Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Shortcut: COM:VP/C · COM:VPC 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. Commons discussion pages (index) Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion Copyright Proposals Graphics and photography discussion Image improvement Photography critiques Categories for discussion Deletion requests Undeletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests #wikimedia-commons webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator 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.

FoP and Bridgeman v. Corel

COM:Freedom of panorama and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

What if someone takes a photo of something that is covered by FoP (not PD yet) and the photo is not released with a free license, but it's a slavish copy? {{FoP-Nederland}} and {{PD-art}} are no licenses. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

FoP is rare for 2D objects. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The thing that triggered this were some photos of stained glass in the UK. It looks like they can at least be covered by PD-1923, though they are from the UK so it doesn't entirely make sense. But if the windows had been made in 1930, its creator died in 1980 and the photo of it (slavish copy or not) wouldn't have a free license it would be acceptable for Commons but we wouldn't have a license tag for it. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in the UK includes stained glass in a public place, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom. This includes interior views of buildings open to the public such as churches. The 2D/3D distinction is not the test to use for UK FoP. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: I know. But if you have a photo that isn't freely licensed but is a slavish copy and you rely on FoP-UK for the stained glass, you can't license it on Commons. If the photo has a free license, FoP-UK can piggyback on that. If the stained glass was installed before 1923 or the author died at least 50 years ago, FoP-UK can piggyback on that. Nevermind those licenses aren't valid for the UK, we have FoP-UK for that. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 09:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: If a photo is a slavish copy then it does not need to be freely licensed. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. indicates that a photographer who makes a slavish copy does not have intellectual property rights to the photograph. However, a 'slavish copy' photograph is not necessarily free because we need to account for any rights to the object that has been copied.

Where it applies, freedom of panorama allows us to disregard the rights of the creator of the item that is depicted. Are you saying that only the photographer can claim the freedom of panorama, and that we cannot claim freedom of panorama unless the photographer has done so? This seems unlikely.

I'm sorry if I have misunderstood. It might help to have an explicit example - are you considering a photograph of a scene in the Netherlands which incorporates a photograph of a stained glass window in the UK? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: no, a user had changed the licensed on her files to "FoP-UK" (and as one would expect, they got tagged "No license since", but those have been fixed). But here's an example: St Katherine's Aisle Window:

"This beautiful stained glass window is in St. Michael's Church in Linlithgow Scotland. (..) In 1992 the 750th anniversary of the church was celebrated with the installation of a new stained glass window in St Katherine's Aisle by Crear McCartney."

FoP-UK? Yes. Slavish copy? Looks like it. Creative Commons? Nope. PD-1923? Nope. PD-old-anything? Nope, artist passed away in 2016. Can this be uploaded to Commons? Probably not, as there is no valid license tag available. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: We should not get hung up on which licence tags have been created. However, failing to identify an applicable license tag is a good reason to recheck our analysis. I now agree with what I think are your conclusions. Every file on Commons must either be public domain or be licensed by somebody. The freedom of panorama rule sometimes allows us to disregard the copyright of the creator of the original object, but we should not combine it with the 'slavish copy' principle to declare an image to be free. Bridgeman v. Corel refers to a slavish copy of a public domain work, but it may not be applicable to a slavish copy of a work that is not in the public domain. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: that's interesting. Slavish copies being legally not slavish copies if the work depicted is protected by copyright. I would have never thought of that, but you may well be right. That's odd. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Another example is File:Grumbach Selbstportrait Skizze.jpg. We have the permission from the artist. We don't need a permission from the photographer, as our PD-Art rationale applies. But we don't have a combined template now. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the current PD-Art rationale as specified by the WMF wouldn't apply, but the underlying logic from Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. would seemingly apply (at least in the U.S.). This was the subject of previous discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/03#PD-Art_for_CC-BY-SA_? Did anyone ask the WMF to extend their official position from the current position of "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain" to the more expansive "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional freely licensed works of art are similarly freely licensed"? —RP88 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote to WMF Legal about this case. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There are two potential copyrights here: the copyright of the stained glass artist and the copyright of the photographer. Freedom of panorama frees us from the copyright of the stained glass artist, but has no effect on the photographer's copyright (which is only a copyright on the original elements in the photograph itself). If it really is a slavish copy, then the photographer has no copyrights (and thus we would be able to host it). However, it seems questionable to legally assert that a photograph of a stained glass window is actually a slavish copy, as lighting is a critical aspect of stained-glass photography. For example, no one is going to photograph a stained-glass window at night under artificial lighting. Most likely, they will photograph it on a sunny day, or maybe at sunset for a warmer color palette. The photographer can argue that this was a creative choice (however obvious) and thus they have a copyright on that aspect of the photograph, i.e. the lighting. Freedom of panorama doesn't help us for that (unless the photograph itself is permanently displayed in a public place). Kaldari (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Just noticed your "ping please" :) See my reply above. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kaldari: thanks, I don't read everything all the time. I had also missed Yann's addition above. It looks like I forgot to link Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book, that should answer your question. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 10:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the issue of the photographer's copyright at Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright of art forgeries

