume "own work" here or should VRT verification be requested because of Facebook's standard licensing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Contact the Facebook account "figelcon", which is still active. Ask if Figelcon on Commons is them. If it is, then (barring that these were copyvios even on Facebook), we're good. (If you doubt that, then ask them that as well.)

I certainly often upload a given image to Facebook before I upload it to Commons, and I certainly don't routinely add a licensing statement of FB when I do that. I'm guessing that is pretty common. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About Category:Popular Revolutionary Army

Hello, I think that the imagery in Category:Popular Revolutionary Army with assault rifle silhouettes and cereal ear are above COM:TOO (COM:TOO Mexico lacks content) and should be deleted for being copyvios. Do you concur? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Infinity images distributed by the NTSB

I want to know the copyright status of these two images [1] [2]. They are distributed by the en:National Transportation Safety Board, so they should be public domain under {{PD-USGov-NTSB}}. However, the NTSB final report and search and recovery report (download link) mentions how en:Ocean Infinity conducted the salvage and took the photos, and the images are listed as "Courtesy of Ocean Infinity". So would the copyright belong to Ocean Infinity or would the images be released under public domain by the NTSB? RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 02:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright most likely belongs to Ocean Infinity. "Courtesy of" implies the photos were not taken by a Government employee. The US government can and often feature others' works in documents, but that does not automatically release them into the Public Domain. PascalHD (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossible Game text logo and the UK TOO

I would like to upload the text portion of w:File:The Impossible Game logo.jpg (transparent version in the official site at https://impossible.game/1/), although I have some concerns that might make it not allowed in Commons:

I'm not very familiar with COM:TOO UK. Apparently it's a lot more higher than it was when I first started uploading, though not sure if the black shadow and the thin blue outline make it copyrightable. If it does, would a plain white/black logo make it acceptable?
I was able to identify the font as Ten by Twenty's Akashi, which according to their own website, all of their fonts there are under the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is a valid license in Commons ({{OFL}}). I'm still not sure if that impacts the copyright status of the logo itself though, since it's not really a generic typeface.
Would a version with a cyan-black gradient as the background be acceptable as well?

SergioFLS (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Spiral musical score and sound recording

I noticed that the Intel Spiral (a.k.a. "Intel Bong") has been granted copyright protection as a sound recording in the United States (SR0000787475), but not the underlying musical work (a five-note melody), as noted in this official letter from the Copyright Office (mentioned on COM:US § Threshold of originality).

However, copyright protection for sound recordings in the United States only extends to the reproduction and alteration of the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording—not new, independently created sound recordings, no matter how closely they imitate the original sound recording (17 U.S.C. § 114). So theoretically, it should be possible to create a new sound recording of the Intel Bong from scratch, emulating all or some of the sound design steps in the original one, without infringing the copyright in the original Intel Bong sound recording—at least under US law.

Also, since the composition has been deemed ineligible for copyright in the US, does that mean that an image of the sheet music (available on Intel's website here) can be uploaded here and tagged with {{PD-music-ineligible}}? There might be copyrightable authorship in the visual arrangement of staves, dynamic symbols, etc. that isn't present in what the Copyright Office considers to be the "musical work". Qzekrom (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest someone do their own layout of the (brief) score. - Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done! File:Intel Spiral.svg Qzekrom (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I synthesized my own sound recording of it using MuseScore; sound recording copyrights don't extend to "soundalike covers" under US law, but I don't know if that is true in other countries. That said, while the Intel Bong was registered as a sound recording, it normally appears as part of video advertisements, and sounds accompanying an audiovisual work have a broader scope of copyright protection.

