Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Please note
  1. 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.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

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


Italy FOP again and artwork copyrights supposedly held by city councils of Italy[edit]

This is another time the Italian FOP matter is reopened, in light of this matter mentioned in a substantial manner at a thread at COM:ANU (particularly a non-Italian admin's input and an Italian admin's response). This matter was being brought up in many deletion requests from time to time, including both Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pinocchio e la fatina di Emilio Greco.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Il Grande Ferro R, Alberto Burri, pala De André, Ravenna.jpg, initiated by me. The matter was also brought in a few instances here, such as one discussion regarding the famous Jubilee Church (authored by American architect Richard Meier) in which I got into a heated debate with Italian admin Blackcat, and an allied earlier discussion is at the UNDEL request of perhaps the oldest photo of the church on Commons: at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-03#File:Chiesa dio padre misericordioso roma.JPG.

It seems best to have one centralized discussion that should finalize the Commons policy regarding the contentious Italian FOP. Here are a few key things from the discussions:

  • Per the Italian admin Ruthven, the copyright holders of contemporary monuments owned by the cities or comuni are the cities' councils for monuments, not the the artists or architects, and Wikimedia Italy assumes that it is safe and legally-binding to obtain licensing clearances from the cities, and there is no need to ask for permits from architects or artists. In one deletion request, a link to the permission file is mentioned. So taking this into consideration, then the artists don't have copyrights over all public space artworks under the ownership of the comuni or cities of Italy, and their works can be freely exploited even for commercial CC licensing purposes.
  • One more thing, regarding architecture, in the Jubilee Church discussion, Blackcat claimed that "in Italy the right of property always prevails over the intellectual property. If I own a villa designed by a famous architect, I have the right to photograph it and licence my photos freely. As explained here, buildings like schools, bridges, etc, owned by the State or its administrative subdivisions, are publicly owner and don't need any permission." In this case, contemporary public buildings are allowed to be freely exploited, without architects' permissions.

But I have some reservations over this Italian system on buildings and public art, if it is really binding to both the Italian law and the Berne Convention in which Italy is one of its signatories. For copyrighted public art, the system also seems to bypass the whole COM:VRTS; is this even allowed by Wikimedia Foundation?

Pinging the involved users (from the cited discussions here):

I also mentioned few users involved at both Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/12#Italian FOP revisited — December 2020 and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/08#Question on the so-called de facto Italian FOP.

I purposefully excluded A1Cafel here since they are a subject of the ANU thread mentioned above. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what's the point? Let Italian customers face case by case, I told you it's complicated, it's not an issue you can handle with the axe in your hand (and no, there's not consistency, same case can be treated in different ways according the court.). -- Blackcat 15:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blackcat "let Italian customers face case by case" (I assume you mean reusers) is already against the spirit of COM:PRP. It is also against the Definition of Free Cultural Works enshrined in the COM:Licensing policy. Having files that may invite lawsuits from artists sets a dangerous precedent for Commons. Perhaps the very first customer at the Italian courts might be non-Italian: Wikimedia Foundation itself. Who knows? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps, and perhaps not. Do you know any case in court of No-FOP violation (I anticipate the answer: NONE) in Italy? Do you think that's by accident only? -- Blackcat 15:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Say I buy your argument, then why is there a need for the permissions in the first place? Like are they just pointless bureaucratic paper pushing or is there an actual reason for having them? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No user has said that these permissions are always valid also outside WLM. It depends. In some cases the authorizations are not restricted to WLM, in other cases they are, it depends. As for the retroactivity, I do not see anything strange in that: it's standard procedure to undelete images which are not under copyright anymore, why should we behave differently in these cases? If we admit that these images, even though uploaded in copyviol, are now ok, I don't see any reason why we should delete them.
As for the fact that the municipalities might be lying and conceding rights that they do not in fact have, I point out article 11 of the italian copyright law (ye, it's from 1941 and still has fascist party and so on, but that is still the law), which clearly says that the public institutions or non profit organizations have the copyright of works made on their behalf. Anyway I think that the commons community could ask Wikimedia Italy a thorough explanation. What I deem as illogical is proposing DRs about some single random monuments only because some users think that the lawyers with whom Wikimedia Italy works got everything wrong and Wikimedia Italy is in fact actively promoting a copyright violation on hundreds and hundreds of images.--Friniate (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the retroactivity, I do not see anything strange in that There's nothing in the agreements to indicate that they are general permissions which can applied outside of Wiki Loves Monuments. In fact most of them pretty explicitly state that the agreement is being made purely for the purposes of the Wiki Project and between them and the other party. I'm not aware of any instance where a legally binding agreement between two parties would apply more broadly of the original signers and situation. At the end of the day if a municipality gives Wiki Loves Monuments permission to photograph a particular monument then we have to assume they are the only ones covered by the agreement. There's zero reason the agreements would cover photographs of the monument taken years before or later by people who weren't involved in the original project and have no connection to it what-so-ever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: These authorizations are not identical. I've looked at several now, and while some are indeed restricted to the Wiki Loves Monuments contest or even that contest in a specific year, others use a more general wording, essentially authorizing everyone to take such photographs and publish them under a free license. If these permissions somehow also cover the copyright aspect and if the municipalities are actually copyright holders, some authorizations could be quite useful. But then we'd really need some easy way to look up which authorization is valid under which circumstances and for whom. --Rosenzweig τ 23:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware that some of them are more general. The problem is Friniate and a few other Italian users were arguing in deletion requests that ones made specifically between a municipality and Wiki Loves Monuments were general permissions that could be applied in perpetuity to any photograph of the monuments regardless of if the circumstances or how much time has passed, which is clearly nonsense. I have zero problem with a general authorizing being used in other circumstances outside of Wiki Loves Monuments though. We just need to figure out which ones are general, which aren't, make it clear in the license or something, and deal with the other issues you've mentioned. But no one from the Italian community should be arguing that a non-general agreement between a municipality and Wiki Loves Monuments can or should be used more broadly. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, what happened was that you were saying that it was necessary an authorization from the national ministry for a monument owned by the church, something that was clearly nonsense and I ansewred to you on that issue. In that DR I also clearly said though that the file should be kept if and only if it could be proven that it was uploaded within WLM, and you perfectly know that, so please stop spreading misinformation on my account, thank you. Friniate (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was one DR out of multiple ones that you commented on and the question of if the authorization being applicable in other instances outside of Wiki Loves Monuments wasn't just an issue in that specific DR. Although it's possible I'm confusing you with another user, but when I write a message saying that includes me saying the agreement isn't valid outside of Wiki Loves Monuments and you respond by accusing me of trolling or say I'm struggling with how things work then it kind of insinuates you disagree with what I'm saying. If I say something isn't valid in a particular situation and someone repeatedly responds by calling me a troll or otherwise acts like I don't know how things work then I can only assume they disagree with what I'm saying. That said, if you don't think the agreements apply outside of Wiki Loves Monuments, cool. Other users in the Italian community clearly do though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other DRs the authorizations are IMO generic enough as Rosenzweig said before. I never said that they can never be applied outside WLM and I never said that they can always be applied to WLM. It depends. As for the rest we are OT. Friniate (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I appreciate that you clarified your position at least. I hadn't actually seen your discussion with Rosenzweig in the DR for images of the Grave of Trancolin until you linked to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have several problems with that whole complex. I like that Wikimedia Italia is trying to get around a) Italy's lack of freedom of panorama and b) Italy's additional non-copyright restrictions on monuments, and that they invest the work of actually contacting all these cities, regions, dioceses etc. and get them to publicly commit to allow photos of the buildings and monuments they have. I dislike that the whole process is less than transparent to the users and admins of Wikimedia Commons, that it is sparsely (if at all) documented, and that it obviously, as evidenced by the deletion requests cited by JWilz12345 above (and there are more), invites deletion requests that are then debated over and over again. Such deletion requests are common for countries without (commercial) freedom of panorama, like France, South Africa, Ukraine and many others that regularly pop up in the deletion requests. Given the rather sparse documentation about this WLM Italy phenomenon here at Wikimedia Commons: How on Earth are Commons users and admins supposed to know that photos of various monuments and buildings, the likes of which are copyrighted in most other countries, are actually OK in Italy (supposedly at least) because we have some kind of permission? If this whole thing turns out to actually be OK copyright-wise, it must be better documented, in COM:Italy, in the categories for these buildings and monuments, and there should be a searchable list or database of everything that is covered by these authorizations. Or if there already is one, it needs to be prominently linked from COM:Italy and other places where one might search for it.

Now, for some concrete problems I have.

  • Copyright ownership not mentioned: None of the authorizations I saw actually said that the relevant city or region issuing the authorization actually owned the copyright to the monuments or buildings they authorized for photographs. Why not? It might be self-evident for people constantly dealing with this matter, but as evidenced by this discussion, it is not evident for everybody. Having such an explicit declaration would help a lot.
  • Government works: As mentioned by Ruthven in his closing rationale for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Il Grande Ferro R, Alberto Burri, pala De André, Ravenna.jpg, "all works made for the State, a local government or a governemental organization is in the public domain in Italy 20 years after their creation". Which basically says that these buildings and monuments are government works: "Works created by or on behalf of either the government, the former national Fascist Party, an academy, or private legal entities of a non-profit-making character of Italy, have 20 years of duration of the rights (Artt. 11, 29)." Article 11 (of the Italian copyright law) defines which organizations can benefit from this rule, while article 29 sets the copyright term for these works to 20 years after first publication.
Perhaps it's just me, but when I read "government works" or "official works" in a copyright context, I don't think of buildings and monuments, I think of documents of various kinds, texts, books, photographs. If this interpretation that in Italy some buildings and monuments can actually be "government works" (= official works) turns out to be solid and sound, it should be prominently mentioned in both the "government works" and "freedom of panorama" sections of COM:Italy. Right now, it is not.
But IS this interpretation actually correct? Various people mentioned it, so they probably at least think it is. The relevant part of article 11 reads "Alle Amministrazioni dello Stato, al Partito Nazionale Fascista, alle Provincie ed ai Comuni spetta il diritto di autore sulle opere create e pubblicate sotto il loro nome ed a loro conto e spese. Lo stesso diritto spetta agli enti privati che non perseguano scopi di lucro [...] nonche' alle Accademie e agli altri enti pubblici culturali sulla raccolta dei loro atti e sulle loro pubblicazio" which translates to "The Administrations of the State, the National Fascist Party, the Provinces and the Municipalities are entitled to the copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and at their expense. The same right shall accrue to private entities pursuing non-profit purposes [...] as well as to the Academies and other public cultural bodies on the collection of their proceedings and their publications."
The wording – "opere create e pubblicate sotto il loro nome ed a loro conto e spese", "works created and published under their name and on their behalf and at their expense" makes me think, again, of the more typical kind of official works, texts, photographs etc., but not of whole buildings and monuments, which are not usually said to have been "published", for example. Is there actually case law, legal literature etc. supporting the interpretation that buildings and monuments can be "government works" in Italy? If so, I'd like to see them at least cited, preferably in COM:Italy, and not just claimed. This would be a major difference to other countries, and we should have as much transparency about this matter as possible.
  • Catholic Church: Among the authorizations, I saw one by a Catholic diocese ([1]). There are problems with that: First (the non-copyright restrictions), per article 107 of the it:Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, the Italian ministry (of culture), the regions and "other public territorial bodies" can authorize reproductions of these monuments etc.: "1. Il Ministero, le regioni e gli altri enti pubblici territoriali possono consentire la riproduzione nonche' l'uso strumentale e precario dei beni culturali che abbiano in consegna [...]" which translates to "1. The Ministry, regions and other public territorial bodies may allow the reproduction as well as the appropriate and temporary use of cultural property that they have in their custody [..]" Per [2], "Gli enti pubblici territoriali sono quelli previsti dalla Costituzione, cioè gli enti territoriali che, in base all’art. 114 della Costituzione, costituiscono la Repubblica Italiana: i Comuni, le Province, le Città metropolitane, le Regioni." So the public territorial bodies are regions, provinces, metropolitan cities and municipalities. I don't see Catholic dioceses listed there, so I do have my doubts if this is even a valid authorization by the Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio.
Second (copyright), as cited above, "The Administrations of the State, the National Fascist Party, the Provinces and the Municipalities are entitled to the copyright on works created and published under their name and on their behalf and at their expense." AFAIK, the Catholic Church is not an Italian state administration nor a province or municipalitiy, and I really hope it isn't the Fascist Party. Or is it one of the other types of organizations mentioned ("private entities pursuing non-profit purposes", "academies", "other public cultural bodies")? If it is neither of these types, I don't see how it can own the copyrights to works it commissioned. Unless they were acquired by contract or similar, but again, since none of the authorizations explicitly say that the issuing institution is the copyright holder, how are we supposed to know that?
Even if the Catholic Church for some reason does own the copyrights, we'd have to come up with a different name for these works, I don't think we can and should call them "government works". The same is true for all the other bodies mentioned above.