Are there any local or global regulations on copyright of art forgeries? Specifically, can copyright apply to such forgeries when the author (e.g. Han van Meegeren) by definition did not claim the authorship, posing for a public domain artist? Brandmeister (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Han van Meegeren died in 1947 so his works entered the public domain in most countries this year ({{PD-old-70}}). Unfortunately due to URAA only the ones published before 1923 are definitively PD in the US ({{PD-old-70-1923}}. Ex turpi causa non oritur actio may apply, and we have kept some images of illegal graffiti on this basis. However I wouldn't rely on this as it seems to be untested in US courts, and we must follow the precautionary principle. Guanaco (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

His works were already in the public domain for most people: {{PD-old-50}}, {{PD-old-60}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I would consider forgeries not under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there any court cases that apply? If we reasonably believed they were made by a public domain artist, I think the law would protect us from a lawsuit, though we could possibly be forced to take it down. But the making of them isn't illegal, unlike graffiti, and I don't think the law would prevent the artist or his heirs from claiming the copyright to a work they made.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I've heard any. If a forgery was a slavish copy of an existing work, you could get into arguments that it is merely a copy of the original, with no additional expression added, so no new copyright. But if it is a new painting just done in an artist's style, that would certainly create a new copyright. Making such a painting is not a crime, so it is different than graffiti that way. It is the later passing off as someone else's work which is the fraudulent part -- if marketed up front accurately, there would be no crime at all and of course it would be copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

To make a credible claim that the work is authentic, it has to be really look alike. So I don't see how one could at the same time claims a copyright and claims that the work is authentic. A work which is just in the same style isn't a forgery by definition. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

What makes it a forgery is the claim that it's by another author. It could be claimed that it is a known work or not.

However, for forgeries of a known work, I agree with Yann that the forgery is a faithful reproduction and rules for faithful reproductions should apply. That means that a forgery is not a creative work and does not attract copyright in most of the world (the exception may be the United Kingdom under the "sweat of the brow" doctrine).--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There have been many forgeries that have not been exact copies; File:Skating in Holland-J.B. Jongkind forgery.jpg, for example. I don't know about forgeries of a known work; the court cases on our side have been about photographs. Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts (1951) is old law, but says that mezzotint copies of paintings get a new copyright and has never been overturned, so from that precedent, I would assume a painted copy of a painting would get a new copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Copies are derivatives of the original work, so the original work copyright applies. Unless the difference is beyond COM:TOO making it a new work.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

With a derivative work there are (at least) two copyrights, that of the creator of the original work and that of the creator of the derivative work, see Commons:Derivative works. As Guanaco points out, we might disregard a forger's potential claim of copyright under an Ex turpi causa non oritur actio rationale, but this does not appear to be reliable. We should follow the precautionary principle and reject such images. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If a forgery was photographically identical to an original in the public domain then {{PD-Art}} would apply, but we would only be able to judge this if we had a good photograph of the original, in which case it would be better to upload the photograph of the original. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If it was a good forgery (that is, somebody successfully pretended that it was the original and an expert was needed to catch it), then it was photographically identical to its original. It's debatable if bad forgeries have any originality, but reasonably good forgeries don't).--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Unlike forgeries of banknotes, most art forgeries are made in the style of the target artist but are not duplicates of authentic works. A forgery that fools art experts into thinking it is a newly-discovered work by a famous artist has high financial value, but a clone of the Mona Lisa would have low value. A painting in the style of another artist is an original creation, even if it passed off as something that it is not. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, van Meegeren made forgeries that weren't copies of existing works, but new works in the style of other painters such as Vermeer. Although he claimed that the paintings were made by those other painters, that should no longer matter, because he has later admitted the forgeries were his at a court of law, and this information is well known enough to us, so I think we must consider him the author and sole copyright owner of those paintings. – b_jonas 12:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Forgeries which are new paintings, and not copies of existing ones, are a completely different matter. In these cases, copyright applies when we know that they are forgeries. The initial question was not about these. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright on British newspaper cuttings of unidentified origin and authorship

