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]
When it says "unless otherwise noted", what does that specifically mean?
That second question above is what the deletion request evolved into.
Now, there is oddities and weirdness.
The NWS headquarters has this disclaimer, "The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public.".
Several of the other NWS field offices have similar statements:
NWS Sioux Falls, South Dakota - This is what Template:PD-NWS links to: "By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others"
NWS Omaha/Valley, NE "Submitted images will be made available to use by anyone in the NWS and will be in the Public Domain."
Others, like NWS Norman, Oklahoma link to the NWS Headquarters disclaimer using a linked up "disclaimer" button at the bottom of webpages.
Some offices do not appear to even have a disclaimer anywhere, or at least none I can easily find.
NWS La Crosse is the specific office for why this discussion is being opened.
Mid-Deletion Request, Hurricanehink started an email chain with NWS La Crosse. In that deletion request, NWS La Crosse replied (per Hurricanehink): "The information that has been passed down to me is : An individual who posts a photo on a NOAA website is not placing their photo in the public domain. By posting the image, the copyright owner is giving NOAA permission to use the image on the website" So for your uses, unless the images are already in the public domain (you can find them on other websites or a license allows for it), you will need to check with the owner."
NWS La Crosse's email above goes against the disclaimer on the NWS La Crosse "photos" webpage, which states, "Please note that this is a government site and in the public domain, so no copyright privileges will exist."
This is why a Commons Administrator is needed ASAP. We have two major questions, which affect thousands of images (including current Featured Pictures on EN-Wiki), and NWS seems to be disagreeing with itself now. A single deletion request should not be the place for a discussion this large, hence why it is being brought here. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also goes against two other disclaimers. The general disclaimer and the FAQ on NWS Norman’s website. It also goes against the terms of photo submission on NWS Sioux Falls. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back in November 2023, Template:PD-NWS was changed because of a specific deletion request, which determined images produced by Getty Images on NWS webpages are indeed copyrighted. Given NWS La Crosse sent that new notice/email out in 2024, it appears NWS La Crosse has a different guideline from the headquarters. My personal solution would be to have a 2nd exemption rule, similar to the current Getty Image exemption on the template, specific for NWS La Crosse. Thoughts on this proposal? WeatherWriter (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For my proposal, it would be for all NWS La Crosse images, 1970 to 2024, (the years NWS has existed) and it would apply retroactively. Basically, no image from NWS La Crosse webpages, submitted by non-government people, would be allowed on the Commons. That is an easy solution to this whole debacle, since NWS La Crosse appears to not go by the NWS Headquarters statements and is on their own, per se. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could also solve the dilemma of having to delete hundreds of files despite multiple things saying that images are in the public domain unless otherwise noted. So I’m going to Support this proposal. But I don’t entirely know whether or not my opinion is necessarily binding (I don’t know if the votes count for all editors or just administrators only; or if votes are even necessary) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to clarify that my support “vote” does not extend to NWS LaCrosse images that were created by that office itself. Only to images submitted to that office. Although just to be safe; you might want to consider asking the uppity uppities at the NWS headquarters to clarify once and for all. Just so we don’t end up having a similar discussion a few years from now. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add to the proposal though. I think any image submitted to the NWS from a news site that still has the banners/watermarks/tickers/etc. still on them should also be deleted; even if there isn’t an explicit copyright notice. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the NWS disclaimers (universally) are legally enforceable to require the submission to be released into the public domain in order to submit it to them. The question here is specific - only regarding non-NWS/government employee images that are submitted to the NWS to be featured on their website. There is no way to confirm what disclaimer the person submitting the image saw when submitting it in most cases, given that submissions are generally through email rather than a form. As such, the precautionary principle should apply, since there is no way to confirm that a photographer actually saw (much less agreed to) a specific disclaimer when doing so. The NWS cannot on their end waive the copyright rights of a photographer, and them marking an image as copyrighted (or failing to do so) does not affect the rights of the photographer. Yes, in an ideal world, we would be able to trust third parties (especially government organizations) to accurately describe the images they host as copyrighted or not. But ultimately this is not a ideal/perfect world. I do not see how an image being hosted on a NWS server should be treated any differently than any other agency/government/organization that "typically" releases their images into the public domain. If the image is not owned by that agency/government/organization, they do not have the authority to decide to release it into the public domain. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of note, the PRP has already been tested with respect to images that are hosted on NWS servers but are not taken by NWS photographers and have not explicitly been released to the public domain elsewhere - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerial view of homes destroyed in Rolling Fork, Mississippi.jpg. There is zero reason that a private photographer should be treated any differently than a pool photographer or someone who licenses their image to an organization like Getty. The presumption is that every photograph someone takes, they hold the copyright for, and absent an explicit release into the public domain, we should presume they still hold this copyright. I am of the opinion that the NWS disclaimers are not adequately prominent on the submissions to qualify as an explicit release - whether the NWS legal team feels differently is irrelevant. Given this is a question over whether the disclaimers are adequate or not (at least in cases it can be proven that the photographer saw and agreed to those disclaimers when submitting), roping WMF legal in for their official opinion on whether it counts may be a good idea. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request: why don’t we try to contact some of the people who submitted the images and see if they would be willing to release the images themselves under a suitable license? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's acceptable for this case just as it is for any other time someone wishes to use an image on Commons (or Wikipedia/another project) without it having an explicit licensure/release. Any editor should feel free to contact the photographer for any image to ask them to release it into the public domain/an acceptable license - with the photographer emailing the VRT to do so. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To get what Berchanhimez said straight: NWS disclaimers don't mean anything? Why do we use website disclaimers then? We allow Flickr disclaimers to work same with YT disclaimers on video descriptions. If NWS disclaimers are not allowed, I request we remove all disclaimer usage then. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr/Youtube disclaimers are "positive affirmation". The site requires someone to explicitly select that they are not uploading it under "all rights reserved", and when they do so they are presented with a clear and universal disclaimer of what their selection means. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if I say "by replying to this you agree to give Berchanhimez 1 million USD", that disclaimer (as absurd and legally unenforceable as it is) should be treated as a legitimate disclaimer? Get real. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(As written below); I don’t think that would be legally enforceable. (In other words your hypothetical idea of getting rich quickly won’t work, no one in their right mind would pay any Commons editor a million dollars, regardless of what currency it was in); but I get the idea. Although I also get ChessEric’s idea too of “sucks to be you if you didn’t read the disclaimer”; so I think that issue might be better suited for an administrator (or better yet WMF legal) to handle. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go try to upload an image to Flickr/a video to Youtube and select a creative commons/public domain licensure for it. Tell me that is equivalent to emailing your image to a NWS office. It's not. For one, there is no guarantee by the NWS that any photographer who emailed an image to them that they chose to use actually saw the disclaimer (I can email any NWS office without ever going to the NWS website by any number of means, for example). For two, there is no evidence that the disclaimer of "by submitting this it's in the public domain" is sufficient. Flickr/Youtube both require positive action - i.e. explicitly selecting that you are choosing to release the image. In other words again, they both presume copyright and require the user to take an explicit action to waive that right (either by licensing under a free license or the public domain). The NWS disclaimer is not equivalent to that, since it just states "any image uploaded/emailed to us may be public domain" or similar wording.Again, if people seriously want to debate whether the disclaimer counts, contact WMF legal and have them issue an official opinion. Failing that, the precautionary principle applies and we cannot assume that a passive disclaimer like that is acceptable. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our responsibility to check with every person to see if they read a disclaimer. It's like signing a contract. If I sign a contract and later discover that there is something in there that I don't like, I can't come back later and say I didn't see it because I would've seen it had I read the entire contract. Same thing applies here. If they didn't read it, that's on them. It's not our problem. ChessEric (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what if they didn't read it because they emailed the office directly saying "hey, I took some images of this recent tornado, hope they may be useful to you" without ever having gone to their website? Berchanhimez (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes it impossible that they read this disclaimer, because the NWS website didn't exist half a century ago. Thanks for proving my point for me. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless if it was your intention or not, it did a very good job, because it shows clearly that this purported license template is being applied to at least one image that it is impossible for it to have applied to. