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.
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.
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.
For a while now, photos by French photo studio Studio Harcourt have been frequently nominated for deletion (by User:Günther Frager, among others). I've noticed in recent discussions that there seems to be quite some confusion about their copyright status and wanted to discuss that here.
One fact that does not seem to be controversial is that several years ago, a French court decided that photos by Studio Harcourt are produced under such tight regulations that they are to be considered collective works as far as French copyright is concerned. Which means that they enter the public domain in France 70 years after first publication. In the US, the URAA restored the copyright for those photos which were still in copyright in France on January 1, 1996. Since France still had a shorter copyright term on that date (50 years + 8 years and 120 days of wartime extensions), Harcourt photos up to 1936 should be in the public domain in the US (as of 2024), while later Harcourt photos are still protected in the US.
In 1991, the French state (minister Jack Lang) bought 5 million Harcourt photos/negatives from 1934 to 1991, see here (article from Le Figaro). One claim that I have seen repeatedly, usually made by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), is that the French state released all of those photos under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. RAN added that claim to the Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt hereand again here and has repeated it in various deletion request discussions. The article from Le Figaro (which RAN also linked to) does not support that claim of a release under a CC BY 3.0 license (which could have happened no earlier than 2007 since the CC 3.0 licenses were introduced in that year). When I asked RAN (at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/archive/2023#User:Studio Harcourt) about evidence for his claims, he replied The statement is based on the license they were uploaded with. Which, from the context, apparently refers to several files uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt in 2010 (see Special:ListFiles/Studio Harcourt).
But User:Studio Harcourt is not the French state (but the studio itself), and the photos that were uploaded in 2010 were from the years 1998 to 2008, so not part of the 5 million photos bought by the French state in 1991. I fail to see how several photos uploaded by this user in 2010 with said license can lead to the conclusion that the French state released all of the 5 million photos it bought in 1991 under a CC BY 3.0 license. As I see it, there is still ZERO evidence for this claim, and it is just an unsubstantiated claim.
Another claim which popped up recently is that the Harcourt photos from 1934 to 1991 bought by the French state are not under copyright. This was claimed by User:Tisourcier and User:Ruthven, and User:Asclepias also seems to have adopted it. Apparently it goes back to a VRT ticket by User:Studio Harcourt. As [1] shows, there are two of those. The older Harcourt ticket (2010061710041251), according to User:Ciell, only covers files uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt (“I think it's safe to say that the images uploaded under the specific account are okay, and the release does not cover any future uploads beyond the ones made by User:Studio Harcourt.”), while the newer ticket (2020112910005534), according to User:Ganímedes, "only covers a specific file".
In that ticket ( which is apparently from 2020), a woman named Agnes BROUARD, working for Studio Harcourt Paris and Chargée de la valorisation des collections, writes (confirmed by User:Ruthven on their own user talk page here): « Il me faut vous indiquer que nos archives de 1934 à 1991 sont désormais propriété du Ministère de la Culture, conservées par une entité appelée Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine et diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais. Ce fonds photographique n'est pas soumis à un droit patrimonial donc quiconque possède un portrait de l'époque 1934-1991 peut l'utiliser librement et vous pouvez réutiliser un portrait trouvé sur internet. » Which says that the Harcourt archives from 1934 to 1991 are now property of the French Ministry of Culture (as discussed above), and more importantly, that for that archive there is no "patrimonial right" (that is, the economic/proprietary part of copyright as opposed to the moral right to be named as author) and "that anyone who has a portrait from the period 1934-1991 can use it freely and you can reuse a portrait found on the internet" (translation by User:Tisourcier on my user talk page). So basically she is declaring that there are no restrictions at all on Harcourt photos from 1934 to 1991 (except that you have to adhere to the moral rights part of copyright, which means among other things you have to name the author when reproducing the photo).
That sounds great. But is it actually a declaration we can use and rely upon? It is not in any way a formal declaration of the way we usually require for VRT permissions. It is more like just another claim, made by a Harcourt employee in 2020, almost 30 years after the 1934 to 1991 archive had been sold to the French state. Why should what a Harcourt employee claims be considered binding for photos that are actually the property of someone else, namely, the French state? The French state which does claim a copyright over Harcourt photos, compare [2] (there are many more examples)? That copyright claim may not be correct for any Harcourt photos before 1954 because of the collective work status, but taken at face value it is in direct contradiction of the claim made by Madame Brouard. So the "not under copyright" conclusion, based on what Madame Brouard wrote, is speculative and shaky at best. I don't think we can rely upon that for literally millions of images.
So my conclusion from all this is:
There is ZERO evidence for the "CC BY 3.0" claim.
The "not under copyright" claim is speculative and shaky at best.
We should not rely on either of them and instead only rely on the French collective works status plus PD-1996 (for the US) part, which would mean that as of right now, only pre-1937 Harcourt photos are ok for Wikimedia Commons (and, starting in 2033, photos from 1937, in 2034 from 1938 and so on).
We really ought to sort this out. Yann und Ruthven have started closing deleted requests as keep based on these dubious claims (I've explained why I think they're dubious). If we're keeping files, potentially very many of them (5 million photos ...), we ought to be sure about the reasons. At present, we are not.
Thoughts? --Rosenzweigτ09:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to put in context: The quote comment is the answer to this question, nothing else. I didn't evaluate the CR status because I'm not French speaker and it was not requested anyway. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the perplexity when the DRs I opened were closed. Some were closed with the argument the French government released with CC-BY and others with they are in the public domain, even by the same closing admin. It is still not clear to me who is the copyright holder: Harcourt or the French government (i.e. was the rights transferred when buying the collection). If the latter is the copyright holder the ticket from Harcourt claiming they are in the public domain is void, and the claim that they have CC-BY is dubious as we don't have a VRT ticket from the French government. If Harcourt is still the copyright holder, it would be important to get the context of the email. Once thing is saying you can use the photo freely in your blog without problems (more on the fair use side), and another is you can compile a bunch of photos, create a book a sell it without paying them a dime. I'm not expert in French law, but is it possible to put a work on the public domain? (that is not the same as licensing under CC0). Günther Frager (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the French law-related question... if I recall correctly:
It shouldn't directly affect the legality of hosting the file, since Commons is based in the US, where public domain dedications are clearly possible.
As I recall, under French law, rights are separated into economic and moral rights, as is the case in many continental European countries. The moral rights are often inalienable (can't be given up), but the economic rights can be given up. (You'll note that CC0 contains a waiver of moral rights insofar as much as that's possible; that would depend on the country.)
It's often said that, because moral rights cannot be given up, that public domain dedications are impossible in France (or other European countries). But this is highly misleading. "Copyright" is, of course, a term of art in America, as is "public domain," and these concepts exist in slightly different forms in other systems.
Under French law, moral rights are not only inalienable, they're also perpetual. Anyone who says that the inalienable nature of moral rights under French law means that PD dedications are impossible would have to say that no work is in the public domain in France. But this isn't true; when we talk about the French public domain, we're talking about the expiry of economic rights.
An email which says that a work is in the public domain really must be interpreted either as a permanent waiver of the economic rights or, if not that, then an explicit and perpetual license to all the economic rights to the work — since this is what it means for a work to be in the public domain in France. While the CC0 terms are more detailed and clear, this doesn't mean that such a dedication or license isn't valid in France — except for the general limitation on waiving moral rights.
Also, French law provides for oral and even implied contracts to be considered binding. There's no reason to think that an explicit and clear "public domain dedication" would not be considered as binding. I honestly think that the whole notion that public domain dedications are impossible in many countries is based on confusion between economic and moral rights. Otherwise, you would have to accept that these countries only allow for copyright licenses to be made in a very specific form, above and beyond the formal requirements for other binding contracts or licenses, and that, failing that, the interpretation would be that there is no license at all — and I don't see any reason to believe that — or you'd have to believe that CC0 and other tools have no validity, even with fallback provisions.
Now, CC0 is a bit better, both because it is more explicit and because it contains fallback affirmations relating to non-exercise of waived rights (though these may mean nothing with respect to unwaivable moral rights). But that doesn't mean "this work is dedicated to the public domain; I give up my copyright" can't be interpreted as a valid license or dedication.
Thanks for the ping. I hadn't seen the second ticket from 2020, and that actually looks like a very interesting one. It is a forwarded email (and I prefer direct emails when working with permissions) but my reading from the exchange there (again, with my limited french knowledge) is that it support the statement as shared on @Ruthven's talkpage that you mention. The ticket #2020112910005534 was send to support the release of a single image as @Ganímedes mentions, yes, but with this more general statement in the mail it could in theory support the release for all images 1934-1991. Ciell (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also: the issue of the French claim by photo.rmn.fr was mentioned, and links to a court case ruling from 2014. (and this absolutely goes beyond what I can read in French, sorry!) Ciell (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what the Court of Appeals decided, with respect to the ownership of the works:
"[...] Most importantly, the Court held that the photographs bearing the Harcourt logo which had been made by the photographer must be considered collective works, for which the copyrights [droits de l'auteur], including moral rights, are owned by the studio.