We are building a Wikipedia page for an elderly relative now in a care home. He is a British writer with over 50 books to his name. He has numerous newspaper cuttings in his files describing his travels and exploits from 1955 to the mid 1990s. However most of these have been cut out without attributing the publication or the journalist. Some may have been in The Times, others from local newspapers or specialist magazines. Some are accompanied by photographs but most not. Most are from British publications but some appear to be from overseas.

As they give an insight into his activities over the last 80+ years the information is being fed into his Wikipedia page. But are we allowed to upload the unidentified anonymous cuttings to provide references/citations to the Wikipedia entries? I have uploaded one as an example here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unidentified_news_cutting_of_Vickers_shipyard_meeting_early_1950s.pdf There is absolutely no indication of the date, publication, journalist, etc. But clearly of interest to anyone studying either the history of Vickers shipyard or the four individuals who were canvassing on behalf of the Tory Party at the time.

More generally are newspaper articles, whether identifiable or not, generally considered to be in the public domain?

Any thoughts or advice much appreciated. Thanks, Jon.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbromwich (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jonbromwich: No, newspaper articles, whether identifiable or not, are generally considered not to be in the public domain. Please see COM:CRT#United Kingdom for specifics as to when their copyrights expire in the UK.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

UK Newspaper articles from 1955 are almost certainly still under copyright, so probably are not suitably licensed for uploading here. While articles don't need to be uploaded to be used as references, to be useful as a reference they would need details of the newspaper, date etc to allow verification.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It seems then that this little treasure trove of information cannot be used as references on Wikipedia (unless I spent the next few years tracking down every article and getting permissions which frankly I don't have the time to do). It's a shame because the newspaper cuttings shed all sorts of interesting light not just on the subject of the original article but also of many of his (well-known) contemporaries in the 1950s. And they show that, unlike many people, he moved from being a quite right wing Tory in his youth to a much more progressive internationalist in his middle age, probably as he experienced more of Africa's problems. I will still build his article on Wiki but won't be able to reference everything. Thanks for your help anyway, Jon.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbromwich (talk • contribs) 07:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

In order to reference something you are not required to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, this is now what referencing means. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 07:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jonbromwich: You don't need to upload a newspaper article, to reference it. In fact, a copy of the article does not even need to be available online. Please see en:WP:REFB, en:WP:PUBLISHED, and en:WP:SAYWHERE for more specific information about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jonbromwich (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Thanks again for the information. Haviing read en:WP:SAYWHERE it seems that I could reference the article as I have personally seen it. Would the following act as a suitable reference? - Unattributable press cutting, c1953. Library of Guy Arnold, 2018.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbromwich (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If the article is from a reliable source (note that it needs to be reliable as defined by Wikipedia, not as defined by you or by others), then you should provide as much information about the source as you can when you cite it. You can find out more about this at en:WP:CITEHOW. For example, if the article is from an old newspaper, you should try to provide as much information about the paper as possible. Many major papers have archives; so, the more information you can provide about the paper you read, the better chance that someone might be able to find an archived version of it. Moreover, the more information you provide for a source, the more likely its going to be accepted by others. If the best you can do is say something such as "press clipping from Library of Guy Arnold", then the source is most likely going to be challenged by others; however, if you can provide the name of the paper, the date of paper, the page the article was on, the name of the author, etc., the more likely others are going to be willing to give the source the benefit of the doubt. If you need more help with this, you probably should ask at en:WP:RSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

US Government works

Per COM:PD and even en:WP:PD#U.S. government works, I think it's pretty much generally assumed that content created by an U.S. governmental employee in the course of their official duties is considered to be {{PD-USGov}}. However, I came across something at usa.gov/government-works which seems to indicate that this might not necessarily be the case, particularly with respect to official government logos. There are another copyright exceptions listed here which seem to place restrictions on how such works can be used. For example, item 2 states:

You cannot use U.S. government trademarks or the logos of U.S. government agencies without permission. For example, you cannot use an agency logo or trademark on your social media page.

which is something that doesn't seem to be compatible with COM:L. There seem to be lots of US governmental agency/military logos uploaded to Commons as PD, so perhaps this "restriction" is not really something to be concerned about; however, I'm just curious as to whether it has always been like this or perhaps these exceptions are something just recently introduced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Those are non-copyright restrictions. We don't directly concern ourselves with them (meaning that they are not sufficient reasons for file deletion). We do have some templates to deal with such restrictions, like {{Trademark}} and {{Personality}}. They are in Category:Non-copyright restriction templates.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff G., see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions for more details. The template for the files possibly affected by the particular example you call out would be {{Trademarked}} or {{Insignia}}. See, for example, File:Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.svg, which was the target of a takedown request from the FBI in 2010. More details about that takedown request can be found at CNN, WMF response, and the associated DR. —RP88 (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, but then the sentence "Unless the work falls under an exception, anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: ... " in the intro paragraph here seems to specifically refer to the exceptions listed in the subsequent section, which in turn seems to imply that the exceptions might be restrictions put in place by U.S. copyright laws. Anyway, I was just curious since the example given about using a logo on social media seems to be quite a restriction placed on how such a file can possibly be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Trademarks are a separate area of law than copyright, and do not affect the determination of "free". If a blog violates a trademark, that is still a problem, free or not. There is such thing as trademark fair use, and I would imagine most of the time there is no confusion about the use on a blog, so doubtful that would run afoul of trademark laws. There are some specific laws that protect certain government insignias though, and while those are trademark-ish they are a little more nebulous. We do have the {{insignia}} tag as a catchall for that type of law, which again does not affect "free" status but is something to be aware of. The government cannot use copyright law to enforce any restrictions, which is the main point. Logos etc. are not exempted from the copyright prohibition -- they are simply subject to additional types of rights, which are non-copyright restrictions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Pokémon GO logo.svg

Is this simple enough for {{PD-simple}}. The File:International Pokémon logo.svg part of the logo might indeed be PD, but it's the "Go" part which might push this above the TOO. The Commons version of the logo is quite small, but a slightly different non-free version of the logo uploaded as en:File:Pokemon Go.png and ca:Fitxer:Pokemon Go.png shows the "Go" element to be kinda complex with stars and an outline of the earth in addition to the red and white Pokeball. Maybe it's because of its small size the the Commons file can be kept, but the reason I'm asking about this is because the English local file of the logo has been nominated for deletion at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 31#File:Pokemon Go.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The Commons version is really missing that detail.

If the Commons version is not official, that would be reason enough to hold on to the fair use files. Also, it should be judged by COM:TOO#Japan because Nintendo is Japanese. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If this were a PNG or other raster format, downscaling might make it ineligible for copyright because the copyrightable elements simply aren't there anymore. With SVG, the small size makes no difference for Commons because you can readily upscale it to see all the detail. Guanaco (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A 1984 book from Google books

Hi!

There is this book from 1984 that has a copyright sign, but it is freely available on Google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=30YcAAAAMAAJ

Is it allowed on Wikimedia? Thanks.

Hello! The original author (Olylmpiodor the Deacon) is dead long ago ("born between 470 and 490" (https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_1985_num_54_1_2165_t1_0412_0000_3)). Therefore, the text of his manuscript is in the public domain. The rest of the book, however (introduction (Einleitung), footnotes, vocabulary, etc) is copyrighted, therefore you cannot put this book as such on Commons. If you want to use the orginal text, it would be better to put it on Wikisource. Skimel (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

India copyright law, important update

Hi, FYO, I updated Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India‎ and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India-table.

The subject is the first owner of the copyright of a photograph, a portrait, a drawing, or a film, unless there is any any agreement to the contrary.

Under Section 17(b) in the Copyright Act, 1957

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;

Regards, Yann (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't the "...for valuable consideration..." clause mean that this only applies if the photo (etc.) was paid for? For that matter, I don't think this clause has anything to do with the subject of the photograph. I read it as "If a photograph, a portrait, a drawing, or a film is made at the instigation of someone, and that someone paid to have it made, they are the copyright holder, absent an agreement otherwise." See Right of ownership under Indian copyright law. —RP88 (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Neither in the article linked by RP88 nor in the copyright act itself can I see anything saying that the subject of the photograph is the copyright owner. Section 17(b) is just about photographs ordered by somebody.