I currently don't have permission to upload MP3s on Commons, but would this be safe to upload here? Qzekrom (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qzekrom: for variable values of "safe." I don't think you are in any danger from us (the worst that would happen is file deletion), but as you yourself have noted, Intel might have grounds to complain, and I can't predict their mode of complaining. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding MP3 files, it's prefered to use FLAC/Opus instead, if you have access to the raw audio version. There's more info at COM:FT. SergioFLS (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logo de Daewoo

Buenas, se puede publicar el logo de Daewoo por ejemplo como este (File:Daewoo logo.svg) ,el logo fue creado en Corea del Sur? AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube licensing

All stem from YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co8Lk2Gqz98 according to their upload summary and licensing, but I'm having a hard time finding it on the video itself. I'm looking at another example file File:Brennan Lee Mulligan (on Zoom 2021) 02.jpg with the same style CC claim and I can easily see the license in the description on YouTube itself. Am I missing something, or should these be tagged with something? {{Db-lrfailed}} or can I even use that template without the user right? Would there be a better template? Thanks. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These videos do not have Creative Commons license on YouTube. I tagged them for speedy deletion you can do this for multiple files with Help:VisualFileChange.js.

YouTube allows users to change the license on videos but Creative Commons licenses are legally not revocable. You can check archived versions of the page, to quickly check the license I right click, view page source, CTRL + F search for "creative_commons" (https://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons). In this case I did not find CC license in the archives just information

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, there is an archive from the same day it was uploaded to YouTube, here: [3]. And I cannot find a CC license there either. So it’s most likely never had an CC license and the screenshots are copyvios. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobby Cohn: You can use the good old template Copyvio. You can add a comment in the parameter, like "no CC license at the source" or something else. I'm not sure about the use of Db-lrfailed, but I think I'd probably leave its use to reviewers. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the advice everyone, thanks for the instruction. I'll add that to the toolbelt. Cheers, Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

en:File:Romani Kids ww2.jpg still copyrighted?

This is a still image from a 1943 movie from Germany. There are no information about photographer at Collections Search - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. So I wonder if the film is now PD. In the EU it would be PD because the photographer is not disclosed. In the US it could be PD because the US do not like nazi copyright and if the children were used for experiments by the nazis it could be an indication that it was not taken by some random civil person. Any thoughts? MGA73 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked something similar some time ago: see here. Nakonana (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why do you think that the author is unknown? The source page says the title of the video is "Zigeunerkinder-Dissertation von Eva Justin" (literally: Gypsy children - dissertation by Eva Justin) and the German wiki article w:de:Sinti-Kinder von Mulfingen mentions that Eva Justin created some footage/recordings for her study (relevant text passage: Eva Justins Originalaufnahmen aus Mulfingen; literally: Eva Justin's original recordings from Mulfingen), so that there's a none-zero chance that she's the author. She died in 1966, iirc? I don't know what US copyright law would say about this given her association with nazism, but in Germany her work would be still copyright protected. Nakonana (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source page also says that the video came from the German Bundesarchiv (Filmarchiv) and that it was copied from a 16mm Kodak print. I checked the Bundesarchiv (Filmarchiv) and they have footage/recordings by Eva Justin for her dissertation[4]. The material can't be accessed online but the description says that it's a "16mm film" and that it's in color, so that I'd guess it's the same video, which would mean that Eva Justin is indeed the author. Nakonana (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The reason I assumed the author is unknown is because as written on en:Eva Justin she studied the children and the text say that she used the film in her studies. Not that she made the film herself. Also at "Credit" it says "Accessed at United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Bundesarchiv Filmarchiv" not "Eva Justin". But I can see that the German Wikipedia mention her original recordings so I agree that it is likely its the same recordings. --MGA73 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer died in 1894, but publication date is unknown: what's the US copyright status?

