Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

< Commons:Village pump

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]
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]

Real-life challenges to {{Non-free graffiti}} in America edit

I stumbled upon these sources while expanding w:en:Freedom of panorama#United States. All of these report or discuss some recent cases involving street art or graffiti. While there is no finality to these cases (as all of those were settled outside the court), these could change the copyright landscape and may give illegal art legal copyright protection.

  • This and this are about General Motor's use of a graffito by Adrian Falkner (a.k.a. Smash 137); the latter article mentions a settlement between the two. The latter article also mentions a separate case involving Mercedes-Benz's use of another graffito.
  • This and this are about the legal battle between clothing firm H&M and renowned graffiti artist Jason "Revok Williams, over H&M's use of Revok's Brooklyn graffito as a backdrop of their ad campaign.

These and possibly other recent cases involving graffiti and street art in the United States may challenge the legality of what {{Non-free graffiti}} says. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to comment on the cases directly, but I've always thought Commons should be more cautious when it comes images of graffiti in the United States where it's signed and by a well known graffiti artist. There's at least a couple I think of off the top of my head that use well pseudonyms that are connected to them IRL and I don't see why they couldn't make a case their work is copyrighted in those situations. I don't think the illegality of the artwork argument is that compelling in most cases either since a lot of graffiti artists either have permission from the owner of the property or are creating the graffiti in a well known, designated area just for street art. Like there's a few places where I live that the police take a very hands off approach to since they are well known places for tagging and it's better to allow graffiti there versus more public places. Commons could definitely take a more conservative approach to it and not allow images by established artists where the graffiti was created in a non-illegal or borderline illegal place. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, several African countries may even define folklore stuffs as copyrighted, so why graffitis may not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree our guidelines and templates should be revisited. Should we have an RFC about COM:GRAFFITI and {{Non-free graffiti}}? Nosferattus (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus I agree to have a new RFC for COM:GRAFFITI, specifically the part stating that artists of illegal graffiti may have diffficulty in enforcing copyright. This is the very same argument used by H&M in lambasting Revok, when his lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter to the famous clothing and fashion retailer to stop using his graffito painted on a Brooklyn wall as a background in their ad campaign. Yet H&M suffered serious damage to public image after street artists' groups urged the public to boycott H&M products. H&M later withdrew their legal action against Revok, and the two sides eventually reached a settlement (outside the court) in favor of Revok. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still another addition, this 2019 online article by HFG Law and IP lists some other notable instances of graffiti artists' lawsuits against commercial users, mostly due to the works being used in advertisements or ad campaigns. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such graffitis are legal graffitis. But {{Non-free graffiti}} says illegal graffitis. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow at least in one case in the U.S. (will try to find that reference, it seems involving one of the cases I added in the English Wikipedia article), a court granted the artist of an illegal graffiti to sue a user of his "illegally-painted" work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: Any chance you'd be willing to do an RFC since you know the background to this and whatnot? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:53, 15 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]

BAnQ "unassessed copyright" edit

The Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec website holds some photographs, the copyright information for which they say they "has not been assessed." The description further says "You have the right to use the work in any manner permitted by copyright and related rights legislation applicable to your use." Here is an example of such a file. I'm wondering whether such files are safe to use on the Commons. I know there is a whole BaNQ project but the Discussion for that Project Page is empty so I didn't think it was any better to bring this question there than here. Denniscabrams (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a license. They just say that they do not know the copyright status of those image. So, you need to do your own copyright assessment. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictures by the government of Canada would be OK if older than 50 years. But these seem to be from April 1976, so not OK until 2027. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada for details. Yann (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this scan of a sticker on a $20 bill free? edit

This PMG release has scans of a $20 bill with an unusual error – there's a PLU sticker on it, and the serial number is printed over it, indicating it was put there before the bill left the mint. Enwiki has an article about this bill which would benefit from an illustration. I'm wondering if this complicated art just happens to be free. There's a couple of authors here:

  • The Del Monte banana sticker, with their 1991 logo. A very similar logo is on Commons as PD-TOO/TM (and is used on 7 wikipedias), but the same image is on enwiki under fair use. The rest of the sticker layout looks PD-TOO, and though it says ECUADOR on it, I don't believe that they actually print these in Ecuador, or that it matters if they do.
  • The $20 bill, from 1996, PD-USGov-money.
  • The placement of the sticker on the bill, put there by accident or on purpose by a mint employee (PD-USGov-Treasury?) or by nobody in particular. I'm assuming that this is still 2D art with the sticker on it.
  • The scan of the bill, by PMG in 2021, which would be PD-scan, but what about the cropped version on the page? Is the choice they made of where to crop enough work that I can't just upload that exact image?