"Concretely, the photographer is deprived of all rights to the works, and he is not entitled to anything except for the simple proportional remuneration which the studio agreed to give him upon the sale of his works. More importantly, the decision denied the photographer the moral right to attribution of which no author may in principle be deprived."
So the conclusion here was that photographs taken by an individual photographer working for a studio and, at least in this case, marketed as the studio's work, are collective works, to which all the rights only ever belonged to the studio, not the individual photographer. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was the court case which I mention in my very first bullet point above (“One fact that does not seem to be controversial is that several years ago, a French court decided that photos by Studio Harcourt are produced under such tight regulations that they are to be considered collective works as far as French copyright is concerned.”) Note that the case made that decision only for Studio Harcourt photos and not for any studio photo, which is sometimes also claimed (by User:Tisourcier for example in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tisourcier). --Rosenzweigτ16:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig I am not sure you are linking to the official French government inventory with the link above: here is the same image but in their "Médiathèque du patrimoine et de la photographie"/Open heritage Platform (nonetheless, also with a "C" in front of the mention of the Ministère de la Culture). Any reason why you link, to what looks to me, a third party/private vendor? Ciell (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ciell: rmn.fr is the en:Réunion des Musées Nationaux, the (public) agency mentioned by Agnes Brouard as the distributor of the photos (« diffusées par l'agence photographique RMN-Grand Palais »), also at the gouv.fr website you linked to (diffusion GrandPalaisRmn Photo). I'm not sure why the photos are presented on two web sites. --Rosenzweigτ16:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But maybe you should try and reach out to the French government with your questions, if you doubt the analysis of the previous copyright owner, @Rosenzweig? I have to say it seems almost unfair to expect others to do so, when you think a statement from the original photograph studio is insufficient?
I am not one who wants us to host illegal content, but on the other side we should not want to take things down without having had a conversation with the current rights holder... (or the custodian, whatever you want to call them). Ciell (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pass on that, if anyone wants to do this, it should be a native speaker, possibly also resident of the country. Though RAN had announced he'd get in touch if I remember this correctly. Maybe he did get a meaningful answer? --Rosenzweigτ18:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: @Ciell: I confirm what D. Benjamin Miller said about the French court case of PIERRE-ANTHONY X VS. HARCOURT linked above. The judges (the judgement has been confirmed by the court of appeals) mention interesting facts, namely:
At Harcourt, the photographers yield their copyright to the studio in exchange of 10% on the sales, in which the photo is sold as a collective work.
The photos published by Harcourt must be considered as collective works.
The moral rights of the original author do not hold anymore, as the moral rights are now owned by a group of authors.
This last statement may be a surprise, given all the discussions about CC0 in France, but it is justified by the French law 113-2 alinéa 3 of the Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle. A collective work can be initiated by a company (here it's Harcout), and the consequent publication under a collective name makes the work of the single photographer indistinguishable from the work of the group. --Ruthven(msg)15:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, why not let several French contributors involved by PD-France and Studio Harcourt case, precising the legal aspects and confirm the data about it ? The "collective work" judgement is one the main points, but the PD official statement by the author Studio Harcourt at the root as the author of these photographs (VTR), is clearly relevant to determine that those published between 1954 and 1992 are also PD-France too. Edit : copyright mentions of RMN website are not 100% reliable (copyvios). Tisourcier (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Tisourcier (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more than unreliable, RMN copyright claims are copyfraud or completely absurd. RMN has never been the copyright holder of the documents they host, they are only the caretaker. Sometimes, they claim a copyright because they digitize the work, but it is not even always the case. They even claim a copyright on works digitized by other people or institutions. I once wrote to them about that, but never got an answer. Copyfraud is not punished by French law, so plenty people and organizations claim a copyright which has no value (i.e. copyright claims on old books recently reprinted, etc.). Yann (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just RMN, it's also the Médiathèque du patrimoine et de la photographie of the French Ministère de la Culture, see the the link provided by Ciell above. And yes, we have seen some French institutions making dubious copyright claims, namely the Bibliothèque nationale. That does not mean that everything they claim is automatically false and can be disregarded. Both the RMN and the French ministry making these copyright claims is just another small sign, another piece of evidence regarding the question we have, contributing to the doubt about the “not under copyright” claim. --Rosenzweigτ17:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement by Harcourt is just that: a statement. A claim. An opinion. While Studio Harcourt can be considered the author of these collective works, they sold the bulk of their earlier production (5 million images from 1934 to 1991) to the French state. Presumably they sold them including the rights (copyrights, usage rights) to them, or else it wouldn't make much sense that the French state is distributing these images by the RMN agency. So the statement comes from an institution which authored these collective works, but (as we must assume) no longer holds the rights to them. The statement we're talking about claims that millions of images from the years up to and including 1991 are not under copyright, or « pas soumis à un droit patrimonial ». The only way 1991 portrait photographs can be in the public domain (or equivalent) in France is if the rights holder explicitly released them into the PD, put them under a CC0 license or similar. For such a thing, we require either a clear public statement from someone who is clearly the rights holder, or an explicit permission/consent text of the kind available at the COM:VRT page, something along the lines of I hereby affirm that I am/represent ..., the creator/sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work(s) as shown here, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: ... etc. etc.
Since this is about potentially very many images (5 million photos), we absolutely should have such a clear declaration. Especially for the protection of our re-users. But we have NONE of that here. There is no clear declaration of who the owner of copyright is, nor who released them under what license. There is just a vague statement that there is no copyright and anyone can use the photos freely, by a person of unclear legal status as far as the copyrights to the photos are concerned. That cannot be acceptable. --Rosenzweigτ12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it would be much better if you stop making false statements. We have a declaration by a person in charge that these images are in the public domain. Why do you always say the opposite? Yann (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Please refrain from such accusations. Accusing me of "making false statements" is basically calling me a liar, and I don't appreciate being insulted in that way. What we do have (in ticket 2020112910005534, the French text is above) is a claim, a statement by someone apparently working for Studio Harcourt in 2020, with the title or post of Chargée de la valorisation des collections. Valorisation translating to something like exploitation (in an economic sense) or promotion. So if she is “in charge” of anything, it's not copyright questions or legal questions in general, it's the promotion or economic exploitation of the Studio Harcourt collections. Which since the sale in 1991 do not anymore include the older 1934 to 1991 photos we're talking about here. It's in no way clear if she is in any way authorized to make copyright-related statements for Studio Harcourt, and it's not in any way clear if Studio Harcourt even still has any rights to those older photos. Though it must be assumed the French state acquired those rights along with the photos themselves, because why would you buy such a massive amount of photos without the proper rights to utilize them? Her text is also not a “declaration”, at least not one of the kind we require for VRT permissions (as outlined in my previous post in this thread). So whatever her statement is, it's not a sufficient basis to declare these 5 million photos to be in the public domain or “not under copyright” or « pas soumis à un droit patrimonial ». --Rosenzweigτ17:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Who would be more knowledgeable about the copyright status of these images than someone working for Studio Harcourt? I am quite fed up with people (not only you) pretending to know more that the very people employed by the institution(s) concerned by the documents. Yann (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: That would be someone actually declaring that they are the owner/holder of the copyright and authorized to make such statements, as outlined in more detail somewhere else in this thread. Not just anybody working for a company which may or may not be still holding rights to these photos and vaguely saying that there is no copyright for them and and anybody can use them. You may think that is enough. I don't. --Rosenzweigτ12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"why would you buy such a massive amount of photos without the proper rights to utilize them?" Presumably you'd acquire some sort of rights to reproduce, but not necessarily rights that were tantamount to owning the copyright. Plus, of course, eventually they will come out of copyright.
FWIW, it is pretty common for archives and libraries to acquire large collections without acquiring copyrights. I wouldn't presume anything either way about this case without some sort of evidence. - Jmabel ! talk20:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Rosenzweig that the situation is unclear, I would urge us not to rush to deleting, especially because it is such a large set - rushing into this will actually do more bad than good. As @Tisourcier mentions: please get French contributors involved to figure this out. Commons is not an island in the big wiki-ocean, and we as admins should not be tasking decisions (like deleting images at this scale) that effect the other projects lightly, but with due consideration. Ciell (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumably they sold them including the rights (copyrights, usage rights) to them, or else it wouldn't make much sense that the French state is distributing these images by the RMN agency."