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But to answer your question the way you put it. I don’t know. If I were to speak for @ChessEric, he’d probably say “sucks to be the copyright holder”; if it were my opinion though, I’d say if they didn’t say anything, then “sucks to be them” if they wanted it copyrighted; unless that is they specifically indicated the intent to copyright (then the weather service would indicate whenever a work is copyrighted, like they always do); as noted in the past; the National Weather Service always indicates whenever a work is copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Berchanhimez, with all due respect, you have 125 contributions total on the Commons. Several of which is regarding this issue. The previous deletion request is already over 81,000 bytes in size. Given the implications of this (including that a Commons Administrator has violated copyright rules/laws), we need to let actual administrators handle this. I opened this specifically to get administrators. This goes for everyone honestly, can we stop the debate and let the administrators sort this mess out? They already have now like 90,000 characters of text to sort through. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to gatekeep this discussion is inappropriate. Further, attempting to make the claim that I don't understand copyright or Commons rules when I have never had an image deleted here nor have I had any copyright issues in multiple good articles on Wikipedia is inappropriate. Please do not attempt to gatekeep people from commenting here any further, given that multiple enwp editors who weren't admins here are being invited to comment here. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Berchanhimez -- It appears you are attempting to gatekeep in fact. You have just directly stated the Commons had violated copyright rules and laws for over a decade, implied that a Commons Administrator violated copyright laws (unintentionally), and that countless deletion discussions regarding this issue, which were closed, mean nothing. You are bludgeoning the process. Please let the administrators figure out what to do. You should read Commons:Deletion requests, as it states: The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of their ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. Only administrators can close this and solve this debate. Right now, none of us, not you, me, ChessEric, any of us, can solve this issue. Only the administrators can. In fact, per Commons:Deletion requests, our thoughts don't really mean much. Sorry to tell you that. This entire thing was opened to try to get an administrator to solve the extremely long debate. My thoughts don't matter in this. Your thoughts don't matter in this. It could be 10 people saying to keep and it could be deleted. It could be 10 people saying to delete and it could be kept. The admin gets the final say while applying copyright laws. The fact you don't know that says you are not experienced enough or familiar enough with this topic, which goes back literal decades. There are at least 10 discussions all linked together regarding this topic. So please, let the admins do their work. That goes for everyone here. Stop the debate and let the admins sort it out. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright everyone: @WeatherWriter is right on this. This was intended to get the attention of administrators (to which none of us are); and everyone here including myself has turned this into the very same forum that accumulated 80 something thousand bytes and veered way off topic very early on. For our sake it might be better to let the admins handle this. Since according to @WeatherWriter, none of our opinions are binding. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact you and other "weather editors" (as ChessEric called them on enwp trying to gatekeep) that are bludgeoning this discussion. Further, it is WMF legal that gets the final say on copyright laws, not volunteer admins on Commons. The fact that some "weather editors" are admins on commons, and/or the fact that your collective bludgeoning (which has resulted in multiple ArbCom requests and at least one case in the past) have resulted in admins here not being able to apply the precautionary principle appropriately is irrelevant. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though it probably makes sense to wrap up the DR conversation first, just posting to say that I'm in complete agreement with Berchanhimez's understanding of copyright and its applicability to this scenario, including the need for a "positive action". I also agree with them that there is a lot of bludgeoning by people with "Weather" or "WX" in their usernames in this discussion and in the DR. Consigned (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t been trying to bludgeon the process (although I agree that may have been the end result); I’ve only been trying to stop the argument that happened. Yet others on here (not naming no names) seemed to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to it and kept right on arguing and only escalated further. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some accusations and counter-accusations that probably need not concern most readers
To note for administrators, User:WeatherWriter has canvassed at least a dozen "weather editors" to this discussion on the English Wikipedia (see their contributions). While I am not advocating for any individual editor to be removed from this discussion/have their opinions nullified, it should be noted that the "weather space" has resulted in at least one arbitration case due to inappropriate canvassing/collusion (including off wiki/private communications), and that the topic area has a history of immature (at best) editors who bludgeon discussions to attempt to stifle actual resolution of them. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Berchanhimez is a troll. The supposed canvassing alerts (example of one here) was sent to all editors who actively edit weather-related articles and upload images. Given there are several articles (some featured articles, featured article candidates, Good articles, GANs) and several other highly-viewed articles that use this template, all editors were told to not upload under it until the Commons could figure out what to do. A link to this discussion was not given to editors.
What is actually amazingly funny is how this discussion was started at 00:55, 2 August 2024, and the most recent EN-Wiki notification was sent at 23:54, 1 August 2024. So, Berchanhimez has accused me of canvassing a discussion which had not yet begun. I would really like to see how I can canvas for a discussion that does not exist yet. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were sent to specific editors, rather than to a wikiproject. While giving notes to wikiproject talk pages is generally appropriate, cherry picking editors is not. Further, canvassing to an upcoming discussion (in your words "There will be a discussion starting on the Commons Copyright Noticeboard within the next few days") is no different than saying directly "please go comment on this discussion". Berchanhimez (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask how? This isn't us trying to come to a consensus or agreement about something; it's us attempting to figure out what we should do moving forward. I've checked those edits and many of them don't even link to here. ChessEric (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A link isn't required for it to be canvassing. The note stated explicitly that there would be a discussion on a specific page, and was all but explicitly inviting the editors to come comment here. That is textbook canvassing. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please stop accusing people of stuff?? What happened in the past is in the past. We can’t change it. Many of these supposed canvassing incidents were that of @WeatherWriter pinging recently active editors to remind them of an ongoing discussion. I would have done the same thing. Let’s please stop trying to make @WeatherWriter or anyone else look like the bad guy. Please? This is rapidly veering way off course. Can we please remember that this is about the PD-NWS template; NOT about what WeatherWriter supposedly done in the past. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite funny (to me) that me making this note for administrators' attention has resulted in the same editors continuing to bludgeon and now resorting to personal attacks against me because I called out the canvassing. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It ain’t a personal attack. It’s me politely asking you to please calm down and quit accusing people of things without just cause. It’s just me trying to keep you from getting blocked. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone a troll is a personal attack. I deliberately did not indent this to you as I was replying in general rather than to you directly. Berchanhimez (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I’m going to be as polite as I can here. If you keep accusing me or anyone else of stuff and you don’t have a good reason to do so; I will start reverting your accusation comments. And furthermore, I didn’t call you a troll, it was WeatherWriter that did so. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we all stop arguing and stop the needless back and forth accusations please? @Berchanhimez @WeatherWriter @ChessEric. This is rapidly spiraling into a very heated and un-civil argument and to be honest. As @ChessEric mentioned; if it don’t stop, we all will end up getting blocked. I am going to abstain from making any further comments until this cools down. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything. Let admins decide stuff like whether comments should be reverted because what you just said could be considered a threat, even if it was in good faith. Trust me; I learned the hard way. ChessEric (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as for @Berchanhimez; I am not personally attacking you (even though I did leave you a warning on your talk page politely asking and pleading you to quit the arguing); I am calling out this entire discussion and everyone here. This is a blanket statement for everyone. You all have got to quit arguing. That goes for not only @Berchanhimez, but the rest of us here. Please. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not to criticize or anything; but I just looked at @Berchanhimez‘s contributions and curiously there is a three year gap where that user has a whopping zero edits between 2021 and June of this year. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But let me be clear, it is far from enough evidence in my opinion to call the editor a “troll” or an equivalent thereof. Again my criticism is not on @Berchanhimez alone. I am not personally attacking anyone. My criticism is to this entire group. Everyone including myself (yes I am criticizing myself) is at fault here. Everyone who participated in the argument is at fault. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: you are saying this is something for admins to decide. I don't really see what here is an admin issue. At some point, it will presumably be an admin who decides that the discussion has reached a conclusion (or a point of diminishing returns) and decide which side has the stronger arguments, but other than that there is no specific role for admins as such here. We (admins) are presumably all fairly knowledgeable about copyright, but many of the strongest copyright experts on Commons are not admins, and certainly I would listen far more to what they have to say about this matter than what some random admin has to say.