I'm still a bit new to Commons and I figured that this one is too complicated for me to try by myself, so I appreciate any help! 3df (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've nominated File:Logo Del Monte.svg for deletion, as it will be good to have a verdict on that either way. Note that that file is an SVG tracing though, which may have an impact on its copyright situation. Felix QW (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This banknote should be OK for Commons, as any copyrighted element in the Del Monte banana sticker (if any) would be de minimis anyway. Yann (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newspaper edit

Hello, could someone do a double check for a copyright for this link? I checked the masthead on page two which doesn't indicate a copyright, as well as the last couple of pages. A search on the Copyright Catalog says that the newspaper registered copyright in 1979, but for December 4, 1979 (the newspaper linked is from January 6, 1979). Just want to make sure before uploading. Thanks. reppoptalk 04:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For 1978-1989, as long as they registered for a copyright within 5 years of publication per COM:Hirtle, it would get a copyright. So I'm afraid that would be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thank you. reppoptalk 20:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reppop: The copyright registration only includes the one issue, so it wouldn't cover any other issues. Contrast the Pacific Daily News copyright record with a New York Times copyright record from the same year, which lists 365 issues. I also checked the Pacific Daily News issue and found no copyright notice. But what specifically are you planning to upload? A newspaper issue is a compilation of many different works, some of which may have tricky copyright issues. Toohool (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was a photograph of Junko Ohashi that was in this story. reppoptalk 07:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reppop: That photo is iffy. It looks like a publicity photo or file photo from some other source, rather than a photo created by the newspaper. A work published without copyright notice was injected into the public domain only if the publication was authorized by the copyright holder. We would need to know something about where the photo came from and how it was distributed. Also, it's likely that the photo was first published in Japan, so even if the publication in Guam without copyright notice was authorized, the copyright may have been reinstated by URAA restoration. Toohool (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Output of Winver edit

Hi!

I found the file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winver_output.png. I wonder if the file meets the COM:TOO. I think not, at it is only descriptive text and the simple Windows logo. In this low resolution, its readability is not very high.

Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say that is not copyrightable in the U.S., and presume that is the only relevant jurisdiction. - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I share your opinion :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philippines Memorandum Circular No. 021 of 2023 edit

The Memorandum Circular No. 021 of 2023 just came into effect here, establishing Implementing Rules and Regulations for copyright terms as well as public domain works.

From the look of relevant part for PD works (Rule IV), there seems to be no mention of government works. Government works are mentioned at Rule V, whixh states that these are subject to the rules of Memorandum Circular No. 024 of 2020. While no copyright indeed subsists in Philippine government works subject to the copyright law (Republic Act 8293), the rules now imply that no copyright does not necessarily mean such works are automatically in public domain. Perhaps a government work may be in public domain if it has been dedicated to public domain.

Ping Filipino users @Engr. Smitty and Pandakekok9: who participated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jessie Lacuna 2020.jpg regarding a Philippine News Agency photo by a Philippine News Agency employee. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping also those who participated at various threads at Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov: Filipino users @Sky Harbor, Blakegripling ph, and Higad Rail Fan: , and foreign users @Thuresson, MGA73, Liliana-60, Stefan2, User 50, Martin H, Clindberg, P199, Jameslwoodward, Psiĥedelisto, 1989, and King of Hearts: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2023-021 rule V says that "No copyright subsists in any of the works of the Government of the Philipppines. The application of this rule is governed by IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No. 2020-024, and its amendments and supplements."
2020-024 defines what works of the Government is. For example it is only a work of the Government if it is made by an employee as a part of their normal duties (4.1). It also states that prior approval is needed (4.3)
I think it is a bit unclear what the meaning is. Does 2023-021 remove the copyright and the requirements of permission stated in 2020-024? If not then I do not see what the purpose of 2023-021 is. --MGA73 (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MGA73 2023-021 IRR provides rules and meanings for the copyright term and public domain provisions of the copyright law. The copyright terms are not relevant because the Philippines follows a shorter posthumous term of 50 years, which Commons cannot accept as the U.S. law provides longer, 70 years term (for all eligible international works, including all Filipino works, made after 2002 as per Hirtle chart).
The rules on public domain may be relevant for Commons, as well as the rules provided by 2020-024. Perhaps a few more Filipino shows can be hosted here (provided these are in public domain before 1996, the COM:URAA date for Filipino works). But possibly, there is a danger for several Filipino buildings being removed here as the IRR does not take into account the loophole of Act 3134 of 1924 (the copyright law of the Philippines before 1972), which is the lack of mention of architectural works in the 1924 law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I think the Act 3134 of 1924 is clear that architectural works are not protected, and that the copyright laws of post-1972 era are not retroactive, so pre-1972 Philippine buildings currently hosted here should not be affected by this IRR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JWilz12345 My comment was only related to government works. The rest is okay / clear.
I agree that there is a risk that some files will be deleted because some users like to look for files to delete. Personally I prefer not to look for files that are PD in the Philippines and have been on Commons for many years. --MGA73 (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MGA73 PH government works remain unclear actually, despite the present consensus treating the restrictions on commercial use and distribution as COM:Non-copyright restrictions. Due to unclear provisions both in the law and the 2020-024 IRR which governs the government works provision of the law, it is not surprising that several government websites here tend to make their content unfree and slap with "all rights reserved", most notably the website of the state news agency w:en:Philippine News Agency. The News and Information Bureau claims the PNA copyright claims are in accordance with the law, and the public can only freely use contents for personal purpose and for informatory purposes on Facebook and other social media platforms. Due to possible takedown strikes from PNA sometime in the future, I created this category to keep track of possible deletion reqhests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD in Egypt, but is it in the US? edit

