The situation is as follows: the Soviet Union had a number of "standard and reusable projects [or project designs]" (типовые и повторно применяемые проекты) and "series projects" for buildings that were built all across the Soviet Union. Think of something like Khrushchevka s. Vitaly Lagutenko (1904–1968) was the designer of the Khrushchevka buildings (and is somewhat of a bad example to ask a question about Belarus given its copyright protection of only 50 years, so let's take Ukraine instead which has a copyright protection of 70 years after death?). My question is, could I upload photos of Khrushchevkas in Ukraine, despite the lack of FoP and despite the not yet expired copyright protection, with the argument that the same building can be found in Russia where it is not protected by copyright due to FoP? (Please ignore the fact that Khrushchevkas probably are below the threshold of originality because there are also "standard and reusable projects" that definitely have creative elements, e.g. reusable project desigs for Houses of Culture and for schools like this one, so that TOO can't be used as an argument for uploads.) Nakonana (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, is an extremely basic building counted as a work of (architectural) art? JayCubby (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are cases which are more elaborate in their design. There can be decorative elements on the facade, there can be columns etc. I only used Khrushchevkas as an example because it's rather well-known. Nakonana (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of project designs for Houses of Culture for example. Nakonana (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things like https://rojavainformationcenter.org/storage/2024/12/Sheikh-Maqsood-9-scaled.jpg, where it's all boxes.

