Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note

One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
Have you read the FAQ?
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

Mariupol' Theater concern[edit]

The category page Category:Theatre of Mariupol claims there is an appropriate permission from the architect (considering Ukraine has no commercial freedom of panorama). But the architect claimed is not the architect mentioned on this site, in which the architects of the iconic building were Oleksandra Krylova and Oleh Malyshenko. Can anyone verify the VRTS ticket as well as the true authorship of the building? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright Registration Search[edit]

I scanned a number of 3-view drawings from aircraft manuals the other day. Two of them, for a Piper PA-32RT-300 Lance II and Piper PA-46-310P Malibu, came from manuals published after 1977, but before 1990 with, respectively, either a defective copyright notice or none at all. (As he latter lacks a notice, it does not include a date. However, production of that particular variant of the aircraft ceased in 1988.)

I tried searching the copyright office's files and I think that Piper did not register the copyright. The results for the name "Piper Aircraft" don't show any registrations by Piper Aircraft from 1948 to 2009. (However, a company called "Johnson Hill Press, Inc." did register two serials titled "Aviation Today" and "Cheyenne" in the 1980s.) A block of 27 manuals show up in 2010-2011, which further suggests to me that manuals weren't registered before then. (For what it's worth, the results for "Cessna Aircraft" shows their first postwar registrations seem to appear in 1979. The results for "Beechcraft" first have postwar hits in 1983. However, after 1946, "Beech Aircraft" again began filing registrations in 1978, according to the results.)

I just want to make sure I understand correctly before I move forward. Can someone confirm whether this is a sufficient level of corroboration that the copyright was not registered? –Noha307 (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, that certainly seems like due diligence to me. I would certainly not contest the license tag if I saw it on a file with this explanation of procedure. Felix QW (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tons of derivative work[edit]

Hi, I am not sure how to best handle this without having to mark each individual file for deletion or as "permission missing": None of these uploads is "own work" from 2023 as they are marked; they all appear to be derivative work from somewhere. Can someone help please? Thanks, --217.239.14.15 17:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done User warned, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eve73. Yann (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! That would have taken me hours, to mark them one by one... --217.239.14.15 17:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, I am not convinced that the files uploaded by this user is copyvios. It might just be a case of trying to educate the user with correct procedures for uploading, tagging and verifying copyright status of files via COM:VRT rather than plastering incorrect warning templates on their user discussion with claims that they have continued uploading copyvios despite being told not to, when they have in fact not been told any such thing. TommyG (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True, I noticed that too, there had not been any such previous warning.

The uploader has, however, been educated on Urheberrecht on a talk page (s)he had found before, and (s)he is currently ignoring all sorts of information that was put on their German WP user talk page, especially the one about disclosing paid editing. We'll see if (s)he shows up again and is willing to take care of things.

The article all these photos were meant for has, in the meantime, been moved back into her user space because it was totally unencyclopedic. --2003:C0:8F31:D700:E431:71DE:8097:E920 12:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2024 Olympic flames[edit]

Are there any opinions on the originality of the 2024 Olympic flames, as in File:Jeux olympiques 2024.png? Felix QW (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO, All 2024 Paris Olympics and Paralympic logos are just contained simple circular shape combined with silhouette-like Olympic flame and silhouette lips shape. All of simple elements make the 2024 Paris logos far below threshold of originality that cannot eligible for copyright, unlike other Olympic and Paralympic Games logo. 36.68.192.126 13:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass deletion[edit]

I have been trying to figure out the mass deletion procedure, unfortunately I keep getting stuck at some point. Can someone help please? The uploads by this user are from varying photographers/copyright holders, and there is no indication of a permission for a CC licensing in any of them. The user has in fact had files deleted before and has been warned about this before, so I am a bit surprised at all these later uploads. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F31:D700:E431:71DE:8097:E920 12:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, we are talking about less than a dozen photos here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Is there a minimum number of files for mass deletion to make sense? This one apparently took three minutes after notification. Why would you expect me to spend half an hour on marking each one of these individually if there is a faster way to do it? --2003:C0:8F31:D700:C5B:88B9:17DD:39D4 22:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, VFC is usually the tool of choice for a mass DR, but I have no idea whether you can use it without being logged in. The other way to do it is to do one DR, then copy-paste the {{Delete}} notice from the file page in question to the pages of the other affected files. - Jmabel ! talk 03:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel and IP: Mass deletion requests are documented at COM:MDR. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speech synthesis[edit]

What is the copyright status of the output of speech synthesis software, with regards to the software's copyright? What about speech synthesis hardware like w:DECtalk? (The status with regards to the copyright of the text being read is obvious and well-established.) I first asked this question at w:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Copyright_rules_regarding_speech_synthesis_output, and was asked to bring this question here.