Hey, folks. I cannot quite understand whether (and how) File:609 - Jerusalem - Church of the Virgin.JPG is in public domain in the US. The uploader appears to have scanned a postcard produced by en:Lehnert & Landrock, who are named in the file information. The eBay seller of the postcard does not have it on their profile anymore, but I included a link to the profile of another seller of the same postcard. (I am not sure if that is even helpful.) Lehnert & Landrock closed their business in 1930[4] so the postcard must have been created earlier than that. Lehnert died in 1948. I am not sure which, if any, of the US PD criteria listed at Template:PD-Egypt/en this file is supposed to fit. Note that there are other photos in Category:Jerusalem photographs by Lehnert & Landrock. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lehnert & Landrock is only the publisher here, so the author is anonymous. {{PD-1996}} should be OK. Yann (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original uploader here. If I remember correctly, it was PD-1996 (as mentioned by User:Yann) that I thought of as the reason why it should be OK to have it on Commons. The fact that the template wasn't there must have been a mistake on my side. However, I saw that it was added now, so the article review can proceed further, I think. Furthermore, even if the author was known, I think it would fall under A: Non-creative photographic or audiovisual works with 1981 as the cut-off year, because it's just a "documentary" type of photo without any creative input to the scene itself. - Anonimski (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media published by press services of Ukrainian military edit

A user from Russia has systematically tried to delete photos made by Ukrainian troops and published by Ukrainian Armed Forces brigades' press services.

Previous:

Current:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the main reasons Wikipedia sticks to free images policy is for a very grounded reason: Wikimedia does not want an owner of the media to sue Wikimedia.

In light of that, Ukrainian military shows its clear intent to share images under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license:

My proposal is: consider the media published by press services of Ukrainian military in social networks (like Facebook, Twitter) is distributed under the same license as their commanding body. I.e. published under CC BY 4.0. Because:

  • Ukrainian military clearly shows it shares images under free license;
  • images published by press services are taken and shared as a part of that persons' official duties.

PS. I'll invite participants of the recent discussion @Kursant504, VictorAnyakin, HeminKurdistan, and S5A-0043: . VoidWanderer (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first three DRs were started by Anahoret, whereas Commons:Deletion requests/Files with fake "Mil.gov.ua" license and the current one were started by Kursant504.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the correction. Yet, here's the system I'm talking about:
VoidWanderer (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For you will not think that I see such problem only with ukranian fotos - I also create DR's for unfree foto of russian troops, like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Fotos_taken_not_from_Mil.ru and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:A-davydov.jpg (posters with foto of russian soldiers of war in UA). Kursant504 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By this DRs from Mil.gov.ua - i just took a category "Mil.gov.ua" and started to check all photos by the alphabet. And start to create a "little" mass-DRs for administrators was easier to check them. Kursant504 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This reads more like a user-conduct issue than a mere copyright matter. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 107#Kursant504. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By the way, there is a good example of the fact that Ukrainian government departments use different licenses on different web-sites (photo from the website of the President of Ukraine with NC-license). And two other: one soviet photo was already deleted by the administrators because it really violated copyrights, and the second one - is derivative work of soviet with NC-license. I don't understand what problems you saw here.Kursant504 (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't agree with you. It is obvious to me that not all military personnel who conduct filming in a combat zone do this as part of their official duties and automatically transfer the copyrights to these materials to their military department. It means that MoD of UA can publish on their social media a non free content, that they take from web. Also as MoD of Russia do: on mil.ru media is free (publish own unique materials), on youtube, VK and Telegram - is not (often they publish foto and video from social media). That's why free license is used only to media from Mil.gov.ua. If some press services of Ukrainian military troops are really published their own free content - they put such license in description, like some military troops do (see "Template:Mil.gov.ua KPSZSU Twitter" and "Template:Mil.gov.ua 831stTAB FB" for example). Kursant504 (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kursant504: I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that a lot (if not all) of the media you filed for deletion is really the work of corresponding press-services that was intentionally shared with the rest of the world. It is their own work and not republished content from 3rd parties.--vityok (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is wonderful that you can say this so confidently, but I am not inclined to share such an optimistic point of view. After all, without a corresponding statement about a free license, these are all just our guesses. But we mustn't violate the copyrights of photographers. Even if the photo is their official duty (here it’s easy to remember army's military photographers during the Second World War - a lot of their photographs are still protected by copyright). Kursant504 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:8432 A Trans-Canada Hwy (1970 2013) (9542746563).jpg edit