I could probably write more, but there's enough material for discussion already, so I'll stop here, at least for now. --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that a key issue supposedly differentiating Italian government copyrights from, say, the US is that it does not refer to works for hire or employees but for everything "created and published under their name and on their behalf and at their expense." If this includes architects under all kinds of contractual relationships beyond employment or works for hire, it would explain why US monuments tend to have copyright of the architect while Italian ones would not. If true, this should absolutely be elaborated at COM:Italy. Felix QW (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also adding Italian user @Ferdi2005: to the ping list. --Rosenzweig τ 17:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is any of this about WLM and permissions documented? It's news to me, and I'm a 20-year veteran of Wikipedia, have been on Commons almost since it started, and an an admin both here and on en-wiki. If I haven't heard about it, and can't find it anywhere, it almost certainly should be more prominent. There is literally no mention of it in en:Wiki Loves Monuments; if, as User:Ruthven says, this is the major part of the work of WLM in countries with limited FoP, certainly it deserves mention there.
Also: recognizing that this thread is specific to Italy, which has (as far as I know) unique laws about photographing cultural heritage monuments, is there actually outreach to individual copyright-holders in countries such as France or Romania with no FoP for buildings? Or do we just never do WLM in countries with that sort of law? (Again, this presumably should be documented somewhere, and probably should make it into the Wikipedia articles on WLM in various languages). - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People from WMI involved in the matter can answer more thouroughly for sure, but here for example there is a wide documentation on the matter. Friniate (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright seems to be just a side note in that document: “For objects created in the last 150 years, an additional obstacle is copyright, given the lack of freedom of panorama.” They almost exclusively focus on the non-copyright restrictions. Which is understandable because they are surely a big obstacle in Italy, but they're not what interests us here at Wikimedia Commons the most. --Rosenzweig τ 19:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've read through this thread. To me, the most important thing is, when all the questions about copyright and permission are agreed on, it is really essential for a clearly visible template to be added to the images in question that explains to anyone reading why they should not be nominated for deletion. What I care about most is clarity. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've read through this thread, I'm not an involved party, thanks. Lemonaka (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Lemonaka noted. I thought you're included because of having inputs at the ANU thread in which the Italian FOP matter was substantially mentioned. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To me, if there are permissions from the municipalities that would hold copyrights, they need to be documented in a way that is easily found. Obviously, VRT permission documentation from the municipalities would also be ideal. I also think Rosenzweig brings up some valid points so the more explicit that we can get permissions, the better. Abzeronow (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Abzeronow I agree with you, that passing through VRT woul be ideal. But we lack of active Italian users with sufficient experience in copyright to validate all the WLM permissions (and Krd can confirm it). Or, at least, we can do that, but it can take a while (more than the duration of a WML edition). Actually, it was a solution once offered to WMI but they preferred to go their own way.
    On the other side, it is true that WLM organizers arranged to have all the permissions online for verification. The interface is super heavy and the search is made difficult by poor technological choices, but the permissions from the different institutions are there.
    From that a solution can be:
    • Check permissions when necessary (and maybe forward it to VRT in order to have it stored somewhere "official"), typically during a DR.
    • As Ikan Kekek proposed, it would be good to store verified permissions on Wikidata or in some metadata relative to the monument's category.
    PS: It would be interesting to read what is the workflow for countries in a similar situation; e.g. France @Sarah Krichen WMFr: . Best, Ruthven (msg) 12:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruthven: You did not actually reply to any of the questions related to copyright above (for details see there). Mainly:

  • Why do these authorizations not explicitly say that the cities etc. issuing them are the holders of copyright for the buildings and monuments they are listing in the document? Because from what I have seen, they do not. They're just "authorizing" to photograph them and release the photographs under a free license.
  • Can buildings and monuments in Italy really (under certain circumstances) be "government works" with the commissioning cities etc. holding their copyright (which is limited to 20 years)? Is there any case law, legal literature etc. supporting this? Or is it just a claim, an untested theory?
  • If this government work theory is actually correct, how can the Catholic Church be a copyright holder then? Because it does not seem that it is mentioned in the relevant sections of the law. And how can it actually issue these "authorizations" for the non-copyright restrictions, because it is apparently not mentioned in those laws either?

You wrote somewhere else that we "must trust the organizers" or similar. But given all these unanswered questions, the lack of transparency and sparse documentation, I don't see how we CAN trust them. This whole matter differs so much from the situation in other countries that we need much more than a request to "trust the organizers". --Rosenzweig τ 13:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosenzweig To answer to your points above, the whole process is less than transparent to the users and admins of Wikimedia Commons, because the permissions are online, and they are the reproduction of the email exchanges. More transparent than VRTS btw, where regular users have no access to private data. On the documentation (and on the accessibility of the permissions), I agree that an effort has to be made, but it's up to the organizers, not to Commons' admins or users.
  • For the city councils, it is generally banal to deduce that they own the monument. Nobody can build on an area that they don't own. What is less clear is if the permission holds for photographs shot during/for WLM only. It depends on the phrasing, I would say. It's a shame that the phrasing hasn't been decided with VRT agents or with some experienced users that can have helped in having a standard, acceptable, e-mail template, but usually it's OK.
  • Architectural works can be (like other kind of publications) own by the government. This is said in the very first article of Italian Copyright law. Art. 1. Sono protette ai sensi di questa legge le opere dell'ingegno di carattere creativo che appartengono alla letteratura, alla musica, alle arti figurative, all'architettura, al teatro ed alla cinematografia, qualunque ne sia il modo o la forma di espressione. Thus, the kind of work described in art 1 are owned by the government if made for the government (Art. 11. Alle amministrazioni dello Stato, alle Province ed ai Comuni, spetta il diritto di autore sulle opere create e pubblicate sotto il loro nome ed a loro conto e spese). Finally, these works belonging to the government (State, provinces, city councils, and no-profit organizations) are copyrighted for 20 years (Art. 29).
  • The Catholic church can have (architectural) works made for hire, I don't see anything strange in it. In these cases the Church is the copyright holders (Legge del 22/05/2017 n. 81, art. 4). So, there is nothing strange, in those cases, that in the Church giving permissions for derivative works of their properties (e.g. photographs of recently built churches).
I know that reading in a different language a whole text of a law can be difficult. But I hope that these clarifications can help. In any case, the main law articles are linked, I believe, in the different templates used on Commons. Ruthven (msg) 19:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruthven: In your reply, you actually managed to answer not a single one of the questions. Why do the authorizations not explicitly say that the issuing city etc. owns the copyright? Can buildings and monuments be "government works" in the sense of article 11? The question here is not if the buildings / monuments are among the kinds of works that are protected by copyright (article 1), I don't think anybody here doubted that. The question is also not if the cities own the buildings / monuments themselves. The question IS do they own the copyright, is there case law / legal literature supporting this, or is it just an untested legal theory? In most (perhaps all) other countries we have, it is not the case that buildings or monuments can be "government works" or "offical works"; instead the architect or artist owns the copyright. If that is really different in Italy, the difference would be so fundamental that we need more than just claims. And regarding the Catholic Church, you linked a paragraph that basically says that employees keep the rights to their creative works, except when they are part of an employment contract and paid for in that context. As I wrote above, it's still possible that the churches acquired copyrights by contract, but again I didn't see an authorization that explicitly says that they own those copyrights. So no, your "clarifications" did not help. --Rosenzweig τ 19:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I may, I think that your questions can be answered only by a lawyer specialized on the matter and by the people from WMI who actually worked on the initiative. So, I think that you (you as Rosenzweig but it could be also you as commons community) could email WMI and ask them for clarifications. Friniate (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Pinging User:Dario Crespi (WMIT) and User:Marta Arosio (WMIT). Perhaps they can actually answer the questions (and not just point to the "authorizations" as if they explained everything, which they don't). --Rosenzweig τ 14:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Rosenzweig: and everybody, it is exactly as Ruthven says: in Italy the copyright of works realized for the government and other public administrations is owned by the public administration itself, and not by the author. It is article number 11 of the law n. 633 date 22/04/1941 Protezione del diritto d'autore e di altri diritti connessi al suo esercizio published on Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 166 date 16 luglio 1941. Cite: "Alle Amministrazioni dello Stato, (...) , alle Provincie ed ai Comuni, spetta il diritto di autore sulle opere create e pubblicate sotto il loro nome ed a loro conto e spese." Trad: "To the State Administrations,(...), the Provinces and Municipalities have the copyright on the works created and published under their name and at their account and expense." --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marta Arosio (WMIT): Yes, I think we all understood that there is this claim. But there are doubts, see the details above. Therefore, the question is: Is there any case law (court decisions) or legal literature (law commentaries etc.) supporting this claim when buildings / monuments are concernd? Or is it just a claim? And, second question: If that is actually the case as you say, why do these "authorizations" WMIT uses for the WLM contest not explicitly say that the city etc. issuing the authorizations is the holder of copyright? All they say is that they allow to take photographs and release them under a free license, mentioning the no-copyright restrictions of the Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio. --Rosenzweig τ 10:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig Maybe you missed what I wrote. The very first article of Italian Copyright law, Art. 1, states that architecture works are concerned by the copyright law (if they weren't, this discussion wouldn't exist because there would be PD). So, what is your doubt? That a monument in a city is not an architectural work or that you can build in the main square a monument and claiming that it doesn't belong to the City Council? Ruthven (msg) 13:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I did not miss what you wrote, and I replied to your last contribution here in detail. I already explicitly wrote what the doubts are. Several times in fact. This is NOT about article 1 or the general eligibility of architectural works and works of art for copyright protection (I already wrote that, too). The doubt is: Are buildings, monuments, statues and so on really covered by article 11 of the Italian copyright law, can they be "government works" / official works? Is there some evidence to support this claim? Case law, court decisions, legal commentaries / literature? Because that would be highly unusual compared to other countries, where that is not the case. Because of this unusualness, we really should have more than just claims by you or Marta Arosio or other users that "yes, it is the case". We should have evidence, as explained. That question is just one of three by the way, none of them really answered so far. --Rosenzweig τ 16:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Yes, Italian copyright law is (in several ways) an outlier, but since the statute law is clear and explicit, I would think the burden to bring this into question would be on the other side: is there any Italian case law that brings this into question? - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Is it really "clear and explicit" though? I don't think so. As I wrote above, the wording "pubblicate" (published) makes me doubt, because it does not seem to really refer to buildings and monuments. So it's not case law questioning this interpretation, but the law itself. And here's where some evidence, legal commentaries etc. on how this is actually handled, how the Italian legalese is applied in the "real world", would be helpful. But so far, nothing was presented or mentioned, even though one would think that Wikimedia Italia should have something like this for a contest they have organised for 10+ years. So far, there were just claims, nothing to really support them. And let's not forget this is just one of several questions. --Rosenzweig τ 18:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: So you are taking create e pubblicate to mean that the individual work must be created and published in the name of the governmental unit, rather than parsing as opere create + opere pubblicate? It seems to me like what you are contending is a bit like saying "fire and theft" insurance pertains only to what is stolen while the building is burning. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: It does say create e pubblicate (created and published), not create o pubblicate (created or published) sotto il loro nome (under their name). Again: Some case law, legal commentary, real-life practical examples would be helpful here. --Rosenzweig τ 20:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Ok, it seems that I can indeed answer to one of the questions posed by @Rosenzweig: : I'm being told that the authorizations of the last editions had already been changed in order to make mayors, etc clearly declare that they have the right of economic exploitation of the monuments, see example. I think that the fact that mayors continue to sign these waivers even with this declaration (in the authorization that I've linked there are also monuments built by architects who died less than 70 years ago) confirms the fact that the municipalities (or the other owners of the monuments) are indeed the holders of the copyright per article 11 of the copyright law (if the mayors declare the false they risk to face a trial).--Friniate (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Friniate: Thank you, that is pleasant news. As I read it, that text says that they authorize freely licensed photos of the listed assets (accd. to the codice, that is, the non-copyright restrictions), and they also explicitly say that if any of these buildings etc. are still copyrighted (“ancora sotto protezione del diritto d’autore”), they own the copyright or more precisely the rights of economic exploitation (“dei quali deteniamo i diritti di sfruttamento economico”), which is the terminus technicus here. For everything actually covered by this new type of authorizations, we have that explicit public declaration to fall back on. It is also some affirmative (if a bit circumstantial) evidence for the second question (can some buildings and monuments actually be "government works" in Italy?) And it more or less answers the first question: not mentioning the cities’ copyright ownership was apparently an oversight, because why else would you add it now? Well, better late than never. For the older type of authorizations, things are not so sure, but unless something contradictory turns up, we might be inclined to assume that the cities etc. at least meant to give a permission for that aspect as well, even if we don't have it in writing.
The one question that was not answered so far is how the Catholic dioceses fit in, given the fact that the church is apparently not mentioned in either the copyright law or the codice. Is there a way to find a 2023 authorization from a diocese? --Rosenzweig τ 17:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question of if the authorizations can be applied retroactively and or otherwise outside of photographs taken as part of Wiki Loves Monuments hasn't been answered either. Unless we all agree they can't be, but I'd like it to be a little clearly stated both here and on their project page then just Friniate's comment about it earlier in the discussion. As well as that including when exactly the permission are or aren't retroactive and/or usable outside of Wiki Loves Monuments so there isn't any ambiguity about it in the future. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: here you can find the autorization from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sant'Angelo dei Lombardi–Conza–Nusco–Bisaccia (August 2023). --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 10:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 as both Rosenzweig and I said before, it depends on the wording of the authorization. Sometimes it is restricted to WLM photos only, in most cases is not. But you have to read it, there is no other chance to determine it. Maybe we could include a template in the relevant categories for the monuments for which we have general authorizations in order to make it clear that all the photos are ok. If the authorization is not restricted to WLM, I don't see why it shouldn't be applied also retroactively: it is standard procedure to undelete photos that, even if uploaded in copyviol, do not infringe anyone's copyrights rights anymore: we undelete photos as long as the 70 years threshold is not relevant anymore, why should we behave differently in this case? Friniate (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe we could include a template in the relevant categories That's what I was thinking, or in the file descriptions along with Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer since including it is a requirement of the agreements, but whatever. I don't really care either way as long there's a easily findable statement about it somewhere for each monument. Although images that qualify should contain Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer or at least IMO the agreements aren't valid in those instances. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer is for public domain works under protection aa cultural heritage objects. For copyrighted works, I propose templates like the two I suggested below. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem with creating a couple of new templates specific to the situation, but Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC#The agreement says "As part of the agreement, we however have to add a disclaimer to the pictures: Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer." So it sounds like the template has to be added to individual images regardless or the agreements aren't valid. I guess we could have two or three distinct licenses based on the situation though. But I'd still like adding Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer to individual images to be a part of that. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Google Translation of the entire letter (in verbatim), provided by Yiyi, is:

The undersigned Francesco DI SIBIO as Head of the Social Communications Office of the Archdiocese of Sant'Angelo del Lombardi-Conza-Nusco-Bisaccia in the absence of financial charges to be borne by the budget,
1) I declare the adhesion of the organization I represent to the Wiki Loves Monuments Italia project, the photographic competition that involves citizens and invites them to document the cultural heritage with photographic works released under the free Creative Commons license "Attribution Share all the same way (hereinafter CC-BY-SA 4.0, the full text of the license is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.it);
2) I authorize, pursuant to the articles. 107-108 of Legislative Decree 22 January 2004, n. 42 (cultural heritage and landscape code), the publication, reproduction and communication to the public, including the making available to the public, without any request for a fee, for any purpose, of reproductions of cultural heritage, in the public domain, in our custody, i.e. the churches present in the diocesan territory and falling within the following municipalities
• Andretta
• Aquilonia
• Bagnoli Irpino...
...• Torella dei Lombardi
• Villamaina
• Volturara Irpina
3) I also authorize, for the purposes of participation in the WLM competition, as indicated in numbers 1) and 2), photographic reproduction, publication, communication to the public and making public disposal of cultural assets, in our custody, still under copyright protection, of which we hold the economic exploitation rights, which appear in the same list
4) I also authorize the publication of this list on Wikipedia and related sites with CCO license and the inclusion of the name of the organization I represent among the institutions that join Wiki Loves Monuments Italy. The full text of the license is available at http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.it
5) I authorize the publication of this letter under the CCO license
Sant'Angelo dei Lombard, 08/08/2023
Francesco Di Sibio

The second point is clear that it is for all protected public domain works (citing cultural heritage law). The third point is about copyrighted works of "cultural assets" under their custody. This is dubious, considering that copyrighted objects are typically not eligible for cultural heritage asset designation per COM:FOP Italy#Additional restrictions for cultural heritage assets. How can the diocese prove that they are authorized to release such license that should typically come from artists?
And by the way, if Commons community will accept these works under licenses given by the cities (comuni) and the dioceses (with no licensing from architects and artists), then allow these images here but give all images a template like {{Italy-comune-authorization}} (for images of copyrighted buildings and monuments with clearances from Italian cities) or {{Italy-diocesan-authorization}} (for images of copyrighted buildings and monuments with clearances from the dioceses). In that way, no more deletions will be made but such images are not guaranteed for permanent stay on Commons: if ever artists in Italy strike against the cities, dioceses, or Wikimedia Italy (like through DMCA or through Italian or U.S. courts), then images with these two templates can be nominated for deletion. Let's say these function both as licensing and disclaimer templates. It is the risk of the Italian cities and dioceses as well as Wikimedia Italy to permit the use of commercial licenses over such works. Italy will still remain as no-FoP country, but these images with authorizations can be kept here, but with no assurance of permanent hosting.
_ comment and translation conducted (using Google Translate app) byJWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the problems with this whole thing is that what qualifies as a "cultural heritage monument" or "cultural asset" doesn't seem to be based on official recognition, just someone saying the monument qualifies as one at the time, which seems to be essentially anything even slightly artistic. Really it should be confined to actual monuments and ones that have been recognized by the government of Italy though. Otherwise I think we are just muddying the waters and at the cost of past consensus in COM:FOP Italy that cultural heritage asset designation is rare. That also goes for things owned by the diocese. There's nothing in the wording of the law, guidelines, or anything else that I've seen stating they anyone other then a government body can designate something as a "cultural heritage monument" or own the copyright to it. If we allow the agreement between Wiki Loves Monuments and the diocese to be valid then they could essentially get an agreement from anyone to take photographs of whatever they want. Which clearly goes against the guidelines and spirit of the law. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 the thing about the cultural heritage monuments is only about the non-copyright restriction, it has nothing to do with the copyright of the artists/architects. Friniate (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345 Again, why should it be necessary for these objects to qualify as cultural heritage in order to stay on commons? Friniate (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Friniate well the diocese says so. "Cultural assets" is analogous to cultural heritage because both are about cultural works of Italy. Read the authorization letter from the diocese as provided here by Yiyi (I translated the whole letter and copy-pasted the translation here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've already stated the agreement specifically says "As part of the agreement, we however have to add a disclaimer to the pictures: Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer." Whereas the disclaimer says "This image reproduces a property belonging to the Italian cultural heritage as entrusted to the Italian government." So it can be a non-copyright restriction or whatever, but it's still requirement of the agreements that the disclaimer is added to images that are covered by them. Also, the reason it's necessarily for the objects to qualify as "cultural heritage" is because that's laterally what the agreements are for, the right to take pictures of "cultural heritage assets." You can't act like cultural heritage has nothing to do with this when both the article and disclaimer use the phrase multiple times. As well as the authorization letter from the diocese. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345 the diocese says so in point 2. That point is only about the non copyright restriction, that is due for every kind of object qualifies as a cultural heritage monument. The agreement with the ministry is only about that too, and requires the waivers from the owners. But that has nothing to do with the copyright restriction, for which the relevant part is point 3. They are two totally different things. Friniate (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 Again, that disclaimer is only about the non-copyright restriction! It has nothing to do with copyright issues, it must be applied even on photos of Colosseum or the Pisa Tower. Everything, because in theory the law requires a fee for the reproduction of every kind of monument, no matter how old. Friniate (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Friniate: Again, I'm aware that it's non-copyright restriction. I never said it wasn't. That doesn't negate the fact that it needs to be included on individual files for the agreements to be valid. To cite the article for the third time "As part of the agreement, we however have to add a disclaimer to the pictures." What part of that are you having such a hard time understanding? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if you are aware of that, why do you bring the issue here, where we are dealing with a copyright issue? If you find images that don't have the template, just add it, what's the problem? Friniate (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, lists of cultural heritage monuments can be found here. But again, here we're OT, we should probably discuss in a separate thread if we should add the {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} on every photo of a monument included in those lists. Friniate (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Several things that have been brought up don't directly related to copyright. Really, the agreements don't either. Otherwise be my guest and point out where they are based on copyright. In fact Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC doesn't say anything about it except to say it's not really relevant. So nothing about this has anything to do with copyright to begin with. Regardless, sure I could just add the template to images I find that don't have it, but it's not really clear when the agreements (and by implication the template) apply to particular files or not. And that's why I brought it up because I'd like it to be clarified and something that is explicitly stated somewhere besides "just add it to files its missing from yourself." That doesn't really solve the problem or help us figure out when the agreements are valid or not, which is kind of the whole point in this conversation. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OMG, again?! At this point I don't know what to say, I can only quote the words of Rosenzweig above in this same discussion: " As I read it, that text says that they authorize freely licensed photos of the listed assets (accd. to the codice, that is, the non-copyright restrictions), and they also explicitly say that if any of these buildings etc. are still copyrighted (“ancora sotto protezione del diritto d’autore”), they own the copyright or more precisely the rights of economic exploitation (“dei quali deteniamo i diritti di sfruttamento economico”), which is the terminus technicus here. For everything actually covered by this new type of authorizations, we have that explicit public declaration to fall back on. It is also some affirmative (if a bit circumstantial) evidence for the second question (can some buildings and monuments actually be "government works" in Italy?) And it more or less answers the first question: not mentioning the cities’ copyright ownership was apparently an oversight, because why else would you add it now? Well, better late than never. For the older type of authorizations, things are not so sure, but unless something contradictory turns up, we might be inclined to assume that the cities etc. at least meant to give a permission for that aspect as well, even if we don't have it in writing."
So yes, the authorizations have to do with copyright issues too. The other things that you brought up (Mibac agreement, disclaimer), do not. I'm happy to discuss the issue of the non copyright restriction, but in a separate thread, not here. Friniate (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree with what Rosenzweig said. You'd have to agree there's a big difference between us maybe, sorta kinda, perhaps being include to assume they might have meant copyright versus them actually meaning it. Plus weren't you one of the people who saying in DRs that the people who wrote the agreements were "expert lawyers" who know what they are doing or whatever? It's a little rich to on the one hand treat this like the agreements and people who wrote them are above criticism or being question but then on the other act like they probably meant copyright when that's clearly not what the agreements are talking about. You can't have it both ways where the agreements can't be questioned but somehow it's perfectly fine to read things into it that aren't explicitly stated in the documents or accompanying article. That said, I'm fine with deferring to Rosenzweig opinion for about it for now. Although I do think there needs to better documentation about in the future behind just speculation in a Village Pump discussion that "expert lawyers" might have, maybe, kind of sorta, perhaps meant something. The same goes for the disclaimers and if they are required or not. Although I'm fine dropping it for now so you can continue bickering with JWilz12345 over the minutia about "cultural assets" like it matters or isn't just one of several issues that have been brought up and need to be resolved before this is over. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The authorizations are just confirming what is already written in the law. It's an additional proof, that's all. Anyway, I really can't undesrstand what do you want from me? Do you think that we should add the Mibac disclaimer everywhere? Fine, you are right, do it. What has that to do with DRs about copyright? Nothing at all. Friniate (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really can't undesrstand what do you want from me I've already said what I generally want several times now. Although what do from you specifically? Nothing. Your the one who replied to me original to go off about the Mibac disclaimer when I was responding to JWilz12345. So you really be asking yourself that question instead of acting like I'm the one who initiated or continued this back and forth when you could have just not engaged with me after I replied to JWilz12345. There was really no reason to and certainly nothing new has come out of it since my original comment that were responding to. It seems you have a real issue with not just letting me comment on this without needlessly trying to turn it into a side debate that doesn't go anywhere though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only answered to this comment: "One of the problems with this whole thing is that what qualifies as a "cultural heritage monument" or "cultural asset" doesn't seem to be based on official recognition, just someone saying the monument qualifies as one at the time, which seems to be essentially anything even slightly artistic. Really it should be confined to actual monuments and ones that have been recognized by the government of Italy though. Otherwise I think we are just muddying the waters and at the cost of past consensus in COM:FOP Italy that cultural heritage asset designation is rare. That also goes for things owned by the diocese. There's nothing in the wording of the law, guidelines, or anything else that I've seen stating they anyone other then a government body can designate something as a "cultural heritage monument" or own the copyright to it. If we allow the agreement between Wiki Loves Monuments and the diocese to be valid then they could essentially get an agreement from anyone to take photographs of whatever they want. Which clearly goes against the guidelines and spirit of the law." Letting aside the fact that there is an official list of the cultural heritage monuments, here you were mixing the issue about copyright with the non-copyright restriction. If now you agree that they are separate things then fine, I think that we've found a common consensus. Friniate (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were mixing the issue about copyright with the non-copyright restriction OK, Friniate. I think I've been pretty clear that I don't think the Mibac disclaimer has anything to do with copyright. I really have nothing else to say about it if your just going to continue miss-construing my position when I told you like six times I agree that the Mibac template is a non-copyright restriction and that what type of restriction it is has nothing to do with what I was saying. Man, you really seem to have an issue with intentionally trying to antagonize me by making irrelevant comments considering your the one who was originally accusing me of trolling. Why not accept that I never said the Mibac disclaimer was a copyright restriction and move on? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Friniate how about the "cultural assets" at point 3? Diocese considers copyrighted objects under their custody as "cultural assets". Or is cultural assets different from cultural heritage objects? The two are synonymous with each other. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that that is simply a way to call them, but it's not related to the law. There is no part of the italian law which says that the cultural heritage monuments are LESS protected. On the contrary, there are MORE restrictions on them. In order to overcome these restrictions, WMI has made that agreement with the Mibac in 2012 and requires the waivers from the owners of the monuments. But that doesn't mean that only cultural heritage monuments can be copyrighted, or that they have to qualify as such in order to make the owners the holders of the copyright, there is no such thing in the law! Friniate (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Friniate so in your interpretation of the third point ("I also authorize, for the purposes of participation in the WLM competition, as indicated in numbers 1) and 2), photographic reproduction, publication, communication to the public and making public disposal of cultural assets, in our custody, still under copyright protection, of which we hold the economic exploitation rights, which appear in the same list."), the objects referred to are cultural heritage objects that are already in public domain? Then how about the "still under copyright protection" part of the third point? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am aware of the restrictions on use of public domaim works in Italy due to cultural heritage laws, but the laws are not important for Commons because those are not related to copyright (COM:Non-copyright restrictions), and therefore the works are still acceptable for hosting om Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's clear that that point is referred only to the monuments which are part of the list and are under copyright. What I'm saying is that you can not infere from the mere usage of the words "beni culturali" in that sentence that the authorization covers only the monuments classified as cultural heritage monuments by the ministry, in that context is a generic expression that can be referred to any kind of cultural object. Therefore, that waiver, as long as the others, is valid for any monument listed by it, regardless of the categorization made by the ministry, which is only about the non-copyright restriction and does not affect the rights of the authors of the monuments or of the owners (and if it was so, we would have a law that would say something as "the municipalities hold the copyright only for the monuments listed as cultural heritage by the ministry, not the others". But such a law simply doesn't exist. Friniate (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JWilz12345: Here I would not discuss about "cultural assets", because they are relevant for the "Codice Urbani" and its evolution, thus to non copyright restriction that we happily ignore on Commons. WMI insisted to respect this non copyright restriction, I was said, in order not to have issues when they make the annual exhibition of the winner photos. Anyways, what is relevant for our discussion here, I think, are the "buildings with important artistic character" (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, art. 11 co. 1.e[3]) that include modern buildings as well. I write this because modern architecture is copyrighted, while old one isn't. This is why we're discussing about the need of permissions to publish DWs of modern architecture. And actually the definition of a "building with important artistic character" is given by The Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Tourism (Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo). The Ministry, through its Directorate-General for Contemporary Art and Architecture and Urban Peripheries (DGAAP) (Direzione Generale Arte e Architettura contemporanee e Periferie urbane – http://www.aap.beniculturali.it), evaluates the requests for protection and attributes the "important artistic character" to the recognized modern architectures. These buildings are then officially mentioned in a published list of individual decrees. --Ruthven (msg) 18:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment @Rosenzweig and JWilz12345: I've found some legal commentaries that seem to confirm the interpretation that includes monuments in the "works" mentioned by article 11: here it talks about exhibitions saying that they are also included in the article, whereas here it says that databanks are included since they are among the things listed by articles 1 and 2 of the copyright law. In the list of article 2 (that lists the things which can be copyrighted) there are of course monuments too. So it's clear that that "published" is not taken too literally by legal experts.--Friniate (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Friniate@Ruthven my question is simple. Are the "cultural assets" mentioned by the diocese in their correspondence to Wikimedia Italy different from "cultural heritage monuments" and are contemporary works (so that they are copyrighted)? From the translation of the correspondence above: "I also authorize, for the purposes of participation in the WLM competition, as indicated in numbers 1) and 2), photographic reproduction, publication, communication to the public and making public disposal of cultural assets, in our custody, still under copyright protection, of which we hold the economic exploitation rights, which appear in the same list." The non-copyright restriction is clear to me, no need to repeat mentions to COM:NCR. What I need clarification is that particular passage in the email, that seems to imply copyrighted cultural assets held by Catholic churches in Italy, and that those cultural assets are different from cultural heritage objects of Italy which are clearly in PD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not all the cultural assets held by the Catholich Church in Italy though, only the ones held by that diocese and listed in that document. But yes, I do not see why that provision about the copyrighted monuments should be limited to the buldings included in the cultural heritage classification of the ministry, I think it's just an expression to identify them. Friniate (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another interesting article here about the interpretation of the concept of "publication". I quote: "L’opinione prevalente della dottrina italiana ritiene che la pubblicazione, rilevante ai fini interpretativi della l.d.a., sia quella attraverso la quale si rende disponibile a un pubblico indeterminato, per la prima volta, l’opera mediante uno qualsiasi dei modi di utilizzazione." Translated: "The prevalent opinion among italian legal experts is that the concept of "publication" in the copyright law, is the one with which [something] is made available for the public for the first time through any possible way of usage." "Rende disponibile" ("make available") and "uno dei qualsiasi modi di utilizzazione" (any possible way of usage): that seems to confirm what I said before, buildings are also included in such a vague wording.--Friniate (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, at least you finally found some evidence to back it up with instead acting like there wasn't a need for any or that I was just trolling for asking. Not at this point, but eventually all the documents and what-not releated to this should be summarized and linked to on in the Italian copyright guideline. Although I don't think the conversation is there quit yet, but at least its slowly moving forward some because I was kind of worried for a minute there that it had petered out. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's actually the third piece of evidence that I bring, but whatever (and I've always acknowledged that doubts on this point of the law were legitimate). Friniate (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to me you didn't. Instead you repeatedly threw it in my face that I was asking for evidence even after I told you multiple times that I was fine deferring to Rosenzweig's opinion on the subject and dropped it when you failed to provide any. At least it can be documented properly now though. That's the important thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Friniate: Sorry I didn't reply for a while, I had other matters to attend to. I'll take a look at the examples you mentioned. From what you wrote they seem to be more circumstantial evidence, but a lot of circumstantial evidence is better than no evidence at all. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What we can do[edit]