OK, if that is what is happened, we would need a confirmation as well. Also a clarification who would actually be the copyright owner and who would be authorized to put the photos in the public domain (or equivalent, or under a free license) and if that happened. All clearly and unmistakably spelled out. We cannot keep so many (and potentially many more) images with just a "maybe, maybe not" assumption. Per the precautionary principle, such an unclear situation would mean the files would need to be deleted and no new uploads accpted. --Rosenzweigτ06:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info The French Ministry of Culture bought in 1989 the negatives and client records from 1934 until 1979. Later in 1991 during the bankruptcy of Studio Harcourt the Association française pour la diffusion du patrimoine photographique (AFDPP) acquired the negatives from 1980 until 1991 [3]. The source gives very precise dates on the acquisitions, so it might even be possible to find public records about them. Günther Frager (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Günther Frager, beyond the acquisition: the question on the table now, is about the correct copyright status for all of these these images. Are the images Public Domain, available under CC BY-SA, or does the French state claim full copyright? Ciell (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ciell: yes, the main issue is determine who owns the copyright, but this information is still relevant. If the source is right, on November 14, 1989 Jack Lang and Studio Harcourt signed a document and we might get a copy of it and see whether the patrimonial rights were transferred or not. The other point is that the negatives form 1980-1991 were acquired during a bankruptcy and might have different conditions. I don't know about French intellectual property law, but in some countries intellectual property is treated as a normal asset when a company is liquidated. Günther Frager (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One interesting fact in that text (thanks for the link) is that the current Studio Harcourt Paris company may be not identical with the "old" Studio Harcourt, but some succesor company (it's not entirely clear though, they call it le nouveau studio Harcourt-Paris). Which makes me wonder if the current company still holds any (intellectual property) rights to the assets of the "old" company, or not. --Rosenzweigτ06:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About your second bullet point relatively to R.A.N., there is a misunderstanding by R.A.N. I had already replied directly to R.A.N. when he asked questions, there last year and here last month, including a link to the previous reply and a link to a detailed recap there (in French, but anyone can read it with machine translation). Unfortunately, either he doesn't read the replies to his questions or he doesn't care. I reverted his comment on the category page, to which you refer, but he reverted the revert. I'm not entering into an edit war with him. But that comment is still problematic for unsuspecting users and it would be good if someone volunteered to revert it again. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Tisourcier is busy canvassing on various user talk pages in this matter. One thing he mentions elsewhere is that Studio Harcourt would still be the author as far as the moral right (to be named as author etc.) of French IP law is concerned. I agree, since the photos were declared by the court to be collective works, there is no human author, but this (corporate) collective author.
BUT we're not talking about the moral right here, but about the "patrimonial right" (that is, the economic/proprietary part of French IP law as opposed to the moral right). And that is still very much unclear until we get a clearly spelled out statement (as detailed elsewhere in this thread) by whoever is the actual owner of that right, or was the owner at the point in time when the claimed release into the public domain (or similar) took place. --Rosenzweigτ12:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, for any commercial and/or editorial reuse of images, please make a request to: mediatheque.patrimoine@culture.gouv.fr
Unless otherwise stated, MAP images are disseminated by the Photographic Agency of the Meeting of National Museums and the Grand Palais (Rmn-Gp)." (emphasis added)' -- Ooligan (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link and translation. So they say that all images they show are the property of the state, which is basically what we already mentioned above. The question is if they're correct or if this is some sort of copyfraud as mentioned by Tisourcier and Yann above. --Rosenzweigτ06:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ministry and the RMN claim that there is a copyright on everything they have in their collection, whether it's public domain or not. It doesn't matter how many times the quote by the ministry is repeated nor how it may be decorated with bolding and underlining, that still does not make it better. Take randomly any example on their websites, e.g. this image by Jean Bardin (1732-1809) (on Commons here), this 1903 postcard by Jean Giletta (1856-1933) (on Commons here), as well as the the pre-1954 Harcourt photos and thousands of other public domain images. If we applied the notice, nothing could be on Commmons. It doesn't mean that the notice is false, some items in their collection are copyrigted by someone, but the notice is only correct in the manner that a broken clock may occasionally give the correct time. The notice is useless to determine the copyright status of the items. The actual copyright status of the items must be determined by other means and other sources. In the case of the Harcourt photos, the best source would probably be the contracts of donation. We don't have that. The second best source, which we do have, is the statement by the Studio Harcourt. The owners of Harcourt, who acquired the Studio and the intellectual property of the trademark, are directly concerned, they must have examined the question of the copyrights seriously and, through the years, they naturally must have received many similar queries from the public. It would be irresponsible from them to give the answer that they give if it weren't true. Can they be mistaken? Yes, in theory anybody can be mistaken. Still, it's the best source we have. They can be assumed to have looked into this matter more in depth and to know more about it than we do. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that we should not trust when RMN states their own the copyright of a work, but it doesn't mean that almost all works published by RMN have no copyright. The analogy of the broken clock would be correct only if a high percentage of what RMN hosts is the public domain. What I don't agree with you is the other reasoning. Namely that we must trust blindly what an employee of a company that was bankrupt and passed hands a couple of times said in an email that was later forwarded to the VRT. I don't buy that a normal employee consult their legal team before answering a random email that probably is not going to generate a financial benefit. Even on the technical level there is no guarantee on the authenticity of the original email (Note, it is not something I'm doubting). Is the only evidence we have about the copyright status? Probably yes. Is is enough to host 5,000,000 images here? Probably not. If they made such statement in that email, it means that either they waived their rights in the past (presumedly before transferring the negatives) or they still hold the copyright and are fine with other people exploiting their pre-1991 work. In the former they should point us a legal document. In the latter, they should be able to grant an explicit free license as Rosenzweig suggested. Günther Frager (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seemed to have a problem with the collective work status (in France) of the Harcourt photos. So any photos older than 70 years are in the public domain in France, and any Harcourt photos up to 1936 (before 1937) are also PD in the US and therefore ok for Wikimedia Commons.
Nobody came forward to support the released under CC BY 3.0 theory, not even RAN (though all relevant users were pinged and sometimes even separately notified by others). Asclepias specifically disagrees with that theory. So I think we can without any qualms declare this theory to be as dead as the dodo and completely debunked.
For the third point, the theory that Harcourt photos from 1934 to 1991 are in the public domain, we have exactly one piece of evidence: that a Harcourt employee claimed so in an e-mail that the VRT has in its system. Some people want to believe it, but there are no details how and why all those photos would be in the public domain, who put them there and where that would apply (France only or also in the US?). COM:VRT demands a rather detailed and outspoken declaration from anyone wanting to release media under a free license. I don't see why there should be a lesser standard for the Harcourt photos, especially considering how many images we're talking about here. Only a part of the 5 million images will be relevant for Commons, but as Harcourt was considered a celebrity studio, that might still be a few percent. Even 3 % of 5 million are 150.000.
Which means:
Harcourt photos before 1937 are ok for Commons as French collective works with PD-1996 in the US. Later photos are still protected in the US, they will expire there starting in 2033.
Only the files uploaded directly by User:Studio Harcourt in 2010 are licensed under CC BY 3.0, but not all photos which were acquired by the French state (as claimed by RAN).
All other Harcourt files are not covered by these two points and are here because they are claimed to be in the public domain, a claim that is only backed up by very little and vague evidence. My opinion is that for so many files, we should have a PD declaration which is at least as solid and explicit as those usually demanded by the VRT. What we have at present is nothing of the sort. And if we don't have such a proper declaration, the files should all be proposed for deletion and deleted per the precautionary principle. Anybody wanting to keep them is free to facilitate the sending of such a proper declaration (by whoever may actually be authorized to do so) to COM:VRT. --Rosenzweigτ19:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else have another reply to the Harcourt photos subject? If there are no substantial changes, the next step would be a deletion request (or several, because there are hundreds of files) for any Harcourt photos not uploaded by User:Studio Harcourt or from before 1937. --Rosenzweigτ12:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has Wikimedia France @Wikimedia France been notified or will they be notified about an issue that could affect many current files related to French culture on the Commons and possibly affect 10,000's future potential uploads related to French culture? (I don't know if that ping is effective.)
Additionally, since the Ministry of Culture of France[5] has a legal agreement (no agreement link) with Harcourt, will the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department be notified to see if they would be willing offer their support by only 1. requesting an official copy of this document, 2. Posting this agreement to wikimedia, if legally allowed to post it.
WMF Legal webpage does state, "Note: For legal ethical reasons we unfortunately can only represent the Wikimedia Foundation and cannot be the attorney for the community or movement organizations, though the legal team often provides strong support to the community in many ways consistent with Wikimedia Foundation goals." WMF Legal could "provide strong support" to the Commons Project, consistent with Wikimedia Foundation goals, through a request for a copy of the "Harcourt agreement" from the appropriate department of the French government and (if legally acceptable) post it to facilitate a future further discussion.
Of course, they would not give a legal opinion- just handle the request for the actual document that pertains to this discussion. With WMF Legal's "support," @Slaporte (WMF) the Commons would benefit by actually being able to read this agreement.