File:8432 A Trans-Canada Hwy (1970 2013) (9542746563).jpg

C vio .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission edit

I'm a bit confused about File:Sheldon L. Rittmer - Official Portrait - 79th GA.jpg, the template Template:Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission says "low-resolution portraits [...] may be accessed and used by the general public", but I can't find that formulation on https://www.legis.iowa.gov/. Are official state portraits usually copyrighted? Is the higher resolution I found of the photo and uploaded a copyvio? Is this clarified in the VRT? Can we downscale the larger image I found or do we have to use the one with weird contrast? Beao (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I presume that the license was given in the VRT communication indicated by the VRT template that is there. If you stray outside those parameters (i.e. using a high resolution image) you can't rely on that license. I think there is a VRT noticeboard if you need any clarification -- nobody else can see the contents, so we can't answer here. Works done by state governments are usually presumed copyrighted by default, yes. I can't imagine there would be a problem scaling it down to match the resolution that is on the site, as the bad contrast was likely caused by bad conversion tools of the era, but unless the better version is actually on that website it's technically outside the bounds -- but within the spirit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos by Brazilian Gov in Flickr under CC BY-ND 2.0 edit

I saw there were 7k photos in Wikipedia by the President's photographer uploaded from Flickr. Category:Photographs_by_Ricardo_Stuckert

I wanted to upload this photo, but I received the message it was under CC BY-ND. So, after checking why the previous photos were able to be uploaded, I noticed that photos taken before July 27, 2023 were under "CC BY 2.0", and after that under "CC BY-ND 2.0". Frustrated, but I still wonder if I could upload it under Template:PD-Brazil-Gov. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swedish Portrait Archive edit

There is a very good deal of files here, taken from this website: [5] 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: [6]! 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: [7] - 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]

Upload vs license date on COM:FOP Vietnam edit

From what I can glean here, Vietnam recently changed their copyright law so that new images of sculptures and buildings cannot benefit from Freedom of Panorama. This took place after the start of 2023, so new uploads are not allowed. I think I understand this. My question though is this: Why can't we allow images that were uploaded after this date as long as they were licensed earlier and this is verifiable (e.g., Flickr images)? The date clearly matters since the law is not retroactive and we're not deleting pre-2023 images. (pinging User:Krd, User:Materialscientist, and User:A1Cafel because they closed and/or nominated the relevant deletion requests; e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tallest building in South East Asia in Ho Chi Minh City (49381642302).jpg). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think we can. It shouldn't revoke any license for a picture that was already licensed. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We must not have a situation where existing pre-2023 uploads on Commons are allowed, but new transfers of pre-2023 Flickr uploads are not allowed. If pre-2023 uploads are only allowed to stay on their original website (whether that's Flickr or Commons), then the license is not truly free, and the pre-2023 Commons images must be deleted as well. (Note: I am not making an absolute statement about which interpretation of Vietnamese copyright law is correct; I am making a conditional statement that we cannot keep our existing images if we don't also allow images uploaded to Flickr under the same conditions.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Support Uploading pre-2023 FoP-Vietnam-related files to Commons. If the file doesn't violate copyright on Flickr then I don't understand why it would violate on Commons 🎪🤡. First of all, we should pay attention to the date when the image was uploaded to Flickr, not Commons. The upload date on Commons isn't genuine in this case. Юрий Д.К 02:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is what "not retroactive" means in this case. User:King of Hearts is right in that being allowed to keep the images isn't enough, distribution (etc.) must also still be allowed. For this we need more info. Still, if we decide that the images need to be deleted, it is important to keep enough information that people following a reuser's link back here don't get the impression that the file was a copyright violation already when it was copied to there. That reuser doesn't need to be allowed to redistribute the image for new uses. –LPfi (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems better to ask the relevant copyright office of Vietnam, a Vietnamese legislator involved in the copyright law, or a Vietnam-based lawyer to clarify the issue. @Alphama, Băng Tỏa, and Violetbonmua: , Vietnamese participants of Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/10#Updated copyright law of Vietnam and no more FOP?. At worst there should also be an opinion from the copyright office, legislator, or lawyer if Vietnamese FoP was really free for commercial use from the start (that is, the pre-2023 FoP of Vietnam). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:48, 16 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]