This could be a work of 'art' as there's more to it. I dunno. JayCubby (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what I'm curious about. This one is probably also artistic enough to be protected. This building can be found in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. However, if I'm not mistaken, Russia is the only country in this list with Commons compatible FoP rules. Does that mean that photos of this building design are not allowed on Commons if it's the version of the building in Homel in Belarus? Nakonana (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have argued against the deletion of images of such buildings in France, and I would do the same for buildings in Soviet Union (the housing ones like Category:Khrushchev houses). Yann (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll ping here @Alex Spade and NickK: for their insights. They may know about Soviet and post-Soviet states' TOO standards regarding architecture (and if {{PD-structure}} applies). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that for Ukraine they are not copyrighted because they lack any artistic intention. The article 1.56 defines work as an original intellectual creation of the author (co-authors) in the field of science, literature, art, etc. expressed in an objective form. The Law of Ukraine On Culture defines that architecture is a form of art, and that art means creative artistic activity. I don't think that a typical Khrushchevka can qualify as creative, there was no artistic intention while building it, on the contrary, multiple sources state that they were built deliberately functional and without anything artistic whatsoever. Thus, in my opinion, they don't qualify as copyrightable works of architecture as there was no artistic creativity involved — NickK (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the Houses of Culture with this standard design? There are several houses of culture in Ukraine with that design[1] [2][3] Can they be uploaded? Because the same design can also be found in Russia, so Commons will have photos of this standard type of building anyway (see File:Нижний Новгород. Дом культуры имени Серго Орждоникидзе.jpg). Nakonana (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that just because a certain design has been replicated many times, that does not mean that this design is not copyrightable. Gnom (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that. The thing is just that we already have photos of this building design on Commons from Russia where it's covered by FoP. But in Ukraine it would be still copyrighted and we can't upload images? (BTW, I've fixed the previously red link above to the photo of the building in Russia) Nakonana (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't say that these buildings lack artistic creativity. The main question is whether we consider each individual project an exact copy or an adaptation. If the former, I think we need to find out where the first copy was published and what its copyright status is (as this will be considered first publication for US copyright law purposes; Ukraine will still be the source country for buildings still standing but will cease being the source country for a demolished copy). If the latter, each of them will have their individual copyright status depending on the location country — NickK (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Soviet/Ukraine law, but I know that in the US, cases about architecture copyright have been quite heated about not the seriously artistic architectural works that will be discussed in classrooms for centuries, but about the houses that average person buys. Like a song or story doesn't have to be good or memorable to be copyrightable, neither do architectural works. Copyright has always protected maps, textbooks, and other things that are purely functional and not ostentatiously artistic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosfilaes: Ukrainian copyright law protects separately works of art and for works of science. Textbooks you mention get protection not because they are artistic, but because they are undeniably scientific. From scientific point of view I can imagine that drawings of Khrushchevkas are copyrightable (they likely involved some advanced engineering planning) but I don't see how their outside photos will be copyrightable (given that they contain neither anything artistic nor anything scientifically non-trivial) — NickK (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand conception works of art or science in Russian and Ukraine law. The key is in following (in respective articles) list of type of works. Both Black Square by Kazimir Malevich is creative work in recognized art style - suprematism, and Khrushchevka is creative work in recognized architectural style - functionalism. Alex Spade (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you then define the threshold? There is a definition in Ukrainian law which is based on creative artistic activity, and the Russian one is similar. Looking at en:Functionalism (architecture), Khrushchevka seems like a real outlier there: unlike e.g. Mosselprom in the USSR or Bakkegaarden in Denmark which have a clear artistic intention while being functionalist, Khrushchevkas deliberately lacked a creative intention (and there are sources for that). There is indeed in-depth analysis on the merits of this project for fighting housing shortage, but I haven't seen any sources for merits of architectural design of this project. I don't see how a 2D picture of a Khrushchevka from the outside would be above TOO: it's hard to see which element of it is copyrightable — NickK (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Russia creativity threshold is defined by the judicial system (in individual court decisions (without precedents) and the Supreme Court generalization of court practice) and the legislators (in amendments to copyright legislation) (as it was done with TV / transport and similar schedules and automatic camera works). The last Supreme Court generalization (No. 10 of April 23, 2019) decrees "until proven otherwise, the results of intellectual activity are assumed to be created creatively".
Creativity of Khrushchevkas is discussed, criticized and disputed, but as I can see in sources - creativity postulated as limited, not as lacking. Alex Spade (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In Russia, сreativity is primary criterion for copyrightability. Simplicity is not - "simple" Black Square by Kazimir Malevich was copyrightable. Regularity/uniqueness(originality) is not - it is unimportant, how many times some model of building/structure was erected - for copyright law these erected buildings/structures are copies in the same manner as number of issued copies of some novel. Artistry is not - article 1259. The Objects of Copyrights: The objects of copyright are scientific, literary and artistic works, irrespective of the merit and significance of the work or the method whereby it is expressed. Alex Spade (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• So. The Houses of Culture design in creative indeed (from my PoV). Khrushchevka design and its creativity can be disputed in some manner, but such design was discussed in core architectural journals/magazines, and such discussions will be proof, evidence, or/and argument for its creativity for a possible court decision . Alex Spade (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bit hard to summarize the result of the discussion (if there is a result), so I'd like to ask whether I got it right:

• uploading photos of Khrushchevkas in Homel (Belarus) is  ok, right?
• uploading photos of this House of Culture in Homel (Belarus) is  not ok even if we have photos that show the same building design in Russia where this building design is covered by FoP-Russia, correct?