All I can say is that I did not notify anybody. A number of French native speakers and/or residents of France are involved here, they would be best equipped to do that if they want to. --Rosenzweigτ08:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no further input, I'll start categorizing the Harcourt files into ones which can stay (uploaded by User Studio Harcourt or from before 1937) and ones which will have to be nominated for deletion. Over the next few days or so. --Rosenzweigτ08:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone,
In France, we are in the middle of the national holiday period. Before making a severe decision leading to the deletion of hundreds or even thousands of files on Commons, I invite you to wait, to know the point of view of the French administrators and contributors involved.
The question of the PD concerning Studio Harcourt now extended to points relating to PD-France for collective, anonymous works named "oeuvres collectives", or whose author photographer is not identified by the publishing company or the photographic agency (URAA), requires at least an updated debate.
I myself launched the Studio Harcourt question for French speakers, here [[6]], a debate that is still ongoing.
Originally, the whole present talk about Studio Harcourt was triggered by mentions published by RMN (Réunion des Musées de France / Ministry of Culture) on the websites it uses. But we have been able to see that these allegations are not only unreliable, but even fall under the category of "copyfraud" as an official national report attests:
On December 17, 2014, this official information report filed with the National Assembly under number 2474, publicly reveals that RMN (Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Ministry of Culture) commits multiple "copyfrauds" and that it is appropriate to put an end to them (page 42, proposal No. 9 of the official national publication, below).
For intellectual and industrial property in France, unlike the "copyright" of English-speaking countries, the "droit d'auteur", that is to say the recognition of the author of the work, can never be assigned. In this case, because the official "author" recognized by French regulations is not RMN (Ministry of Culture / French State) which manages this "patrimoine" (patrimonyy/legacy), but remains necessarily Studio Harcourt. The quality of author can never be granted, in accordance with French regulations.
Given that the Studio Harcourt company has never been put into "liquidation" (closeout) but has been taken over several times by various successive shareholders and that this company still exists today, the declaration it made to Wikimedia Commons confirming that all photos dating from before 1992 are indeed free of all rights, there is no valid reason for RMN or the French State to disclose a contractual document dating from the same period and covered by business secrets ("secret des affaires"). Since the official "author" recognized as such provides a declaration attesting that the Studio Harcourt photos from before 1992 are free of rights, is therefore clearly sufficient.
Furthermore, a court decision and case law have determined that the photographs and technicians who worked for this studio or for agencies of the same type, since they are not clearly cited and identified individually, are part of the collective work (Cour d'appel de Paris, 15 janvier 2014, #11/21191.). In France, this special status allows copyright to be released for works dating back 70 years or more.
Recently, the transposition of PD-France concerning this 70-year limit for collective works ("oeuvre collective") extended to Wikipedia Commons has been called into question on the basis of the URAA notion (1996). But concerning Studio Harcourt, the rights having been released in 1992 for photographs dating before that year, so the URAA restriction cannot apply.
In the event that a decision to massively delete several hundred photos (PD-France collective works) is nevertheless undertaken, it would be wise to plan for a migration time for these files which can then be hosted on fr.wikipedia.org. But all these major upheavals must be the subject of a technical and operational organization, requiring in-depth preparation on both Wikimedia Commons and French Wikipedia, if a mass “migration“ is needed. Tisourcier (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tisourcier: I don't see any new angle in your contribution, it's just rehashing and repeating points that were already extensively discussed before. Specifically, that what you call a "declaration" by Studio Harcourt is basically just a claim by an Harcourt employee in an e-mail that the VRT has in its system, which is in no way sufficient to serve as a proper VRT permission.
Yes, most of France is on holiday in August. But what exactly do you think will be different in September or at any other later point in time? --Rosenzweigτ09:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already pointed out a couple of official sources that claim Harcourt was liquidated in 1991. The current company, Studio Harcourt, was established in October 30th, 1992 [8]. The previous company, Studios Photographiques Harcourt, was established in 1980 and closed in November 7th, 1991 [9]. These two dates coincides with the two acquisitions that the French government made.You can also read the interview that Pierre-Antony Allard gave to Luxus Magazine in 2006 [10]. Allard claims that he purchased the Harcourt brand in 1992 on an auction for 421.000 francs and it didn't included the archives (le fonds Harcourt). The new company cannot make claims about the copyright of the old one unless it acquired the copyright of the photographs. Günther Frager (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but regarding Studio Harcourt, a valuable reference is this book, published in april 2012 by Studio Harcourt and Editions Nicolas Chateaudun : "Studio Harcourt", by Françoise Denoyelle. ISBN : 978-2-35093+132-8. The complete history of the studio and its successives owners, sharehlders and associates is deeply explained.
And again you are making a confusion between "copyright" according to US laws and "droit d'auteur" according to French laws. Studio Harcourt is still the "auteur" of these pictures and also keep the "moral rights" for any exploitation. So your point of view is wrong. Tisourcier (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out to an interview to the owner of Studio Harcourt between 1992 and 2007 before Fancis Dagnan took over. What is the most authoritative source to know how he acquired it in 1992? Also the link from MPP that I provided and states Studios Photographiques Harcourt was put on receivership cites Denoyelle as source. That there was no "Harcourt" enterprise for a year is clear from the links I provided from the Annuaire d'entreprises. Also, I'm not talking about moral rights and it is quite clear on this thread that we are not discussing moral rights, so stop claiming or pretending I'm talking about moral rights. Günther Frager (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All these discussions are initially based on the idea that the Ministry of Culture would claim copyright on the photos. But this is a misinterpretation of the indication "Droits d'auteur: Droits : Etat" ("Author'srights :Rights : State"). They (the RMN, an office of the Ministère de la culture) usually charge a fee for copy rights (paper, time spent to make the copy of the picture ou to developp it from a negative), and an additionnal fee for author's right. In the usual case, they indicates who the author's rights belonged to. (exemple). In the case of Studio Harcourt fund, whatever the date is old or not (cf. 1934, 1962), they mention "droits;Etat", which means that " le droit d'auteur est inclus dans le droit de reproduction"(the copyright fee is included into the copy fee") (cf. last line). To put it more simply, there is no copyright fee. And the reason is probably the one given by the employée responsible for promoting the collections : there is no more patrimonial rights (financial copyrights) but just the moral "droit d'auteur". I cannot see any reason to doubt of her comment, as it is her job. The fact she is a woman is unusually noted, but no reason either to think ths sould discredite the statement. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pa2chant.bis: It's a bit more complicated than that, see the whole discussion above. The French state may own some rights to the photos or may have licensed them (however the legal construct would be), or they may not and just claim so. We don't really know. For the other claim that all the 1934 to 1991 photos are free of (commercial / patrimonial) rights, it all comes down to this (rather casual I think) remark by the Harcourt employee Agnes BROUARD in a 2020 e-mail which the VRT has in its system. You say that you “cannot see any reason to doubt of her comment, as it is her job”. I say that a) we don't really know what her job is or was at the time, except that she was Chargée de la valorisation des collections. It's in no way clear if she is or was (as part of that job) in any way authorized to make copyright-related statements for (the current or former) Studio Harcourt, and it's not in any way clear if the current Studio Harcourt even still has any rights to those older photos.
Also, b) that remark is not in any way a formal declaration of the way we usually require for VRT permissions. Some people obviously want to believe it, but there are no details how and why all those photos would be in the public domain, who put them there and where that would apply (France only or also in the US?). COM:VRT demands a rather detailed and outspoken declaration from anyone wanting to release media under a free license. I don't see why there should be a lesser standard for the Harcourt photos, especially considering how many images we're talking about here (potentially hundreds of thousands, see above). --Rosenzweigτ19:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO you are just making a storm in a tee cup. Chargée de la valorisation des collections is exactly the person responsible for managing copyrights, among other tasks. I don't understand why you systematically wants to belittle the affirmation we got from the person in charge. It is difficult explain to you that there is no issue with Harcourt images which were acquired by the French State, as you don't even recognize simple facts. Yann (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to "belittle" it, just point out that it is not in any way a formal declaration of the way we require for permission declarations. We should have a proper declaration with all the formalities, not just an offhand remark widely open for interpretation. If we accept such a statement, why should we still bother with our detailed and outspoken legal VRT declarations? --Rosenzweigτ20:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure I read carefully the whole discussion . But it is not very complicated to see that french Ministère de la Culture or its offices do not claim for patrimonial copyright. And if the declaration on VRT do not match the "detailed and outspoken declaration" awaited, could you please provide the accurate template, for I ask the company to fill it out ? If there is any, because the original declaration seems very clear. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact is they do not ask for author's fees.