Offhand, this looks pretty thorny. It looks like the NWS does not handle this consistently; like some NWS sites may handle this better than others; and like it is difficult to determine whether any of them are careful enough to meet the standards of Commons' precautionary principle, except where we know that a particular image was made by a federal government employee. This is probably going to involve a lot of separate judgements, with a lot of different people able to bring their respective competences to sorting this out. - Jmabel ! talk05:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well in that case, we can basically ignore this entire discussion that got opened here. My hope was that an administrator would decide whether the email trumped the disclaimers and/or how the disclaimers work with that email. That was my original hope for administrator intervention. The deletion request has so many moving parts, that this was sort of opened to try to solve one of those "parts". Looks like it won't and we just have to wait for an administrator to close the deletion request, however long it may take for a clear conclusion to be reached. Also, it is probably for the best we close this. This has now turned into something as long if not longer than the deletion request. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to try to solve this, but it seems every part becomes so disorganized so quickly. Like you said, it will probably take several "ruling". I had an optimistic approach, hoping starting something here would solve a chunk of the issue. It just became a disorganized mess. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Jmabel: , since this was opened and has led (and will continue to lead) nowhere, can we close this entire discussion as solved, with the understanding that the deletion request just need to finish normally and will eventually be closed? That seems to be the big takeaway here as that will be the true first step to solving the NWS debacle. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To all who may concern: since this conversation got heated because one or two editors (not naming no names) started accusing one another of stuff. Here’s my new idea on how to quickly get things on track again. @WeatherWriter, can you please ignore and DON’T reply to any accusations made by anyone else. Everyone else, can we please do the same? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So long as people don’t make accusations (and more importantly the other party ignores any that are made); this discussion can continue to go on smoothly. The more we just ignore those accusations above; the quicker they will go away and it won’t get back to the heated mess it was earlier. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And let’s also remember this. The discussion is not a democracy; it is a dictatorship (the dictator being the closing admin) and our opinion won’t really matter a whole lot if it even matters at all. Let’s not post opinion votes because it is going to have little or no impact on the outcome of this. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this isn't an admin issue, it's a community issue, but this is the right place to get community input. Still it makes sense to wait for the DR to play out so that we don't have to have the same debate at two places at one time. Consigned (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage anyone contacting WMF legal to ask them to opine on whether the fact that a disclaimer is included on some pages about submitting to them covers images they get from, for example, Twitter, or submitted through email directly, or apps like mPING, etc. - I suspect they will say that the disclaimer is sufficient if and only if the image concerned can be shown to have been submitted through a format that the photographer saw the disclaimer - and in that case, since we do not know the provenance of any image on the NWS website that is unmarked/uncredited, we cannot assume that it was submitted with the disclaimer. In other words, simply asking the WMF if the disclaimer is sufficient or not will not provide an answer to the questions raised here. Berchanhimez (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This NWS Webpage is a key one to look at. It is on tornadoes from 1979. The "Tornado Photos" tab is clearly marked with the copyright symbol. The "Damage" tab is clearly marked courtesy of without the copyright symbol. NWS always asks. That webpage basically disproves the theory that they do not ask the copyright status, even for historical photos. They clearly mark it as well, as evident here. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Twin tornadoes.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg are two key previous deletion requests regarding this overall topic: one deleted and one kept. The disclaimer is indeed valid and is upheld on the Commons in the past, even when it has been directly assessed. Given NWS La Crosse even has the disclaimer on their own webpages, I would not be surprised if that email was actually some error on the return of whoever that meteorologists asked regarding it. Either way, the Commons has a clear stance on it and honestly, a clear precedent. The disclaimer works and ideas that it doesn't have no proof, while the idea of it existing does have proof (all the disclaimers alerting people when they send in photos). Every email to NWS is also FOIA requestable...i.e. in the public domain to begin with. This includes non-NOAA personnel. When you email the NWS, your email and their responses are open to public record in the public domain. (You can view some already requested emails regarding Hurricane Dorian here). That is why the disclaimers are all very clear on "it is public domain". When they send it to NWS, it is up to the user/photographer to know the terms and conditions of sending an email and/or photograph to the U.S. government. If I was assessing the situation, it seems clear the disclaimers are in place, are understood on several websites, linked to on almost every NWS webpage, and the general knowledge the U.S. government produces public domain info is widely known. So, to me, the disclaimers hold up and ideas to disprove them have no ground and/or no evidence to say they are not upheld...at least no evidence has been presented yet. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't get to assume anything. If the argument is that the disclaimer is sufficient, then it is only sufficient if it is actually presented to and agreed to by the person when they submit. We also do not "trust" (even if we "think") that the NWS has obtained copyright permission to release it into the public domain. Something being FOIA requestable does not impact the copyright rights of the photographer/person writing the email. The fact that something is "public information" does not have any impact on copyright status - as an example, the Library of Congress routinely accepts copies of copyrighted works as part of their mission, but the mere fact they accept them and display them does not impact the copyright of the creator. Likewise, the FBI and other investigators routinely accept imagery during criminal investigations - including notably the January 6th investigation - but the fact that someone submitted an image for use in an investigation (and that the image may be used by the investigators for non-commercial purposes) does not impact their copyright of it. There are many examples of the NWS "accepting" (either for internal use or possibly for publication) photos from locations where there is no disclaimer present - such as [6], etc. Of note, their twitter information page contains no disclaimer that by tweeting an image at them, even if they reply, releases it into the public domain.It's also important to consider here the fact that the government generally has wide latitude to use copyrighted images under fair use - in some cases even wider latitude than private individuals may have. If the NWS has seen a copyrighted image that they intend to use for an educational purpose, they can post it on their website regardless of whether it's been released or not. This may be part of the reason that they don't seem to "care" about it as much as some people think they do - because while they try to mark if images are copyrighted or not, they themselves are not legally liable for failing to do so. On the other hand, if Commons accepts images that are copyrighted, they are legally liable for representing them under an inaccurate license. Furthermore, Commons requires that any disclaimer/etc be irrevocable - this is contrary to the NWS's policy, which is that a person who did not intend to release their image into the public domain can rectify/revoke their purported release by emailing them. See, for example, the FSD office disclosure: "If we receive complaints of copyright infringement, the image in question will be removed immediately".So to summarize, the disclaimer is not present nor linked to through all submission mechanisms, but only some of them. Where it is linked to, the wording varies between offices and is not clearly irrevocable as required by Commons. Hence my comment that if people wish to bring WMF legal into this for an opinion, it is not sufficient to ask WMF legal "does this disclaimer count" - we would need an opinion from them that the disclaimer is sufficient, that it is sufficiently displayed on any possible mechanism by which a photographer submits their image to the NWS resulting in it getting posted, and that it is sufficiently irrevocable. Otherwise PRP applies. Berchanhimez (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m no expert; but the “complaints of copyright infringement” clause is mainly for someone who for example tries to submit Reed Timmer’s (and others) storm chasing videos (and the like) to the weather service; or if they didn’t know the policy. And it’s not going to be something you do 5 years later; it’s something that is done in a matter of days or weeks; maybe a month or two at most. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revocable is revocable. Commons doesn't allow for licenses that allow for it to be revoked 5 seconds later, or a few days later, or a few weeks later. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put that another way: let’s say I’m Reed Timmer (I’m not really; but for the purposes of this analogy, let’s pretend that I am), and I take a picture of a tornado say in Illinois; and someone pretends to be me and uploads it to the weather service; or someone uses my picture and they claim that they “took” it; and they upload it to the Weather Service, again without my knowledge and consent; and I then contact the Weather Service and ask them to remove the picture. That’s what the disclaimer means there. It’s to prevent people from using someone else’s pictures and pretend like they took it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore; the National Weather Service does (and I have a written policy to prove it) indicate whenever something is copyrighted. Go read it. It’s the NWS Norman FAQ. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, a written policy for one office does not mean every office follows that. Second of all, we do not trust third parties that claim the copyright status of images unless they have proven to be solid and/or follow good practice. As an example, Commons allows Flickr/Youtube licensure to be used, because both of those sites default to copyrighted and require the user to take explicit, affirmative action to release their work under a non-full-copyright license. Berchanhimez (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen: we can argue about it until the end of time; but unless you’ve got hard core evidence, I’m going to stand my ground when it comes to my
And not to discount your opinion, but you seem to be somewhat inexperienced compared to some of the other editors when it comes to Commons; I don’t mean that as an attack, I mean that as politely asking you to make sure that you have all the information on the copyright policy.