user:Stepro/DFB edit

There are 1094 files tagged with User:Stepro/DFB. Are these files really compliant with Commons licensing policy which states that all files must be able to be used unrestrictedly, commercially or not? Jonteemil (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We had this topic already several times. Please read and understand User:Stepro/Missverständnisse, first passage. Available in German and English. Stepro (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, that sounds pretty much just like {{Personality rights}}. The problem is using the phrase "commercial use" in a strictly copyright context (like we do), where elsewhere it means use in a publicity rights scenario, which is an entirely different thing with no correlation. If the copyright license prevents commercial use, it's a problem for upload here. If any other legal right prevents commercial use, it's not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the photographer is providing the work under the terms of a Creative Commons license which allows commercial reuse" - copyright is not restricted and allows commercial reuse
  • "Due to brand and personality rights" - restrictions are only because of brand and personality rules, not because of copyright
  • "commercial use" has two different meanings: We understand this in a way, that somebody earns money with it. Such organizations don't understand commercial newspapers and so on as "commercial use", they mean to use it on T-Shirts and other merchandise stuff, or commercial advertising. That's why they allow "editorial use" without further asking, although for us in paid newspapers and so on this is "commercial use". For them not.
Stepro (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was agreeing with you, in case that wasn't clear. :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I misunderstood you there. :-) Stepro (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyright and US governmental works edit

