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

Latest comment: 20 hours ago64 comments8 people in discussion

Example with the text "Ukraine. When democracy isn't working. People are, Loesje."

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

St. Valentine's Day-wish posters in Rotterdam, 2021

On Kawara, June 19, 1967 from Today Series, No. 108, 1966.

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]

"The American Loesje" (see my explanation below).

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.

Not a work of authorship.

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]

The Colombian painter Jorge Calero in his studio in the Rue de São Bento, Lisboa near the São Bento Palace in 1990. Here he started with a new painting, with in the back a finished painting. I uploaded this work without his permission, because so little details of his artworks can be seen that they can be considered deminimis.

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]

(another theoretical you can ignore if you're done with this thread) This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever asked on here, but could someone theoretically use a freely licensed high quality picture of Tilted Arc for something commercial, and then try a preemptive CASE Act filing with the CCB to establish they're not breaking copyright laws, thus possibly leading to the nullification of the Tilted Arc registration because CCB has to take into consideration Feist? (obviously only if CCB found in their favor, and presuming the copyright owner - Richard Serra - even agreed to CCB proceedings in the first place, which is certainly doubtful) I'm just wondering how something like this could ever get sorted out beyond federal court or like, waiting until the registration expires PMA. (again, all theoretical) 19h00s (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean, I can't really tell you how implausible hypotheticals would be resolved. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:02, 2 March 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]

I'm not aware of a British case about an action taken post-Brexit, to see if their earlier definition now applies again. The one recent case I'm aware of made mention that the act under question occurred while the UK was a member of the EU. One would hope they would keep the EU definition to make trade easier, but not sure it's a guarantee. Still, that is probably the most recent relevant guidance we have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a case from 2023. Also, Brexit incorporated the EU acquis (as it stood at the Brexit date) into UK law, except where explicitly excepted. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: That ruling says: Section 1(1)(a) of the 1988 Act must, so far as possible, be interpreted in accordance with Article 2(a) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (“the Information Society Directive”) as interpreted prior to 31 December 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. That seems to leave open that actions after 2020 may be judged by a different standard, though that may just be a reference to retaining the state of EU law as of 2020. I don't think the EU threshold language is actually incorporated into their law, so it will be interesting to see if they continue to accept CJEU opinions. That case was about events which happened pre-Brexit though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's really saying quite the opposite: it is saying explicitly that the standard established by the CJEU before December 31, 2020 remains the standard in the UK even afterwards, while CJEU opinions from 2021 and later are not considered binding. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 13:26, 4 March 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)

Regarding "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." Just a note, this is true in the USA but not in many "sweat of the brow" countries (like the United Kingdom). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Donald Trung: The UK has rejected sweat of the brow since InfoPaq (2009) at least. See THJ v Sheridan. Also, even the worst "sweat of the brow" applications had to do with the sweat of (pseudo-)intellectual effort (compilation of facts, research, etc.), rather than having literally to do with the physical difficulty of reproduction per se. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ice show logo edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone! I'm currently creating a separate article for the 2018 ice show event Continues with Wings in Tokyo. At the top of the infobox, if possible, I'd like to add the show logo from the official website.

According to this section, the "copyright protection of fonts [in Japan] is limited only to those that raise artistic appreciation as much as artistic works do." Since the logo only consists of text elements and simple flourish, my guess is that it does not meet the threshold of originality. However, I'd like to hear another opinion before uploading anything.

In the case that the logo cannot be uploaded here, is it allowed to upload a low-resolution image of the logo (or the full show poster) to EN-Wiki, using the same license template as movie posters, CD-covers etc.? Thank you very much in advance! Henni147 (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be fine as {{Textlogo}}.