The photographer of File:Franz Brentano in Vienna, 1875.png died in 1894. The image currently has the license template "PD-old-70-1923". Is this correct? If not: does it need another tag? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it had been unpublished before recent times, it is in public domain in USA per {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0 but the template states that the photo should have "never [been] published prior to January 1, 2003" in order to be PD. Bedivere (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: we either need to show that it was published prior to 1923, or wasn't publishd prior to 2003, for it to be PD in the United States. If it was published without a copyright notice and PD in its source country (Austria?) in 1996, we can use PD-1996, but again we would need evidence for both of those. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that 1875 is not the date of the photography, that's the date of the artifact, which is obviously a publication. And for publication to matter, it has to be be with the permission of the copyright holder, which is deeply unlikely for works generally considered in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does 1923 come from in the above?

Luckhardt died in 1894, so it is clearly out of copyright in Austria (p.m.a. + 70)

So the only question is U.S. status:

Any authorized publication anywhere before 1930 would mean PD in the U.S.
If it were first published 1930-1977 with authorization, with a copyright notice and (if 1963 or earlier) with proper renewals then it would still be in copyright in the U.S.
If it were first published 1978 through 28 February 1989: similarly to the previous point, but with some slack about registration of copyright in lieu of notice.
If it were first published 1 March 1989 through 2002 'with authorization, then it would still be in copyright in the U.S.
If it had no authorized publication through 2003 it would be PD in the U.S.
If it was first published 1930 through 28 February 1989 with authorization but without proper notice, it would be PD in the U.S.

So all the scenarios that could make it copyrighted in the U.S. would require that the first authorized publication was authorized by Luckhardt's heirs more than 35 years after his death (and more than 54 years after the picture was taken); that (unless after 28 February 1989) this first authorized publication of a photo by an Austrian of an Austrian conformed to U.S. copyright law; and that said publication happened before 2003. Seems pretty unlikely to me. I think it is reasonable to assume it is PD in the U.S., barring evidence to the contrary. - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet-Russian film status

First of all: I'm not a lawyer and I don't speak any Russian, just as a disclaimer.

Tonight I spent some time checking Public Domain templates, and playing with Deepseek and Gemini to find some Public Domain films, until I reached Template:PD-Soviet and read its Talk page.

It seems clear to me why pre-1973 works had its copyright restored, but I also would notice the discussion was closed in 2006, so almost 20 years ago.

According to sources such as Russian Film Hub:

Public Domain status: Russian law, as read in Part Four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation from December 2006 and in the Law of the Russian Federation of July 9, 1993 No. 5351-1 “On Copyright and Related Rights,” concludes that copyright terminates 70 years from the date of lawful publication of the film work. Based on this, films released over 70 years ago (pre-1950) are now considered to have entered the Public Domain.

In 2006, the +70 years since publication was irrelevant (1930's Soviet works were already in Public Domain because of the pre-1943 rule) but now it's 2025 and, apparently, the law says Soviet films entered PD 70 years after being published. This means 1954 Soviet film, and older, would be now in PD, which is a far more interesting situation than the one in 2006, when the debate was made.

So, prove me wrong: Which is the Copyright status of films made by state-owned enterprises in the Soviet Union? It's +70 since publication or +70 since authors' death? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing some responses from Deepseek:

Okay, let me try to figure this out. The user is asking about the copyright terms for Soviet films, specifically whether it's 50 or 70 years since the author's death or publication.
First, I need to check the provided sources. From the previous answers, the assistant mentioned that Soviet films had a 25-year term from publication before 1973. Then, in 1973, the USSR joined the UCC, which might have changed things. But wait, the user is now asking about the current rules, probably under Russian law since the Soviet Union no longer exists.
Looking at the search results, webpage 1 talks about Soviet copyright law. It says that before May 27, 1973, films had a 25-year term from publication. After joining the UCC, the term became the author's life plus 25 years. But films are often works with multiple authors, so maybe the term is based on the last surviving author?
Webpage 2 discusses Russian copyright law post-1993. The 1993 law extended terms to 50 years p.m.a. and retroactively restored copyrights. Then in 2004, it was extended to 70 years. However, if the copyright had already expired under Soviet law, it wasn't revived. So films that entered the public domain before 1993 stayed there.
Webpage 3 (Wikimedia Commons) mentions that in Russia, the standard term is life +70 years. For anonymous works, it's 70 years from publication. For films, there's a specific rule: if the film was first shown before 1943 or created by a legal entity between 1929-1955 and not shown until 1993, it's public domain. So maybe films from the Soviet era have different rules based on when they were published and who created them.
Webpage 4's history section notes that Soviet copyright terms varied. The 1961 law set the term as the author's lifetime, and republics could set their own terms. Post-Soviet Russia adopted the 1991 law temporarily, then the 1993 law with 50 years, extended to 70 in 2004. But the 2008 Civil Code made the 70-year term retroactive for works that hadn't expired by 1993.
Webpage 8 (Russian Film Hub) states that Soviet films produced by state studios were considered public property, but after 1964, they belonged to the studios. Current Russian law considers films copyrighted for 70 years from publication. So films published over 70 years ago (pre-1955) are public domain.
Putting this together: Soviet films' copyright depends on when they were published and under which law. Before 1973, 25 years from publication. After 1973, life +25 years. Post-Soviet Russia extended terms to 70 years p.m.a., but only for works still under copyright in 1993. If a Soviet film's copyright expired under the old 25-year rule, it stayed public domain. So a film from 1951 would have entered the public domain in 1976 (1951 +25) and remained there. But if it was protected under the 1973 changes (life +25), then the term would depend on the authors' deaths. However, since the 1993 law didn't revive expired copyrights, films already in the public domain stayed there.
So the answer is that Soviet films generally follow the 70-year rule from publication if they were still under copyright in 1993. Otherwise, they remain public domain. But specifics depend on publication date and authors' survival.

TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My last question to Deepseek: Which is the copyright term for films made in the Soviet Union by state studios (such as Soyuzmultfilm) before 1963? Take into consideration the changes in property introduced in 1964, and the pre-1973 +25 year rule. Take also in consideration any Russian law which might restore copyright for Soviet films made in the 50s and early 60s