I've stumbled upon a Commons contributor whose perception of copyright and public domain are wildly different than anything I've seen at the English Wikipedia or the Commons in the last 19 years. At these two deletion discussions (one and two), Feoffer (talk · contribs) has suggested that the US government's use of third parties' works places them into the public domain essentially by virtue of republishing them. My understanding it that, if the US federal government publishes the otherwise-copyrighted work of a third party, as they can do under the fair-use doctrine, it doesn't place that original author's work into the public domain. I really just want to double-check whether I'm correct, or am I way off base, and the FBI's use of third-party materials actually does strip the copyright from the original authors and place the photos/videos into the public domain? I don't want to be arguing from the wrong position, and I can't find a specific Commons page that would clearly and succinctly support or disprove my understanding. Much thanks, Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fourthords: I believe you are correct, the FBI doesn't steal copyright like that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: That's certainly what I thought, but is there a Commons policy or explanation page that backs up that position? It's been my experience both here and enwp, but I don't know of any FFDs that explicitly deal with the contentions being argued at the discussions I linked. Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fourthords: Legally, we can host it under fair use. But doing so would be against policy because it's not free enough for our policy COM:L.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate Fourthouds' comments and wow, I had no idea they had been here for 19 years! Thank you for the wonderful project you helped create, it's an honor to be a part of it. They mis-state my views a bit, so I don't mind JeffG disagreeing with their claims of what I'm arguing -- I'd disagree with that too! I never say the original work loses its copyright, but decades of Wikipedia precedent shows the US federal court dockets, congressional records, and federal agency publications are always PD-USGOV.
So far as I can tell, FBI suspect photos have always been classed as PD-USGOV, going back more than 19 years! I've never seen copyright asserted to limit the distribution of a FBI suspect photo before, has anyone else? Feoffer (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair use publication by the FBI does not change the status of the photo (or they would, effectively, have the right to steal anyone's copyright).
Some of these images are PD (a photo by a fixed-position surveillance camera; a prior federal mugshot), others are not.
Yes, you can redistribute a wanted poster, but as I understand it using a copyrighted photo extracted from the poster for other purposes would be on a fair use basis, so it's sort of like an ND condition. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I understand you fully, can we use a concrete example? File:Fbi wanted.jpg is a PD-USGOV poster of James Earl Ray created and published by the FBI in 1968. Are you suggesting that it would become a copyright violation to crop a public domain image? Feoffer (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pre-1989 (and especially pre-1978) U.S. copyright law is quite different. Authorized publication of an image without a copyright notice was sufficient to put it in the public domain. So, if the first two images here were mug shots (which they look like), it doesn't matter what jurisdiction they were from: they passed it to the FBI to use, FBI published without copyright notice, boom: public domain. Since 1989, that doesn't work. - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's presume that Ray in the Tux is a photo that was not owned by the FBI -- obviously the original high resolution photograph of Ray in the Tux, wherever it is, is still covered by copyright. Meanwhile, the wanted poster has never had its copying and distribution limited under US Law.
Is you assertion that CROPPING a public domain image can somehow lead to a non-public domain image? If we cropped the wanted poster to show JUST the tux pic, would that transform it from Public Domain to Copyrighted? Feoffer (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. The poster makes proper fair use of a copyrighted photo. here is no legal problem with the poster. However, Commons does not allow images to be here on a fair-use basis, and the use of the photo is much to prominent to be de minimis. So while there is no question about the legality of copying and redistributing the poster, it does not conform to Commons criteria, which allow derivative works. The poster is basically in the same status as (for example) an en-wiki article that has a fair use image as it lead image. We could not host a screen-grab of the first page of that article on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't bring up my time here to make hay of it, but to explain why I would seek clarification from others. We're not trying to "limit the distribution of a FBI suspect photo" because it isn't an FBI photo; it's some third party's photo that the FBI used. Yes, the actual work created by the federal government (e.g. the words written in this document by an agent) is automatically in the public domain; yet if they use the whole or portions of others' works (e.g. the Parler video frame), that use isn't de minimis and does not follow the surrounding work into the public domain. Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
de minimis doesn't apply to the Feds, their use doesn't have to be "fair" in the same sense of an ordinary private citizens. When a murderer is on the loose, the feds get to publish pictures of the man and we're all allowed to distribute them to alert the public.
does not follow the surrounding work The 'surrounding work' is the full conversation that was witnessed by Federal Agents intercepting suspect communications undertaken via a now-defunct smartphone app; and whatever copyright it had before, it still has.
But as to the "wanted poster"-stle image released by the FBI, which is being continually published by the FBI and the US federal courts system, it has literally entered the public domain, like all images of its class. It is no longer a violation of US law to share that image freely. Like every other FBI suspect photo, it is now PD-USGOV. Feoffer (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The federal government is as liable for copyright infringement as our reusers: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes-3-5m-for-using-wrong-statue-of-liberty-on-a-stamp/ The FBI's use of third party photographs is fair use, and English Wikipedia could justify the same under fair use if they changed policy to allow wanted posters. Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow fair use so we have to get permission from the actual photographer and the FBI using a third-party image doesn't make the photograph enter the public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The USPS is not the same as the Congressional Record, a federal court docket, or the FBI's most wanted. Can you show me any prior examples of FBI publications including subject photos that have been denied PD-USGOV categorization? Feoffer (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two deletions I've done Commons:Deletion requests/File:GadahnBeforetheBeard.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dzhojar Tsárnayev.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay! Sincerely, good answer. People online ask for source all time and then skip over a response when sources are provided -- sincerely, thank you. I completely disagree with your interpretation and find it at odds with both my understanding of US copyright and decades of wikimedia policy, but I deeply appreciate you tracking down those deletions for me. Thank you. I will note, both proposed by the same user, less than two months ago, no objection from any other user, so.. not a STRONG precedent, but still very sincerely appreciated. Feoffer (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See w:en:Zapruder film. Publication of frames under fair use. Government seized the original film, but had to pay Zapruder heirs $16M, and did not get the copyright. Glrx (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a yuuuuuge stretch -- the FBI never published any suspect photos from Zapruder, they just seized and held the film, and so of course he got his film back. If the FBI had zoomed in on someone in the Zapruder film and chosen to publish that image on a wanted poster, then everyone in the US would have been free to share the wanted poster. Feoffer (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
everyone in the US would have been free to share the wanted poster As fair use. Again, Commons does not accept content on a fair-use basis (with the sole exception that de minimis is a special case of fair use that we do allow). - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not as fair use -- we have thousands of wanted posters and subject images tagged as PD-USGOV, going back DECADES. "Under Copyright" means you can't reprint them in the US, and there has NEVER been a time when you couldn't reprint FBI wanted posters in the US. That's what PD-USGOV means -- the Gov published an image for public distribution and anyone can distribute it. Same goes for Congressional records and white house record and court records. In the US at least, Federal publications are PD. Feoffer (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"In the US at least, Federal publications are PD" - This is simply untrue, as others have attempted to explain above. You appear to conflate federal publication (which is not even a word that appears in the oft-referenced {{PD-USGov}}, let alone the relevant code section) with federal authorship (the actual criterion). 17 U.S.C. § 105, the basis for that template, sets forth "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (underlined added) Your claims are without basis, and the notion that federal publication renders a work public domain is contradicted by 17 U.S.C. (again, "the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise"), at least the Fourth Amendment, plain reading of the relevant law, and indeed common sense. Эlcobbola talk 21:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just going on what longstanding Wikimedia precedent has been. Can you cite any FBI suspect image, prior to two months ago, that was denied PD-USGOV? Feoffer (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you're not genuinely engaging with other's comments, and making vacuous OTHERSTUFF allusions. The onus is on you to support your positions, not me or anyone else to disprove them. If appeals to the "longstanding" are what interest you, consider reading the "Common misconceptions" section ("Government hosting") of Reviewing Free Images dispatch from 15 years ago. Эlcobbola talk 21:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I may not have been here 19 years, but I've been here long enough to AGF. Pretend I'm from Missouri -- if Wikipedia really no longer allows FBI images to be published as PD-USGOV, there should be a slew of precedents to support your argument. Right now, I only see precedents that support mine. Feoffer (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But not to have read it, apparently; I see no comments about your intentions. Images authored by employees of the FBI are public domain; one presumes we have many such images. Images not authored by employees of the US federal government that appear in FBI publications are not public domain by the latter alone; one presumes we also have many such images--feel free to nominate them for deletion. Эlcobbola talk 22:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I started nominating every PD-USGOV FBI image of unknown secondary provenance, I would be rightfully warned for disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Feoffer (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I promise I'm not trying to be POINTY, but it really is standard procedure to upload the full criminal complaint so our readers can verify it without leaving the project, so I've done so. Because this image is a crop that document, it seems obvious I should disclose that upload to the discussion here. Feoffer (talk)