About the template, the one in french you cite is the one for basic cases, when no rights have been sold or shared. One cannot seriously fill it out once a right has been ever shared. ("Je confirme par la présente être l'auteur et ("AND") le titulaire unique et exclusif de l'œuvre ") The english version is more convenient, as one can choose to declare if they are ([choose one]) [creator] OR [sole owner] of the exclusive copyright of the media. In the case of Harcourt, they are the creator, so the only thing requested is that they choose a proper license, is that right ? (The wording is curious because let's suppose someone sold all their patrimonial rights with exclusivity, they are not anymore allowed to give a licence : I suppose it applies only when rights have been sold without exclusivity.) --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pa2chant.bis: We don't know who actually does (or did) own the rights. Whoever it is, that person or institution would have to make the declaration. If they have already released the rights to the public domain at an earlier point in time (that is a speculation, I don't know if this is what has happened), they would have to adjust the text acccordingly. --Rosenzweigτ07:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My question was about the template. The english version asks just to state if one's is the creator of the media OR sole owner of the exclusive copyright. As they are the creator, my understanding is that they just have to choose this option for the VRT permission. I guess they adjusted the text previously (stating no more patrimonial rights exists), and this is considered not to be formal enough. That's the reason whyI asked for a formal template. The one provided (in english) does not require historical background or "ajustment" or anything else. If this formal template is not sufficient, it would be great to provide a relevant one. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pa2chant.bis: This is the standard VRT template, which is used for standard cases. I'm not aware of any others. For special cases, you'd have to contact the volunteer response team (VRT), explain the situation and ask what they think is the appropriate language then, what they would accept. I think the most important aspect is the clause and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. So if they are the creator, but have already sold the exclusive rights (or granted an exclusive license, or whatever happened) to someone else, they do not have that authority anymore, and we would need a permission by that someone else. If they did not sell the rights to someone else, but released the works to the public domain (or similar), they can state that. --Rosenzweigτ08:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. OR (to be chosen) "[if they] released the works to the public domain (or similar), they can state that" are the important points. And that the second option is exactly what they stated, saying there is not anymore patrimonial rights. Something else ?--Pa2chant.bis (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Harcourt employee remarked that there was no patrimonial right for those old photos. She did not write that Harcourt released them into the public domain, so it is still unclear why the photos would have no patrimonial rights. She also did not write that she had any legal authority to make such statements, so it is also unclear if what she wrote is more than just a remark. --Rosenzweigτ10:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Credit www.quotecatalog.com with an active link required.
Is it within COM:LICENSING to add a requirement like this to a CC licence? It sounds like I wouldn't be able to print such a photo in a book or include it in a TV show because there wouldn't be an "active link". Belbury (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are supposed to have an active link if possible, or in a book print the URL, I think, with the CC licenses. I guess the question is if that statement is an addition to the CC-BY requirements, or an alternative license. It's pretty close to a free license but it does leave some questions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only URI that a Creative Commons license should require is to the source of the work, if possible (per the CC wiki), and there's no requirement that it be an "active link". The links required by these file descriptions aren't sources; they look more like attempts to promote web sites. Omphalographer (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A URI to the license itself is also required if you don't include the entire text -- If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: [...] C. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.[14]. If a link was given, and that link goes stale later on, and the condition of "active link" becomes void at that point, meaning the license terminates at that point, then it would be a problem I think. But if it's just a requirement to have a link to the source, it's OK, and versions of the CC licenses before 4.0 allowed the author to specify the URI they wanted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any condition provided for outside of the license is not part of the license and does not constitute an additional restriction. This is explicitly provided for in the license text: "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the original upload on Flickr, there's one license (CC-BY 2.0) in the metadata and another completely different and incompatible license ("Image is free for usage on editorial websites if you credit <some web site> with an active link") in the description. I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation of the author's intent which would allow us to ignore the license outlined in the description - they clearly meant that text to have some effect on how their photo could be used. Omphalographer (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, that would grant a second, distinct license. That is, they are granting (a) CC-BY 2.0 and (b) use on an editorial web site with that particular link provided. Reuser would be free to choose. - Jmabel ! talk19:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there not any precautionary room for the expectation that the Flickr user believed they were creating a single, handcrafted licence by ticking CC-BY and, in the same form submission to the Flickr servers, writing additional clauses that they wanted applied to that licence?
We had a lot of "CC-BY but you can't upload this image to Facebook" custom templates here on Commons a while ago, and so far as I can see the outcome of that was that people were asked to relicence or remove those images, rather than Commons flatly considering the content to be dual-licenced and marking the files up with "ignore the Facebook bit if you want, your choice" {{Multi-license}} templates (where the secondary template was not a Commons-compatible one). Belbury (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what happened with the NoFacebook templates. First, the templates themselves were not actually supposing to add a restriction to the CC license, but instead arguing that the CC licenses were incompatible with the Facebook terms; the templates were removed because this isn't actually true. Second, nobody was asked to relicense or remove anything. The only thing removed was the misleading "no-FB" template. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, seems I've misunderstood the Facebook outcome, the surviving templates that I'd seen had read more like restrictions.
So should there be any caution exercised in a case where a Flickr or Commons or Instagram user seems to have believed that they were creating a complex custom (and Commons-invalid) licence by adding additional statements in the description, even if they were technically multi-licensing? In both good and bad faith: a "CC-BY but this footage cannot be used by Evil News" or a "CC-BY and by using this image you agree to pay me $500". Belbury (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reasonable interpretation is to follow the actual text of the CC license, which was written specifically to clarify that any restricted offer made outside of the license is not a condition of the CC license, and instead constitues a separate license. There is also no restriction which prevents a person from offering some item under two separate licenses with different terms. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a related case on this, a user was recently found to have uploaded hundreds of files with a disclaimer permission template saying things like For printed publication, you must contact the author via email for approval and YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO UPLOAD THIS FILE TO ALL SOCIAL NETWORKS. They gave no response to talk page concerns or an ANU thread before it went stale (with some suggestion to just delete the images if there was no response), so that needs a next step.
Based on the above discussion, do we thank the user for their submissions and update the files with two license templates (one a regular CC-BY, one a custom "CC-BY but contact for printed publication, no social network use, must use highest resolution") and make it clear with a {{Multi-license}} header that the Commons user can pick either one? --Belbury (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this situation, given that the user uploaded these images directly on Commons, not another web site, and that they explicitly acknowledge that the images are CC licensed, I think we're on firmer ground treating their "disclaimer" as a set of (unenforceable) requests, not as an custom or alternative license. Omphalographer (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently become a victim of copyleft trolling by photographer Thomas Wolf (User:Der Wolf im Wald).
He claims himself that he uses Wikipedia as a way of advertising for his professional photography company. When people use his images without the correct authorship attribution, he asks for a hefty fee and threatens with legal action. He sends misleading emails in which he does not mention that his photos where published under a creative commons license, nor does he mention that the correct attribution is missing, he just asks to pay. His way of working is not in line with the creative commons guidelines for license enforcement (https://creativecommons.org/license-enforcement/enforcement-principles/), which are:
- The primary goal of license enforcement should be complying with the license.
- Legal action should be taken sparingly.
- Enforcement should not be a business model.
As he is publishing under an older version of the CC license and not the recent CC-4.0 license, he is apparently able to threaten with legal action and asking for high financial composition, without asking for a correction first (30 days period).
So you didn't attribute the photographer ? Did you try to pass his work as your own? And now you are accusing him of "copyleft trolling"? This seems more like you are trying to harass one of our contributors. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to rectify may previous posts on photographer Thomas Wolf (User:Der Wolf im Wald).
Thomas Wolf is a professional photographer who sells his pictures via TW Photomedia. Additionally, he makes his images available under a CC3.0 license on Wikimedia. As such, the pictures are available for sharing and the professional agency benefits as well because it will be advertised in all attribution statements. If this attribution requirement is not fulfilled, Thomas Wolf is legally in his right to ask for a monetary compensation. I should, therefore, not have called this a scam and I apologize for that. Nor should I have called myself a victim, as I have not properly attributed Thomas Wolf. I deeply apologize for this.