However, this clause may apply to some studio photographs made at request of the subject, not because he is the subject but because he ordered the photo and paid for it. That may be a difference with other countries, where copyright of private portraits made by professional photographers usually belong to the photographer.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that is just for commissioned works, not anywhere close to all photos. Analogous to a work for hire situation, though for non-employment situations, and has nothing to do with the subject of the photo but rather the purchasing party. It is taken from a nearly identical clause in the 1911 UK copyright act, which was reworded in the 1956 UK act but was still there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The 1911 UK article 5(1)(a): where, in the case of an engraving, photograph, or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration in pursuance of that order, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright

The 1956 UK article 4(3): Subject to the last preceding [work for hire] subsection, where a person commissions the taking of a photograph, or the painting or drawing of a portrait, or the making of an engraving, and pays or agrees to pay for it in money or money's worth, and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of this Part of this Act.

So I would presume the Indian clause was basically the same as those two clauses -- commissioned works are sort of like a work for hire, that's all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I checked that in Commentary on the Copyright Act, 1957, by H. K. Saharay, and it is quite clear that it doesn't only apply when the photographer is paid. It is a general clause which applies at all time, except in case of any agreement to the contrary, when the picture is taken at the subject's request. This effectively covers all cases of a picture taken by a passer-by. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

By the wording, it has nothing at all to do with the subject of the photo. It sounds like it is still just for commissioned works, regardless of what the subject is, even if there may not be monetary compensation. It sounds basically like an expansion of work for hire, in accordance with older UK law. That may well cover situations like asking someone to take a photo of you, but your edits make it sound like if I take a photo of someone on my own volition, they would own the copyright simply by being the subject of the photo, which as far as I can tell is not remotely what the law says (or the commentary that you quoted). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I changed the wording, to be clearer: The subject is the first copyright owner of a picture, when taken at his request, except in agreement to the contrary. That's basically the text of the law, so I don't see the issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you're still overlooking the "for valuable consideration" requirement of Section 17(b), i.e. your rephrasing should be something like "The subject is the first copyright owner of a picture, when taken at his request for valuable consideration, except in agreement to the contrary." Under Indian law "valuable consideration consists in the accrual of some right, interest or benefit to one party, or in the giving, suffering or undertaking if some abstinence, loss or detriment, or reponsibility by the other party, at the request of the promisor." (Sukha v. Ninni, AIR 1966 Raj 163). Being paid money is the most common form of valuable consideration under English common law (presumably also Indian law), but it definitely includes other less common considerations such as the discharge of an obligation to do something (see Supreme Court of India decision Chidambare v. Renga, 1966 AIR 193) which cites Currie v Misa).