@Feoffer: No, as far as I know that is not "standard procedure" at all. (FWIW, I'm an admin here and on en-wiki, and a 20-year veteran of the latter.) What is the basis of that claim? - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I apologize if it should not have been done, but I see countless examples that led and lead me to believe it's pretty standard really. take a peek. Feoffer (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PD-USGov is for "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties". See Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. That is the only way to get PD-USGov status. It cannot have its copyright status changed by someone publishing it alone. That may have been arguable before the 1909 Copyright Act, but even though that law (superseded in 1978) defined a "publication of the United States Government" as being free of copyright, that law also noted: the publication or republication by the Government, either separately or in a public document, of any material in which copyright is subsisting shall not be taken to cause any abridgement or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such copyright material without the consent of the copyright proprietor. Since 1978, a government work is explicitly just those done by government employees. In the United Kingdom, before 1988, it was possible, if first published by the government, for it to "take over" a copyright as Crown Copyright there (which has different terms, but was not public domain). Since 1988, their definition is similar to the one in the US.
A photo's use as part of US Government business greatly expands the fair use scope, so republishing those would generally not be illegal, though some derivative works could be an issue. Before 1989, published photographs needed a copyright notice, so many photographs before then were public domain before the US Government used them. If someone consented to the government publishing them before 1989, and there was no copyright notice, they would also likely be public domain. So many old ones would be PD-US-no_notice instead of PD-USGov, which are still fine. Very occasionally, people publishing images through the government are made to understand they are placing them in the public domain (such as the bottom of this page). The issue is mainly for newer images, and then only because of site policy (no fair use) rather than being actual copyright infringements. That unfortunately gets into theoretical problems unlikely to ever be an issue in real life, but it is policy. One last possibility is using the {{De minimis}} tag -- we have several works which unavoidably contain a copyrighted work as part of a photo of a wider subject; cropping out just that one element could be a copyright violation, so we don't allow those, but we do allow the wider photo with that warning. That is not obviously applicable to a case like this, where photos are a small part of a much larger document -- probably not strictly legally de minimis or incidental. It would more technically be fair use, even though it seems somewhat similar. Whether that crosses the policy line, may be up for debate. But the logic that they become public domain, is definitely not true. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the specific image that prompted this discussion would certainly qualify as fair use, and presumably the larger government document from which it came is still PD-USGOV, but it sounds like the large specific image may have to be removed from Commons? Thank you for typing all this out. Feoffer (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bharat Broadband Network logo.png edit

File:Bharat Broadband Network logo.png was uploaded as "own work" which it most likely isn't per bbnl.nic.in. The question is whether it's too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:TOO United States and COM:TOO India. If not, it should be deleted if this copyright statement is insufficient for Commons purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Video call: who owns the copyright? edit

A videographer usually owns the copyright of their work – right? When you participate in a video call, that would presumably remain true; it's your camera that is recording you and you thus hold the copyright for your feed. If so, that would preclude somebody from publishing a recording of a video conference call under a license suitable for Commons, unless of course all participants have agreed to this. I tried to find something about this in copyright pages but drew a blank. Could we please get this clarified, and then document the situation? There are some news outfits that publish their conference calls with interviews on YouTube under a free license, and I'm doubting that they can do that. Schwede66 01:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ownership of the camera has nothing to do with copyright. Ruslik (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please expand on your answer? I’m not talking about ownership, but rather being the operator of that camera. Schwede66 05:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the copyright holder is the one doing the recording. For a visioconference (with Zoom, Skype, etc.), it creates the weird situation that the same session will have different copyright holders depending on who does the recording. Yann (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a bit of an error here in thinking of a recording of a zoom call as a compilation or collective work, composed of independent works that are each subject to their own copyright. The feeds of different sides of a conversation are not independent, they are intertwined and inseparable. The recording has to be seen as a single work. In the same way you wouldn't look at a movie and try to separately determine the copyright owner of every scene.

This leads to the next question: Who is the author of that recording? The author of a work is generally the "mastermind" who controls the overall work and causes it to come into being. (Not simply the person making the recording; the author of a movie is generally the producer and/or director, not the camera operator.) In this case, the "mastermind" would seem to be the news organization, which arranged the interview, selected the topic, drove the conversation, and edited it together.