And, yes, en-wiki allows low-resolution non-free logos. There is no "license template" involved, because there is on license. Instead, you'd use something like en:Template:Non-free use rationale logo. But this is moot in this case, because the logo is not copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: Excellent! Thank you very much for your quick and detailed reply! Henni147 (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: I have another similar case to the one above: Prologue ice show logo. It is somewhat more "artistic", using a mix of Latin letters, Japanese katakana symbols, and some little drawings. Is {{Textlogo}} allowed to be used in this case as well or do I have to work with Non-free use rationale logo on EN Wiki? Thank you very much in advance. Henni147 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, but if this is from Japan, I believe their threshold of originality is much lower, so I'd definitely go with the non-free approach. I'd say that even for the U.S. that one would be problematic, especially the feather. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much! Henni147 (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update from Flickr about Creative Commons licenses edit

Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I sent an email to Flickr asking if they were ever going to migrate from 2.0 to 4.0 Creative Commons licenses. To my surprise, they actually replied to the email:

The change from Creative Commons 2.0 to Creative Commons 4.0 is something that we are currently looking into implementing and we’re actively meeting with Creative Commons to discuss a strategy for moving to 4.0 licenses. Although we do not have a current timeline, we’re hopeful this is something we can implement in the near future. When this happens, we’ll be sure to update our community of any changes.

Nosferattus (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work and I'm glad to see Flickr continues to show commitment to facilitating Creative Commons images. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is good news. Upgrading licenses for Flickr to 4.0 will make things easier on reusers. Abzeronow (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Create custom template for images from MerrionStreet.ie Flickr account edit

Latest comment: 6 hours ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello there,
www.MerrionStreet.ie is website run by the Irish government/state as a "Government News Service". On the website's copyright page , it notes that all

All the information featured on our website is the copyright of the MerrionStreet.ie unless otherwise indicated. You may re-use the information on this website free of charge in any format. Information and documents obtained from this website may be reproduced and/or re-used subject to the latest PSI licence available at www.psi.gov.ie.

Link to www.psi.gov.ie

A custom PSI template is already exists here on the Commons, please see Template:Oireachtas (Open Data) PSI Licence created by @Neveselbert // @Neveselbert (mobile)

As part of it's operation, www.MerrionStreet.ie runs a Flickr account, found here. Unfortunately for us, www.MerrionStreet.ie does not upload these images under a creative commons license. However, I believe they should be as part of the law stated on their own website. As far as I can see, everything created or upload by www.MerrionStreet.ie is a part of its purpose, which is entirely covered under the copyright section of their website. That section clears states it's all under PSI.

Have you contacted this agency about this?
I contacted www.MerrionStreet.ie directly several times in Spring 2023, both by e-mail and phone. While I was told that the agency would review their upload policy, they neither made any changes to the Flickr account nor informed me of a final decision. A classic case of kick the can down the road and hope it goes away. Look, the agency actually falls under the Office of the Taoiseach, the highest political office in Ireland, so it's likely extremely busy on a consistent basis and was never going to prioritise this request (sadly).

So
What I want to know is:

A: Can I upload content from the MerrionStreet.ie Flickr account directly under a Template:Oireachtas (Open Data) PSI Licence
or
B: If not, Can a custom template be created for the MerrionStreet.ie Flickr account?

I believe that either the current PSI custom template should be sufficient, or that a custom template in the exact same vein as Template:EC-Audiovisual Center should be created.

Thank you for your time and consideration, your insight into this matter would be really appreciated. CeltBrowne (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I've just brought this thread was back from the archive; I'm still looking for answer here. CeltBrowne (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Costa Rican political party flags edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've been maintaining and adding to Category:SVG flags of cantonal political parties in Costa Rica for the better part of a year. I've been uploading the flags under PD-Costa Rica, as I thought the parties' statutes, which define the flags, fell under it as "other public instruments". After asking on the Discord server for comment, it seems that this is not the case. This means these images can only stay here because of their threshold of originality (PD-flag, PD-textlogo, etc.), as none of them are out of copyright otherwise (author death + 70 years. None of these parties are close to being over 40 years old, let alone 70). Many of the flags are, indeed, below any reasonable threshold of originality, as they are simple bicolors or tricolors (maybe even solid colors!).