Response

Okay, let me try to figure out the copyright terms for Soviet films made by state studios before 1963. The user mentioned considering changes in property introduced in 1964, the pre-1973 25-year rule, and any Russian laws that might have restored copyright for these films.
First, I need to check the Soviet copyright laws. From the search results, the 1925 Soviet Copyright Act set a term of 25 years from publication. So films made before 1963 would fall under this rule if they were published before May 27, 1973. Wait, the USSR joined the Universal Copyright Convention in 1973, which might have changed the term. But before that, the 25-year rule from publication applied. So a film made in 1950 would enter the public domain in 1975.
But then there's the 1964 change. The Civil Code of the RSFSR in 1964 stated that films made with state funds belonged to the studios. So films before 1964 might have been considered public property, but after 1964, the studios held the copyright. However, the user is asking about films made before 1963, so those would be under the pre-1964 rules. But how does that affect their copyright term?
Then, post-Soviet Russia introduced new laws. The 1993 law extended copyright to 50 years, but didn't revive expired terms. So if a film's 25-year term ended before 1993, it stayed in the public domain. Later, in 2004, Russia extended the term to 70 years p.m.a., but again, only for works still under copyright in 1993. So films from the 50s and early 60s that had their 25-year term expire before 1993 (like a 1951 film expiring in 1976) would remain public domain. But if their term hadn't expired by 1993, they got the extended terms.
Wait, but the 1964 law might mean that films before 1964 were owned by the state, so maybe they were treated differently. But according to webpage 4, after 1964, films made by state studios in the RSFSR belonged to the studio. So before 1964, they were public property. So films made before 1964 by state studios would be public domain under Soviet law, but after 1964, the studio owned them. However, the 25-year term from publication still applies unless extended.
So for example, a film made in 1960 by a state studio: under the 25-year rule, it would expire in 1985. Since that's before 1993, Russian law wouldn't revive it. But if the film was made in 1965, the term would end in 1990. Then, under the 1993 law, it might have been extended to 50 years from publication (1990 +50=2040?), but wait, the 1993 law set 50 years p.m.a. or from publication for anonymous works. But films are often corporate works, so maybe 50 years from publication. Then in 2004, extended to 70 years. So a 1965 film would be protected until 2035 (1965+70=2035). But if the film's term had already expired before 1993, it stays public domain.
But the user is asking about films made before 1963. Let's say a film made in 1960. Under the 25-year rule, copyright expired in 1985. Since that's before 1993, the 1993 law didn't revive it. So it remains public domain. But if a film was made in 1963 and published in 1963, the term would end in 1988. Still before 1993, so no revival. Therefore, all Soviet state studio films made before 1963 would have their copyright expire 25 years after publication, and not be revived by Russian laws, thus in public domain. However, if a film was published after 1963 but before 1973, say 1970, then 25 years would be 1995. Since that's after 1993, the 1993 law would extend it to 50 years (1993 +50=2043?), but actually, the 50 years would be from publication. So 1970 +50=2020. Then in 2004, extended to 70 years, so 1970 +70=2040. But if the film was published before 1973 but after 1963, the term would be extended.
Wait, the user mentioned the pre-1973 +25 year rule. So films published before May 27, 1973, are under the 25-year term. Those published after would be under life +25, then later life +70. But the 1964 change in property ownership might affect who holds the copyright, not the term. So even if the studio owned the film after 1964, the term was still 25 years from publication for pre-1973 films.
So for films made before 1963 by state studios:
- If published before 1964, they were public property under Soviet law. Copyright term 25 years from publication. So a 1950 film published in 1950 would expire in 1975. Not revived by Russian laws, so public domain.
- If published between 1964 and 1973, the studio owned the copyright, but term is still 25 years from publication. So a 1965 film published in 1965 would expire in 1990. Since that's before 1993, the 1993 law didn't revive it. So public domain.
Unless the Russian laws applied retroactively to works that were still under copyright in 1993. For example, a film published in 1970: 25 years would end in 1995. So in 1993, it was still under copyright. Then the 1993 law extended the term to 50 years from publication (1970 +50=2020). Then in 2004, extended to 70 years (1970 +70=2040). But the user is asking about films made before 1963. If a film was made in 1960 but published in 1970, then it's under the 25-year rule from 1970, expiring in 1995. Then extended to 50 years (2020) and then 70 (2040). But the user's focus is on films made before 1963, so even if published later, the production year is before 1963. But the term is based on publication, not creation. So if a film was made in 1960 but published in 1965, the term is 25 years from 1965, so 1990. If it was published in 1970, term ends 1995. The 1993 law would apply to those still under copyright in 1993 (i.e., published after 1968, since 1993-25=1968). So films published after 1968 would still be under copyright in 1993, and thus get the extended terms.
So to summarize:
Films made by state studios before 1963:
- Published before 1968: copyright expired 25 years after publication, before 1993. Not revived, public domain.
- Published 1968-1973: copyright would expire 25 years later (1993-1998). Since 1993 law extended terms to 50 years from publication, these would have their terms extended to 50 years. Then 2004 extended to 70. So a film published in 1970 would be protected until 2040.
But the user is asking about films made before 1963. So even if published in 1970, the production year is before 1963, but publication date is after. However, the copyright term is based on publication, so such films might still be under copyright if their publication date was after 1968.
But the user also mentioned the 1964 property changes. Films made before 1964 were public property, after 1964 owned by studios. So for films made before 1963, if published before 1964, they were public domain. If published after 1964, the studio owned them, but the term is still 25 years from publication. But if the publication was after 1968, they would benefit from the 1993 extension.
This is getting complicated. Let me check the sources again.
Webpage 4 mentions that under the 1964 Civil Code of the RSFSR, films made with state funds belonged to the studio. So films before 1964 were public domain, but after 1964, studios owned them. However, the copyright term for these films would still be based on publication. So a film made in 1960 but published in 1965 (after 1964) would be owned by the studio, with a term of 25 years (until 1990). If that term expired before 1993, it remains public domain. If published in 1970, term until 1995, so under 1993 law, extended to 50 years (2020) and then 70 (2040).
Therefore, the answer is that films made before 1963 by state studios have varying copyright terms:
1. If published before 1964: considered public property, copyright expired 25 years after publication, now in public domain.
2. If published between 1964-1968: term expired 25 years later (by 1993), not revived, public domain.
3. If published between 1969-1973: term would expire after 1993 (e.g., 1969+25=1994), so under 1993 law extended to 50 years (2019), then 70 years (2039). Thus still under copyright until 70 years after publication.
But the user is asking about films made in the 50s and early 60s. So if a film was made in 1960 but published in 1970, it's the publication date that matters. So even though made before 1963, if published after 1968, it's under copyright until 70 years after publication.
But the user's question is specifically about films made before 1963. So the production year is before 1963, but publication could be later. However, in the Soviet Union, films were typically published upon release, so production and publication years are close. But there might be exceptions.
In conclusion, the key factors are publication date and whether the copyright term expired before 1993. For films made before 1963:
- Published before 1968: public domain.
- Published 1968-1973: copyright extended to 70 years from publication.
Additionally, the 1964 law changed ownership to studios but didn't affect the term duration, which remained 25 years from publication until 1973. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we trust a reliable source when it claims that a photo is public domain?