A large collection of free speech synthesis samples can be found at Commons under Category:Speech synthesis and its subcategories. One locally hosted speech synthesis audio sample tagged as non-free is w:File:MS Sam.ogg at enwiki (from w:Microsoft text-to-speech voices), in which a proprietary program reads a presumably Wikipedian-created text sample. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had asked a related question of the COM:DISCORD channel for WikiProject Music regarding singing synths, and it was recommended to me that I should consider whether the purpose of the file is to display the song or the particular synth. If the latter then it seems analogous to category:typeface samples of nonfree fonts, if the former then I was encouraged to use libre synths like w:en:Festival Speech Synthesis System. Arlo James Barnes 16:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you elaborate? COM:TOO is a bit sketchy regarding this. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

e/c

Some comments.

A simple text-to-speech application will parse the text and convert it to a sequence of phonemes. Part of that conversion will use a dictionary that maps a word to its corresponding IPA phonemes. Text-to-speech programs often have methods to add a pronunciation to the dictionary or to mark how text should be spoken. See, for example, Speech Synthesis Markup Language (SSML) Version 1.1.

The application's parser could be copyrighted. The IPA pronunciation of a word is probably a fact and cannot be copyrighted. Consequently, I do not see a copyright for transformation of text into IPA phonemes. I have not looked for court cases. Courts may disagree.

That still leaves the conversion of IPA into sound.

The DECtalk synthesizer used a vocal tract model. Think an impulse generator (vocal chords) and some resonant cavities (the throat, the mouth, and the nose). Different phonemes involve different configurations of the vocal chords and cavities. The lengths of the cavities produce different voices. Long tracts (low frequency resonance) for men, shorter tracts (high frequency resonance) for women, and even shorter for children. I believe there is an argument that sound generated by this method would be free of copyright. The speech, however, is not great. I do not remember if DECtalk transitioned the phonemes.

Rabiner & Schafer 1978, Digital Processing of Speech Signals.

Modern synthesizers use other methods. Imagine a synthesizer that uses recordings of Taylor Swift speaking every phoneme. The result will still sound odd, but pasting together each phoneme would generate a derivative work of Taylor Swift. The result would be choppy, but I believe there would be a copyright. A better result would record all phoneme pairs and transition between them. Much better sound and copyrightable.

Other techniques may be used. I would lean towards natural sounding text-to-speech probably has a derivative copyright.

But I might be wrong.

Glrx (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of old (pre-1950) postcards[edit]

Is there a comprehensive guideline anywhere on the use of old postcards? How old do they need to be to freely upload them to Commons and use in Wikipedia? Does it depend on the country of origin?

I can get a hold of old postcards from before 1950, but curious if I'm able to freely scan them and use in articles. Podstawko (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Podstawko: Depends completely on the country of origin. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory. Nosferattus (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Podstawko: As Nosferattus says, it would depend on where this postcards came from. European postcards would generally only be OK if the author has been dead for 70 years or published anonymously, and depending on the country, you'd be restricted to before 1928 because of URAA or to before 1946 also because of URAA. American postcards before 1928 are OK for Commons, American postcards from 1928 to 1950 would require it to be checked if they are out of copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you both @Nosferattus and @Abzeronow. This is very helpful and apologies for not being precise enough, I was talking about Irish postcards specifically. Thank you again. Podstawko (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For Ireland, any identified author has to be dead 70 years (before 1953, exclusive) and postcard has to be published before 1928. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you @Jmabel, this is helpful! Podstawko (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most postcards list the publisher, not the photographer, and the publisher may employ multiple anonymous photographers. See: Category:Postcards of the Republic of Ireland for uploaded examples. Load some so we can see what you have. --RAN (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raspberry Pi logo in board photos and illustrations[edit]

I've noticed that the Raspberry Pi logo is uploaded as non-free on the English Wikipedia. However, instances of the logo can be found on board photos and illustrations, such as File:Raspberry Pi 4 Model B - Top.jpg and File:RaspberryPi Pico.svg. Does that use count as de minimis, or will they have to be censored? SergioFLS (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, that seems fine as de minimis use. Focus is clearly on the board, not the incidentally included logo. Felix QW (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licence of File:Red Fish at Papahānaumokuākea.jpg and File:Red Fish at Papahānaumokuākea (cropped).jpg[edit]

Just querying if the current licence of "This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, taken or made as part of an employee's official duties" is the correct one? The image was originally uploaded as CC-BY-2.0, from from the USFWS's Flickr account and was verified under that licence in 2011 (the USFWS has subsequently amended that licence on Flickr to a more restrictive no-commercial-use one, but I presume the earlier release still stands). Anyway, last year User:Boylarva99 amended that licence to instead label it as "public domain" as a result of it being an NOAA image taken by an employee while working for the NOAA. So is that correct? Firstly, I'm not sure the USFWS really is the same as the NOAA, and secondly, do we have direct evidence that photographer James Watt took this image while working for the federal government and its hence public domain? The Flickr account has never implied anythign of that sort. Cheers - Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oceanstock.com seems to have been a stock image site which contracted various photographers, so to me it seems very unlikely to have been made by an employee in the course of their official duties. I'd definitely relicense it to CC-BY-2.0. Felix QW (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Petite Rouge Premiere at Imagination Stage.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I am not sure why there is still any question about the permissions for File:Petite Rouge Premiere at Imagination Stage.jpg.