I’m saying this because I know how rules can be complicated. I am very active on Wikipedia; there are a lot of rules there that I didn’t know about until I ended up violating them by mistake and had a warning posted or had my edit reverted (some of them when I was an IP editor); the point being that I used to (and to a certain extent still am) the new guy who didn’t know what he was doing; and the last thing I (or anyone else) want to see is for you to end up embarrassing yourself if you do end up getting something wrong. Because I know from experience on this discussion that there are certain people (not naming no names) that seem have been heavily scrutinizing everything you say and openly criticizing stuff. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also; it’s important to note that the National Weather Service is an agency of the United States government. Anyone submitting a picture to them is very likely doing it for the public interest. If they were wanting to keep it copyrighted; they would submit it somewhere else like to their local newspaper or television station; or onto Facebook or something like that. Someone like that isn’t going to email the NWS with a picture like that. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how many times myself and others have to point out to you that it doesn't matter if the people were "very likely doing it for the public interest". It doesn't change the facts. We don't get to assume things just to include images. You are the one who has repeatedly ignored this principle, and based your arguments over what you believe (you admit your opinions). It doesn't matter what you think the people who submitted them intended to do - commons does not assume it in the absence of specific evidence that they agreed to the license/status in play. Every time you have replied you have attempted to "deduce" or "assume" what the people who own the copyright to those images meant to do - and that's a clear sign that we cannot accept them on commons. You also have further made these vague threats, insinuations, and attacks against me repeatedly now - if you continue to do so I will be asking an administrator to step in and correct it. Berchanhimez (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstaining from further comment after this: I have not made any threats or attacks. And I certainly do not appreciate the accusation of doing so. I am again merely trying to save you from getting accusations of gatekeeping and etc. from other people (mainly Weather Writer). I am in NO way accusing you of anything. And furthermore, the “assumptions” that I am making are based on written statements by the NWS itself. I think (especially after what you just said) it is probably best for me to just stay out of it henceforth and not reply back anymore. I’ll let the other editors argue their opinions. As I said in a previous deletion discussion; I have said my piece. It’ll go however it’s going to go and there ain’t nothing I can do to change that; I’ve put my two (hundred) cents into it; so I should probably stay out of it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter, WestVirginiaWX, MemeGod27, Sir MemeGod, and Berchanhimez: STOP. I opened this section to ask what here is an administrative issue, because, as an admin, I was trying to work out whether there was actually some action an admin might need to take. I did not say "would everyone please [angrily] rehash everything from the sections above and from the DR?" I suppose I'm an involved party, after a fashion, but if anyone continues in this section for any purpose other than to apologize to me, or to each other, I will be reporting them at COM:AN/U and requesting disciplinary action. (Consigned stayed on topic, so I have not pinged them, and I acknowledge that this was cross-posted with WestVirginiaWX's saying they are done discussing here.) - Jmabel ! talk06:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above deletion discussion was closed as delete. I am making this section here to facilitate further discussion on the future of the template. Anyone who wants to present their opinions and ideas on what we should do with the template can post the comments here. But please, I know I speak for Jmabel when I ask that we don’t snipe at each other. Thank you. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comments in the earlier discussion and the deletion request in question that the template should only be used on images that can be confirmed to have been submitted through a source where the person read an explicit disclaimer and agreed to it explicitly. This necessarily means that a significant portion of images tagged with that tag may be deleted - but we can't simply use that as a reason to allow a tag with significant question over whether the image creator/photographer understood the fact that by submitting it to the NWS they give up their rights to it. What NWS lawyers decide about what they host on their servers is also irrelevant to what we do here on Commons - though I do think that it is likely that any photographer who submitted their image has a legal claim against the NWS that the disclaimers are either insufficient or not well publicized. Other website disclaimers that are commonly accepted (ex: Flickr/Youtube) require positive action by the uploader to waive, license freely, or otherwise give up their copyright rights to their image. The NWS does not require this sort of positive action, and in fact they accept image submissions through direct email, social media posts, etc. in places that they do not post a disclaimer at all.This is not to say that no NWS office image hosting can be used. It needs to be evaluated on an office-by-office basis, however. If an office provides (via email, preferably to VRT so it can be stored and not just based on someone's word here) a statement that they only post images where the submitter has explicitly (in the email/in a tweet reply/etc) released them into a public domain, then that office's images may be "whitelisted" for use of this template until such time as that changes. But absent those confirmations, the mere absence of a copyright notice from the NWS and a disclaimer there is no evidence that the person submitting it to them has seen cannot suffice as evidence that the image is in the public domain.This may even extend past this tag. License laundering is not permitted, and the mere fact that a person didn't post it online prior doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't take the NWS's "word" at it any more than we should take any other website/organization's word for it. Absent a clear determination by WMF legal that any particular disclaimer is sufficient, I see no reason to require any less for images hosted on NWS servers than we require for images hosted on any other website - clear, explicit, and irrevocable licensure/release to public domain from the photographer. Berchanhimez (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly; despite the number of arguments we’ve been in in the past few days over this. The way you put it makes a whole lot of sense to me and I have to at least somewhat agree with you there. We shouldn’t trust the NWS anymore than Joe down the road. We don’t assume everything on YouTube or X or Facebook is PD do we? Of course not. (YouTube actually contains a massive amount of copyright violations, but that’s besides the point). I think the PD-NWS template should stay; but be modified to only accept images that we know are PD. Similar to the PD-NASA template. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, the PD-NWS template also falls under employee-created images, which are PD and the entire deletion discussion revolved around non-employee created images. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 18:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full deletion with proposal — The PD-NWS template has been upheld at dozens of deletion requests. It is clear NWS has disclaimers, including NWS headquarters stating all content is public domain unless otherwise noted. The image / specific deletion request which kicked this discussion off was not deleted on grounds of violating the template. The specific administrator closing remarks deleted it on the precautionary principle, only due to that single NWS email. That email also specifically referred to that image/that specific webpage. Even that NWS office (NWS La Crosse) has their own disclaimer noting images are public domain. In my view, this was a one-off image/webpage. With that being said, my proposal is to have a 2nd “extra” note which states webpages of NWS La Crosse are off-limits for the disclaimer under the precautionary principle like PD-NWS does right now with Getty Images.
However, no other NWS office has questioned the disclaimer or even eluded to it not being the ongoing operational disclaimer. In fact, almost every NWS webpage links to the NWS Headquarters disclaimer. So, I am extremely opposed to anything regarding the entire template being changed/removed. My conceding comment (I oppose now, but would be content if consensus fell that way) is to assess every image individually. The only real issue with that specific image was the NWS email, given NWS La Crosse linked the webpage to the NWS HQ disclaimer. So, there is my thoughts and proposal. TL;DR — Hard opposed to deleting the template and/or making it specific office by office. I propose just NWS La Crosse being excluded as they created their own precautionary principle rational that only affects their office and their webpages. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Here is several previous discussions regarding the PD-NWS template, so everyone is aware of the precedent regarding it on the Commons (WeatherWriter (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)):[reply]
That’s alot of keeps. I’m indifferent when it comes to how we should proceed; with the exception of the fact that the template itself shouldn’t be deleted. If you read my proposal, it’s very much in line with @Berchanhimez on what the procedure needs to be. That procedure is to only accept stuff confirmed to be PD. But treat mine as only weakly in favor as that (I still really think they’re all PD and that the person who sent us the email didn’t know what he was talking about, but that’s just me) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a few weeks now, I've been poking around the ~1400 images that use this tag. So far, I've been able to identify about 56 8 different types
0. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources that explicitly credit the NWS/NOAA or its employees. (Many more recent images do this)
1. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources that the original source does not credit to any third party and which are of a kind which can be presumed to be the work of NWS/NOAA employees and therefore free of copyright. Examples include: weather maps and charts, infographics, radar and satellite images (very many of the images I've seen)
2. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources that the original source credits to third parties but which are covered by an unambiguous disclaimer that either release them into the PD or under a free licence. (there are very few of these)
3. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources (like the one that kicked off this discussion) that the original source credits to a third party but whose copyright and licencing status is ambiguous due to technicalities (there are a few hundred of these, the bulk of the images that are not in category 1.)
4. NWS/NOAA images that are mistagged. As currently worded, the tag is only for use of images sourced from an NWS/NOAA website, but some images have been tagged with this when they're work of the NWS/NOAA but actually hosted elsewhere, usually YouTube or a social media site. There's a small number of these.
5. Other images that are mistagged. Images that do not appear to be connected to the NWS/NOAA at all, but usually from some other US government source. I've only seen a couple of these.
6. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources where the source description on Commons does not allow the copyright and licencing to be verified. This is either because the source data provided is very vague or because the source URL points directly to an image file on a NWS/NOAA website but not the page that includes or included that file, so we can't see what the licence information is.
7. Images sourced from weather.gov or other NWS sources that the original source does not credit to any third party and which are of a kind which cannot be presumed to be the work of NWS/NOAA employees and therefore free of copyright. The wide number of different ways in and conditions under which the NWS has accepted third-party content over the years introduce significant doubt about the copyright and license status of these images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlandmann (talk • contribs) 08:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since our collective understanding of the copyright and licencing issues at play has evolved considerably since this tag was first established (and do appear to have changed substantially on the NWS end too...) I say we deprecate this specific tag and replace it with a pair of tags:
a tag that covers only categories 1 and 4 -- work of the NWS/NOAA, regardless of where it's hosted. I would take {{PD-USGov-NASA}} as a starting point.
another tag to cover category 2 images on weather.gov specifically. The fact that there certainly are usable third-party images in that category needs to be highlighted, in paticular to avoid future scenarios like this one.