I would still advise all users to check if they properly attribute Thomas Wolf, when using his images. If you do not properly attribute according to the CC3.0 license, he will ask for monetary compensation and may go to court, as he has done before (see previous post). He has all the legal rights to do so. If you are a good faith user, you properly attribute. I am sorry for any harm that I have caused to Mr. Wolf by my previous post. I did want to warn other users for getting unexpected bills, I did not intent to harm Thomas Wolf. He makes great photographs and contributed majorly to Wikimedia. Unfortunately, Wikimedia does not allow me to adapt the previous message anymore. However, I do hope that this rectification helps to solve the situation. 131.174.244.5808:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the mascot imagery be considered copyright protected in this case. Is it possible that the originally uploaded version could be considered COM:DM since it shows Benny as part of a larger crowd scene, but the cropped version would be a copyvio because it focuses too much on Benny? FWIW, there are also several other photos of Benny being used in the article (File:Benny the Bull 1a.jpg, File:20180206 UM-NW Benny The Bull 7DM27157.jpg and File:BennyBull.JPG); so, whatever's decided about the first two photos also most likely applies to the other three. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I suppose the issue is whether the character is under a copyright. It is quite possible that it is in the public domain due to lack of notice prior 1989. Yann (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article about the mascot states it's most recent incarnation/version was introduced in 2004 and all of the photos referred to above were taken after that date except for one taken in 2003 (which might be an error). This wesbite shows a photo of various different versions of the mascot over the years, and they're quite different from each other. ThisChicago Tribune article shows the mascot as it looked in 1974, and it's quite different from the current-day version. ThisThe New York Times shows the mascot in 2003, and it's not as different but still different enough. Older versions of the character released prior to March 1, 1989, might be no longer eligible for copyright protection. It seems that the newer versions introduced after that date could be, and these photos might be affected by that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These questions are always difficult. Really, the only copyrightable portion is the mask. A single costume would not really be eligible for a character copyright, though there may be enough backstory and variations by this point for one to exist. But, the mask itself would be copyrightable regardless. If there are older versions where copyright expired (no copyright notice), then the newer ones can only copyright the additional expression added to the old ones, which itself could be a difficult subject. But, I would say clearly some aspect is copyrightable. Photos of the mascot would be fair use in almost all (and maybe all) circumstances, unless focusing on the mask itself. The question of postcards and t-shirts is harder -- though since Benny the Bull is also trademarked[17][18], t-shirts would be virtually certain to be a trademark infringement, even if not a copyright infringement. Separating those two concerns can be difficult. Certainly, photo agencies sell photos of mascots, so some level of commercial use of the photo is fine. There may be some limits, but usually trademark is the easier right to enforce when it comes to those harder cases. It really falls under the COM:COSTUME guideline I think, so we'd probably keep it. A photo focusing on the mask itself may be more difficult. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I would like to change the license but thought I would put a link here because not likely that many monitor the template/page. The issue is it does not include cc v4.0 even if it is called "any". --MGA73 (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite dangerous to add a license the uploader may not have applied themselves. The template has a bit of a convoluted history, having been mainly applied to cross-wiki-uploads, so one should carefully examine what the original uploader actually agreed to before changing the license around in retrospect. Old Wikivoyage uploads seem to be fine, since Wikivoyage itself seems to have had a template saying "or any later version", but given the language barrier I do not understand the situation of, say, Hebrew Wikipedia files. Felix QW (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the template name has any bearing on its meaning, so I don't think we can just make that inference. A lot of the files have a strange history. File:Vingåkers station sett från plattformen.jpg for instance was licensed CC-BY-SA-1.0 in December 2012 when it passed human license review, then the license was changed to {{Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any}} in 2013 using a "cleanup script", but the license review tag was left in place even though the license reviewer had reviewed a completely different license (which makes the text of the license review template incorrect). Felix QW (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which (as what is now an off-topic aside) I am currently trying to understand. I looked through the old version of the terms of use and I find nothing that allows them to relicense in a similar way as GFDL 1.3 did. I think that offering licenses to reusers of which it has not been made 100% sure that copyright holders agree with them is very perilous, and I don't believe the foundation would take that risk, so I assume there must be some specific justification. Felix QW (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For textual content, it's dificult to imagine examples where the change from 3.0 to 4.0 in the ToU would pose a serious problem. Textual content on Wikimedia is typically successive adaptations, with continuously added content. The CC 3.0 license already has a "later versions" clause for adaptations. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that can change the license of any existing content -- just new content uploaded after that date. The WMF is not the copyright holder of the text (unless done by their employees). I think the licenses allow derivative works under later versions of the license, so the first substantive edit to an article probably changes the article as a whole to be CC-BY-SA-4.0, but not any particular contributions before that date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you look into en.wiki in the bottom: "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy...." All the content is under CC-BY-SA-4.0. The new and the old. -- Geagea (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles will very quickly become derivative works of the old versions where the entire thing can only be licensed with 4.0. But any content uploaded earlier technically remains licensed with 3.0. For individual files, you really can't do that. If you make a derivative work, you can license that 4.0, but I don't think the CC licenses automatically allow the terms of any later version to be applied (unlike the GFDL). The only phrase in the CC licenses which allow any "later versions" are specifically related to adaptations (i.e. derivative works). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, We cannot take the initiative to issue or to add a license tag on someone else's work when the copyright owner did not agree to that license. License tags mean what they say in their actual precise text, not in a short vague title. The Commons tag titled "Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any" was initially created in 2012, apparently for files transferred from WTS, in order to be identical with the license tag they had there at that time: [19]. Cf in the history of the Commons template: [20]. That tag included a clause "... and any later versions", which was fine (although with the small caveat described later). Unfortunately, someone changed the Commons template on 11 June 2013 [21] by removing the "later versions" clause and restricting it strictly to licenses 1.0 to 3.0. As a consequence, any file that uses that template on Commons and which, after 10 June 2013, was either originally uploaded to Commons or was transferred to Commons from a place where it was not licensed with version 4.0, and was not at any time explicitly relicensed with version 4.0, is not offered with version 4.0 and cannot be tagged with version 4.0. However, it seems that no file (or not many files, if there are any) transferred from WT still use that tag on Commons. I suppose that it is possible that their license tags were later changed on Commons to other templates, which can be ok if they were indeed initially uploaded to WT after 1 May 2006, with the tag that included the "later versions" clause (the original WT template itself, created on 5 March 2006, was initially restricted to versions 1.0 and 2.0 and did not include the "later versions" clause, which was added on 2 May 2006). Currently (today), most files that use the Commons tag "Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any" seem to be files that were initially uploaded to he.wikipedia and later transferred to Commons circa 2019. When their upload log is visible, it looks like they were not licensed with version 4.0. They could be relicensed with adding version 4.0 if a he.wikipedia administrator checks and confirms that the tag there had a valid "later versions" clause at the time of upload, or if the copyright owner had added a version 4.0 there, or if the copyright owner now agrees to the addition of version 4.0. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. The point is that all the files that licensed with תבנית:דו-רישיוני uploaded firstly to he.wiki so the relevant users agreement should be according to the license template in he.wiki.
Regarding to the date. The relicensing date by WMF back to April 2009 is the only relevant date for us. I working with MAG73 about that so we need to check the upload date if they were before or after that date. another issue is that the name of the template in he.wiki is "dual license" not necessarily GFDL with cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0. it's need to check as well. -- Geagea (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me from fragments of hewiki upload edit summaries reproduced on Commons pages that the hewiki transfers were originally dual-licensed {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}, which allowed 3.0 to be added at the license migration. However, as far as I can see it does not allow for the addition of 4.0.
The remaining Wikivoyage uploads originally seem to have come from [www.wikitravel.org/shared WikiTravel], where they can still be accessed and the "CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 and later versions" note verified. Maybe it would be helpful for a license reviewer to go through those quickly, change them to {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} in lieu of a dedicated "dynamic template" and mark them reviewed.
The general migration from the GFDL to the CC? Files that had the GFDL as one of their licenses got the CC version 3.0 added to their list of licenses if they didn't already have it. That is not a problem. The problem would be adding the CC version 4.0 without consent. I understand from your information above that the dual license template on he.wikipedia was a wrapper template and did not include a "later versions" clause. That is consistent with and explains the fact that the upload logs, for example in this file, suggest that the dual license template of he.wikipedia had parameters to specify the license templates, which, in the case of that example file, were "GFDL" and "cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0". Those parameters are also still in the code of the file description page because it comes from he.wikipedia, even if the Commons template does not use such parameters. Such files, because of their GFDL, then had the CC version 3.0 added to their list of CC licenses, in the migration as mentioned above. It can be trusted that when those files were later transferred to Commons, they were correctly tagged with GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0, because that was indeed how they were licensed at that point. That licensing was expressed with the template "Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any", which at that point, since 11 June 2013, listed strictly those licenses. Checking the 2009 migration on he.wikipedia is probably superfluous. It can be assumed that it was done correctly, unless there is a reason to believe that it was not. The important point today is that the CC version 4.0 cannot be added without the explicit consent of the copyright owners. Apparently, that consent was not given for the files transferred from he.wikipedia, unless the template/parameter "cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0" of he.wikipedia itself had a "later versions" clause. That would be a thing to check. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My question involves the artwork in the thumbnail (which should probably be taken down, see later). But there is a new photograph that I took that is square‑on and that has not been made public yet.
I will have a chance to talk to the artist Gabriel Heimler in the coming weeks and believe that he will agree to the following general proposal.
But first note the East Side Gallery is located in Berlin and has been subject to a 2017 court judgment that the freedom of panorama exemption does not apply.
My photograph is a mere record of that artwork, albeit with the perspective tweaked, barrel distortion removed, and other similar edits. The underlying artwork would remain copyright of the artist. So here is my question.
Should I offer to transfer my copyright in the photograph to the artist, and then get them to issue that one photograph under CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 for just that one photograph. That is why I headed my inquiry "one‑off Creative Commons license".
Is this proposal legally feasible? Or would this one‑time license just leak to all subsequent photographs of that same artwork by others? (And the East Side Gallery is widely photographed by tourists.) The German copyright act would apply I guess? The artist in question is now resident in New Zealand, but I doubt if that is material?