A standard Wiki permissions email from the photographer Stan Barouh was received at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and accepted by Moheen Reeyad on August 30 under ticket number [Ticket#2023083010001296]. The email came directly from the photographer's email: <stanbarouh@gmail.com>.

I am the person who posted the image on Wiki Commons with Stan's permission.

Please let me know what additional steps are needed to have the Wiki Commons page indicate the needed permissions have been received.

Thank you for your assistance.

LARobinWiki LARobinWiki (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: File:Petite Rouge Premiere at Imagination Stage.jpg - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LARobinWiki: as you can see from what User:JJMC89 wrote on that page, the email was not considered sufficient, apparently because they could not verify Stan Barouh's identity from the email. They've written back, presumably with an indication of what they still need from him. Most likely this will all be sorted out, but if it's still open in a week you could ask at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard, since only someone with VRT access can answer your question; there isn't really much someone can do for you on this page (Commons:Village pump/Copyright) unless someone from that team happened to look in. - Jmabel ! talk 01:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ticket:2023082910010672 was not accepted (by me). Moheen accepted ticket:2023083010001296 but has not documented it on the file description page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if this has license or not[edit]

The website where I got File:SDSF Screenshot from doesn't say anything about copyright. Is this public domain? Albert Lesanu (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a simple list of standard computer terms, so I added a {{PD-ineligible}}. Please start a DR if you disagree. Yann (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about a Champions League video[edit]

Hello, so I found this video of Eden Hazard's 2019 injury uploaded by Belgian broadcaster Proximus Pickx Sports, and I saw it included the CC tag. Pickx has the official Broadcast rights of UEFA competitions until 2024. We all know that UEFA holds copyrights to their entire video catalogue, including archive material, but what happens when one of the Official broadcast holders uploads a vid with the "YouTube CC-BY" tag? Hyperba21 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that CC BY only applies if it was uploaded by UEFA directly, not some licensee.

A situation like this regarding video game trailer footage being under CC BY also happened, where all files got deleted for not really being the copyright holder: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Videos by Bandai Namco. SergioFLS (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Federal museums & copyright (U.S.)[edit]

Wondering if anyone has insight into copyright restrictions and the way they apply to American federal museums and cultural institutions, many of which have apparently gone to great lengths to separate themselves legally from the federal government. The National Gallery of Art and Smithsonian Institution are the two I'm looking at specifically, but I imagine there are other examples. When the National Gallery or a Smithsonian entity produce a piece of content, is that content in the public domain? I'm not talking about collection images, which have their own copyright based on their respective original authors and registrations, but rather promotional images, images of artists, and/or video documentation of museum events that have been published by the museum. For example, the National Gallery of Art uploaded this video of an artist talk. Obviously any images of copyrighted art featured in the video are not in the public domain, and the speech of the artists is probably copyrighted too. But if this video were used to extract an image of one of the artists, free of other copyrighted material, would that image be in the public domain? The National Gallery slaps a "© 2022, National Gallery of Art Board of Trustees" on the end of this and other videos like it. But is this not a product of the federal government, produced specifically for the purpose of the federal agency? (in this case the National Gallery of Art, whose federal purpose is art stewardship and education) The Smithsonian over all, and most of its individual constituent museums, have similar copyright markings to the NGA on many images and videos that would seemingly otherwise be public domain. I'm just wondering if there is some sort of carve out in copyright law for federal cultural institutions, if the legal status of these institutions means they are not subject to the same copyright rules, or if these museums are simply bluffing with unenforceable copyright claims to avoid their materials being used broadly. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short answer: work of the Smithsonian is not necessarily in the public domain. I would presume the same is true of the National Gallery. - Jmabel ! talk 22:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this because of the trust? I know FOIA and several other laws don't apply to SI as they've been deemed "not government enough," but I can't find any documentation on courts' understanding of how copyright applies to SI, aside from the fact that they can still be sued for violating someone else's copyright. 19h00s (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More or less. It's really complicated. Not all Smithsonian employees are considered federal employees (though the majority are). I'm afraid I don't know all the legal details, but what matters for Commons is that work of the Smithsonian is not necessarily in the public domain. If you want to go into this as a broader research question, possibly to improve the details on this in en-wiki, that would be better asked at en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]