However, some seem more problematic in my eyes, like Alianza por San José, Unión de Puntarenenses Emprendedores, Garabito Ecológico, among others, and I'm uncertain on whether they're too complex for a ToO argument to hold water.

What should I do? Are the flags OK? Rubýñ ^(Talk) 05:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They would certainly be fair use, so they aren't illegal or anything like that. If you are drawing the SVGs yourself, that takes out some risk. If you are making the SVGs after a written flag description, they should be fine (your copyright). If you are slavishly copying (i.e. the specific lines and curves) of a copyrightable graphic design, then yes they are likely a derivative work, and Commons policy would need a license from the original work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple have been drawn by retired RoboQwezt0x7CB (like previously mentioned Alianza por San José and Garabito Ecológico), so I've just reduced them using SVGOMG + hand editing, unless I've found accuracy errors, then I go in and edit (like Unión Guarqueño or Acción Quepeña, for the sake of an example). Others I have drawn myself, using both the description written on the parties' statute, mostly for things like fonts, proportions, and colors, and the flags shown on the Supreme Electoral Court's website, like this one, but never directly tracing anything, just eyeballing it. I don't know if that last point is problematic, though, specially for flags like Unión de Puntarenenses Emprendedores o Renovemos Alajuela, which are more complex than just stripes, stars, and text. I do avoid using non-OFL fonts, if that's helpful, instead switching them out for visually similar OFL fonts like Now, Kurinto, Liberation, etc. Rubýñ ^(Talk) 21:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should say that by "a couple" I mean like around half of them. I have gone through every single one of them, though, changing inaccurate colors or proportions. Rubýñ ^(Talk) 21:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright ist kein Copyright ist Copyright ist kein Copyright, aber eine Rose ist eine Rose ist eine Rose edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Das Uploaden auf Commons ist "fragil" (ein euphemistischer Euphemismus für "diese Site kann das nicht, wozu sie da ist"). Aber inzwischen wird tatsächliche daran gearbeitet (nach 10 Jahren!). Und das ist natürliche eine "Frohe Botschaft" (wie im Advent nur ohne Gott). Aber das geht natürlich nur, wenn es auch getestet wird, wenn es Testcases gibt. Unfreiwillig habe ich dazu beigetragen, indem ich zunehmend größere Fragmente einer Datei hochgeladen habe (und noch weitere hochladen werde). Diese Fragmente können in die History der richtigen Datei verschoben werden, oder vielleicht auch gelöscht (nicht optimal, aber geht auch). Nun wurden aber 4 davon gelöscht mit dem Löschkommentar "no license since".

Aber stimmt das denn? Bei diesen 4 Dateien steht die Lizenz bereits im Hochladekommentar (auf der Dateibeschreibungsseite zu sehen und leicht mit "Ctrl-F" zu finden) und in den Metadaten (mehrfach und mit link auf den Lizenztext) die ebenfalls auf der Dateibeschreibungsseite stehen. Es ist kein Template vorhanden. Und ein dummer Computer liest nicht die Lizenz, sondern fragt das Vorhandensein dieses Templates ab. Computer dürfen nachtürlich dumm sein. Aber ist es tatsächlich ok zu behaupten, eine Lizenz sei nicht da, die gut sichtbar da ist, und das als Löschbegründung anzugeben? Kommt mir vor wie alternative Fakten. Und auf jeden Fall stellt sich die Frage, wie ernst meint es Commons denn nun mit den Lizenzen? Wird hier einfach nur Lizenztheater gesspielt? Gelten Regeln nur wenn sie gerade in den Kram passen? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

much ado about what?