Nakonana (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

has the shape of a jelly-bean, and was inspired by a natural phenomenon (mercury's surface tension). Is a shape such as that copyrightable within the United States? Perhaps the NRA lawsuit settles that possibility, but I'm not sure whether simplicity was argued (and also which 3d shapes are too simple for copyright). Thanks! JayCubby (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Copyright Office accepted Sir Anish Kapoor's copyright registration so that would argue it is copyrightable and Kapoor is notoriously litigious. Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That settles it, I suppose. JayCubby (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The registration doesn't have any precedential value per se; it accords a presumption of validity. No court has ever ruled on the copyrightability of the sculpture. The only thing that there was any actual ruling on was that the case should be heard in the Eastern District of Virginia rather than the Northern District of Illinois (for personal jurisdiction reasons). The court in Illinois never ruled on any copyright question (besides copyrightability, fair use would have been relevant). The case was settled out of court, with the NRA agreeing to cut the frames including the sculpture from the video (while not paying any damages), so no court ever ruled on anything relating to copyright in this sculpture. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller sorry, but I'm on the view that a copyright registration is an evidence that the sculpture is a protected work of art. We don't want Kapoor becoming the second Oldenburg by filing a take-down notice against Wikimedia, just because we are hosting images of his work based on the "threshold of originality" claims. TOO for US sculptures are lower than TOO in logos. If Cloud Gate was a simple sculpture, then the US Copyright Office should had denied Kapoor's registration filing at first. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that the work wasn't copyrightable. I only said that no court has ruled on this (or, as far as I know, any similar sculpture based on any similar rationale). The Olbenburg DMCA claims had nothing to do with the threshold of originality, so I have no idea why you bring those up. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller, I assumed that, based on your insight, the registration is only a mere presumption of validity and does not guarantee copyrightability; we may host images of the sculpture because of the absence of a concrete court statement that targets the sculpture's copyrightability. Still, I oppose allowing Commons to host images of Cloud Gate based on the absence of such a court statement to avoid the camp of Anish Kapoor from filing Oldenburg-style claims against the Wikimedia Foundation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's just saying that Copyright Office decisions are not legal precedents -- while they do have to judge copyrightability a lot more than courts, and a court could well take a decision from them under advisement, a court could decide very differently if it ever came to that (and the Copyright Office would have to adjust their rulings). Courts have certainly ruled infringement cases on sculpture, but not sure that any were on the edge of the threshold of originality -- those cases were more a question of fair use or not. A registration is however prima facie evidence that the copyright is valid, meaning a possible infringer would have the burden of proof if to show it was below the threshold, if it came to court. It's a very bad idea for us to host works which do have a valid registration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I don't understand why this would still be under a copyright. The author can't be Noel, as he is on the picture. Whether the author is Bruce or unattributed, it is out of copyright in UK and in USA. Please see also en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#File:John Noel with filming equipment, 1922.jpg. Yann (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the file can be moved to commons. The description says that it was simultaneously published in the US and UK, so its "country of origin" under the Berne definition is the US. prospectprospekt (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~@Yann: Of course Noel could be the author and be in the picture. In fact, that's the most likely scenario here, since he was undoubtedly alone. Even in 1922 technology was advanced enough to use camera equipment on a delay or via a wired remote the same way we do it today to take selfies at a distance. As Noel died in 1989, it would still be under copyright in the United States. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 02:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only way for the photo to still be copyrighted is if its publication in The Assault on Mount Everest was unauthorized. I'm not sure if this is a significant or theoretical doubt, but the photo's transition between being unpublished and published probably involved the photographer giving the photo to/allowing it to be copied by someone else, if that can be considered granting permission for its further distribution. prospectprospekt (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works that were published more than 95 years ago are out of copyright in the United States, no ifs, ands, or buts. All works published before 1929 (1930 in January) are out of copyright in the US. I don't find it worth considering that this was an unauthorized publication without it having been previously published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make it clear that it was entirely possible that Noel is the author of this photograph, contrary to the assertion in the OP, especially given that he has credit for it, regardless of the provenance of its copyright. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I did some research. The earliest "selfie" was also the earliest photographic portrait, taken in 1839 by daguerreotype, by Robert Cornelius, who was himself standing away from the camera. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 02:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it was published at the same time in UK and USA, so it could be considered a US work for our purpose. Yann (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Commons policy take cognaissance of it being reasonably possibly still be in UK copyright under UK law when first publication was UK? Photographer possibly John Noel (who was also the subject)[4] who died 1989. The US publication was slightly later but de jure "simultaneous". Clearly it is out of copyright in US. Thincat (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If a work was published concurrently in more than one country, the Berne Convention stipulates that the source country is the country with the shortest copyright term. This means that the copyright has expired in the source country if the copyright has expired in at least one of the countries in which it was concurrently published. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. Out of copyright for Commons (and, seemingly, UK). I had been wondering if this was a case of US exceptionalism but no. Thincat (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite: still in copyright in the UK, but we don't care, because we don't treat that as source country for this. So UK doesn't matter any more that the probably dozen-plus other countries where this was simultaneously published. - Jmabel ! talk 15:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So with all this information, we can be confident that this photo can be transferred to Commons. I believe Noel should receive credit as author, especially as he has always had credit for it as author. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I copied it to Commons. Yann (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are images/videos that could possibly be in the public domain, though the author's death date is unknown or uncertain, permitted on Wikimedia Commons? I have this image from here (full size [5]) that I want to upload on Wikimedia Commons though I couldn't find any information on the death year of its authors (J. Kaufmann and F. Hösick) RandomGuy3114 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomGuy3114: If it's from 1862, it should be fine. {{PD-old-assumed}}. - Jmabel ! talk 07:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And {{PD-US-expired}}, to cover the U.S. side of things. - Jmabel ! talk 07:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-old-assumed-expired}} combines both in one template. --Rosenzweig τ 14:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've dug into the copyright status of this music video ("Kawaikute gomen"). I confirmed that the video was still being distributed on the HoneyWorks official YouTube channel under CC-BY on 5 April 2023, 4 months after it had been published (web.archive.org link). Although they have stopped distributing this specific video under CC-BY on their YouTube channel, several of their other videos are still under CC-BY. So it doesn't look like an accident. Would it be possible for a reviewer to do an official review? Qzekrom (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:可愛くてごめん feat. ちゅーたん（CV：早見沙織）／HoneyWorks.webm Qzekrom (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Jmabel confirmed it. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed! Can one of you please also review the following:

• File:可愛くてごめん feat. ちゅーたん（CV：早見沙織）／HoneyWorks.webm
• File:Kawaikutegomen thumbnail.jpg

Qzekrom (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that the song is covered by the CC license. It appears that the rights to the song are owned by (or exclusively licensed to) Music Ray'n (per the song's metadata), JASRAC and/or NexTone (per the deletion request page above), but the YouTube channel could be managed by either HoneyWorks or their label. Thus they may not have had the authority to license the song under CC-BY. The music video (minus the audio and lyrics) could still be owned by HoneyWorks, and so could be CC-BY even if the foregoing is true. This seems different from the case of File:ICarly 2021 theme song.webm (for which all the rights are presumably owned by the same company), so I would tread more carefully. Qzekrom (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For evaluating these cases in general, I think it would be useful to understand apparent authority, as the licensor could still be bound by the CC license even if a social media manager without actual authority clicked the button to license it. Qzekrom (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All files marked reviewed. (I haven't yet reviewed your intervening comments. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 18:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue Star Donuts.jpg looks suspicious, because the metadata says the author is Michael Romanos and the uploader's name doesn't resemble this. Also, the link in metadata shows Michael is a professional photographer. It is suspicious per the clues given about professionally taken photos and ambiguous claims in Commons:How_to_detect_copyright_violations. It's also unnatural that a professional photographer would only upload one image. Overall, I suspect it's the act of publicist for a donut company uploading a professionally taken photo as their own. Graywalls (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Yeah, Google Lens turns up uses of it all over the place, so it's probably a stock photo. I've tagged it as a copyright violation. --bjh21 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21@Graywalls still one more instance of copyvio uploaded through "Cross-wiki upload from en.wikipedia.org" method. It appears this is Justjessk (talk · contribs)'s last remaining upload; their talk page shows another image file that was deleted due to being a derivative work of packaging (I suspect it may be a stock photo too, since it's a photo of "blue donut", so the associated DR should have a note if ever this is true). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted file is definitely a promotional image Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 03:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21: , Well, allegation based on that website you tagged with is a weak one, because I couldn't verify that it existed prior to the update date. However, I think the stronger evidence is the photographer's website and name being in the meta data. Graywalls (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Good point. I've been dealing with newly-uploaded images lately and didn't think to check the dates. I've removed the speedy deletion tag because the copyright violation is no longer obvious, but I think it would be quite reasonable for someone else to tag it with different rationale or to open a full deletion request. --09:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC) bjh21 (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure that this famous U.S. monument is PD-not-renewed? The website of the National Park Service claims it is protected by copyright, but does not give the name of the current copyright holder, unlike the other entries listed by NPS, which show the names of the artists or the current holders of sculptural rights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a copyright notice on the pedestal to "Felix W. de Weldon", and under it "Sculp. 1945 - 1954" . He made a small statue of it right after seeing the photograph, which eventually led to his being commissioned to make the large one. There is something to the copyright notice rules which may use the 1945 date (with two dates the earlier is used), but realistically it would be 1954 when the larger statue was completed. There would need to be a copyright renewal from Mr. de Weldon -- if we find that, then it's still under copyright. But we'd need to find a listing. Since for a 1954 date the renewal would have had to be in 1981 or 1982, which is after 1978, any such renewal should be online at www.copyright.gov. It's possible the NPS simply doesn't want to rely on a search, or maybe there is something we are missing. There is mention that de Weldon did visit the US Copyright Office in 1977 -- perhaps it was registered then. That would have been too early to file a renewal though (and too late to register and renew for a 1945 date). He did renew a couple of 1965 inaugural medals in 1994, but I can't find anything else online. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg sounds interesting. The Copyright Office article, though, sounds like the late renewal made by Mr. de Weldon was "valid". More details may be needed, though.