Our source of the photo File:Max Scheler2.jpg is the en:Great Norwegian Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia says that the image is public domain. Can we trust this information or do we need to remove the image if we cannot identify a source where the photographer directly declares the image to be public domain? This issue came up at en:Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Value_theory/archive1#Images,_biblio_and_footnotes. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is, by force, older than 1928, and en:Great Norwegian Encyclopedia is a reliable source. I'd safely assume it's PD-Old.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A creation date of 1928 isn't enough to assume PD: we either need:

A publication date before 1930 -- and photographs are often not published (ie, made widely/commercially available) until long after they are taken.
To show that it was not published until 2003, and either:
- That it was created before 1905.
- That we know the photographer, and they died before 1955.
Or that it was published without compliance with US formalities, and PD in the source country in 1996.

See Commons:Hirtle chart. The encyclopaedia does not say that it's PD, only that they haven't identified any copyright upon it, and therefore that they assume it's PD, which is far from the same thing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publication though was not defined in the US copyright acts before the 1976 act (which became effective in 1978), so the courts stepped in. Carl Lindberg provides many details in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. One of them is that if the photograph was taken by a professional photographer, usually in exchange for money, then the sale of the photograph to the customer was publication (as far as the US is concerned). --Rosenzweig τ 11:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, old pictures were usually published when leaving the photographer's custody. Since the photographer is unknown, this is {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. 16:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

There is Category:PD per authority, where a trustworthy source identifies a work as PD without explaining why, and we simply accept the PD status as long as there is no contradictory evidence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"public domain" in which jurisdiction? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a simple reverse image search is helpful. The photograph in question is identified here as a ca. 1925 work by German photographer de:August Sander. So it is a German work, and since Sander died in 1964, it is not in the public domain in Germany yet. The file should be deleted. --Rosenzweig τ 16:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This changes everything, so Commons:Deletion requests/File:Max Scheler2.jpg. Yann (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion is that the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia is apparently not a reliable source as far as copyright claims are concerned. --Rosenzweig τ 16:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for looking into it. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bluto copyright

Hi, Was the copyright of Bluto renewed? Nobody has commented on COM:UDR#File:Blutowindow.png copyright was not renewed so far. Any idea? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright rules in Japan

I raised a concern regarding the upload of items that are owned by Japanese museums or individuals. see Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Japan. - Wikkyshor (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]