Was ist dein Anliegen? In welcher Commons-Prozedur besteht Verbesserungsbedarf? Wo bist du an der Benutzerführung gescheitert. Vielleicht sogar ein Beispiel. --Goesseln (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beispiel: File:OBR Hannvoer 2024d.webm ‎File:OBR Hannvoer 202ed.webm ‎File:OBR Hannvoer 2024b.webm ‎File:OBR Hannvoer 2024c.webm ‎

Anliegen: Wird hier einfach nur Lizenztheater gesspielt? Gelten Regeln nur wenn sie gerade in den Kram passen?

In leichter Sprache: Kommt es darauf an, dass eine Datei korrekt lizensiert ist? Oder kommt es darauf an, dass ein Bot eine bestimmte Vorlage vorfindet? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand exactly what you did here, but at least for File:OBR Hannvoer 2024d.webm (I didn't look at the others) the entire content of the file page was a lowercase "a". The license info does seem to be in the edit summary, but most people (including most admins) are not going to look for it there. I believe it is actually a requirement on this site to provide a licensing template or PD template. often a human can cope with the absence of that and can fix it after the fact if intent is clear, but it's still pushing work off onto someone else, and bots are (appropriately) going to repeatedly flag a problem until it is done. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

URAA edit

Latest comment: 4 days ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Which is exactly the policy for images that are public domain in their source country now but weren't in 1996 and had copyright in the US restored by the URAA? Keep anyway? Nominate and delete after confirming the dates? Keep those already uploaded to Commons before a given date, and delete ones uploaded later? And if it is the third option, why make a difference? Cambalachero (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If an image which was published in a non-US country (and not published in the US within 30 days) had its copyright in the US restored by the URAA, it's not PD in the US via {{PD-1996}}, so in order for it to be hosted on Commons, it needs to be PD in the US for some other reason. Generally that reason would be that it was published over 95 years ago (before 1929), although some works published after 1977 might also be PD. Commons:Hirtle chart has more details on the subject. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The short version of what to check for this kind of case:

If the work was first published in 1928 or earlier, it's in the US public domain now even if copyright was restored.
Make sure the work was actually URAA eligible. A work is not URAA eligible if any of the following are true.
- The work's first publication occurred simultaneously in the United States (that is, it was distributed or offered in the US within 30 days of its first publication in a foreign country).
- The work was created by a US national domiciled in the US.
- The work was in the public domain in its source country on the URAA restoration date (which is January 1, 1996, for most, but not all, countries).
- (Rare exception) The copyright in the work was controlled by the Alien Property Custodian, and the owner of the copyright under the domestic law of the source country is a government or instrumentality thereof.
If the work was URAA-restored, then its copyright term is the same as it would be if the work were published in the US with all formalities observed.

With one theoretic exception, it's impossible for any URAA-eligible work first published after 1977 to have entered the public domain naturally. Works created in 1978 and later enter the public domain 70 years after the author's death — but even if someone died in 1978, that would place expiry in 2049. Works created before 1978 and first published between 1977 and 2002 enter the public domain in either 2048 or 70 years after the author's death, whichever comes later.