For other users, here is the relevent excerpt from the source Carl provided:

There is no way of knowing how many claims to copyright in a sculpture have been registered. But registration applications for many well known sculptures, as well as the sculptors themselves, have passed through the Copyright Office. Among these works are the Marine Corps War Memorial statue by Felix de Weldon, who visited the Office in 1977.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note a registration is not renewal. In 1977, it would have been in its first copyright term. He needed to file a renewal a few years later. It was not PD before then. A 1954 work would have become PD in 1983 without a renewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is a frame from a Pathé newsreel filmed in 1923 that I would like to upload. Before I spend the time, can I verify the copyright status?

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom doesn't seem to address rights vested in companies. The identity of the cameraman is stated but I doubt that this makes it "anonymous" for legal purposes. There is no way of knowing whether they were employed or commissioned, but the former is more likely.

Any advice? (and can the rules article be updated to address company ownership, please?) JMF (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IMO the copyright holder is/was either the director or the company, not the cameraman. Yann (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• According to w:Copyright Duration Directive#Films and photographs, Films are protected for 70 years from the death of the last of the following people to die [Art. 2(2)]: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work. To my knowledge, the UK has not changed this since leaving the EU, so the term should still apply.

I assume that no screenplay or dialogue was written or that music was composed, so the only person who potentially exists is the principal director. If the cameraman acted alone and didn't receive directions from anyone else, maybe the cameraman would legally be the principal director, or no one is the principal director.

It seems that the EU didn't realise that some of those people might be anonymous and so only the 70 years from death term is listed in the directive. Probably they only thought of expensive films which cost millions of euros to produce and involve a lot of people and didn't realise that there are simple films too. The EU also forgot to list a copyright term if an author (i.e. copyright holder) exists but none of the listed people exists. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything to say that the 70 year from publication term does not apply to cinematographic works if the authors are in fact anonymous. Those terms can apply to all works. If there was no director etc. named, I would say they are anonymous. For something from 1923, the human author(s) would have needed to be named before 1994, else it became PD then. The UK copyright chart pretty much says the same. The copyright holder would be the company, but the term is still based on the human authors, or the anonymous term if not known. The UK law specifically says that the term is based on the lifetimes of (a) the principal director, (b)the author of the screenplay, (c) the author of the dialogue, or (d)the composer of music specially created for and used in the film. If none of those are known, the term is explicitly 70 years from making available to the public. It sounds like there is no screenplay, and no authored dialogue, and no music author. If the cameraman is named, if they count as the director, the term is based on their lifetime, otherwise it is {{PD-UK-unknown}}. I couldn't quite tell if the cameraman was named by the description, and also not entirely sure if they would count as the director in a case like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. The film in question is a newsreel, essentially a documentary. No screenplay, no music, no dialogue, no overt creative input.