Is there any legal boilerplate that I can use?
Looking forward to a game plan that will, with the help of the original graffiti artist, allow me to get my image on Wikimedia and on to the various Wikipedia's for wider consumption. TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for asking! The VRT procedures certainly allows for the license of just one particular photograph. I would just use the text at Commons:Email_templates, but then rather than
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
When you upload the file, you put yourself as author of the photograph and the artist as author of the work, and you can license your contribution directly at the file page. No copyright transfer needed, as far as I can see. Felix QW (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the artist grants you permission to license the photograph under CC-BY-SA 4.0, then his rights in the portion of the artwork that appears in the photograph are included in the "Licensed Rights" that are covered by the license. (See the legal code here) The relevant definitions are:
Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License.
Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license.
By contrast, when you create a photo like File:Gabriel Heimler - Mauerspringer.jpg that is protected by an exception to copyright without authorization from the artist, you are licensing only your rights in the photo under CC-BY-SA. Neither the artwork nor other photos of it would be affected. Qzekrom (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999: I guess "FOP" = Freedom of Panorama. The following ruling "Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390" apparently protected works of art in the East Side Gallery. I have not delved into the legal details, but I think that the court decided that the graffiti art was not sufficiently permanent to justify section § 59 of the UrhG being applied. I also understand that there are contracts between the individual artists and the gallery operator in some cases too, but know nothing about their content or purpose. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where you read that the court denied the applicability of freedom of panorama in this court judgement, which can be read here. In fact, it seems to me as if the court explicitly affirmed the applicability of freedom of panorama provisions, and moreover, that the court affirmed that reproducing a copy of it on an architectural model and using it to promote a real estate development is allowed usage under German freedom of panorama rules. Felix QW (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the comments. Like many things, my impressions were related to chatter elsewhere and I had not looked at the details — which is why I used italics. The more useful thing is to assess the judgement, understand what it means for Wikimedia, and record any conclusions. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone (not me) like to create a new thread to discuss and document the implications (if any) of the 2017 court ruling? That analysis would certainly help contributors like me to better understand the legal constraints we face. (And just in my defense, my assumptions were legally conservative in the face of incomplete, uncertain, and evolving legal information — and confined entirely to this Village Pump forum.) Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, IMO these are in scope, but personal details of non notable people should be hidden / blurred. Hitchcock's or OJ Simpson's license can stay as they are. Yann (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also fakes in the batch (see Marty McFly), with potentially derivative works.
@Basile Morin: I seriously doubt "photo booth". Most U.S. driver's license bureaus take a picture on the spot when you go in for your license; all the more so in that era. It's a quick, rather coarse, snap as a rule, but taken by a state employee. Do you have any reason to think California in 1985 used "photo booth" photos? - Jmabel ! talk17:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new version with a strong Gaussian blur over the picture and with the other identifying information largely removed. I'd suggest that the name also be changed. - Jmabel ! talk17:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have recently uploaded an image (a poster) from the US National Park Service from 1972 and I believe this is safe for copyright but I want to be extra sure. It was published by the US government. What I am having questions about is whether or now what is under "Metadata" and more specifically "Copyright holder" state: "Image may not be reproduced without authorization of the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum". I couldn't previously find the metadata that states this about the "Copyright Holder" in the original place or anywhere whatsoever generating almost out of thin air as it was found at here. If their is a problem with it please let me know and I will delete it or someone else could delete it on my behalf. -- Skim127Skim127 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for letting me know that regarding the artist. Is there exceptions regarding who published the poster (I'm assuming there isn't) as it was done by the U.S. Government Printing Office? I'm assuming there isn't plus there's no copyright mark on the image. I could change around why it's in the public domain as their is no clear copyright sign on the image. Am I allowed to change around why it's in the public domain or not? If not, then I'll take this image down somehow or someone else can. Cannot see your reply on this page now apparently but can under history oddly enough. --Skim127Skim127 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, If it is in the public domain, it is probably not as "PD-USGov" (or "PD-USGov-NPS"), because it does not seem that Ivan Chermayeff was an employee of the U.S. government. But, as you say, it may be in the public domain as "PD-US-no notice". There is some small writing at the very bottom left, unreadable and almost invisible on this copy. It's seen slighly better on other copies but still too small. It does not look like a copyright notice, but it could be useful to have a very large copy to be sure. The metadata of this reproduction may not be applicable. It also says author:Allison Hale, which is apparently incorrect. It may be related to the digitization or something. Yes, you can change the status tag to correct the information. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asclepias Thanks for clarifying that about changing status tags. I have changed the status tag under the license section to "PD-US-no notice" which is likely correct. The text at the very bottom which is too small in the version I have uploaded here to Wikimedia Commons does have a more high quality image which can be found here where you can click on the poster and zoom in on it. When you zoom in on the bottom text it does not list any copyright notice or symbol on it. I was suspecting the metadata might not be the most useful anyways too and it doesn't match up too well. --Skim127Skim127 (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller: Interesting, I had not fully explored that link. Trying the Mirador Viewer link under it, I was able to right-click and save image as..., resulting in a download.png file that is 1352 × 602 pixels and 258 KB, but blurrier for the text at the bottom left. Do you think that is worth having here? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have an image of a unique variant of an Atari 2600 Jr. console taken at the National Video Game Museum in Frisco, Texas. The photo is my own, but as the Atari name is copyrighted, is it considered copyright infringement to add this to the Commons? Paper Luigi (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This console isn't hooked up to a display, so it should be fine. I see other similar images in that category. I'll go ahead and add it. Thank you! Paper Luigi (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been looking at a contributor's uploads and a lot of them were from the Los Angeles Public Library's Los Angeles Herald Examiner Photo Collection. I looked online to see if there were any copyright notices on the newspaper, but I couldn't find any archives to check for both that and if the photos were published. Would someone be able to see how the Los Angeles Herald Examiner copyrighted (or didn't copyright) their newspapers? reppoptalk04:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the 1979-01-03 issue on microfilm when I uploaded this image, and there was no copyright notice. Which strongly suggests that at least issues before that date had no notice (since it would be very unusual for a newspaper to stop copyrighting their issues after they had started). But it's possible that some individual images in the paper were copyrighted; publishers would sometimes put a copyright notice on a specific image if it were particularly valuable or noteworthy. Also, the LAPL collection could include photos that came from the paper's archives but were never actually published in the paper; those would still be copyrighted since they presumably weren't published until after 1989. So the photos in that collection are quite likely to be public domain, but it can't really be confirmed without finding them in a published issue of the paper. Toohool (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is obviously not by Alondracafe. However, it's probably in the public domain. The subject lived from 1876 to 1945, and this portrait would seem to be of him as a relatively young man. It's probably at least 100 years old, based on his apparent age in the photo. It seems like a professional portrait, as one might find in a published source, and I would suspect this was contemporaneously published. In that case, it is PD-US (due to publication before 1929). It's also likely PD in El Salvador, either due to it being over 70 years from creation/publication (if considered anonymous) or due to the fairly high likelihood that the author died over 70 years ago.
El Salvador had a 50-year (pma or post-pub for anonymous works) term before 2017, and so even if this was published after 1928, it would be PD-US if in the public domain in El Salvador in 1996 (which is decently likely).
I have no idea of the actual specific source of this image, but I'm pretty sure it's fine.
File:Srinivasa Ramanujan.jpg is an image of Ramanujan. The page erroneously claims the image is from the 1900s (Ramanujan died in 1920). The image is actually from a 1962 Indian stamp. See an eBay listing. The image is most likely a 1962 redrawing of Ramanujan's passport photo. The image is improved enough that it should have its own copyright. Indian stamps have a copyright term of 60 years, so the image is free in India. However, would a US copyright still be in play? Glrx (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cada país hay algún límite (threshold of originality/ToO). Si es bastante simple, no tiene derechos del autor. Por ejemplo, no tengo derechos de autor para las palabras "Por ejemplo" a la empieza del frase esto. Es posible que existen países donde el límite es menos claro por falto de casos legales. - Jmabel ! talk02:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Contiene me parece una extraña elección de verbo. ¿Que quiere decir? ¿Que sus leyes faltan una concepción de un límite del tipo esto? ¿Que no está en alguna lista? - Jmabel ! talk18:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the document is real, then the authorship, date and license are fake. If the authorship, date and license are correct, then the document is fake. But it's in use. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously a simple copy of a 2D item which is ineligible for copyright.
It should be kept (doesn't violate COM:PERSONAL). It's the uploader's own diploma (it would appear), and it has a useful purpose (as an illustration of what a diploma from this university looks like).