There were no new replies here for a few days, so it seems people wrote what they thought they had to write. Disappointingly there was hardly any input from Wikimedia Italia, I'd have expected more from them considering that this is about a topic central to one of their bigger projects, namely Wikimedia Loves Monuments in Italy.

Even though the current state of affairs is quite unsatisfactory, files which are nominated for deletion will probably be kept because of the claims that everything is all right, that there are these provisions in Italian law etc.

What really needs to happen is Wikimedia Italia getting their stuff together and making all the "authorizations" / permissions they have gathered more easily accessible, searchable and categorized than they are now. That is up to them, and unfortunately I've seen little in that direction so far.

What we here at Wikimedia Commons can do:

  • add notes to the relevant sections of COM:Italy (like the fop and government works sections)
  • add notes to the categories of affected buildings and monuments pointing to the collected authorizations (web links), the content of those authorizations (just for WLM or for everybody, from which years etc.), point out relevant parts of Italian law etc.
  • design templates for the purpose of those category notes.

Considering how many buildings and monuments are involved, that would be a massive effort. It can't just be done by one or two users, and it will take time, probably years.

Are there any concrete proposals for the notes at COM:Italy, for the notes at affected categories, for templates etc.? --Rosenzweig τ 13:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosenzweig with respect to images of authorized public art and architecture, I already gave a possible suggestion above, which is to tag all images of all copyrighted authorized structures with two templates, one concerning city / comuni authorization (for structures with city authorizations) and one concerning diocesan authorizations (for structures with diocesan authorizations). Probable template names are {{Italy-comune-authorization}} for the former case and {{Italy-diocesan-authorization}} for the latter case (anyone can come up with better names for the templates). Naturally we would categorize tagged images, perhaps automatically through the template itself, just like many FoP and PD templates.
Through this, all images of copyrighted structures with such authrorizations are categorized under either of the two categories generated by the aforementioned two templates. This is useful in case the artists suddenly change mind and no longer honor authorizations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It also needs to be determined if and under what circumstances the authorizations extend to photographs taken outside of the WLMI events. The wording in at least some of the authorizations seem to indicate they don't extend to photographs taken outside of the events, while some others do. There should really be a template for both instances that can be added to the categories for the monuments. As well as well ones that clearly state the monument was created on behalf and at the cost of the government of Italy. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was the input by @Marta Arosio (WMIT) of Wikimedia Italy who clarified that it was like another Italian admin said. To me this seems a strong vote. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This thing may take a while yet, and it has gone on long enough here at COM:VPC. I suggest moving or continuing the discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Italy. Anybody disagree? --Rosenzweig τ 19:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig it's up to you, since from the looks of the discussion there is no finality on the matter. I myself partially agree to hosting of images of unfree Italian buildings and sculptures or artworks that have purported authorizations from city (comuni) governments or from dioceses. Partial, because I don't find such authorizations long-term. Like I suggested, images of such unfree artworks with authorizations from city governments should be tagged with {{Italy-comune-authorization}} and categorized accordingly. The same is true for diocesan authorizations, using {{Italy-diocesan-authorization}}, accompanied by appropriately-named category. In that way, all images are categorized under two categories. This is a compromise solution (albeit temporary) between Wikimedia Commons community and the Italian Wikipedians/Wikimedians. This is not long-term, as the architects or artists may still oppose one day soon. If ever an artist or his/her heirs, or a society of Italian sculptors/muralists/graffiti artists openly disagree to the continued authorizations and make impressive moves (like sending DMCA takedowns to Wikimedia Foundation, or filing complaints against the Italian cities or Wikimedia Italia in Italian or U.S. courts), we can make massive nominations of thousands of images with such authorizations, through batch deletion requests originating from two categories. This is an optimal option in the short-term, as long as there is no FoP in Italy and the obsolete tradition of owners having superiority on intellectual property instead of artists persists (the Italian law is from 1940s anyway and has been very obsolete with few substantial amendments). The two suggested templates should contain disclaimer that those images were made free only through Italian city/diocesan authorizations, and that the artists may have the ability to oppose those authorizations sometime in the future. A layout like {{FoP-Sweden}} may be fine. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll move it over there in the hopefully not too distant future. --Rosenzweig τ 20:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further disagreement over several points about Italian copyright law
Although extremally spurious, a case could be made that the government owns the copyright of buildings created on the governments behalf and that it therefore expires after 20 years. What is less clear is if the same extends to Catholic Diocese as a "public cultural body" and if the copyright lapses back to the architect after 2 years per the guidelines and law. @Friniate: seems to think it doesn't because buildings aren't "essays." But then if we assume that to be the case then the copyright wouldn't go to the Catholic Diocese to begin with. So either they don't own the copyright at all or it expires after 2 years, which in both cases would mean the authorizations aren't valid.
It also needs to be determined if and under what circumstances the authorizations extend to photographs taken outside of the WLMI events. The wording in at least some of the authorizations seem to indicate they don't extend to photographs taken outside of the events, while some others do. There should really be a template for both instances that can be added to the categories for the monuments. As well as well ones that clearly state the monument was created on behalf and at the cost of the government of Italy. At least IMO there is no case to be made that the authorizations are valid for the Catholic Diocese though, because either the term would have lapsed back to the original architect after 2 years or the law just doesn't apply to them to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the first issue, it depends from the contract that the single diocese had with the artist. If the diocese says that it has the copyright there is no reason why we shouldn't believe them. Friniate (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing about the two years of course is something that has nothing to do with buildings to begin with, but only with essays and written communications made by academies or public cultural institutions (something that of course a diocese is not). It is sufficient to read the law, which is very clear on the issue. Friniate (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah well, you seem to be fine taking an extremally broad interpretation of the law when it comes to what constitutes an "author" or "published" work. Even though there's zero indication that either one are "buildings" or "architects." But then when it comes to this we should take a more narrow, restrictive interpretation of the law for some reason. You can't have it both ways where the law has an extremely broad meaning in one case but a very narrow and literal one in the other. Either articles 11 and 29 covers buildings or they don't. You can't just pick and choose based on which reading of them results in the outcome you want at the time.
As to the other thing, I see no reason to take the diocese or really the government of Italy at face value when both have clearly written the agreements in such an ambiguous way and clearly made mistakes in the process. For instance the government of Italy has written agreements to take photographs of buildings that if the law is correct as to the term expiring after 20 years should be PD anyway because they were built in the 70s. The same goes for the dioceses. If the government can't even determine when or if something built on their behalf enters the public domain and are making spurious agreements with WLMI so they can photograph buildings that aren't even copyrighted to begin with, then there's no reason the diocese would know how the whole thing works either. So we clearly have to use our own judgement and the law clearly seems to indicate that the copyright lapses back to the architect after 2 years. Unless your going to argue that the term on buildings created for the government doesn't lapse after 20 years, but I doubt you'll do that. So the only option is that this whole thing is to convoluted for either them or the diocese to know what they doing and be fully trustable. I don't neccesarily care about the government in that case, but the diocese is just a random organization that has no legal authority what-so-ever. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Claiming that the Catholic Church is a "public entity" is not an extensive interpretation, is nonsense. It can't be read that way, there is no possible ambiguity. It's like saying, I don't know, that Charles III is the king of the United States. It simply isn't, it's not up to discussion. Friniate (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty sure I didn't use the word "public entity" in the comment your responding to in reference to the Catholic Church or anything else. So I'm not really sure what your talking about. If your going to respond to my comments then please at least do it based on what I'm actually saying instead of putting words in my mouth. Otherwise just don't comment next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm talking about the law of course, which clearly refers the provision that you are citing only to the communications and essays published by academies or public cultural entities. So you have to claim that the Catholic Church is a public cultural entity in Italy and that a bulding is a communication or an essay. I sincerely don't know which one makes less sense. Friniate (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What it refers to is "the State, the provinces, the communes, the academies or public cultural organizations, or to private legal entities of a non-profit making character." I was thinking the Catholic Church is a "private legal entities of a non-profit making." Although admittedly I did say "public cultural body" but it was a mistype because I was writing the message while running to the grocery store and didn't think it mattered that much since churchs are still probably covered by the law as ""private legal entities of a non-profit making." But I think you could argue depending on the specific organization within the church that they could be "public cultural bodies" as well, but the whole thing is rather pedantic and doesn't matter anyway. Since again, they are still covered by the law as "private legal entities of a non-profit making" regardless. Otherwise there'd be no reason they would own the copyrights to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The catholic church is not a non-profit organization. And if it was, then it would retain for 20 years the copyright on the works made on his behalf, as the public institutions, and after that they would fall in PD. So you are actually the one who is claiming a superextensive interpretation much more inclusionist than mine and that if applied would directly lead to keeping all the images that you requested for deletion in the last weeks. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Friniate (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know churches are non-profit organizations. Otherwise they would for-profit businesses, which they clearly aren't. So again I'm not really sure what your talking about how it's relevant to the conversation. Your clearly hell bent on debating uber pedantic strawman for some reason though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could even be right about that, but in that case, the copyright would last 20 years and then they would fall in PD, as for the public administrations. So well, thank you for pointing this out, I think that I'll go around putting a lot of "keeps" in various DRs then. Friniate (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what, it reverts to the original architect after 2 years and then enters the public domain after 20? I don't see how that would make any sense or follow the law. The part about the copyright expiring after 20 years clearly only applies to government agencies. Whereas the 2 year thing applies to the other types of organizations in the article. There's zero evidence that they apply to the same kinds of organizations. Otherwise you'd have to concede that the government doesn't own the copyright to works made on their behalf that are more then 2 years old because it has lapsed back to the artist at that point. I'm sure you aren't going to do that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't revert to the author after 2 years, that is impossible, as I said before. A diocese is clearly not a "public cultural entity" and a building is not an essay. I'm not fully convinced though that a diocese falls among the private non-profit entities though. Usually in the italian law it's specified if religious entities are included. I can see though that someone could argue that they are indeed included as you argue, and that therefore all these churches would fall in PD after 20 years. Friniate (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A building is not an essay. And I'll just repeat again that your perfectly willing to take a more broad interpertion in the law when it comes to "published documents" so it includes buildings created on behalf the of government. So your really just picking and choosing. I'm fine saying that buildings aren't covered by the law to begin with. But you can't have it both ways where they are but only when it suites you but not in other cases where it doesn't. Otherwise fine, buildings aren't essays and they aren't "works published by authors" either. I could really care less as long it's consistent and not based on your personal preferences and whatever you think will lead to the most images being kept at the time. There's no reason buildings wouldn't be covered by the law baring that though. Especially if your going to act like they are covered when it the government because "works published by authors" are. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never argued that a building is a "published document" of course. And clearly they are not essays either. Friniate (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And anyway Italy is not a theocratic state and therefore the catholic Church is not a public entity. Friniate (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your arguing whatever benefits your side of the discussion in the moment. That's it though. Anyways, the law isn't just confined to "essays" even though it mentions them as one example. It also just says "publication" multiple times. And again, if buildings are publications for purposes of the government then there's no reason they wouldn't be for non-profit organizations. You clearly just want to have it both ways though.
The Catholic Church is not a public entity. I agree, which is why I said their "private legal entities of a non-profit making." I really don't get the urge on your part to constantly repeat things that I'm not saying. It's seems like the only thing you can do here is to repeatedly derail the discussion by bludgeoning it with nonsense whenever I say anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except for the fact that the law mentions non profit private entities only when it mentions the 20 year threshold. About the two year threshold it is very clear: "Per le comunicazioni e le memorie pubblicate dalle Accademie e dagli altri enti pubblici culturali tale durata è ridotta a due anni; trascorsi i quali, l'autore riprende integralmente la libera disponibilità dei suoi scritti." So you should prove that the Catholic Chruch is a public entity in Italy.
By the way, the law says "published" it never says "publication". So much for your reliability. Friniate (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to stress that Adamant is continuing to remove my answers to his claims in clear violation of the Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#Communication_good_practice, which states: Do not edit or remove comments made by other people unless they are offensive, uncivil or otherwise violate the guidelines or policies of Commons. I repeat for the upteenth time what the law says, even if that seems to trouble deeply this other user: "Per le comunicazioni e le memorie pubblicate dalle Accademie e dagli altri enti pubblici culturali tale durata è ridotta a due anni; trascorsi i quali, l'autore riprende integralmente la libera disponibilità dei suoi scritti." Therefore, the provision about the two years copyright can not be applies to churches for 2 different reasons: 1. Italy is not a theocracy, the Catholic Church is not a public cultural entity in Italy. 2. A building is not a communication or an essay published by an academy or another public cultural entity, since it's.... a building, surprising eh? --Friniate (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adamant is continuing to remove my answers to his claims The answers are still visible in the part that's collapsed. Also no where did I say that Italy is a theocracy or ever even hint it. I've actually told you multiple times now that's not my position. So in no way am I removing anything and I'd appreciated it if you stopped with the false accusations. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, they are visible but you decided all by yourself that they should be less visible than your nonsense claim, how is that? Yes your position is that you are making a milkshake of two totally different parts of the law, ignoring another law that says that even so you'd still be wrong and making an enormous fuss about the fact that people who are actually able to read the law are answering you pointing out that it doesn't make any sense what you are saying. Friniate (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Italian copyright law reform according to U.S. LOC[edit]