Thus, the only case where a URAA-restored work published after 1928 could be in the public domain as of 2024 is for countries whose URAA date is in 2003 or later, and where the source country had no pre-existing copyright relations with the United States, and thus the work only ever received US copyright upon the establishment of copyright relations — since, as you'll recall, the US hasn't had any formality requirements in the 2003—present period (and so only a lack of national eligibility could cause a more published so recently to be URAA eligible in the first place). The work would have to be created by someone who died over 70 years ago and have first been published in 2003 or later. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused; did you mean "published after 1978"? Many countries are still life+50, or were on their URAA date, and many countries have terms for photographs that is less than life+70. {{PD-Poland}} and {{PD-AR-Photo}} are both examples where recent photos end up in the public domain. (Films are often a flat X years from publication in life+X countries, but rarely less.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be careful — I wrote "a URAA-restored work published after 1928." Works that were in the public domain in the source country on the URAA date weren't URAA-restored. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally the policy is to nominate files that were restored by URAA for deletion. There is an unofficial policy of keeping uploads from before the Supreme Court upheld URAA as constitutional in 2012. Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the Hirtle chart and {{PD-1996}} Public domain: "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal" It appears that for a foreign image to be eligible for a US copyright, you still had to comply with USA copyright formalities. This would require copyright notice, registration, and renewal for those that are pre-1964. Not just made public prior to the 95 year mark. --RAN (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was only the case before 1996. Foreign images that were not in the public domain in the source country on January 1, 1996, or otherwise exempt (see above), were given retroactive copyrights by the URAA. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The URAA was specifically for restoring the copyright lost by failing to conform with the old formalities, as required by the Berne Convention, which the U.S. joined in 1989. (The U.S. initially tried to avoid restoring anything, but other countries held them to it, and the URAA process was worked out during a WTO meeting, and took effect in 1996.) The U.S. avoided restoring as many works as it could, using various exceptions in the Berne Convention (such as ignoring works PD in the country of origin on the URAA date), but if a work was restored, it gets the same term as a U.S. work published at the same time if it had conformed to all formalities. In other words, 95 years from publication. You are misreading the Hirtle chart; you want the line under "Works Published Abroad Before 1978" of Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date. So, a work could re-expired in the country of origin but still have a U.S. copyright. On the other hand, if a country retroactively restores a work after the URAA date, its PD U.S. status is unaffected. The PD-1996 tag is specifically for works which were PD in the country of origin on the URAA date, and presumably did not conform to U.S. formalities, so was PD and was not restored. For a work old enough to be PD regardless of formalities or the URAA, use PD-US-expired. If a work did conform to U.S. formalities, then it never lost US copyright and it naturally has the full U.S. term without the URAA (at which point there is no PD tag we can use). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely, this was just to counter that the only license for images published outside the USA was {{PD-US}}. We have the license {{PD-1996}}. --RAN (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AI song covers and PD-algorithm edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently I uploaded an AI cover of Alexander Graham Bell singing Auld Lang Syne as these AI covers have become a fairly large internet phenomenon and it appeared to be the only one I could find on YouTube that is legally suitable for Commons to host. While the still image of Bell was generated with DALLE-3 (according to the original uploader) and is clearly covered by PD-algorithm, I'm less certain about the audio, which according to the video description did involve AI but appears to have been created with more human intervention. From the information available it sounds like the uploader downloaded a public domain sound recording, processed it with AI software to separate the vocals from the instrumentation, then processed the vocals with another AI model trained on public domain recordings of Bell to make him "sing" the song, then used some unknown software to mix them back together. My gut feeling is that the audio would still covered by PD-algorithm, and even if it isn't the video as a whole was released under a CC0 license, but since there is no precedent on Commons regarding these AI covers I feel there should be some consensus regarding this. Suspiciouscelery (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leo Ornstein (works and some recordings now released under CC BY 4.0) edit

Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone,

Besides being an editor here on Commons, I'm the Head Librarian and Copyright Reviewer for IMSLP (that's my day job).

Some good news about Leo Ornstein. We've received permission from his son (and heir to his copyrights) Severo for us to release all of his father's compositions, as well as the recordings to which the rights are owned by him (i.e., various recordings made by Leo and Severo) under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. We have the scores up at IMSLP already and we'll have the audio files up imminently.

(Note: some of the earlier pieces by Leo Ornstein are in the public domain in the US naturally, but Severo Ornstein's license of course applies wherever the copyrights haven't expired.)

While Commons is not really a repository of sheet music, Commons is a repository of free audio recordings (among other things). And a number of these free recordings can replace non-free snippets on Wikipedia pages. So, once the recordings are posted on IMSLP's Leo Ornstein composition pages, they can be imported here under CC BY 4.0.