While in most cases the owner of the copyright to a work is the author, in cases involving multiple parties who have not consented to a specific agreement with regard to copyright ownership who owns the copyright can actually differ from country to country. This can complicate use on Commons since Commons requires that a work be freely licensed under both U.S. copyright law and the copyright law of the country of origin. For example, consider the case where a payee pays an Indian portrait photographer to take a photo of a subject without an agreement regarding copyright ownership. Section 17(b) of Indian copyright law presumably assigns the Indian copyright to this photo to the payee, not the photographer (in most cases the payee would likely also be the subject). However, under U.S. copyright law the U.S. copyright to this photo would be owned by the photographer. In this case, we are in the unfortunate situation where the owner of the U.S. copyright is not the same as the owner of the Indian copyright (there being no such thing as an international copyright). In order to upload this example Indian photo to Commons we would need a license for the Indian copyright from the payee and a license for the U.S. copyright from the photographer. If we adopted your reading of 17(b) the situation is worse, Commons would need a license from both the subject and the photographer for similar Indian photos even in cases where no valuable consideration is exchanged. —RP88 (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: I still don't see what the subject has to do with anything at all. From the sounds of it, if someone asks you to take a picture of a building for them, they also own the copyright (provided the "valuable consideration" is met). I don't think it matters whatsoever what the content of the photograph is. Basically, to me, it's just a wider form of work for hire, which is not mentioned on that other page either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@RP88, Clindberg, Pere prlpz, Jkadavoor: Here are a copy of the 3 pages from the book mentioned above: [1]. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yann, thank you for uploading the excerpt of pages 212-214 from the commentary to which you referred earlier. That was a generous gesture (although I do wish you had also included page 211). However, I struggle to see how you got your summary from this commentary. The commentary supports the comments Carl and I make above. At the top of page 212 where it talks about certain artistic works (i.e. photographs, portraits, etc.) created at the request of a person it says "(2) in the absence of any contract to the contrary such person shall be the first owner of the copyright. This rule will, of course, not apply in the case of the aforesaid artistic works in the following cases: (1) ... (2) ... (3) if there is no valuable consideration, and (4) ...". Note that it is the requestor who might be the copyright owner instead of the photographer (not the subject, although often the requester will also be the subject) and that valuable consideration must occur. This is further supported later on page 212-213 in the "(d) Photograph" section which says that in cases where a photographer who takes a portrait for the sitter under employment by the sitter, the copyright is owned by the sitter. Page 214 discusses a case involving a sketch (that was ruled to be a portrait despite some unusual circumstances) created by an artist at the request of a father and the father had paid for the portrait after reviewing the result. Despite the portrait being made at the request of the father and the father paying the artist, the copyright nonetheless was held to belong to the artist as the father was not considered to have ordered it nor given valuable consideration, but only accepted and paid for it after the plaintiff had completed it. I am sorry, but this commentary does not support your argument that when a photo is taken merely at the request of the subject the copyright belongs to the subject instead of the photographer. —RP88 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@RP88: Thanks for your comment. I don't understand what "valuable consideration" means here. To me, this means that the photographer has considered the request favorably, not that a payment was made. So I removed that sentence. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of India, in Chidambare v. Renga 1966 AIR 193, cites Currie v Misa to define valuable consideration, i.e. "A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other...". It is a benefit conferred or a detriment incurred, something of value in the eye of the law. There must be some detriment to the giver or some benefit to the receiver. Money or a promise to pay money is the most obvious example of valuable consideration, but it can include other things like a forgiveness of a debt, or the obligation to do something. For example, a promise from me to take your photograph is valuable consideration. So if you take my photograph in return for a promise from me to take your photograph, you have taken my photograph for valuable consideration. —RP88 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: OK, reading those, those all revolve around exactly the question of who owns the copyright of a commissioned work. It has nothing to do with being the subject or not -- that just happened to be the most common situation of commissioned works. The scholar interestingly cites some American cases from the 1800s and early 1900s, which did often rule that the commissioning party owned copyright (where some other cases did not), though that question was settled in the 1976 Act which eliminated such presumed transfers. The example on the third page is of a portrait made of a deceased son, which the father bought once he had seen the finished product -- that was ruled to not be subject to that clause (from the UK 1911 law), because there was no "valuable consideration" paid before the work was made -- the artist made the work upon suggestion but of his own accord, and the father bought it only after he decided he liked it. I.e. it was not a commissioned work, where the commissioner was going to pay regardless of what the final product looked like. The UK 1911 act was limited to a commissioned "engraving, photograph, or portrait" and the case in question determined that it was a portrait, even though it was a painting, so it was in scope per that first clause, though not in scope by virtue of the "valuable consideration" part. The Indian law is more clear on that question, including cinematographic works and portrait paintings in the scope. But to me, that is all the law is saying, and all that book is saying. If you commission a photograph in India, no matter the subject, you own the copyright and not the photographer (who is the author, but not the "first owner"). It has nothing to do with actually being a subject or not, although "portraits" are still included in the wording so I guess commissioned paintings and drawings which are not portraits would be excluded from the scope, while it would still seem that all photographs, engravings, and cinematographic works are in the potential scope regardless of subject. But if a photographer takes a photo of a person of their own accord, or even just without being commissioned up front, the photographer owns the copyright, it seems to me. So I don't think your interpretation is correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it is only a limited use right. See the wording "subject to the provisions of clause (a)" which points to "...but in all other respects the author shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work;" So if I paid a photographer to take my photo, I can reproduce it for my uses without any copyright infringement but for all other uses a permission from the photographer is required. Jee 02:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I don't think so... clause (a) is about a specific work for hire situation for certain types of works, for a newspaper or periodical, giving certain rights (but not full rights) to the newspaper proprietor. Then clause (b) would be about any remaining rights, should both situations apply, where the commissioner would be the (full) owner of the copyright (or whatever rights the newspaper proprietor does not have). If (b) does not apply, then clause (c) is the work for hire provision, where the employer is the first owner. For clauses (b) and (c), I don't think there is any division of rights -- the commissioner or employer owns full rights, unless clause (a) also applies, in which case the newspaper proprietor owns certain rights. So, for the author to be the owner of the copyright, it cannot fall under the scope of any of the three clauses (or, if just clause (a) but not (b) or (c), then the author still has some rights). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Carl for the explanation. Jee 02:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of Odisha.png

