This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.
One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
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.
For the aforementioned permission from city councils on monuments, the permissions are claimed to be valid even for old photos or new photos not taken on the occasion of a particular edition of Wiki Loves Monuments. For example, a permission obtained during WLM-Italy 2021 is valid for photos from 2017. Again, the permission is stored in the databases of Wikimedia Italy and not recorded by COM:VRTS. Theoretically, File:Chiesa dio padre misericordioso roma.JPG (uploaded in 2009) is supposedly freely-usable under a later authorization for the WLM-Italy 2014 (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chiesa di Dio Padre Misericordioso).
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 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. --Rosenzweigτ 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. --Rosenzweigτ 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]
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. --Rosenzweigτ 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". --Rosenzweigτ 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 ISdo 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. --Rosenzweigτ 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]
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 22/04/1941Protezione 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. --Rosenzweigτ 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. --Rosenzweigτ 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. --Rosenzweigτ 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), notcreate 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. --Rosenzweigτ 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? --Rosenzweigτ 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 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 herebut 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.
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 --Rosenzweigτ 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.? --Rosenzweigτ 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]
Two people arguing over the status of the Catholic church and whether buildings do or do not fall under certain provisions of Italian copyright lawedit
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]
The source of File:Ponte_do_Reguengo.jpg is the blog A Terceira Dimensão, where the photographer seems to allow unrestricted reuse of his aerial photos, asking only for reusers to divulge the original blogpost url. I would think this is not unlike {{CopyAttribEmail}} — is the correct? Or should OTRS be attempted instead of just just uploading? (@Royalbroil: This matter also affects the meanwhile deleted File:Setil.jpg.) (@Pcjrm and Ajpvalente: also pinged.) -- Tuválkin✉✇ 16:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current specific claim of {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is clearly wrong: that requires a specific grant of that license. But I think we probably have grounds for {{Attribution only license}} with the appropriate parameters filled in. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I thought that CC-BY-SA was unwarrented, too, just didn’t know how to procede. Should I just change it to {{Attribution only license}} or it’s better to try and contact the photographer and have him change the terms of his licensing to clearly indicate a CC license thereon? His work seems to be very useful and interesting. -- Tuválkin✉✇ 14:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: Just changing it would be fine, but of course if you can contact the photographer and get a clear and irrevocable license, that is better. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(unindent) I disagree for 2 reasons and they are why I deleted the image. 1) The image has the circled C which means that it is copyrighted. 2) I used google translate to get an approximation of their copyright wishes on the blog: "The approximately 11,000 photographs on this blog were taken during leisure flights. If these images are used, the author would like to thank the authors for sharing the links to the respective posts. Tags preceded by "ZZ" refer to topics related to foreign countries and those with "ZZZ" refer to aeronautical topics. To obtain these images in high definition contact: duarte07@gmail.com". To me that does not imply grant of any attribution license - just that the photographer is willing to provide higher definition images if asked. These 2 reasons combined became a smoking gun to delete. It reads that the author acknowledges that other people might use the images without being specifically given permission and would at least like a link to their blog. An unequivocal irrevocable license is needed in my opinion. Royalbroil 02:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know almost nothing about copyright law but even I know that your 1st argument is meaningless.
Concerning your 2nd argument, will you trust me (or any other native Portuguese speaking collegue here) over Google Translate to ascertain the authors’ intent?