An alternative theory would be that the interview was a work of joint authorship, with the interviewee as a joint author. This seems unlikely, but could be the case if, for example, the interview was conceived as a joint project between the news organization and the interviewee. (See jury instructions as a reference.) But if it's a joint work, then it seems that either of the two authors has the right to license the work, without the other's consent. Commons:Joint authorship has some discussion on whether Commons should allow works under that circumstance. Toohool (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. In addition, copyright only concerns tangible assets. Zoom doesn't record anything by default. It only sends the video over the Internet. So there is no copyright in a Zoom session until someone records it. Yann (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple images with issues because of lack of FoP in Greece edit

File:20090802 distomo05.jpg was just withdrawn from Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list because it got multiple opposing votes because of the lack of FoP in Greece. Unfortunately, it is an image that is used on several wikis. In addition, multiple other images in Category:Karakolithos National Resistance Memorial must be suspected to be not acceptable for Commons. What is the appropriate course of action to deal with these issues? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Robert Flogaus-Faust: So nominate them for deletion on the grounds of COM:FOP Greece with "<noinclude>[[Category:Greek FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude>".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robert Flogaus-Faust just like what Jeff G. said, nominate for deletion is the key. Should there be dozens needing nominations, it is fine as right now (as of this writing), opened French FOP cases number more than 40, and opened Ukrainian FOP cases number about 50 (many are involving sculptures, started by me). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Already made the nomination myself. Note that there may be other problematic images of Greece that needs removals. No choice, Greek law only allows "occasional reproduction" by mass media, and does not allow free uses by those engaged in tourism or website development. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot! --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:17, 18 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]
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]

Is Esteghlal Fc Football Club.png freely distributable? edit

File:Esteghlal Fc Football Club.png gives permission as {{talk quote inline|باشگاه فوتبال استقلال تهران}} [Esteghlal Football Club of Tehran] The original uploaded didn't request permission as far as I can see. Is there permission on file? Should this have a {{PD-Textlogo}} and/or {{Trademark}}? Should it be deleted as copyright violation? Thanks Adakiko (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Oops - nowiki the template & contents. Adakiko (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I entirely follow that. I assume from source "Template:Talk quote inline [Esteghlal Football Club of Tehran]" was mean to read as "باشگاه فوتبال استقلال تهران [Esteghlal Football Club of Tehran]". I don't know what to make of "the original uploaded". I'd guess "the original upload" or "the original uploader", but neither of those makes sense here either. - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for noticing that. I had to leave in a hurry and didn't check my work. I nowiki-ed out the templae. Adakiko (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm adding {{Trademarked}}, which is obviously the case. I see no basis to believe the claimed license. Given Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iran#Threshold of originality it is above the Iranian threshold of originality, so it presumably should be deleted. Pinging @Amirmahdi Saadati as uploader and Erfe356785 who uploaded the current version: do you have any evidence that the club issued this license? Otherwise, this should be deleted as a copyvio. - Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Campbell's Soup Cans image issue edit

I was here last month with some issues regarding w:Campbell's Soup Cans image issues at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Additional_images_at_w:Campbell's_Soup_Cans. I got a lot of help from a host of discussants: @Verbcatcher, Felix QW, Glrx, Ellin Beltz, and Jeff G.: . It has been brought to my attention that the source link at File:Campbell tomato soup ad 1968.jpg is dead. Does that affect opinions about the licensing status of this image.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: why would that matter? In 1968 in the U.S. there would have had to be a copyright notice on the ad to get a copyright. Clearly there isn't. - Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyright notice could be on the back of this poster that we just don't see when we go to this file page. Realmaxxver (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I can see, this is not a poster but an advertisement printed in a newspaper, which promises obtaining the poster when sending in a coupon. This seems to me an inherently single-sided publication. Felix QW (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Realmaxxver, Felix QW, and Jmabel: My understanding is that as long as this was a single-sided publication printed without a copyright notice, and the current licensing is considered valid. Is there a way to amend the source link?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The source link doesn't matter much when the evidence is part of the upload itself. If there is a web archive link, switch to that, otherwise not much we can do (though should keep the link). The upload should probably use {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} to be a bit more specific. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here, another ad for the same image. Also, this one identifies the artist. DS (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good find! I have had it archived by the WayBackMachine, so that the situation does not repeat itself. Felix QW (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thx. I have added {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}-TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CC0 documents Dutch House of Representatives edit

The Dutch House of Representatives has implemented the Dutch Open Government Law by having CC0 as the default license for its documents. Because there are a few exceptions and multiple ways these documents are published, it's not always easy for Wikimedians to ascertain that CC0 applies. I have asked the House of Representatives for clarification, which has resulted in this template with documentation. The clarification and other steps leading to the template are on its Talk page. Are this template and its documentation fit for use? MarcoSwart (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=823872339"