Adamant1 messaged me on my talk page about the U.S. Library of Congress' article about the recent update to the Italian copyright law. Read this. It appears, for the first time, that the Italian copyright law is now going to be applied in the online/digital space, especially in terms of distribution of copyrighted works and materials.

A relevant passage at U.S. LOC is about "Online Content Sharing Service Providers":

Online Content Sharing Service Providers (OCSSPs) are providers who store and give the public access to large quantities of copyrighted works or other protected materials, which their users upload, when the works or other materials are organized and promoted to profit directly or indirectly from them. (Art. 102-sexies(1)(a)–(c) of Law No. 633 of Apr. 22, 1941, added by L.D. No. 177, art. 1(1)(n)(1).)
Providers of access to nonprofit online encyclopedias and educational or scientific works, open source software development and sharing platforms, electronic communications service suppliers, and providers of online marketplaces, business-to-business cloud services, and cloud services that allow users to upload content for personal use are not considered OCSSPs. This exception does not apply to online marketplace or cloud services that allow works protected by copyright to be shared among multiple users. (Art. 102-sexies(2) of Law No. 633 of Apr. 22, 1941, added by L.D. No. 177, art. 1(1)(n)(2).)
OCSSPs are liable for unauthorized acts of communication to the public and for making available to the public works and other materials protected by copyright. (Art. 102-septies(1) of Law No. 633 of Apr. 22, 1941, added by L.D. No. 177, art. 1(1)(n)(5).)

From the looks of it, it seems that it does not favor Commons, since we allow sharing of copyrighted materials like copyrighted buildings and monuments to a wider public audience, to be exploited commercially thanks to Creative Commons licenses without artists' permissions (the essence of freedom of panorama that Italian legislature seems to dislike). However, it does seem to apply Italian Wikipedia, in which fair use may be applicable. The provision seems to institutionalize a fair use-type concept for the first time in the Italian law, at least for online/digital world. Would this probably mean local hosting of copyrighted Italian works on Italian Wikipedia, just like what Wikipedias of Russia and Ukraine are already doing by locally hosting unfree monuments?

Your thoughts on this, @Rosenzweig, Friniate, Ruthven, Jmabel, and Clindberg: ?

Your thoughts on this, @Rosenzweig, Friniate, Ruthven, Jmabel, and Clindberg: ? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC) (repeat ping because pings apparently don't work if unsigned)Reply[reply]

I think that is probably more going after Google Books, and especially Google News, i.e. making direct use of works (or at least excerpts), not stuff like photographic derivative works. I think that's a large stretch to think that applies, really. Buildings are published to the world, and frankly lawsuits about infringing via photograph are exceedingly rare, so the potential of those being copyright infringements is on the far edge already (though definitely possible, so we respect it). If they sue Wikimedia Commons in Italy, I guess we'd find out. They even explicitly exempt nonprofit online encyclopedias, presumably to make sure that Wikipedia (and likely the images behind them) are not targeted. I don't think it's something to worry about really, unless someone actually makes that argument in court or something similar (and it's probably the Foundation's problem to answer). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's Italy's implementation of the en:Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. So this will affect all EU countries. WMF position (from 2019) here. --Rosenzweig τ 23:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because we use a license that does not bar commercial use, does not mean that the WMF itself makes commercial use of the works. I don't see how we could be liable here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was pinged here, but haven't had time to give this any thought, nor will I have time in the next several days. - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems a bit OT this issue here. First of all, because it impacts all EU countries and not only Italy. And secondly because here we were discussing about images in PD, on which obviusly no artist can make any claim and therefore this decree has no impact whatsoever on them. Moreover, the decree simply modifies the law of 1941, but the relevant articles of the law on which we've talked about have not been touched. The most important changes were made in relation to the copyright on newspapers' articles. The only change related to artistic works was the introduction of the article 32/quater, which simply says that "Alla scadenza della durata di protezione di un'opera delle arti visive, anche come individuate all'articolo 2, il materiale derivante da un atto di riproduzione di tale opera non è soggetto al diritto d'autore o a diritti connessi, salvo che costituisca un'opera originale. Restano ferme le disposizioni in materia di riproduzione dei beni culturali di cui al decreto legislativo 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42." Nothing new here: the images of monuments in PD are not under copyright except for artistic photographs and the non-copyright restriction about italian heritage monuments.--Friniate (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Admittedly I haven't read comparable laws for every other country in Europe, but at least from what I can tell Italy is the only or one of the only countries who specifically mention having an exception for online encyclopedias or fair use based on the idea of preserving cultural heritage. Aside from that though, I think it's relevant because all of this is pretty obtuse and it's unlikely to be settled in a way that satisfies everyone. At least not any time soon. Whereas the inherent problems with this whole thing, as well as potential future issues related to it, could be mitigated by just uploading the images to the Italian language Wikipedia under the guise of "preserving cultural heritage for the purposes of education and research" or whatever. Otherwise, this whole thing will probably continue to come up every now and then. I'd like to think we can have our cake and eat it to where Italian Wikipedia users can keep the images, but without it potentially coming at the cost us following the law and guidelines. Which I think can be done by uploading at the least the more controversial images to Italian Wikipedia while just deleting them on our end. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In principle I agree with the idea, but the problem here is that we are not in a fair use case to begin with... We can't allow on it.wiki copyrighted images because of a fair use clause about newspapers' articles, WMF would rightly kick it.wiki from the Foundation servers. Friniate (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't sound like the law is confined just to newspapers. Like in the link from the Library of Congress there's a section called "Compensation of Publishers, Authors, and Artists" that cites (L.D. No. 177, art. 1(1)(e).) which says "Authors, directors, performers, and other supporting artists are entitled to receive royalties based on a percentage of the proceeds from public screenings of artistic works." Plus under the "Educational and Research Use" section it says "works and materials may be freely excerpted and adapted by digital means when done exclusively for educational and noncommercial purposes." If we are willing to say that the word "works" in the original law includes buildings then I don't know why it wouldn't also extend to the updated text.
Although even if I grant you that it just covers newspapers, there's already permission from the government of Italy to host images of some buildings they own the copyright to on Italian Wikipedia to begin with. So there's no reason Italian Wikipedia can't at least host those images and maybe extend it to other images of government owned buildings if nothing happens to them in the meantime. The technicities of the agreements and how we manage the whole thing on our end is a lot of the problem here. Which could be resolved by just hosting the images on Italian Wikipedia. Although I still think a case could be made for hosting other images there as well due to the fact that the law doesn't seem to just be confined to newspapers. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes but it continues by saying by an educational institution, whether on its premises, in another place, or in a secure electronic environment accessible only by the teaching staff or enrolled students. Clearly this can not be applied to any wikipedia. Friniate (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume online encyclopedias would be covered by the whole "in another places" part of the quote that you didn't highlight for some reason and there's clearly an "or" after it. Meaning "either on the premises, "in another place", OR in a secure electronic environment accessible only by the teaching staff or enrolled students." I don't see why "other places" wouldn't include an educational or research website that's accessible to the public like Wikipedia since they clearly mention online encyclopedias to begin with. Otherwise you'd have to argue that what they meant by "nonprofit online encyclopedias and educational or scientific works, open source software development and sharing platforms Etc. Etc." was really just an online class at a university, which you'd have to admit is a bit of a stretch. An online encyclopedia aside, "open source software development and sharing platforms" clearly aren't online classes at a university. I think they and everything else mentioned in that part of the law. including online encyclopedias, would be covered by the whole "in another place" thing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that what the LOC update describes would be ok for example the English Wikipedia as fair use, but not on commons as commons does not want fair use files. What is stored on commons can not only be used for educational purposes, but also for artistic and commercial means. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Adamant1 the logic behind the decree is clearly that it must not be a public space open to everyone, but only to a specific audience. And a wikipedia is not an "educational institution", since it's not an institution to begin with. "nonprofit online encyclopedias" were cited in a totally different part of the decree only to exclude them from new additional hurdles that "Online Content Sharing Service Providers" have to comply with (neither is commons since it's not a "provider who store and give the public access to large quantities of copyrighted works or other protected materials, which their users upload"). Friniate (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was actually going to address that, but the comment was to long winded. So I didn't. Suffice to say though that the WMF is an eductional/resesrch non-profit institution. Sure Wikipedia as a site isn't, but no sites are. What matters is if the organization running the website is doing it on a non-profit basis and for the purposes of eductating the public or not. So the WMF, and by implication websites maintained by it, would qualify. The last part of your comment is questionable because Wikipedia does aactually do that. Although with some restraints, but there's clearly large quantities of copyrighted and protected materials on Wikipedia being qouted in articles and the like under the guise of fair use. Commons also hosts copyrighted imahes that are released under Creative Commons licenses but still technically copyrighted. Images from institutions where they buy the copyright from the original creator and release images of it under a CCO license are another example of that. As far as I'm aware the original is technically copyrighted, they just grant reuse. But it doesn't change the nature of the thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The original italian text leaves out any ambiguity: "nonché sotto la responsabilità di un istituto di istruzione, nei suoi locali o in altro luogo o in un ambiente elettronico sicuro, accessibili solo al personale docente di tale istituto e agli alunni o studenti iscritti al corso di studi in cui le opere o gli altri materiali sono utilizzati." So the "other places" must be accessible only by teachers or students. It's evident that wikipedia does not have anything to do with this part of the decree at all.
  • Regarding commons, even if considered as a sharing service provider, the only additional hurdle required by the decree is an authorization by the copyright holder, something that commons already does with all copyrighted material. Friniate (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The law says "an educational institution, whether on its premises, in another place, or in a secure electronic environment accessible only by the teaching staff or enrolled students." Not that schools doing online classes for students are the only thing covered by the law. That's clearly one instance that is, but the law also says that includes "online encyclopedias and educational or scientific works, open source software development and sharing platforms, electronic communications service suppliers." You can argue they in different parts of the law, but so what? It's the same law. Both are a part of L.D. No. 177, art. 1. Your acting like the last sentence I quoted is completely irrelevant just because it's in a different paragraph then the one that mentions "other places." That's not how the law works. Anyway I don't think we could get away with it on Commons, but we clearly could on Italian Wikipedia because it's an encyclopedia, which are specifically mentioned in the article. There's really only two things that matter here though. If the WMF is an educational non-profit and if Italian Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's it, and both are clearly true. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not the law, it's a translation of the law in another language that of course can loose something in the process. If you look at the original text the meaning is cristally clear. The problem here is not me, it's the fact that given that law any admin on it.wiki would delete those images. And it doesn't matter that they are part of the same article, since the article is simply modifying the law of 1941 and those texts were added in totally different parts of the original law (the part about schools is in article 70, the part about online providers in article 102) and they are clearly totally unrelated. Friniate (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topo symbols for climbing routes[edit]