For clarity, I agree that categories 1 and 2 do not need to be deleted. However, I disagree that we can "presume" that images are a creation of a NWS/NOAA employee in the absence of explicit information that suggests that - Commons:Precautionary principle applies and we should not assume the images were created by a NWS/NOAA employee unless they were images clearly taken as part of the duties of a NWS/NOAA employee (such as images published in a specific tornado damage report, for example). Images in category 3, 5, and 6 should be presumed to be deleted unless evidence of their provenance/licensing is presented. Category 4 should be fine if/when the template (PD-NWS) is updated to reflect that it's images produced by NWS/NOAA employees rather than just hosted on their website. I feel that category 2 can be covered sufficiently by simply a normal PD tag with the source and disclaimer sufficiently noted. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I don't disagree with Rlandmann necessarily, just with others arguing that images hosted on NWS servers can be presumed to be the work of NWS/NOAA employees or released to the public domain, unless proven otherwise. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they were obviously made by a NWS survey team (eg. They’re on the damage assessment toolkit site), then we don’t need to waste time with a senseless DR that’ll do nothing but waste our time. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't advocate for images that are obviously created by a NWS survey team (as an example) being submitted. But as Rlandmann points out, there are a significant amount of images that are not clearly part of a NWS employee's official duties yet have this tag. Berchanhimez (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I shall remain opposed to any significant alterations to the template. As a researcher IRL, I understand the copyright templates and I shall continue to upload images from the webpages. The current disclaimers are true. That was a one-off instance involving a photograph which was taken years before NWS became an organization to begin with. My proposal remains as is and I will not support anything besides what I linked above. Each image needs a deletion request if templates are changed. End of story. My explanation is above, so I probably do not need to comment or reply any further here. I feel consensus will not fall with the truth, so just like how the Tornadoes of 2022 Wikipedia article has confirmed false-fake information on it (community consensus confirmed it should remain even, VNTIA), the ideology of "verifiability, not truth", continues here. Such a shame. Well, Internet Archive will probably grow a couple hundred images shortly. With that, I rest my case. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t consider myself to be in support of major changes either; I consider myself to be more of a neutral. But I agree with the people dishing out the pro-change arguments because they are based on the law. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately @WeatherWriter, this isn’t an argument about how “shameful” or how “difficult” (my original argument) it’s about the law. The law is the law and we can’t change it. End of story. The only question is whether or not the disclaimer is sufficient. The only binding opinion on thus would come if WMF Legal ends up getting involved; but barring that, the “prosecution” as I’m going to call it, has a good case. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But just for the others, since I doubt that WeatherWriter was intending to link to an article about a Latvian airport that has nothing to do with this discussion; I’ll fill in here what I believe they were intending to link; it is w:WP:V. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely inane. Wikipedia policies don't apply to Commons - the applicable policies are Commons:Precautionary principle and Commons:Licensing. To be specific: where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted (from PRP) and Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed (from Licensing, emphasis mine). Your personal belief about the disclaimer does not mean that that disclaimer meets those policies, and your comment that "[you] shall continue to upload images from the webpages" just implies your intent to violate Commons policy going forward. It does not matter what you think the truth is. Berchanhimez (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez, if you were referring to me (pinging myself @WestVirginiaWX), that would NEVER be my intention. I have only uploaded PD-NWS files that were directly produced by the NWS (category 1 I think); or by their survey teams (as in the case of a particular tornado damage picture from Wayne County, West Virginia), so you don’t have anything to worry about if you were referring to me. Now obviously if you were NOT referring to me, well I generally can’t speak for other people on what their intentions might be. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think I see who you’re referring to. (I’m not going to mention so and so’s name just because I don’t want to cause problems or be accused of personal attacks. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to go on the record and say that as much as I used to agree with you @WeatherWriter; I have to very strongly disagree with your statement on how you “shall continue to upload from the webpages”; I have to agree with @Berchanhimez on this, continuing to upload like that could potentially constitute a copyright violation and you can ask @Sir MemeGod, they got blocked for a week over that. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: , the "presumption" I mean in category 1 is images published on NWS pages that do not have any third-party attribution. I base this on the general NWS disclaimer that "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise"; and I think it is the same presumption that we use for other US Government sources.
I disagree we can use that general disclaimer. I am unaware of any other website that allows and publishes user submitted content that we accept a "passive disclaimer" like that as proof of, as Commons:Licensing states, explicitly freely licensed. I think that may be able to be handled on a case by case basis (ex: if an office confirms via email to VRT that the images hosted on their sub-site have all been explicitly freely licensed by the copyright holder), but that we cannot presume they are freely licensed based on a passive disclaimer that there is no evidence the submitter saw. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Berchanhimez: . So that I can verify that I understand you correctly, is your position that we can't assume that the two uncredited photos of tornados at the top of this page are works of federal employeees in the course of their duties and therefore in the PD? (These are examples of "category 1" images I'm talking about) Rlandmann (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. For one, NWS employees are not out in the "field" during tornado outbreaks - they are in the office issuing watches/warnings. They may very well have been taken by NWS employees - but they were not taken in the course of official duties even if so. Berchanhimez (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s exactly right. NWS employees are NEVER out chasing twisters. Just about any tornado picture from the weather service should therefore be assumed to be copyrighted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I agree with the new categories, and will only add that other than things that are obviously the work of NWS/NOAA employees in their official duties (i.e. weather maps, earth imagery, graphs/charts/depictions of damage/etc, and the like), we really can’t act like they “might be” the work of the agency/employees in their official duties. There will need to be a clear line drawn when the next edge cases come up - when an image is highly likely to be NWS “official act” but no proof of it - and that question can be decided then without affecting the many other images that fall into the categories that clearly cannot use this template.I’ll also note here that this discussion does not change anything about any user’s ability to contact the NWS and ask them to send VRT proof of the image’s origin. If an image may be “NWS official” or public domain confirmed by the NWS, I doubt the NWS would balk at sending an official email to the VRT confirming its status and more importantly how they determined that status (ex: an email saying “the photographer emailed us this image with the statement ‘I release this image into the public domain for NWS or anyone else to use’” for example). Berchanhimez (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% on that. Anything that the NWS can confirm was released into the public domain and they say that to VRT, I’m more than happy to support keeping the file. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll repeat the same comment I’m referring to. It is not about how “shameful” or how “difficult” it is. You two are 1,000% right when you say it’s an issue about the law. No consensus on this discussion will ever change the law. You can have 97% of the people say to keep and if the law says it needs to be deleted; well that file is gonna be gone. See my point? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the template wording. I think that is an excellent idea. Some of the hardliners like WeatherWriter probably won’t like it, but I still think the template proposal is a good idea. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. I’ll just repeat what I said earlier. I’ll repeat it here. I said “Unfortunately [pinged WeatherWriter], this isn’t an argument about how “shameful” or how “difficult” (my original argument) it’s about the law. The law is the law and we can’t change it. End of story. The only question is whether or not the disclaimer is sufficient. The only binding opinion on thus would come if WMF Legal ends up getting involved; but barring that, the “prosecution” as I’m going to call it [which would be you, @Berchanhimez, and the others who are advocating for the depreciation of the tag as we know it], has a good case.” WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think also I was mainly referring to Berchanhimez about looking at “my comment above that”; because at the time I thought they were referring to me (it seems like they’re referring to someone else). But the messages above still apply to you and anyone else. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @Rlandmann, hate to further complicate things. But there apparently is already a template specifically for the survey teams titled PD-DAT, though only for if it appears on that website. This issue also calls into question the PD-SPC tag. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; the current state of the templates is a tangled, overlapping mess. But we don't need to "boil the ocean" and try to fix everything all at once.
I think a good, short-term goal here is to at least separate the weather.gov content that's provably known to be free, vs stuff that isn't. This is probably a few months' work. I think it's also good to keep the end-goal in focus. This whole situation (and some of the DRs before it, here and on English Wikipedia, arose because of the ambiguous and inconsistent way that the NWS websites have historically handled third-party content. We want uploaders, re-users, and admins to have a high degree of certainty not just about the copyright and licence status of an image, but the evidence and reasoning that is based on.