I'll be doing at least some of this myself, but I figured I'd mention it here, so anyone who wants to help out knows about this.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exciting! Personally, I do think that sheet music for a notable composer is useful and in-scope for Commons even if we also have recordings—for pianists and musicologists, for example. Category:Sheet music has a lot of files. (Sheet music with words can also be transcribed at Wikisource, but I get the sense that's not relevant in this case.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In scope, perhaps, but still, I would say that it is not really a sheet music site. (Still, go ahead and import any eligible sheet music if you'd like.) Also, Wikisource can host LilyPond sheet music as well. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, the LilyPond sheet music uses scans for side-by-side proofreading, e.g. s:en:Waltzing Matilda. (This is only relevant to music that's meaningfully in a language, of course.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, and also just for sourcing transcribed music on Wikisource as well. But there are relatively few scores on Wikisource (and arguably it's not really a great platform/format for scores). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would this cross the threshold of originality? edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Logo for allAfrica. They're operated out of the US and South Africa. I'm unsure of South Africa's TOO laws (do they have any? The commons page says nothing either way) Opinions? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South African ToO laws should be close to those of UK. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: TOO is rarely laid out in laws, rather established by copyright-office rulings or court judgments, so it’s hard to provide guidance without some accumulation of ‘landmarks’. I agree with Ruslik, noting that in Canada & India, both with British common-law traditions, the standard set by courts is worded something like exercise of skill and judgment. In this case, I think the logo probably passes that test, and the rainbow/tree graphic (albeit not the type) might even be copyrightable in the US.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Odysseus1479: I don't think the tree part would be in the US (at least comparing it to the examples on this page), but noted on the South Africa part. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading photos released for press usage by a company edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

I'd like to upload some photos released for press usage by a company in order to use them in my wiki articles. These are the photos: https://embraer.bynder.com/share/886AED22-F6E4-4266-BDEB651BD17E3D53/?viewType=grid They are widely used all over the internet for illustrating articles.

Can I upload them? What license shall I choose for uploading?

Thanks! Admiralis-generalis-Aladeen (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Admiralis-generalis-Aladeen: Hi,

No, you can't upload them here without a formal written permission for a free license. "Press usage" is not sufficient for Commons, where all content should be usable by anyone for any purpose, including commercial ones. Please read COM:L, and COM:VRT for the permission procedure. Yann (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(

Admiralis-generalis-Aladeen (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is "King Of Jazz" (1930) in the public domain? edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Someone from archive.org says so but I can't find that information anywhere else. Do you know any databases where I can check this? Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's still in copyright. Was renewed in 1958. https://archive.org/details/catalogofcopyrig3121213li/page/50/mode/2up Abzeronow (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abzeronow Too bad. When will it expire then? I don't really know how to read those documents properly. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It becomes public domain January 1, 2026. Abzeronow (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abzeronow Thank you very much. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status of a photo found on a dead man edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

An unusual situation was brought to my attention here[6], where I was asked about the copyright status of a picture. It is on Commons as PD Israel[7] (though it's from before Israel existed), but after some digging I discovered it was found on the body of a dead Palestinian rebel, who was killed by Brits, and the photo was seemingly therefore first published in Anglophone media. There's a version on Getty[8] without clear info on first publication, but the Alamy version[9] says it's from the Sydney Morning Herald. While that may be so (which would make it PD Australia), it was probably also published in other Anglophone papers at the time, and we still don't know who actually took it, and it was owned by a dead man. So what copyright status actually applies? FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tried a quick search on NLA Trove and the earliest Australian publication I could find was from The Sun on 16 November 1938.[10] There may be earlier publications in Australia but using different article text. There may have been earlier publication elsewhere. If we can make a reasonable identification of country of first publication (this may be multiple countries if published within 30 days of first publication due to Berne convention rules on simultaneous publication) we can then consider that country (or countries) rules on anonymous creations. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A free search of the British Newspaper Archive shows multiple papers started reporting the death of "Nur Effendi Ibrahim Abdullah... east of Haifa on Tuesday" on 28 October 1938. I don't have a subscription with them, so I can't see more than the free search results. However, the Australian publication on 16 November must have either been first publication or simultaneous first publication as it was within 30 days of the photograph reaching a publisher (as less than 30 days since "Nur Ibrahim"'s death). We can therefore consider Australian rules on anonymous works as the source country copyright rules.