I have been updating en:Topo (climbing) on en-WP. There are 30 standard symbols that the UIAA recommend (they didn't make them, as climbers have used them for decades) for making topos route maps. These symbols are not copyrighted or protected by the UIAA. They are used in many climbing guidebook without attribution, for example here by German climbing gear manufacturer Orthovox, and are also customized and amended by guidebooks, for example here by US online database, OutdoorActive.

Someone has uploaded loaded half of these UIAA recommended symbols to Commons into Category:UIAA Topo-symbols, but the de-WP version of the Topo (climbing) article (de:Topo ) has all 30 of them. I notice that half the de-WP article symbols are from Commons, but the other half were uploaded directly as files unto de-WP with a notice on the files that they are not to be imported into Commons without an "individual review". Given that nobody has ever copyrighted these symbols, that they are used widely copyright free in guidebooks (and amended), and that they are simple symbols, is it possible to get these German files uploaded into the Commons category? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If they originate from Europe, no "copyrighting" is needed for them to get the copyright. That was an American thing. They might be too simple (at least some clearly are) or too old for there to be any copyright restrictions, but that should be stated explicitly, so that it can be challenged. Do you know how long these have been in use? Are the ones in de-wp significantly amended from the old ones? –LPfi (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is that is was not the UIAA who specifically developed or designed these symbols, they had been used in guidebooks for decades as shorthand for features on routes (I can't find any origin or "first" use - they probably were added one-by-one to the system). The UIAA just gathered them at a point in time and formally listed them as being the "consensus" for each definition. That is why I don't think there is copyright here - i.e. nobody (UIAA included) ever claimed/or implied any "ownership" of them.
That is why I can't see anybody challenging us for copyright on these symbols, as nobody (not even the UIAA) can claim ownership of them? And hence why the table of symbols on the de-WP had remained unchallenged for over a decade now. The symbols themselves are less in use now as modern technology has made them more outdated, but I think it would be nice to preserve them in the topo article if possible as a full grid. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The UIAA just gathered them at a point in time": roughly when was that point in time? - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright could be claimed by anybody who created the first version (or any significant enough changes) of any of the symbols, given that it reaches the threshold of originality (which one could argue none of these does). If the origins are from before 1946, they would mostly be free also because of age: 1996-50 for the formerly typical anonymous publication term not restored by the URAA. –LPfi (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The German-wp "Topo" article has a reference to a UIAA document in 2010 ("UIAA Guidebook Standards") but the link no longer works, and the UIAA have nothing on their site (nor on the internet). I have guidebooks from the Alps from the 1970s that use these symbols (none reference the UIAA). Any references that I find on the wider internet to these symbols alludes to them being "recommended" by the UIAA (i.e. here, here). This book by German equipment manufacturer Ortovox list them here but gives no attribution/mention to the UIAA. That is why I think these symbols have no "owner" (they are too simple, and have been in uses informally for decades). many thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These look to me like they would be below COM:TOO at least in most countries. - Jmabel ! talk 15:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are there countries with low threshold that are probable origins to the symbols? Otherwise we should probably import also the rest, with {{Shape}} as licence. If some of them are borderline cases, either leave those unimported (like some very cautious user previously seems to have done) or add some warning to their permission field. –LPfi (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we could import them all (with the correct license/caveats) that would be great. As I said above, modern climbing "topos" are so detailed now (i.e. complete move-by-move videos of even large routes) that these old symbols are less in use, so would love to preserve them in the en-Topo article. I don't think anybody is going to come asserting copyright on these (too basic, and too much in common use and without attribution by climbing guidebooks/websites), so if we could err on the side of importing them all, that would be great. Thanks for all your help, much appreciated. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi, do you think we can import these remaining symbols from de-WP now? (I think it needs a commons admin to do it). thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question is whether they are simple enough for PD-shape. I think they might be, but I have no expertise in judging the threshold of originality of shapes, even less in an international context. –LPfi (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, understand, and thank you for your comments and input. Would anybody else know? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any expert opinion to be had here? Issue is German TOO + U.S. TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO nothing in Category:UIAA Topo-symbols has a copyright. These symbols are too basic to create a copyright anywhere. Yann (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All symbols in that category are below COM:TOO Germany in my opinion. And below COM:TOO USA as well. --Rosenzweig τ 08:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds good. Could we import the balance of the outstanding symbols that were uploaded as files to de-WP (they can't be moved to Commons without some kind of an administrator approval)? If they could all be gathered under Category:UIAA Topo-symbols, that would be great. thanks for your consideration. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swedish Portrait Archive[edit]

There is a very good deal of files here, taken from this website: [4] and so on. Meanwhile, if we open https://portrattarkiv.se/about , we can find there the following: All portraits and user-submitted information are free to use with the Create Commons BY-SA 4.0 license if not specified otherwise on the portrait page. Okay, let's omit the mistake - Create instead of Creative. The problem is that the hyperlink this fragment of text contains, leads to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ - to the incompatible license: [5]! Has this been discussed before and is there any decision been made regarding this? Komarof (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd either ignore the bad link or inform them of it, but it doesn't change the meaning of the text on the page. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that there is a green logo at the bottom of each picture page (the ones I checked, anyway), which does lead to the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. I would be careful of this though in those cases where it is implausible that the uploader is the copyright owner and there is no evidence of permission from the copyright owner either, as for most of the historic portraits on that site. Felix QW (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel and Felix QW: you see, fellow commoner Janee have found one more page concerning this: [6] - All portraits are licensed under the Create Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 if not specified otherwise on the portrait page, so it doesn't seem like this issue can be simply ignored. --Komarof (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are there any portraits though on which it is "not declared otherwise"? All the ones I have clicked through so far have the green logo with the CC-BY-SA link. Felix QW (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given all these inconsistencies, this green seal does not seem to be such an unconditional and accurate indication of a specific license. I would ask the archive administration to dig into the issue, understand the difference between these two licenses and clearly explain their position. --Komarof (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, given that we have {{PD-Art}}, I would be less concerned about the licensing on the page and more about the copyright of the underlying portraits. I am so far unconvinced that the contributors to this Facebook group are actually the copyright holders for all those portraits. Felix QW (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at the situation again, and I don't think we should be using any files (and particular entire encyclopedia entries!) from there that are not known to be public domain. It is simply not believable that the uploaders have copyright to both images and encyclopedia entries, many of which are signed or initialed, and nowhere on the website does it say that uploaders must actually assert that they are the copyright owners of the material. Of course, sifting through 20,000 images, many of which will be PD, is not easy, but I don't think just pretending everything makes sense is responsible. Felix QW (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid you've come to a conclusion that won't be enthusiastically received by the local community. Unfortunately this discussion has not attracted the attention of at least a few admins to suggest that your findings will have any consequences. It’s unlikely that anyone would be willing to sort through a category, containing dozens of thousands of files. Especially since many of them are old enough to be tagged as PD-old. --Komarof (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Josve05a and Thuresson: as mother-tongue speakers, could you please help clarify this? --Komarof (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jag har mailat Svenskt porträttarkiv om stavningen av ordet Create och Creative, inväntar svar Janee (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Janee: Det är inte så viktigt. Det spelar roll vilken licens de installerade: CC-BY-SA eller CC-BY-NC-SA. --Komarof (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't had reason to use SPA much myself but as far as I can tell all photos of Swedes are public domain because of age, proper license template would be {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. The Creative Commons license is nonsense of course and SPA do not own copyright to any of the photos. I was recently involved in a deletion request concerning one photo from SPA uploaded with a Creative Commons license without attribution to the photographer; that photo was, according my own research, taken before 1890 (deletion request). Thuresson (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thuresson, thanks, yes, most of them, but not all (for example, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Aina Eriksson-Enckell). I think, the text at the top of Category:Swedish Portrait Archive should be replaced by the direct indication that the license specified at the archive website cannot be relied upon. --Komarof (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The SPA would have been better off using "no known copyright restrictions" which we have accepted from institutions in the past. We accept Flickr Commons images under "no known copyright restrictions". I don't see any utility in adding "This file may not have the correct information on its copyright status." to all the images as was done here. In both Sweden and the United States you can't copyright basic factual information. We have ruled in the past that a simple funeral notice or even a curriculum vitae listing basic birth, education and death information is not creative enough to garner a copyright, two independent people writing the funeral notice/curriculum vitae would generate the same content. A longer prose obituary is more creative, which you can see by comparing two of them. --RAN (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Feel free to revert the template if you think it is unhelpful. The template page advised that this was the correct template to use if a freely licensed file may in fact be PD; At least I did not feel sufficiently confident that this was below the ToO to add such a tag myself.
    Regarding "no known copyright restrictions", I do think there is a difference between an archival institution which actually has access to the original objects and some record of their provenance and a website that is based on a Facebook group accepting open uploads.
    Otherwise I agree with Komarof and Thuresson that most images will be in the public domain. My initial issue was rather with the textual component of files such as this one, an initialled full encyclopedia entry. Felix QW (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With "This file may not have the correct information on its copyright status." it isn't clear if you were arguing for a more restrictive license or a more liberal license. I see nothing wrong with replacing the the CCs with PD-Sweden, or adding both. Almost all the entries use that curriculum vitae style biography, facts and dates, lacking commentary. --RAN (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Testimonies at US congress[edit]

when a person, who's not a us govt employee, speaks at the us congress, is his speech in the public domain? like all the hearings when such people are called to testify. examples: File:Andrew Puzder Workers' Forum with Carl's Jr Employee Lupe Guzman.webm File:Fred Rogers testifies before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, 1969.ogv. RZuo (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright starts when the speech is recorded, unless there is a prior written note. Yann (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also the copyright of the text of the speech, which the writer holds, and the copyright of the vocalization of the speech, which the speaker holds.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is a copyright on the vocalization. Copyright only concerns tangible assets. So if a speaker only answers questions without prior notes, s/he doesn't hold a copyright on the speech. Yann (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yann is correct, copyright requires something tangible. Copyright required a physical copy deposited with the Library of Congress when copyrights were first recognized. If someone makes a speech in the woods and no one records it, it is not copyrightable. --RAN (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Yann: Sorry, I was getting ahead of myself. The recording party gets the copyright to their recording of something due to RIAA clout.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the nuance i wanted to ask about is, can people republish these speeches in textual form (e.g. a book or wikisource) claiming they are pd?
obviously their speeches are not recorded by them, but "fixed in a tangible medium" (in video form, or in textual form as in the congress transcripts) by us govt employees, whose works are in pd.
i feel weird about this "fixation" criterion. does it mean that, if someone gives an impromptu speech (not written down previously), then the person would not have the copyright of the speech, but the person transcribing or videotaping it would have the copyright of the text? RZuo (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CC-BY license on YouTube videos by Disney Channel Israel[edit]