Right now, I'm seeing the template I proposed as an interim solution to get that initial split. I will also draft and propose a template for the "category 2" images. I don't know if it will be required in the long term. Berchanhimez is right -- anything that template could contain would already be covered by one of our existing licence tags. If it proves un-necessary, then at least the split has been achievde and the interim template could easily be replaced by a bot later. Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, there's a lot above and I didn't read it all, but "stored on the web servers of" in the current template is certainly not a sufficient criterion. Obviously, something like this template should be fine for what was created by federal government employees at NWS. There may be some other specific cases that are also OK. If so, I'd suggest that those cases be enumerated, and that the template be parameterized with a "switch parameter" to indicate which case is met. (If it's unclear what I mean by a "switch parameter", have a look at how parameter "legal" functions in {{Published}}.) If the "switch parameter" is present, then the template when included will display only the text for the relevant case. If not, it will contain a bullet list of all cases it covers, but will also place the file in a maintenance category indicating that the switch parameter value needs to be added. I presume the bulk of existing files using the template are from federal gov't employees, so it should be pretty straightforward to use VFC to do a semi-automated addition of that parameter and value to large numbers of files. Similarly for other valid cases, which I imagine cluster in existing categories. That's about all I have to say here; I know it isn't very spelled out, so feel free to ping me if you need more. - Jmabel ! talk04:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it (and you just reinforced this) the more I think that going by just the NWS disclaimer alone is a really stupid idea. “Stored on the webservers of” is a really stupid idea that is really only a lawsuit waiting to happen. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks ago, I reached out to the Sioux Falls office. I asked:
"We can see that for many years, NWS has had a policy[1] that when somebody submits an image to you, they release it into the public domain. What we don't know is how far back this policy goes. The earliest archived record of that policy we can find is 2009, but the NWS has been sharing public submissions since long before that!
Is it safe for us to assume that all images on weather.gov that are credited to a member of the general public are all in the public domain, regardless of how far back they were submitted to you?
Many thanks for any light you can shed on this question!
Our apologies for the delay in a response, but we wanted to run your question through our legal team before replying. No, not all images credited to members of the general public are in the public domain on weather.gov. In some cases, the credited image creator has only given permission for the National Weather Service to use the image on NOAA websites.
The disclaimer page that you cited in your email was created specifically for a prior photo submission contest and since has been used occasionally when requesting images from the public taken during specific storm events. It is the opinion of the legal team that they "do not believe a disclaimer, alone, can be used to transfer a copyright holder's ownership interest to NOAA or to abandon the copyright interest to the public domain". Since then, we have removed the questionable language on the disclaimer page.
For images verified to be in the public domain, a collection of weather-related images can be found within the NOAA Digital Library: https://www.noaa.gov/digital-library .
Does anyone else all of the sudden support these “radical” changes to the template? Because I do. Radical changes or complete removal, one of the two. I am sorry for not believing you earlier. And I’m sorry for the mess it caused. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest a radical change instead of outright deletion of the template. With recent correspondences from the LaCrosse and Sioux Falls offices of NWS, it is becoming clear that not all image files held by NWS in general is automatically in PD. Files, of course, should undergo intense license reviews and a mass nomination of images in a suspected subcategory is not appropriate/not advisable (unless the entire subcategory itself contains 100% unfree files). It seems my creation of Category:National Weather Service-related deletion requests is very timely for this thing. Once this thread is archived, a link to this discussion should be added at the said category page. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)19:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need MAJOR changes to that template and fast. This will be a strong and speedy support for me. Only images that can be verified to be PD; such as ones actually taken by employees; or submissions that are confirmed by the National Weather Service to VRT; otherwise, mass DR. As much as @WeatherWriter is going to hate this (see above); the law is the law and we can’t change that. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I would support significant changes to the template per the above and file specific deletion discussions (over time, not all at once) as to their provenance/licensing. I'm going to try workshopping wording in my sandbox that attempts to reflect recent developments and consensus - please feel free to edit it also User:Berchanhimez/sandbox, especially to properly include links to these email confirmations/deletion discussions. Berchanhimez (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t implying the mass deletions be all at once either. I was referring to it as such because a slew of pictures are now in violation of policy. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; there's no need for mass deletion; the majority of files in this category are just fine. But I've already kicked off that intense license review. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too; and let’s summarize my position again: major, sweeping changes are necessary; and they need to be implemented quickly. It doesn’t necessarily matter how we handle the deletion of the copyright-violating images. You can make a thousand AfD’s for all I care. But the template in particular has got to be changed ASAP to prevent unsuspecting editors from accidentally committing a copyright violation (and making our job a lot harder). WestVirginiaWX (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just nominated another file for deletion. The 2020 derecho sunset picture. Conditionally support deletion unless there is proof of PD status. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve also renominated the 1997 Jerrell tornado image. Trying to get the major ones first because those are the ones that have the potential to affect a lot of stuff. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the course of my review of these third-party images, I came across this image -- File:Niles Park Plaza 1985 tornado.jpg. It's interesting for two reasons:
First, it provides evidence for yet another mechanism by which various NWS offices at various times have accepted third-party images (via email or physical postage!) And, as usual, there is no mention that images so submitted will enter the public domain.
I and others reject this interpretation that a notice in such a format is the only valid way that an image under a third party's copyright an be "specifically noted", and the NWS page this image was sourced from provides a great illustration of this.
The submission process for the project to document the May 31, 1985 tornado outbreak says nothing about submitted materials entering the public domain; it merely allows the NWS to post the information on the web.
The third-party contributions towards this project are posted to this page and their attributions are all in the form "Courtesy submitter's name"
This example connects a specific submission process with a specific set of images. And for these images at least, third-party ownership is "specifically noted" in a format other than a formal copyright notice. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two more images that came up in my review today are noteworthy because rather than just being credited to private citizens, they're credited to organisations with documented copyright policy. Specifically, this image is credited to the Ohio Department of Transportation, which doesn't allow commercial use of their materials; and this one is credited to the NFL, whose copyright policy is as strict as you'd imagine. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the NFL image; if it is here on Commons, I want it a DR put on it ASAP; and I’d be just about willing to support putting a speedy delete tag on it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to go on record and say that the NFL image was speedily deleted by @Yann on F1 and F6 grounds. Now we have a supposedly NWS image that has been speedily deleted for a copyright violation. That PD-NWS template needs to be deprecated. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the discussion (even though I was an involved party) because of that. It’s kinda pointless to have a deletion discussion on an image that has already been deleted. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy deletion has been overturned; I have since clarified on the discussion that is has been reopened and that the discussion is no longer “defunct”. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence against uncritical reliance on the NWS general disclaimer
That said, I would not in general assume that a government agency claiming a CC license on Flickr necessarily means the work is not public domain. I've seen quite a few do just that with PD works, especially PD-expired. - Jmabel ! talk02:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a possibility that the Flickr licence is wrong, but in that case, the image is not necessarily in the PD, but could well belong to its creator, Fred Stewart.
The moiré pattern makes me very sure this is a scan from a physical publication rather than a photographic print or negative, but without knowing when and where it was published, we can't assume that copyright did not exist or is expired. And, in common with the rest of these, if it was under copyright at the moment it was uploaded to an NWS web server, we have no evidence that permission was ever given to place it in the public domain.