The one complication here is if the same image was published in US media within the same 30 days. If so, the US also becomes the source country and we have to consider justification under US law (rather than relying on being PD in source country on the URAA date). Some of the British Newspapers cite Reuters as the source of the story, so it could have easily been sold to the US newspapers. Hopefully another editor will have a good source for checking US newspaper archives to see if there are any matching terms in late 1938. In the worst case scenario (barring any other justifications we can use), it would become PD on 1 January 2034 as 95 years after first publication. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it was published without a copyright notice (anywhere) it would have lost that U.S. copyright. Only the URAA could restore it, and it was out of copyright before the URAA in the most likely "country with the greatest contacts" (Israel), or Australia if that was the first publication (unless it was the UK itself). The simultaneous publication is one place where the URAA "source country" can be different than the Berne "country of origin". The worst case scenario is that was never published with authorization and thus remains unpublished -- that would make little difference in UK/Australia/Israel but would the U.S. But, if prints had been distributed among friends of the person who was killed, that may have sufficed for U.S. publication before it ever got into a newspaper. It is a weird situation, but the current license may make the most sense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for digging. So on the face of it, it should be more or less safe to update the Commons version with a higher res version from another source? FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disney's early works are still protected by copyright in German-speaking countries edit

Latest comment: 6 hours ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Under German, Austrian and Swiss copyright laws, all artistic works lose copyright protection and enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the last author. Recently, it was discovered that many of Disney’s early works, such as the videos related to Steamboat Willie, which entered the public domain in 2024, were not marked with relevant copyright information. Therefore, we hope that relevant personnel will mark similar files with copyright information.

If the author of this work has not been dead for at least 70 years, this work is protected by copyright in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, unless other regulations apply. Therefore, communities of German-language Wikimedia projects have decided that use of this file is not allowed within German-language Wikimedia projects.

Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is true in any 70pma country (Ub Iwerks died in 1971) which does not use the rule of the shorter term (or had a copyright treaty with the U.S. long ago, like Germany). Not sure we should be adding multitudes of tags like this for every country -- there isn't anything that makes Germany, Austria, and Switzerland special in that regard. I could see using PD-old-auto-expired with a deathyear argument so life-term countries have some indication whether it's PD there (many Steamboat Willie ones do, but possibly not all). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: It is my understanding that the communities of the German-language Wikimedia projects don't want to use the ~41 files tagged with {{Urheberrechtlich geschützt}} per initial author Cwbm (commons) and the other editors, and that no one else has questioned this in the template's 13+ year history. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 01:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, that part makes sense -- they do not want to use works still under copyright for their target audience. There are likely many wikis in that situation though, not just one, and not sure it makes much sense to have many templates of that ilk. If they want a maintenance category, that makes sense, but a visual tag that everyone else sees... would not be my vote, since if German why not a French, Spanish, and every other language project tag for any 70+pma countries -- it would drown the page in warning templates. It does make sense to use PD-old-auto-expired with deathyear=1971, so that it shows that it's fine in 50pma countries but not anything longer -- it should be apparent at that point whether it's OK to use based on what a particular project's categories are. That one visual template should inform all languages, and is far more compact. I'm not going to remove usages of that template or anything, but I'm not going to add them myself, nor do I think that should be policy. We should inform one way or another, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, as far as I know, only the German Wikipedia has such a rule. (). You could say that this is one of the copyright-related peculiarities of the German Wikimedia community (another being certain debates in the past about GFDL+non-free licenses).