Hello, I recently uploaded an image (and one derivative) originally from the British Library. I uploaded it under "PD-old" tag, as I noticed it is common for other medieval works from the British Library, and provided the source. It might sound silly, but I wanted to ask if the upload was done correctly, or if I sould've done something differently, so that I wouldn't unintentionally violate any rules. While I do have some experience in editing, I still dont really know how wikimedia commons works, as you can tell. Thank you. Piccco (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I slightly improved on the tagging, since especially British institutions sometimes claim copyright on digitisations by British law. Felix QW (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedians,
I would appreciate your guidance on how to properly comply with the Wikimedia Commons rules related to copyright.
A learned society publishes a scientific journal, and it appears that the copyright for the journal's cover page is held by the society. The journal's chief editor, who has the managerial authority, has used the Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator - Wikimedia Commons to upload a high-resolution version of the cover page to Wikimedia Commons. He received confirmation via email from Wikimedia Commons acknowledging his permission to use the media file(s) on the platform.
As he prepares to upload the image, he is prompted to confirm that it is not a logo. We are uncertain whether this should be selected, as the cover page does feature the publisher's logo, which could technically be considered a logo in that context. However, there doesn't seem to be an option for "submit logo" on Wikimedia.
Could you provide any advice on how to proceed in this situation?
Thank you for your assistance, Firefly2024 (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a logo.
There has been a lot of discussion of that question (sorry, I'm headed out the door or I'd search for some of it and link). Quite frankly, I find it a pain in the butt.
Thank you for your response. Please take your time—no rush at all. I truly appreciate any information or a link you can share when it's convenient for you. Your help is greatly valued.
First, just to emphasize: for your purposes, all you need to know is, no, it is not a logo.
I'm not readily finding the discussion but what it comes down to is that the copyright issues for a logo are not any different than for any other copyrighted image, so it is very unclear why it is singled out for such special treatment. - Jmabel ! talk02:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, I am an experienced Wikimedian and can handle any Wikimedia copyright and licensing discussion.
I want to CC-license a movie and music clips in that movie, without CC-licensing the full songs from which the clips came. More specifically, I have a 10 minute video which uses multiple 15 second music clips from various songs by various musicians. I know that I can get open copyright licenses from all involved for all the media in the movie file, but do not want to negotiate opening media which is not in the movie file.
Questions:
Does CC licensing 15 seconds of a 3-minute song have the expected effect of opening only that portion of the song, or are there other known, surprising effects?
Can anyone share any precedent of CC licensing music clips without opening an entire song?
Can anyone show a Commons song with good CC licensing? I am aware that for music, there is distinct copyright for the music composition, lyrics, arrangement, performance, and recording. I am able to track and credit these things, but would like to copy an existing model if one exists.
Can anyone show a Commons video upload which includes music clips, and which can be a model for licensing? I am anticipating separate copyright licenses for the video, for each included song clip, and for incidental video inclusions like copyrightable art featured in the video.
If you are experienced with Commons and your answers are 1) I don't know 2)3)4) No, then tell me so. It also would be useful for me to confirm that precedents are unknown, if that is the case.
What you are asking is quite close to an earlier question on this page. To wit, as it is possible for the mural painter to give a CC license for a specific photograph, likewise the composers can give a similar permission for your video. I cannot really come up with any complications the musicians could possibly face – a license for a specific clip does exactly what it says on the tin. For questions #2 to #4 I don’t currently have good answers but overall the movie project looks perfectly viable to me. A bit ambitious, perhaps, but certainly possible for an experienced Wikimedian to handle. --Geohakkeri (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can absolutely license an excerpt; this can be done either with a recording or with sheet music. It would probably be wise to be explicit that this is a free-licensed excerpt from a larger, copyrighted work and that no rights are being granted for any other portion of the work. I don't offhand know any models, though, and imagine it would take exactly as much work for me to try to track it down as for you. - Jmabel ! talk02:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
@Geohakkeri: Yes, the excerpt of the mural analogy fits this case.
@Jmabel: I will think about how to share the music clip. I do not think it would be useful for Commons to have a 15-second free music clip which links to the broader, copyrighted song, because the same excerpt is unlikely to be valuable for anyone else's reuse. You may be away that major apps including Instagram and TikTok are integrated with global music publishing, and users in those platforms usually make their video posts with reused audio clips. While I do not think that system applies to Wikipedia, I think it does establish the expectation that anyone reusing a music clip will cut their own clip from the full song. I will pilot this, and I will share later as a model.
This document was given status as Public Domain because I believed it had no stated copyright or author. Issues have been made since it could have been copyrighted on another page, or by the paper's own photographers or whether the paper got it from a wire service or some other third party. I don't know how to determine this. Its from the Chicago Tribune as you can see below.
"Henning Gets International Swim Post", Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, 17 December 1964, pg. 155
Someone with an online newspaper archive might be able to resolve this issue. For now, I've removed the link from the wiki photo file to my wiki article, Hal Henning.
Perhaps someone could open the newspaper via a online newspaper article and scan the photo and previous pages and determine if it should be marked public domain or not. Thank-you!!!! Dcw2003 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file in question was actually uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:HenningHaroldDr.Swimmer.png and the discussion about it referenced above by Dcw2003 can be found at en:User talk:Dcw2003#File:HenningHaroldDr.Swimmer.png. I'm actually the one who suggested Dcw2003 ask about the file here at VPC because this would be the best place to host such a file if it's really PD. The problem I had is that it seem a bit unlikely that this would be {{PD-US-no notice}} given the source for the photo is a major US newspaper like the en:Chicago Tribune and also because of the date given for the photo pushed it beyond {{PD-US-not renewed}}. If there another license that could apply to this, then great; however, I think more needs to be known about the photo's provenance first. Although en:Hal Henning was from the Chicago area, this could be a wire service story due to its national nature that was just picked up (with photo) by the Tribune. It should say as much in the actual story since wire service stories were usually attributed as such. The photo had to come from somewhere, though, and it would help to know where the uploader got it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I was more or less answering what you already replied on the talk page. The only solution would be to have a copy of the whole newspaper, something that I cannot assist :(. Günther Frager (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the first page using the Wikipedia library subscription on Newspaper Archive, and I can confirm the presence of a copyright notice covering the newspaper. Felix QW (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to upload them here, for use in Wikipedia articles, but the copyright situation seems very complicated! The photographer was an Italian citizen who died in 1985, but the photos were said to have been taken in international waters in November 1939, according to the newspaper/magazine article. If following Italian law, they might count as "simple photographs", and fall under {{PD-Italy}}, as they were created and published well before the 1970s, and their copyright wasn't registered in the U.S.. Even if they were considered "artistic photographs", they were created before 1940, and so (according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy) became public domain on the URAA date. But I'm uncertain whether the international waters would mean that different copyright rules apply, and whether being public domain in Italy would mean the photos were public domain in the U.S. as well? ‑‑YodinT15:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If first publication was clearly in Italy, and they weren't published within 30 days in the U.S., then we consider them Italian photos. Doesn't matter that they were shot in international waters. - Jmabel ! talk17:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Illustration from a historical newspaper, 1897 (United States)
I would like to collect an image from the Manufacturers and Farmers Journal newspaper printed on 3 Jun 1897. The materials are available in the Google News archive. Given the age of the paper, it should be out of copyright. The illustrations, some are signed but many are not, or are illegible, and they are uncredited. As they were done over 100 years ago, it may be rationally expected that the artist is no longer living.
But does copyright refer to the images as well or only the text? Would it be possible to capture some images from this publication, clean and freshen them for Wikimedia? Thank you for your help. Nayyn (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader of File:Milo Hoffman.tif states they scanned the image from a 1932 yearbook, which probably means the license the uploader chose is incorrect. Perhaps the yearbook either was published without a copyright notice or did have a notice that wasn't renewed? All the file's description states is "YearBook for the graduating DDS Students". The photo is being used in en:Milo Hellman, but there's nothing about a "M Hoffman" (the subject of this photo) in that article. The uploader hasn't edited on Commons since 2016 and on English Wikipedia since May 2024; so, I'm not sure they can help sort this out. If it turns out that the photo is PD, then {{PD-Scan}} could be used for the uploader together with a PD license for the photo, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If there is any reason to keep this (not clear to me) then {{PD-US-not-renewed}} is a very safe bet. Few yearbooks were copyrighted in the first place; I've literally never heard of one having its copyright renewed. - Jmabel ! talk03:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from COM:AN#Overwritten file
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment Just to put in context: The quote comment is the answer to this question, nothing else. I didn't evaluate the CR status because I'm not French speaker and it was not requested anyway. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Info The French Ministry of Culture bought in 1989 the negatives and client records from 1934 until 1979. Later in 1991 during the bankruptcy of Studio Harcourt the Association française pour la diffusion du patrimoine photographique (AFDPP) acquired the negatives from 1980 until 1991 [3]. The source gives very precise dates on the acquisitions, so it might even be possible to find public records about them. Günther Frager (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Moved from COM:AN#Overwritten file 
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Question @Bedivere:Buenas, dime una opinión?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