Of all the possibilities (under copyright, PD, or CC-BY), my personal feeling is that CC-BY is the least likely to be true. But I don't have any actual evidence not to take the NOAA at their word in this instance! --Rlandmann (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; as much as the NWS has proven not to have a great track record when it comes to updating their copyright policies; our only choice here is to take them at their word here; and if someone claiming to be the owner complains; we can remove it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compatibility of "ShareAlike" licenses with Commons
I was recently looking through the different "CC BY-SA" licensing options on here to use for personal photographs I'm thinking about uploading. One of the licenses I'm considering using is "CC BY-SA 4." Although I couldn't help notice that one of the conditions of it is that "if you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original." Which just seems counter to the goals of the projects. Since we don't allow for non-commercial licenses and someone obviously can't transform or build a work into a commercial product if they then have to release it under a "CC BY-SA" license. Although the license also seems to say people can "remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." So I'm kind of confused here. Can anyone explain exactly how it works? Adamant1 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: CC-BY-SA is very compatible with Commons, it is stricter than CC-BY in the sense that any derivative works must be licensed as CC-BY-SA where derivative works of CC-BY works could have non-commercial or no derivatives added, so you can't make a DW of a CC-BY-SA that restricts things the original license doesn't so commercial use is always allowed under CC-BY-SA. I hope that helps. (Finishing up my packing for Wikimania 2024 so starting tomorrow, I'll probably be very slow to respond to things for 10 days or so). Abzeronow (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason that a commercial work can't be licensed under CC-BY-SA. Sure, that would mean that others could then use your work and perhaps "out-commercialize" (i.e. compete) with you, but that doesn't mean you can't try. Furthermore, if someone were to remix something into a logo, brand mark, or other distinctive "identity" for their business, the fact that it would have to be licensed under CC-BY-SA does not affect their ability to avail themselves of trademark or similar protections.A similar situation is the existence of personality/likeness rights - images of identifiable people are allowed on Commons even though the subject may very well still maintain a legal right to prevent certain uses of their likeness without their permission. There's a list of some other rights that may still apply without affecting Commons here. Ultimately, Commons' purpose is not to host only images that can be used for any reason by anyone without fail - the purpose is merely to host images that a reuser does not have to "worry" about copyright/licensure for their use. It doesn't guarantee they will be able to successfully use any image commercially - but if they want to try, they do not have to deal with copyright/licensing of the image here to do so. Berchanhimez (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That type of license was part of the original concept of "free", particularly when used with computer code -- it's called en:Copyleft, and the idea was that the content (or code in their case) was itself "free", in that a derivative work could not make it proprietary again. If you wanted to make use of such code, then give back. Importantly, the share-alike condition only applies to derivative works, not simply any use. For example, including such an illustration in a commercial book should be fine -- the book is a collective work (a selection and arrangement of the contained works) of the text and the illustrations. Use in a collective work does not trigger the condition, so the book's text is one copyright, the collective work is another, and the illustration is still its own copyright. Only the illustration itself remains licensed CC-BY-SA; the book's text and arrangement can have any license they want (or none). That could be considered a commercial use of the illustration, but it's fine per the license. If the book author makes any modifications to the illustration itself, then that result must still be licensed CC-BY-SA, but not the entire book. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube allows to mark own short clips with a CC BY license. The big problem is, that, for example as a reviewer, it is hard to proof the stated license. This can afaik only be done by searching for CC BY licensed videos.
@PantheraLeo1359531: not sure I follow what you want here. When you say "reviewer," do you mean as the formal "license reviewer" or just as an arbitrary person looking at this after the fact. I assume "proof" => "prove", but prove what to whom (just validate the claim for yourself? prove it to some unstated third party? etc.)?
I'm afraid the link clarifies nothing, because you don't say anything about what that link is supposed to exemplify. - Jmabel ! talk21:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the uploader has granted a CC license, the YouTube videos typically display a notice in the description. However with Shorts videos, there is no CC notice in the desc, even if it is granted. The only way to find or confirm is by searching with filters. This can cause confusion and uncertainty. PascalHD (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stated as own work, but appears to come from
here, which states that it is freely available, but requests an attribution link. (That said, it is one of the more inane graphs I have seen for several reasons, and I hope nobody uses it, but I'm really only here for the attribution issue, "inanity" not being a point of policy.) Mathglot (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing here that appears to be copyrightable, and it is not literally the same file as that one on wallstreetmojo. - Jmabel ! talk21:32, 6 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]
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]
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]
(this discussion has started first on the unofficial Wikimedia Discord server, under #commons, in the #"Policy on FOP in Portugal" thread. feel free to contact me there!)
as the country where I am based from, I have read the copyright policy for Portugal many times over. however, it is lacks a lot of information on the specifics. the cited paper by Teresa Nobre gives a good starting point (may be directly adapted as CC0).[1]
besides that, there are some copyright questions that I have regarding freedom of panorama in Portugal. the use and distribution of works under FoP in Portugal is allowed under two conditions:
the photographed object must be in a "public location", and
the photographed object must be "permanently located" in said location
please beware that I am in no way educated about copyright law, these are questions and doubts that I am raising for others to answer.
the definition of a "public location" is given by another paragraph of the text:
A public place is understood as a place to which access is offered, explicitly or
implicitly, for remuneration or without it, even if the right of admission is
reserved.
according to Nobre, this includes any public outdoor space, such as streets and squares, as well as public indoor spaces.
to me, the deciding factor seems to be intentionality. an entity decides where access can be given for the people, and so excluding any private property, possibly even if it is outdoors and not otherwise located in a public space.
privately-owned spaces would still qualify under this definition if they grant access to the public, such as stores, malls, stadiums, transportation stations, airports, schools, universities, GLAMs, workspaces, etc.
my question is how does privacy laws apply to this, many of these places have a "no photographs" warnings up front. for Commons, would this interfere with the FoP policy?
under Nobre's interpretation, "permanently located" means that a work is intended to be located in a given place for an indefinite amount of time or until the end of its existence, regardless whether it really does remain there.
the law gives the example of architectural works, however, it includes any type of work 3D or 2D. some types of works are made to located indefinitely until they are just discarded, such as posters, billboards and building emergency plants. under the best case interpretation, these would be following the intentionality factor, fall under FoP, despite not actually remaining there forever.
I wish to better understand how to interpret these policies more rigorously. cheers.
@JnpoJuwan @GualdimG Hello, my 2 cents: My understanding is that the "no photographs" warnings in Portugal do not interfere with FoP at all, though you still should respect them, of course. They are a kind of general rule for these spaces, though you can get permission to photograph them occasionally - I've been in countless guided visits to museums and monuments where photos are generally not allowed, but were permitted in that specific occasion. As a rule of thumb, you should always ask the staff if you can photograph inside. As for outside photos, they are OK with FoP as long as you stay in the street or another public space. There are special provisions and many court cases related to photos of people in public spaces, but I couldn't find the same for buildings and artworks, at least in a quick search. In the same way, a Google search on "feitas para serem mantidas permanentemente em locais públicos" limited to results from Portugal has not returned a single court case, which makes me think this is not exactly a matter of contention here. As for the character of "permanent", I follow the interpretation that the given work is intended to finish is life there in said public space. This covers anything that is intended to be like that, as you said. It would not cover stuff like public advertisements that were intended to be reproduced in many different contexts, such as magazines, webpages or outdoors. DarwinAhoy!22:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JnpoJuwan From what I've seen, at least some may certainly be restored by blurring the (often small) part of the image which is copyrighted. I've done it for this one which is from my home city, but the same can be applied to others. DarwinAhoy!22:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file is not on Commons under the belief that it may meet the threshold of originality under its source country. I'm no expert at Canadian law especially since I don't even live there, but I do not believe it meets the ToO in its source country under Template:TOO-Canada ("Unlike other common law countries, Canada's threshold of originality veers closer to that of the United States.") as it's just circles and text.
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]
File:Super Outbreak Map.jpg was created in 1974 by meteorologist Ted Fujita (1920-1998). It's been tagged PD USGov because it was sourced from a .gov website, but its creator is identified on the map itself.
As presented on the web (context, direct link), there's also no copyright notice on this pre-1978 file, but we don't know whether there was one on the original medium.
To address the original question. I do not know much about ToO with graphs and plots, but I would put Super Outbreak Map over the threshold. The tracks are not simple lines but also show intensity.
It is not clear who made the derivative map, but I would guess it was an NWS employee. The map looks like someone modified Fujita's map for an NWS newsletter/article/webpage about the outbreak. That task probably fell to an NWS employee. Glrx (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! So, I want to compile some articles here on some Contemporary Christian Music albums from the 80s/90s, using information from different magazines and such. However, I am encountering problems with the cover images for the Wikipedia pages. Every time I upload one, it says it is being taken down due to an incorrect Creative Commons label. Any help here would be greatly appreciated - which CC do album covers fall under? I got the image I want to upload from the media services online for it, from here: https://a5.mzstatic.com/us/r1000/0/Music4/v4/a0/be/0f/a0be0f13-af9b-2988-8991-e511068f3673/00017627108453.jpg.
Album art is almost always copyrighted and thus is not eligible to be uploaded here at Wikimedia Commons per COM:L. However some Wikipedias allow copyrighted images like album art in certain cases under "Fair Use" - the policy on English Wikipedia is at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Specifically it will usually be allowed if it's used to illustrate an article about the album in question, but if there isn't an article about the album, it probably isn't allowed; I don't see any albums by en:Steve Green (singer) which have articles, so this album art wouldn't be allowed. An example of an album with album art is en:At Folsom Prison, and you can see the album art's copyright/Free Use information at en:File:Johnny Cash At Folsom Prison.jpg#Summary. Consigned (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt response! I appreciate the input.