I have noticed that most videos uploaded by the Disney Channel Israel YouTube channel starting with "דאנסטורי | על הספה עם צ'רלי כרמלי - אלעד" on November 27, 2018 were released under YouTube's "Creative Commons - Attribution" license. Although this channel is a verified affiliate of the U.S. Disney Channel, is this CC-BY license valid enough for these videos (and derived audio excerpts, video clips and screenshots) to be suitable for Commons? --JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is. If the copyright holder released it, it counts. —MATRIX! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 21:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are the people running the Disney Channel Israel page actually able to release these things? Is Disney's EMEA subsidiary actually the worldwide copyright holder? I find that a bit doubtful. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's Israel-specific content, then I would say it's OK. But if it's American/international content that's only being distributed by that channel, there is precedent from Disney Channel Canada that it's not OK since they may not have actually gotten permission from corporate to release the content. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a major difference between Disney Channel Canada and Disney Channel Israel. The Israeli channel is fully owned and operated by the Walt Disney Company, while the Canadian channel is operated under license from Disney. --JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't mess with Disney's lawyers.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, I would say this case is similar to when Nickelodeon released renders of several elements from SpongeBob SquarePants on YouTube under the CC-BY license (see File:SpongeBob BingePants Podcast Trailer.webm and File:Voice Acting Tips with Tom Kenny.webm). It was even decided last month that those videos' licenses were determined to be legitimate, and derived screenshots/character renders could thus be hosted on Commons (see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-10#A few files from CC-licensed Nickelodeon videos). --JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Related: Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Hogwarts_Legacy. Wcam (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So these videos would be okay to upload as long as the {{Trademarked}} template is added to the file description page? --JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photographs by "Staff of Rep" (US)[edit]

There are 23 files (filetype:image "staff of rep") authored by "Staff of Rep" for various US representatives. They are all marked {{PD-USGov}}. Sources are twitter, facebook and house.gov. I'm not sure whether these files are actually in the public domain. Are staff members of US representatives employees of the US government, or are they employed by the representative? @Tym2412 who uploaded most (all?) of these photographs. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, these are probably not OK. Feel free to start deletion requests. Yann (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Commons:Deletion requests/Image by "Staff of rep" Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Congressional staff are US-Gov employees, paid with the budget of the Congress. --RAN (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The actual name of the staff member should be here as Author per COM:EVID.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reps may have staff other than those working in Congress. Davidships (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status' of Illustrated postmarks[edit]

I was thinking about uploading some images of illustrated postmarks like these ones from Japan, but comparing the licenses on similar images from different countries the licenses seem to be all over the place. Some are licensed with templates for stamps, which just seems wrong since that's not what they are. I'm not really sure what other license would apply though. Probably not "PD-Text Logo" since they aren't simple shapes in most cases, but then it also seems weird to hold them to the same standards as normal works due to their simplicity and the fact that some are released by countries were stamps or government works are otherwise in the public domain. But at least in Japan a lot of illustrated postmarks are created by known people. So I don't know why the artists wouldn't be the copyright holders in those cases, if not in others. I'm interested if anyone has any thoughts about it or knows differently though. Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:PD-AR-Photo[edit]

Hi. We need more eyes on the the discussion of the US status of Argentinian photos per Template talk:PD-AR-Photo#Public domain in US.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tasnim[edit]

A change in Template:Tasnim is proposed, I invite users interested to participate in the discussion at Template talk:Tasnim#Proposing a change in the template. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:City street in moonlight.jpg[edit]

There isn't a date for the painting and the url is for a different work. There are a lot of other paintings by Louis Eilshemius uploaded here with date and source info. Should this one stay? APK (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to this source, the painting is from 1908 and now in a private collection. If it was published in the sense of contemporary American copyright law by 1928, or if any of the other cases of the Hirtle chart hold, it is now in the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the link. APK (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this sufficient credit for AI picture?[edit]

Hi, I uploaded this picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PredatorSpaceMarine.jpg - is credit sufficient? Clemenspool (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clemenspool: See Commons:AI-generated media#Attribution. Nosferattus (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donald Duck copyright[edit]

Hi, I feel the copyright on Donald Duck is not really enforced, although there is no doubt about it. Previous discussions: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/09#Donald Duck in The Spirit of '43, Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/02#Disney characters deletion requests, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Duck. Specifically, there is no warning in Category:Donald Duck, and there are numerous violating files in this category and subcategories.

Also, when does this copyright expire? No mention about this in the English WP article. Yann (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann according to this article, the earliest version of Donald Duck will fall public domain by 2029. However, it is likely the most famous version that we're familiar with will still be under copyright, just like the case of Mickey Mouse, whose original version in the Steamboat Willie will only fall out of copyright weeks from now (on January 1, 2024). Same case for Winnie the Pooh whose first version fell public domain recently. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accd. to en:Donald Duck he first appeared in the 1934 cartoon The Wise Little Hen, so that copyright will expire at the end of 2029, and it will be free starting January 1, 2030. The current version apparently first appeared in the 1936 cartoon Moving Day, so its copyright will expire at the end of 2031. --Rosenzweig τ 14:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. My question is related to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hueyline. When these files could be undeleted? Yann (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Commons:Character copyrights will answer all of your questions. Nosferattus (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus: I know this page very well, and it doesn't answer my question, since this page is actually wrong (see Rosenzweig's answer above). Yann (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: It looks like there is a "Donald Duck" that appeared in 1931, but it was a completely different rendition.[7] The Wikipedia article was corrected on November 10th. Serves me right for blindly trusting Wikipedia! Thanks for the correction. Nosferattus (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this image indeed copyrighted?[edit]

Hi all,

this is about the photograph shown at https://www.tate-images.com/DK0260-A-very-rare-photograph-of-Leon-Trotsky-in-white.html. It has been taken in 1924 by an "Unknown photographer". The company, Tate Images, claims to have the copyright on this photograph as any other in their stock, see https://www.tate-images.com/faqs.asp. In my understanding that claim is not founded as it is an old orphan work and on January, 1, 2024 has been created more than a 100 years ago.

Is my assumption correct, that I am good to go uploading the file to the Commons regardless to Tate Images' copyright claim? Your advice is appreciated. Denis Barthel (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page containing the image says it was purchased by Tate Images from David King. The question is if he or anyone else had published it anywhere before Tate Images bought it. Otherwise, I assume it will still be copyrighted since it looks like an amateur photograph. As in, not taking for a news article or the like. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an anonymous work of that era, it's in the public domain in most of the world. In the US, it might depend on where it was published, but it seems quite unlikely it was still copyrighted. Unless it was first published in Mexico or Colombia or Spain, it was out of copyright in 1924+70+1=1995 and hence not eligible for URAA restoration. (I'm not bothering to look up rules for those three nations, but I think it might have been PD even there.) Certainly Tate Images and David King have no right to it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under US copyright law, this would seem to be an unpublished anonymous work, unless some evidence can be found to show that it was ever published under authority of the copyright holder. According to the Hirtle chart, unpublished anonymous works are protected for at least 120 years from creation, i.e. until 2045. Toohool (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Painting copyright Q[edit]

I just wanted to ask the folks here if I've correctly identified a painting as being in the public domain. Hilma af Klint (d. 1944) painted two versions of the Tree of Knowledge series from 1913 to 1915, and the works were never exhibited or published in her lifetime. She gifted one version to a philosopher and one stayed with her estate. Each would presumably have been a separate copyrightable work as they were paintings, not prints. The version that she gave away was then "rediscovered" in 2021, per the gallery that handled its introduction to the public and eventual sale to Glenstone. As far as I can tell, as the artist died in 1944 and the works were never published until after 70 years pma (first published formally in 2021), they legally fell into the public domain. Is that correct? Or could this work still be copyrighted? Thanks! I've uploaded a picture I took of one of the paintings, wanted to be sure it wasn't still in copyright. 19h00s (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that sounds correct. The painting can be tagged as {{PD-old-auto-unpublished|deathyear=1944}}. Alternatively, it's possible that giving the painting to another person constituted publication under US copyright law, in which case it would qualify as {{PD-old-auto-expired}}. Toohool (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Character copyright redux[edit]

See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kirk Alyn as Superman in a publicity still from 1948.jpg for character copyright debate. This will also affect the Donald Duck discussion above. The issue is whether images that have entered the public domain can be clawed back because of "character copyright". RAN (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sand sculptures' copyright statuses[edit]

There is a discrepancy in the closures of deletion requests involving sand sculptures. In some cases the sculptures are kept due to being temporary and not creative enough (like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sand sculpture at Carnac.jpg‎ and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rousse Sand Fest (18621688978).jpg), but in other cases the images got deleted citing lack of commercial or existing freedom of panorama legal right, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:White sand beach, Boracay Island - panoramio (1).jpg (from our country). There should be some discussion to determine if sand sculptures are indeed acceptable here on Commons or not.

In my opinion, temporary works are covered by creator's copyright, unless the copyright law of a country specifically does not recognize copyright of works made on temporary medium (like paper, sand, charcoal art, or protesters' tarps and paraphernalia). There is no such clause in the copyright law of the Philippines as far as I know.

Ping participants of three mentioned DRs @Ooligan, A1Cafel, Yann, Mike Peel, Ikan Kekek, StanProg, 廣九直通車, SHB2000, and King of Hearts: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hold no particular firm opinion on this issue and am willing to let those who are more knowledgeable than me on this one. Thanks for the ping, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have any expertise on Filipino laws. I do think, though, that sand sculptures are permanent for the life of the sculpture, unless they are expected to be actively destroyed by a person, just as is true of marble sculptures that can eventually be eroded, toppled or destroyed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. But that depends on legal definitions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems most natural (and safest) to assume, if the law is completely silent on the transience or lifetime of copyrightable works, that temporary works would be protected like any other work. Put another way, if no carve-out is made for a particular kind of work, the general law that applies to all works will apply to that work. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the defense of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rousse Sand Fest (18621688978).jpg using Freedom of Panorama has things backwards. If FoP only permits the photography of permanently fixed objects, and sand sculptures are not permanently fixed, FoP does not permit photography this sculpture independent of the sculpture's copyright. The sculpture's own copyright applies to the photo. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BMacZero Bulgarian FoP is not relevant anyway, because Bulgarian FoP is non-commercial just like France and Ukraine. But nevertheless the sand sculpture may not be photographed for commercial CC licensing purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO sand sculptures which is artistic enough should be protected by copyright. In some countries, anonymous works are also protected by copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unrelatedly, here is a previous discussion concerning snow in the United States: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Winterfest in Denali (d09c5a23-b358-4e1f-80fe-2bf12d2dc29d).jpg. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BMacZero, your snow sculpture link above is temporally related. You commented at that time, "That lends credence to snow sculptures not being eligible for copyright, though example of fireworks is certainly far more temporary that a snow sculpture."
Depending on specific conditions, generally, a snow sculpture lasts longer than a sand sculpture.
I am pinging (@Jmabel, @Ellin Beltz, @Clindberg) the others involved within your above referenced link, because sand sculptures are related to snow sculptures by their temporary existence. --Ooligan (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True; I considered it unrelated because the primary question was about countries with no "temporary work" exception, but that discussion was about the interpretation of US law, which does have such an exception. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I changed the closure of 2 DRs mentioned above. Thanks for mentioning this issue. Yann (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Please can you consider just undoing your closure, and leaving the discussion open? Flipping from keep to delete as a result of this forum shopping is not OK, it would be better to leave the discussion open for longer to get input there. Mike Peel (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike Peel this is not forum shopping. It is better to have some discussion first as I see several inconsistencies regarding the matter. Accusing the discussion I opened as forum shopping is very inappropriate. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: Maybe not the intent, but in practice a discussion here changed the outcome at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sand sculpture at Carnac.jpg‎ with *zero* discussion there. A discussion here leading to clearer documentation somewhere that could be used in that deletion discussion would be OK, but that isn't what has happened here. Mike Peel (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Each close only relates to that exact image. In this case the close was for "no freedom of panorama in (countryname)" - cut, dried and closed. Someone have any other nominations to talk about, we can discuss each one at their nomination page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this Pewdiepie Video Copyrighted Free Use?[edit]