The French and Spanish Wikipedias certainly have no similar rule. You'll find Mickey on the French Wikipedia, for example. (This isn't really entirely comparable, since French and Spanish are spoken in many more countries with disparate copyright laws than German.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Carl here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also agree with Carl. Nosferattus (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ahrar al-Sham's letter of condolences to Mullah Omar after his death.jpg edit

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this letter below the threshold of originality? Trade (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is rather a long text, which is certainly above ToO. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr edit

Latest comment: 20 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion

If someone has a Flickr account and uploads a bunch of photos, some of them having that user in the photo with it being taken by someone else, but the user has them under a CC license, is it valid? Mainly asking because I've been in correspondence with a person who appears in some of the photos, and I've seen things like File:We Want Eazy!.jpg, Category:Flickr files uploaded by samhsloan@gmail.com, and Category:Files from Eric Garcetti Flickr stream and I just want to make sure that it would be allowed for them to upload it to Flickr before it was transferred. reppop^talk 05:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Reppop: That depends on whether or not there is use of a timer referenced in the EXIF metadata. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, no, not really. What matters is whether or not the licensor is empowered to grant the license. Whether they used a timer, a remote without a timer, had the copyright transferred to them, it was a work for hire, etc., is not important. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller: Good luck divining that empirically. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works with conflicting licenses edit

Latest comment: 16 hours ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Is it safe to use content that has conflicting copyright information?

For example, I saw a website that says its content may not be used for commercial purposes. However, the copyright statement also explicitly mentions a CC BY-SA license with no non-commercial clause. I know some authors dual-license their works, but it doesn't make sense in this situation because the CC license would defeat the purpose of the NC restriction.

So my questions are:

From a legal perspective, would the presence of the CC license supersede the non-commercial clause?
What is Commons' policy on works with such conflicting licenses?

I do know such files are typically deleted on Wikipedia without clarification from the uploader, but I'm not sure what the procedure on Commons is. Ixfd64 (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ixfd64: Exactly how close are the statements to each other on the website? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 08:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The CC licenses stand alone, per their own text.
Incoherent dual-licensing is common, but the CC license remains valid.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, that is good to know. I was wondering if courtesy deletion would apply if the author says it's a mistake and requests removal. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The website in question says the content is distributed under the Creative Commons license. However, the next paragraph says the content may not be used or distributed commercially. Yet the paragraph after that contains a link to the CC BY-SA license with no NC clause. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If they are linking to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license and saying that is the license offered, then the terms of the license as given in that document stand alone. As it says in the 4.0 license, "Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License." Similarly, the version 3.0 license says, "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here."

In other words, if they specify some condition not in the CC license, you do not need to choose to respect that condition (if you are using the work under the terms of the CC license specified). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NATO Manual Copyright edit

Latest comment: 8 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is the copyright of an aircraft manual published by NATO? For example, T.O. NATO 1RF-G91-R4-1 (source). According to discussions in 2016 and 2020, it seems like the answer is normally based on whatever country the creator is from. However, in this particular scenario the answer is unclear. The aircraft represented, a Fiat G.91, was built by an Italian company, but the format of the manual's designation resembles that of the United States Air Force (for an explanation/examples, see The "T.O." System). Unfortunately, no bibliographic information other than the designation is present. If it's American, then it would be public domain, but I am not sufficiently familiar Italian copyright to know what it would be in that case. –Noha307 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright status has nothing to do with where the airplane was created. It only has to do with who created the manual and where the manual was first published. "First published" can mean multiple countries, as long as the publication occurred within 30 days. This manual was almost certainly published in the United States upon initial release, if not created by the US military.

If this work was created by the US military (probably), it is in the public domain for that reason.

If it wasn't created by the US military, then it would be in the public domain due to publication in the US without a copyright notice before March 1, 1989. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add topic