It's possible that this might be {{PD-India}} or PD for some other reason, but I don't think an official symbol such as this can be licensed as "own work" unless it can be verified by OTRS that the uploader is actually the person who originally created the emblem/seal. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

When was the seal designed? Ruslik (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hemy: The Widow or Telling the Bees

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_Napier_Hemy-Telling_the_Bees.jpg

You seem to have a rather free interpretation of the original art work in Commons. Contrast

• https://pixels.com/featured/the-widow-charles-napier-hemy.html
• https://www.art.com/products/p14172716-sa-i2936604/charles-napier-hemy-the-widow-1895.htm

with this, the version that appears in Commons:

• https://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Charles-Napier-Hemy/Telling-The-Bees.html

This last is a commercial site offering 'reproductions' of oil-paintings.

I think that you have been sold a pup ... Scarabocchio (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, it seems so. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Napier Hemy-Telling the Bees.jpg‎. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Art.com does have a version that looks like the one on Commons (see https://www.art.com/products/p22110707219-sa-i7605078/charles-napier-hemy-telling-the-bees.htm ). However Charles Napier Hemy's "Telling the Bees" appears to be at the Wolverhampton Art Gallery (WAGMU W265), but their photo is a mirror reflection of the similar photos in the preceding links. —RP88 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm ... perhaps the enWP caption "The Widow or Telling the Bees" was misleading. Perhaps there are two separate paintings? The Widow's face is almost entirely missing in one,and sharp in the other. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The houses in back are different, there is a more obvious beehive in one, the positioning of the child's arm is a bit different, and many other details are different. So it would appear there are indeed two paintings, one being The Widow, and the other being Telling the Bees, which are very similar -- but are definitely different paintings (was the Bees one a study for the other? -- would make sense if it was far less detailed). The question is which orientation the Telling of the Bees actually is -- was it reversed from the scene in The Widow or is it the same. The links you originally gave are for The Widow, so are not relevant, but there do appear to be different images of the Bees around, and not sure which one is correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The Widow (detailed face) is signed and dated. Telling the Bees is not. It's looking likely that the second is a draft of the former. Scarabocchio (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. All the art reproduction sites, plus some blog entries predating the upload here, have the figures on the right side as our upload does. But the Wolverhampton Art Gallery page, and pages which copied that info, have them on the left. Weird. One of them is lying, but unsure which :-). One thing is for sure, our image is a crop and not the full painting. The Widow is a larger painting, also giving credence to the guess that Telling the Bees was a study for The Widow. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok ... so, there's no problem with copyright as such (the work in Commons exists as some sort of original by the stated artist) so the deletion request should be withdrawn. Separately to that, the image could/ should be replaced with the later, more detailed The Widow. I can do that if I can just copy the rationale behind the current Telling the Bees. Will that work? Scarabocchio (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

For Commons, we should have versions of both paintings. The file as uploaded is fine, and is titled correctly, so it should be left alone so long as it's the right way around. I would prefer to have another file with the full painting, but there is nothing wrong with having a crop as well. The Widow should be uploaded separately. Which one is better on the en-wiki article is an argument for the editors there -- whether it would be better to have one with more detail, or one which is actually titled like the subject of the article, so the link does not have to be further explained. But for Commons, the idea is to provide editors all the options, so what is "better" for that article can be discussed there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I closed the DR, as per comments above. Thanks for your contributions. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yann:, the talk page is still showing 'A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion'. Scarabocchio (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Scarabocchio: That's normal. Please read it again. It says: This file was nominated for deletion on 3 September 2018 but was kept. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status of Vallbacksskolan, school building in Gävle, Gävleborg County, Sweden