I am trying to publish articles from that singer in particular, but for each article, I need to post an album cover. How can I upload it under Non-Free content? I plan to try and publish at least 2-3 articles this weekend if I can solve this copyright issue with the cover art. Other albums I checked had the same Non-free content so I would like to publish some as well. Adrizacks98 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NP, happy to help. The album art won't be allowed until the article exists, so first create the article, then upload the photo to Wikipedia (not here at Wikimedia Commons) and include it in the article. Though it's long I do recommend reading the Wikipedia non-free rules at en:WP: Non-free content since copyright is treated quite seriously, and those are Wikipedia-specific rules different than here on Commons (again non-free material simply isn't allowed here on Commons). When uploading the file, you can use a template like en:Template:Non-free use rationale album cover to include the non-free justification, which is used on the Johnny Cash file I linked above. Consigned (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS I agree with Marchjuly below that first you should get the album articles published and stable before taking the time to upload the album art. Consigned (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adrizacks98. English Wikipedia articles about albums aren't required to have an album cover image, and the presence or lack of any such image has nothing to to do with en:Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings. So, if the album articles you say you're going to create are anything like en:Draft:Steve Green (album), it might be much better for you to focus on establishing the Wikipedia notablity of these albums first, and then worry about uploading album covers later. Non-free content can't be used in drafts per English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; moreover, there's not much point in uploading non-free files that either have no valid use or are going to be used in articles that have a good chance of ending up being quickly tagged or nominated for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A correction to Consigned's remarks above: "copyrighted and thus is not eligible to be uploaded here at Wikimedia Commons" should read something like "copyrighted and would require that the holder of the copyright offer a free license in order to be eligible to be uploaded here at Wikimedia Commons" (along with the fact that no one but the copyright-holder can offer that license). - Jmabel ! talk23:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Up until 1989 you were required to register the album cover for a copyright, separate from the music and small labels may not have gone through the expense, or they may have avoided copyright in the hopes of having the image reproduced as free advertising. You have to search the USCO database. --RAN (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To have a properly registered copyright, yes. But as I understand it, you could get 28 years protection (with some caveats) from just notice without registration, and anything from 1964 or later turned out (with the new law) not to need to renew, so just notice without registration got them 95 years. - Jmabel ! talk06:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen cases of record labels neglecting to post notices/register/renew copyrights on album covers? I would think that would be one of their top priorities. For convenience of other readers, the rules on US copyright notices/registration/renewal are at COM:HIRTLE. Consigned (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were not required to register a work -- you just needed to have a copyright notice on it, before 1989. Between 1978 and 1989, if you forgot a copyright notice, you could register it to possibly not lose the copyright. Works published before 1964 did need to be renewed 27/28 years after publication; while you did need to register to do that, you could send in your first registration along with the renewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Consigned and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): even labels as major as Columbia or Capitol were often remarkably careless about maintaining copyrights on album art. For example, they often ran U.S. ads that depicted an album jacket at reasonably high resolution (though usually in black and white) and failed to post a copyright notice. Tons of this to be found in the "underground papers" of the late 1960s and early 1970s. - Jmabel ! talk18:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Yes! The lack of symbol was on purpose to maximize free distribution of the publicity images, the product that made the money was the music. I have been trying to figure out the year they started adding the copyright symbol to ads and publicity images, and adding to each category. It appears to have stared for some in the mid 1980s. I have been going through Billboard and eBay looking at the advertisements for both the band and ones with album covers. I think we decided that the low-res magazine image (devoid of copyright symbol) does not mean that the higher-res album cover (with copyright symbol) can be hosted by Commons. We can only host the version devoid of the symbol. It was a compromise on whether all versions are voided of copyright by having some copies devoid of the copyright symbol. The lack of symbol was on purpose to maximize distribution. --RAN (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orizan has uploaded quite a lot of old print advertisements (e.g. File:1957 Pillsbury Frosting (8267230877).png) and is citing Flickr as the source. It's possible that some of these are either OK to relicense as {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I don't think Flickr can be considered the original source in any way and most likely it's a case of unintentional COM:LL by the Flickr account holder. Orizan hasn't edited Commons since December 2021 and doesn't seem to be active on any other WMF project; so, I don't think they'll be around to try and help sort things out. Orizan has uploaded lots of files and perhaps not all of them are problematic, but they seem to have been just assuming anything uploaded to Flickr is automatically OK for Commons just because the Flickr account holder licensed it as such. Some files, like the aforementioned advertisements and File:Alcatraz Landing at Pier 33, San Francisco (29581678632).jpg, are either a case of COM:2D copying or COM:DW; so, it might take a bit of time and a few people to sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May 2024 law review publication for European Union / evolving definition of public space
This recent publication, Shtefan (2024) on freedom of panorama in the European Union, has (I am told) useful case law relevant to the policy recommendations here.[1] Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RobbieIanMorrison some Spanish court ruling mentioned in the paper may affect COM:FOP Spain, in particular, regarding the location of a work. To quote:
In a case in Spain, a dispute arose over the image of a house built on a rock. Part of this house can be seen from the public road, while the photo shows another part that faces the side of the abyss under the rock. The defendant argued that such a picture could have been taken from the sea or air, which are public places, and therefore the rule of freedom of panorama should be applied to this case. The local court of Madrid rejected these arguments and noted that the rock on which the house is built is not by a public road where pedestrians and vehicles can move. Although the building is located near a public road, capturing the image in question from the road would have been impossible. The sea and airspace do not fall under the concept of a public highway, although they are spaces belonging to the public.
— cited source: SAP M 11756/2014 – ECLI:ES:APM:2014:11756 (n 13)
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]
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: [9]. Cf in the history of the Commons template: [10]. 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 [11] 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]
Is there a policy or FAQ or noticeboard to alert others about an uploaded file X.svg where some content (about 50kb of the svg) is an exact copy in common with another Commons file, and the rendered version of the image clearly suggests similarity to a set of related Commons files, but the uploader is not able to clearly describe the derivation of the file? I'm thinking of a particular case where the known contributing pieces of X.svg are CC-BY-SA-4.0 and CC0. I'm not motivated to analyse this further, the uploader has not acknowledged the common content (which is straightforward to check), but there's no edit battle going on, and I don't see a deletion proposal being justified.
This seems like a "nobody is likely to be bothered to clean up" situation to me, so my thought is just to put some sort of a tag (category?) so that if the sort of person who is willing to clean up these situations has time, then s/he can easily find this on a list or be notified by a bot and handle it. Boud (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The iCarly (2021 reboot) opening video was originally uploaded to YouTube under CC-BY 3.0. The YouTube page no longer shows that license, but the license is still in force for anyone who obtains a copy of the video and has not violated its terms. Thus we can still have it uploaded here: File:ICarly 2021 theme song.webm.
However, someone extracted the audio from the video (File:ICarly 2021 theme song.wav), and I am not sure if that is permitted by the 3.0 license. It's more clear that it would be permitted by the CC-BY 4.0 license, which refers to "Licensed Rights" which are all of the copyright holder's rights to the "Licensed Material" (the video), including the rights to the audio. By contrast, the 3.0 license only refers to the "Work" being licensed and does not say that the "Work" can be reproduced in whole or in part. It seems like the extracted audio (and the underlying musical work) could be considered an "Adaptation" according to the terms of the 3.0 license, but the song is a pre-existing work (dating back to 2007) that was incorporated by ViacomCBS into the music video. Perhaps, by the contra proferentem principle, the license could be interpreted such that it applies to the audio and not just the video as a whole.
While some people have argued that the license is not valid at all for NickRewind uploads, I will not deal with that here.
Yes, the CC 3.0 license applies to any content owned by the licensor to which the license is applied. If some portion of that content had been previously published, that does not make it not part of the licensed work. And the CC BY 3.0 license certainly allows reproduction both in whole and in part. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One‑off Creative Commons license on East Side Gallery photograph (installment 2)
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]
Moved from COM:AN#Overwritten file
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
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)
Question, does this affect images that were submitted post 2009; or just the ones taken before then? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Support this proposal. But I don’t entirely know whether or not my opinion is necessarily binding (I don’t know if the votes count for all editors or just administrators only; or if votes are even necessary) WestVirginiaWX (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Request: why don’t we try to contact some of the people who submitted the images and see if they would be willing to release the images themselves under a suitable license? WestVirginiaWX (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Abstaining from further comment after this: I have not made any threats or attacks. And I certainly do not appreciate the accusation of doing so. I am again merely trying to save you from getting accusations of gatekeeping and etc. from other people (mainly Weather Writer). I am in NO way accusing you of anything. And furthermore, the “assumptions” that I am making are based on written statements by the NWS itself. I think (especially after what you just said) it is probably best for me to just stay out of it henceforth and not reply back anymore. I’ll let the other editors argue their opinions. As I said in a previous deletion discussion; I have said my piece. It’ll go however it’s going to go and there ain’t nothing I can do to change that; I’ve put my two (hundred) cents into it; so I should probably stay out of it. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