I'll upload it and see what happens. I had hoped that there would already be Wikimedia "case law" for Pathé, but it seems not. JMF (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The movie File:Der letzte Mann (1924) by F. W. Murnau.webm is incorrectly tagged as "Public Domain" in almost any country, because one of the authors is missing: Cinematographer w:Karl Freund had the most important role in creating this movie (see w:The Last Laugh (1924 film). Freund died only in 1969. I don't know for which country the movie is then in Public Domain, but it is definitely not the European Union as stated on the movie's page. --178.9.54.185 00:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German law on films is a little unusual from what I recall. For the whole film, Freund would not be considered an author, but for stills from the film, Freund's authorship would apply. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cinematographer is not one of the four persons used to determine the copyright term duration for a film in the EU countries. These persons are director, composer of film music, screenwriter, dialog writer. --Rosenzweig τ 00:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to be very careful when determining the copyright status of a film in the European Union. 2006/116/EC has these rules:
  • Article 2.2: The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work.
  • Article 10.1: Where a term of protection which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive was already running in a Member State on 1 July 1995, this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State.

Article 2.2 means that you have to verify that four people have been dead for at least 70 years. In many member states, Article 10.1 means that you will also have to determine that a bunch of other people associated with the film have been dead for a long time, if the film was made before 1 July 1995.

For example, in Sweden you have to verify that the four people in the directive have been dead for at least 70 years and that virtually everyone else whose name appears in the credits has been dead for at least 50 years (possibly excluding actors, camera men and sound recording people as they would only create related rights which are subject to shorter terms).

I don't know how it works in Germany, but it's possible that the list of people whose death year you have to consider is much greater for pre-1995 films. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Rosenzweig. Let's have a look at the four creators that determine the duration of copyright in EU / German law: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music. The copy used here is silent (without music), so I suppose we can disregard the composer, Giuseppe Becce who lived to a very old age and died only in 1973 (besides, any new recording of the music would be protected separately). The principal director was F. W. Murnau who died in 1931; the screenplay is by Carl Mayer who died in 1944, and there seems to be no separate author for the dialogue (the film doesn't even have the usual intertitles). The cinematographer Karl Freund doesn't count for the movie as a whole, but, as Rosenzweig says, due to the peculiarities of German law, film stills (not moving pictures) would be protected until 2039 (70 years after Freund's death). Furthermore, as the file is a modern restoration, there is the question whether it might enjoy separate protection as a "scholarly edition". Related discussions for another Murnau movie: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nosferatu (still open), Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nosferatu (1922).webm and this discussion in German-language Wikipedia. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2015, the NOAA ran a "Weather in Focus" photo contest. The terms of submission included:

• "NOAA will have unrestricted use of all submitted photos and accompanying material." and
• "Additional NOAA websites may also consider publishing these images."

However, there was no suggestion that copyright in the submissions would be surrendered, or that anyone other than the NOAA would be licensed to use the images.[6] When the contest was judged, and the winners announced, the contest main page stated

• "Photo Usage: The winning photographs are the property of the photographer who took them. For usage agreement, please contact the photographer."[7]

Since then, the NOAA migrated at least some of the submitted images to their other image repositories, including the NOAA Digital Collections and the NOAA Photo Library Flickr stream. From there, some of these images have found their way to the Commons.

Note that the NOAA Digital Collections purports to only host PD images: "Images in the NOAA Digital Library are in the "public domain" and cannot be copyrighted." At the same time, every image I've seen in the NOAA Photo Library Flickr stream is published under CC-BY (even ones clearly created by NOAA employees in performance of their duties).