I've taken photos of Vallbacksskolan, school building in Gävle, Gävleborg County, Sweden. Does anyone know if the building has copyright holders other than the original architect Herman Teodor Holmgren (1842–1914)? I don't want to rely on just Freedom of Panorama for photos of Sweden. – b_jonas 12:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If that was the sole architect, copyright expired in 1985 regardless of who the copyright holders are. (Well, more accurately, the copyright expired in 1965 once 50pma expired, and was not restored in 1996 when the retroactive extensions to 70pma went into effect.) So the question is if there were other authors, and it doesn't sound like it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Review of OGL-licenced photos

Given the recent situation in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portrait photographs in the Government Art Collection, I request that all photographs that had been uploaded from the NPG to Commons with an OGL licence be reviewed for whether or not the photographer died more than 70 years ago (that is, 1948 or earlier), and that the NPG be considered for addition to the problematic sources list. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

By NPG do you mean the National Portrait Gallery, London? This is different from the Government Art Collection. The NPG is not a branch of the British Government, and an NPG source is not evidence to support an {{OGL}} licence. Do you have any examples where {{OGL}} has been improperly applied to NPG images? Verbcatcher (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The files discussed in the link provided and also here apparently had an OGL licence attached to it only because of a footer that said "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated", but the copyright is actually held by the photographer (in this case Vivienne Florence Mellish Entwistle). It appears that it is recommended to add NPG and GAC to COM:PRS with respect to the "life+70 year" copyright because a licencing mistake had been made in uploading the photos to Commons. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I made a mistake, "NPG is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport",[2] so it is an branch of the British Government. However, I see nothing on the NPG website to support the general use of OGL for its images.

A few NPG images bear the text "© Crown Copyright. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0". Does this amount to an {{OGL3}} license for these images?

• https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw204218/Queen-Elizabeth-II
• https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw180953/Charles-Anthony-Raven-Crosland

Verbcatcher (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

uploading an original image of a famous individual

I want to create a a Wikipedia profile for my friend, and I Have her original photo, she is using that photo in her verified twitter account https://twitter.com/Kholu24

I tried to upload it, the volunteer said it is forbidden because the picture is used on the internet already.

whats the problem? can you help me uploading it or tell me which license I should be using?

Regards

--Saher AlSous (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Saher AlSous: Whoever owns the copyright of the photo (probably the photographer, but maybe also your friend if it was a work-for-hire) needs to release it under a Free license compatible with the rules at Wikimedia Commons (this site). See COM:OTRS for one way of documenting this. --El Grafo (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Do the laws of Ukraine apply to the Donetsk People's Republic

This is in regards to a DR that I closed, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Donetsk72, along with a note left on my talk page by Sealle, User talk:Majora#Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Donetsk72. The Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) is a break-away, self-proclaimed, state existing within Ukraine. No other country recognizes the sovereignty of the DPR, although Russia has started to recognize some aspects of it per w:Donetsk People's Republic. So the question is what to do with their stamps? And are we following Ukrainian law on the matter? That was the point of the DR that I closed as keep per Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Ukraine which states that stamps of Ukraine fall under {{PD-UA-exempt}}. Since the DPR is not recognized internationally or domestically as independent it is therefore a part of Ukraine so I followed Ukrainian laws. At least that is what I believe. But since there seems to be some questions here I thought I would ask for other opinions on the matter. --Majora (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

They are not stamps of Ukraine, of course, and therefore they are not in public domain. Only Ukrainian postal service can issue postal stamps in Ukraine. Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. Sealle (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Even if they are valid postage stamps accepted by the postal service? That seems counter intuitive. They are stamps, with specified face value and state servicing as a tool of payment for postal services. I'm ok with being wrong and I'll correct my mistake. It just seems strange to me that stamps created in Ukraine accepted for postal service in Ukraine would not fall under Ukrainian stamp law. --Majora (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

stamps created in Ukraine vs. stamps created on the territory of Ukraine by a non-authorized issuer. Sealle (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Ukraine says

• According to the Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related rights, all Ukrainian stamps are in the public domain. They are defined as "state signs" in the Law of Ukraine On Postal Service (4 October 2001)

These stamps are clearly not "state signs" of the Ukrainian state, so it is unlikely this law applies to them. In the absence of an applicable law they are not public domain. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Seems reasonable. If anything, there is enough from multiple people now to seed significant doubt. I've rectified my mistake. Thanks everyone. --Majora (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)