So I was checking at PewDiePie's Bitch Lasagna music video, and in the description Felix states that "Feel free to use this track (within reason), it won't be claimed", also in another video he clarifies that anyone who remixes or uses the MV can completely go for it without issue. So it would fall under Template:Copyrighted free use? Hyperba21 (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think "it won't be claimed" is strong enough to be considered a free license. Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And "within reason" is also so vague as to be useless for our purposes. If someone would like to upload this track, I think they should contact the rights holder and clarify that indeed he intends to release the video under a free license. I am not sure whether YouTube still has a mechanism for doing that, but he could simply alter the description and give an explicit free CC license. Felix QW (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From that wording, I perceive that he is simply allowing other YouTubers to use his song in their videos and he won't claim their videos for revenue. Definitely not a release of Copyright. PascalHD (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No known copyright restrictions[edit]

There are a number of files on the State Historical Society of Missouri's archives that I would like to use, which are marked as "no known copyright restrictions". This link is one example. I'm very much a novice at copyright; can I use these images and, if so, what licence should I upload them under? A number of the photos (for example) are from the subject's papers and are unlikely to have been published until they were donated to the historical society on her death, if that changes the answer. Sammielh (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photograph appears to be either from the 1920s or 1930s. I think we could use {{PD-US}} in this case, or a {{PD-Because|1=State Historical Society of Missouri says no known copyright restrictions}}. Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they were truly unpublished, and the informal ones taken directly from the archive could well be, they would still be copyrighted until 120 years after their creation or 70 years after the death of the photographer (See the top rows of the Hirtle chart). So I would hesitate to assert {{PD-US}} myself on those pictures. If we trust the State Historical Society of Missouri to have done due diligence, {{PD-Because|State Historical Society of Missouri says no known copyright restrictions}} seems like a better option. Felix QW (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree, we accept Flickr Commons images under the same "no known copyright restrictions" from archives under the same assumption, that they have performed their due diligence. If they withdraw the license and delete from Flickr Commons, we generally also delete. --RAN (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ernie Pyle bust by Jo Davidson.jpg[edit]

I thought since the artist died more than 70 years ago, this was in the public domain. Did I not add the right licensing template or am I completely wrong about the PD? APK (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need a license for the photograph as well since it is a 3D artwork. Also, this is a 1944 American sculpture and for works published before 1978, publication is what matters, not artist life time. Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: although it is unlikely anyone renewed copyright on the sculpture in 1972, so probably the sculpture itself is PD. Needs research, though. And, yes, the photographer's copyright is a separate matter. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: @Jmabel: I took the photo. APK (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@APK: , Then you need to decide which license you want for the photo. Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Ok, thank you. That gets me back to the original question. Which license should I be using so it isn't deleted? Sorry if this is a newbie question, but I don't recall this happening in the past. I thought the PD tag was sufficient. APK (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a decision that you as the copyright holder of the photograph need to make. Generally, the default license for own works is {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}}, but again it depends on whether you want reusers to have to license it comparably or not. COM:L has a very general overview of licenses we use. Abzeronow (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, duh. I thought it was something to do with the other licensing template. Thanks. APK (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A series of questions about Public domain tagging[edit]

Hello all! As you probably know, we are working on improving the current user experience with UploadWizard. As part of the work we are doing on revamping the license step, we have some clarifications to ask the community regarding the Public domain tagging of media.

We split the topic into three sub-topics to help focusing on each case we've encountered. We thank you in advance for any help you can give us in solving these doubts. -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usage of {{PD-US-expired}}[edit]

When the media is tagged as “First published in the United States before 1928”, {{PD-US-expired}} gets assigned. However, there is a separate tag for sound recordings {{PD-US-record-expired}}. Should we be using the more generic tag for all media, or have specific ones for different media? -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-US-record-expired is for sound only. It occurs 100 years after publication, while PD-US-expired is for everything else, and 95 years after publication. Yann (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it would make sense to split the US options into
  • "Not a sound recording and first published in the United States before 1928": assigns {{PD-US-expired|country=US}}
  • "Sound recording first published in the United States before 1923": assigns {{PD-US-record-expired|country=US}}
—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be nice if choosing "First published in the United States before 1928" meant that the assignment were {{PD-US-expired|country=US}} to suppress the warning about needing a US license. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usage of {{PD-old-70}} in connection with other PD tags[edit]

When the media is tagged as “Author has been deceased for more than 70 years”, {{PD-old-70}} gets assigned. However, on the page it says “You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States”.

Would it be acceptable anyway if only one template was added, based on someone's upload (for example {{PD-old-70}})? Or is it necessary for everyone to choose both a U.S. template and a home-country template, when it's not a work first published in the U.S.? -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-old-70 (and PD-old-100) is usually for anywhere except USA, since the US doesn't use post mortem auctoris, but the date of publication. And since all content must be in the public domain in USA, we also need a US tag. We can combine both with {{PD-old-70-expired}} or {{PD-old-100-expired}}. Yann (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As noted above, US copyright law has different rules for sound recordings than for everything else, so it would be a good idea to have separate options for sound recordings:
  • "Not a sound recording, first published before 1928 and author deceased more than 70 years ago": assigns {{PD-old-70-expired}}
  • "Sound recording first published before 1923 and author deceased more than 70 years ago:": assigns {{PD-old-70-record-expired}}
It would also be good to note that some countries, like Mexico, have a longer term than 70 years, and if the media is from one of those countries, the uploader will need to use a different tag. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've mentioned this before, but now that the topic has surfaced again, I'll bring it up. Does it really make sense to have the non-US version for public domain recordings based on death of author instead of basing it on publication date? From what I could see, the vast majority of the world uses the publication date criteria for musical recordings. Usually, additional copyright tags (even for United States recordings) are used to indicate the status of the lyrics and musical composition. Lugamo94 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't remember off the top of my head—does "Faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain because the artist died more than 70 years ago" assign {{PD-Art|PD-old-70}}? If so, I'd suggest changing the text to "Faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain because it was published before 1928 and the artist died more than 70 years ago" and the assigned template to {{PD-Art|PD-old-70-expired}}; and possibly adding a corresponding option that assigns {{PD-Art|PD-US-expired|country=US}}. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any way it could take a death year of the author and use {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=19xx}}? I remind people, not for the first time, that the majority of people on Earth live in countries with copyright durations less than life+70, with China (life+50) and India (life+60) alone taking us a significant part of the way there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, this is making me think it would be nice to have a more responsive form:
  • Whether the work is a sound recording published before 1923 or not a sound recording and published before 1928.
  • Country of origin, if known. Maybe US/non-US, and if non-US, you can but don't have to fill in the country code?
  • Author's death year, if known.
  • For non-US works, option to say that the work is PD in its home country because the author died over 50/60/70/75/80/95/95/100 years ago (IDK exactly which options to offer); default to 70 and link Commons:Copyright rules by territory.
If the work is not a sound recording:
  • If death year is given, use {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=deathyear}}
  • For US works with no death year, use {{PD-US-expired|country=US}}
  • For non-US works with no death year, use {{PD-old-X-expired}}, replacing X with 50/70/100/etc.
If the work is a sound recording:
  • If death year is given, use {{PD-old-auto-record-expired|deathyear=deathyear}}
  • For US works with no death year, use {{PD-US-record-expired|country=US}}
  • For non-US works with no death year, use {{PD-old-X-record-expired}}, replacing X with 50/70/100/etc.
For works that aren't sound recordings, there could also be an option to say that the work being uploaded is a faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain which meets the preceding criteria, and if this box were checked, the template determined above could be passed in to {{PD-art}}.
Also, since Commons requires that all media be PD/freely licensed both in the home country and in the US, perhaps the title of this section should be changed from "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA" to "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA and the home country", and after "Wikimedia Commons is located in the USA, so the work must be out of copyright in that country." there could be an explanation of the requirement that works be out of copyright in the home country. This might be a good place to link Commons:Copyright rules by territory. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having the standalone {{PD-old-auto}} is useful for media that it is public domain in its home country, but not in the United States, but still available here because of a Creative Commons license. A potential future example being the collection of photographs by Leo Wehrli in two years. Lugamo94 (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, it's a useful template! I'm not sure how it makes sense to handle that kind of scenario in the Upload Wizard. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usage of {{PD-USGov}}[edit]

When the media is tagged as “Original work by the United States Federal Government”, {{PD-USGov}} gets assigned. However, on the page it says: “In order to avoid further crowding of Category:PD US Government (as of 2019), this template should not be used if the department or part of the federal government which produced the work is known”. But the alternative, i.e. providing a full list of tags, is also completely impossible to be included as is in the UploadWizard.

Should we allow more specific options than just “Original work by NASA”? If so, which ones? Are there top 3 agencies we should like to include in the list below? Do we need to have an open ended field for people to enter other agencies? -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand the idea to separate US government works by agencies and departments, but for non-US contributors, this is overly complicated. Some people have proposed to get rid of the various specific tags, and keep only PD-USGov. I don't have a definitive opinion about this. Yann (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure about a full list of every single option on the Upload Wizard. Perhaps the top 10 most commonly used US-GOV tags (Presidential, Military, DOD etc) instead of just NASA. Adding a few more options there will make categorizing somewhat easier and less crowded in the main category. Could also state somewhere a small blurb "For a full list of all tags see here". There are plenty of folks out there who would happily categorize files properly if it was presented to them at time of upload and they knew how to. PascalHD (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe the blurb for that section of the UploadWizard could specifically mention that it's better to use a more specific license tag than {{PD-USGov}} if possible, explain that some common choices are listed below, link to Category:PD-USGov license tags, and say that if you want to use a tag that's not one of the options below you can do that in the "Another reason not mentioned above" section. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone who lives in the United States I've always found the various PD-USGov templates to be completely unhelpful. At least on the federal level. Really, there should just be one single template for "government works." Like do we really need a specific template just for something built by the Architect of the Capitol? Probably not. I doubt most even know who that is. Let alone are they going to use the template if they upload an image of the United States Capitol Complex. There's no reason it needs to be that granular regardless though. Except maybe with the exception of the Military and NASA, but it's kind of obtuse even in those cases. Anyway, if it's obtuse to begin with it would certainly be way worse as a list or something similar in the UploadWizard. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is the author of an illustration[edit]

Hello. This question regards File:The Kid.jpg. Also viewable at WP's: en:Paul Martin (illustrator). It's the fourth picture down from the left side. Who should be the author under "Summary." Should it be Fisk Tires (or more properly, Fisk Rubber Company) or Paul Martin. Is it incorrect, as currently stated? Martin was commissioned to create the character for Fisk. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author is the individual who created the work (where identifiable) or "unknown" (where not identified). The company may be the owner of the copyright but they are not the author. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. So I will leave it as is. His signature is on the drawing, so it falls into the first (or identifiable) category. JimPercy (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Reichenau Primer[edit]

We already have File:Reichenauer_Schulheft_1v_2r_kl1.jpg, which appears to be identical to the low-res photo from here, top right. The Primer is 1200 years old. Is there any reason I shouldn't upload the hi-res versions over the top? Marnanel (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not see any reason either. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done I also created Category:Reichenau Primer. Yann (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also uploaded the rest of the manuscript. Yann (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright on satellite images?[edit]

The copyright claim on image File:Sabah Al Ahmad Sea City Satellite Image.jpg (and indeed all uploads by that user) look unlikely to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sabah Al Ahmad Sea City Satellite Image.jpg. All small size images taken with high-end cameras, but I can't find any copy online. So I also let a message requiring explanations. Yann (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Work for hire in Afghanistan[edit]

Does anyone know the situation regarding work for hire in Afghanistan? I'm talking to someone about uploading for-hire photos they own that were taken there, and I wonder whether I'll have to know the photographer's name. (As I understand it, under US law, I don't, since the employer is considered the author.) Madeline (part of me) 20:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deprecate Template:PD-BNF and Template:PD-GallicaScan[edit]

The templates {{PD-BNF}} and {{PD-GallicaScan}} were created in 2008 when the general assumption was that everything the Bibliotheque Nationale de France scanned for Gallica is in the public domain. As we know now, that is not the case, and the BNF has changed the rights remark for many of its magazine, newspaper etc. scans to ""Droits  : Consultable en ligne" (rights: can be viewed online) - at least in the French language version; in the English version, you can confusingly still often read Rights: public domain for the very same magazine or paper, while the German version doesn't mention the copyright status at all.

Anyway, it should be clear that because some file is from the BNF or Gallica, that does not mean it's automatically in the public domain. So my proposal is to deprecate these two tags and mark them accordingly that they should not be used for new files. For new files from BNF/Gallica that are in the public domain for some other reason (because the author died over 70 years ago etc.), only the regular PD-old, PD-scan etc. tags should be used. If we don't do this, these tags will always come back to bite us in the a** because people will use them for new uploads. Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 10:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mostly  Support. Wording of these templates in indeed a problem. It should be mentioned that there are not sufficient for Commons, that a verification of the copyright status and a proper license are needed. Yann (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mostly  Support per Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atoll K (Utopia)[edit]

Hi, What is the copyright status of this movie? English WP says that it is in the public domain in USA due to lack of notice, but the film was made in France with a French director and an American director. It it not in the public domain in France, but seeing the complicated release history I wonder what is the country of origin. Yann (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=826225637"