Here's an example of the problem I'm seeing:

• This photo was taken by Ken William, Clio, MI and won second place in the "Weather, Water & Climate" category of the competition. This is a subpage of the main contest page that carries the notice "The winning photographs are the property of the photographer who took them. For usage agreement, please contact the photographer." The results page was published by [8]
• On June 27, 2016, it was uploaded to the NOAA Flickr account with the CC-BY licence.[9]
• The image was also uploaded at some point to the NOAA Digital Library[10] without a proximate copyright notice, but under a general notice that all site contents are public domain
• On July 12, 2016, it was uploaded here, sourced to Flckr.[11]

It looks very much to me like we have good reasons to question whether the photographer ever surrendered the copyright to his image or released it under a free license.

Before I drag this, and at least another 17 images (see below) through DR, can anyone spot anything I'm missing here? Specifically, does anyone think we can take the NOAA at their word here (and if so, which word? PD or CC-BY?)

Affected files

1. File:Con00010.jpg
2. File:Con00019 (27940581725).jpg
3. File:Con00020.jpg
4. File:Con00038 (27839158262).jpg
5. File:Con00054.jpg
6. File:Con00080 (27940598775).jpg
7. File:Con00310 (27661834650).jpg
8. File:Amer0366 (27327963174).jpg
9. File:Clouds in Siuslaw National Forest.jpg
10. File:Icy shores of Lake Michigan.jpg
11. File:Lightning flashes the predawn darkness above the lights of a sleeping village (con0045958019).jpg
12. File:Lightning in Dallas 2015.jpg
13. File:Nathan Mitchell riding a wave at Gas Chambers Beach, Aguadilla, Puerto Rico.jpg
14. File:Ocean swell from a winter storm far to the north thunders ashore as hazardous surf (con0004172745).jpg
15. File:Pilger, NE twin EF4 tornadoes.jpg
16. File:Tatoosh Island Amer0377.jpg
17. File:Vessels large and small pay heed to the storm swell pounding on the reef (con0023886274).jpg
18. File:Water reflections of clouds in water (27327378883).jpg

--Rlandmann (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

• You can always relicense a PD-file as CC-BY, it just doesn't hold up unless there have been modifications. It is bad practice, but it isn't wrong.
• If NOAA published the images as either PD or CC-BY on Flickr we must assume that they did arrange for the copyright to be transferred. I don't think we should question NOAA, as it would open to questioning anything published by an American governmental agency, if there isn't explicit authorship, and proof that the author was employed at the agency at that time. CFCF (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "we must assume...." The argument above reasonably suggests that the image licenses were laundered. We need not assume the government is infallible. We can take license claims on good faith, but circumstances can arise when we need to question that good faith.

Fundamentally, this issue should be raised at NOAA so it can fix its archives.

Glrx (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, on "You can always relicense a PD-file as CC-BY": the otherwise meticulous Seattle Municipal Archives do this all the time. They don't really worry about whether they still have copyright on an image when they post it to Flickr, they just mark it CC-BY whether copyright persists or not. They are very careful about whether someone else owns a copyright, and always mark those few items in their Flick stream as "All rights reserved". - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that attaching a CC-BY license to a PD file is meaningless and nonsensical at best, and fraudulent at worst. (Even for a person/entity who originally owned the copyright before releasing it into the PD) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of the Seattle Municipal Archives, I gather it is by way of saying: we own or owned the rights to this, we are granting a license, and who knows what actions would or wouldn't count as possibly having published it at some point. - Jmabel ! talk 08:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides, CC-BY is a global licence whereas PD is based on national law. By licensing it as CC-BY, anyone can use it anywhere in the world whereas a person relying on PD would be limited to certain countries only. Of course, if it is several centuries old, then it should be PD everywhere and then CC-BY is pointless. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all; the situation seems murky enough that I will start to assemble the evidence and open DRs as needed. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Une photo de Harold Foster publiée dans l'album Spirou n°166 au 2e trimestre 1983 et photographiée avec mon smartphone est-elle publiable dans Wikimedia commons ?@ Cinokat (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinokat: Non, pas sans l'autorisation du détenteur des droits, probablement le photographe. Yann (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]