With regard to the first argument, I agree, but I kind of agree with @Royalbroil that the actual release is a bit too vaguely formulated and it's probably better to get in touch with the photographer, and if possible get them to send VRT a release for all images on the site. A bit more work, but I imagine a general release for the site should be sufficient and it's not needed to have an explicit release for each and every file. TommyG (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They could also simply indicate the free license more explicitly on the website. That should be easier than having to go through the VRT procedure. Felix QW (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with TommyG and Felix that the best action is to request an explicit general release on the website for all 11000 files in a clearer wording. What is their intention in their own words and is it compatible with a free Commons license? Royalbroil 02:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's from 1986 so definitely still copyrighted. —Tcr25 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears the publicity photo is of UK origin, so definitely still under copyright. However, some publicity photos can be uploaded, certain conditions need to be met. Published in the US without a copyright notice, and in some cases no copyright registration later. Examples: File:Buddy Holly Brunswick Records.jpg and File:Prince 1981
@0mtwb9gd5wx: If an image was taken in the UK and also distributed simultaneously in the US, US law takes precedence. Published in the US without a copyright notice would be the correct license. We don't start seeing copyright notices on publicity images till about 1985. the File:Prince 1981 image was part of trying to find the exact year for each of the studios and record labels. Prince images were from Warner Bros. Records and they were not adding notice to at least 1981. --RAN (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any chance that images and other multimedia under the Qatari government domain gov.qa or their social media (e.g. https://www.mofa.gov.qa/, https://www.diwan.gov.qa/) are available under creative commons / public domain license, like a number of other countries have done? e.g. Template:PD-USGov-Congress
Thank you for doing the research! Unlike the incredible mess with India's Open Data policy, this one is actually explicitly restricted in its scope and only applies to facts, figures and statistics objectively measured according to a standard or scale such as frequency or volumes or occurrences. It then goes on in its introduction to reaffirm that indeed all Qatari government works are automatically copyrighted, and that only data is freely licensed. So unfortunately no luck for us regarding media, but at least we are spared the ambiguity here. Felix QW (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, This is probably in the public domain, either for lack of notice or renewal, but I can't find the source. There are 2 pictures on Getty from the same photo session (same dress, same pendant) without the photographer's name. However EXIF data says the photographer is Ben Polin. Can anyone help to fix that please? Yann (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Same as above. Here I got the source, but not the photographer's name. Yann (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot find any examples of US publishing prior to 1978 without a notice. Did a Google Lens & Tineye search + the usual place of ebay and Worthpoint don't have this image. It's most likely in the Public Domain, but I can't find any examples on the internet to prove it. PascalHD (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the article Carlo Curti I was considering to upload a picture of a his death certificate, a government document (page with the image). However, I am not certain now that the document is in the public domain. It is over 100 years old from 10 May 1922, but then on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico I read "Works created by the Mexican government do not default to being public domain, being protected 100 years after publication.[1996-2018 Art.29(II)] This applies to the federal, state and municipal governments."
Am I right in thinking this death certificate is not in the public domain? Jacqke (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've ran into a problems with that part of the guideline myself a couple of times. It should really be clarified. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your clarification. I thought the wording strange. Best wishes Jacqke (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would a PD-1996 cover this for the United States? Jacqke (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No; if it was in copyright in Mexico in 1996, then PD-1996 doesn't work. PD-US-expired is the correct US license for all works published more than 95 years ago.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#Freedom of panorama the status of freedom of panorama in Spain is unclear due to a couple of court cases where it seems to have been determined that there is no commercial usage for reproductions of works situated in public spaces. To quote the guideline "Spanish courts have ruled against commercial use of works situated in public spaces." So I'm wondering if the status should just be changed to "not allowed" instead of "unclear" since there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity about it and a restriction on commercial usage clearly isn't compatible with Common. I wanted to see what other people think before changing the guideline though. Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last time this was discussed, there was no consensus to change the guideline. Abzeronow (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where was it previously discussed? It's not like the consensus from one conversation can overrule longstanding policy from the Wikimedia Foundation that we don't allow for non-commercial usage anyway. So the at least IMO the guideline should be changed anyway. Although that's why I brought it up instead of just editing the guideline. I'd much prefer that the consensus about it change to be more in line with the policies then us just ignore them because a couple of people in a random discussion thought they shouldn't matter at the time. Or there should at least be a warning template for images like with other countries where there's only non-commercial usage but we still allow uploads under certain circumstances. I'd be fine with either, but just not allowing people to upload the images in the first place seems like the easier and more policy based option of the two. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, cool. I somehow managed to forget about that conversation. I guess it isn't linked to in the guideline either, which didn't help. Not to say the original participants opinions don't matter, but it would be good if other people participated in the discussion this time along with them since it seemed like they didn't really agree on it last time. Really, if anything the conversation didn't even go anywhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree to change Spanish FoP to Not OK(red country) per COM:PCP. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first source given by DarwIn lists a table of fines for breaking copyright of the architects. I think we should protect third parties who use the Commons content while assuming it is free to use anywhere. I have had a problem paying a fine in a copyright case (totally outside the Wikimedia context). Since then, I have been very careful, and one of my personal motivations is to keep Commons clean of such problems, to protect others. So yes, please clarify the FOP text for Spain. And yes, I am aware that possibly many images will have to be deleted as a consequence. The Belgian government finally introduced FOP in 2016, perhaps Spain will do as well, because this is bad for tourism, of course. Ellywa (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that we may keep Spanish FOP-related files with a warning template like {{FoP-Sweden}}. Юрий Д.К 11:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ellywa impact on tourism doesn't matter in Spain, I assume. Given that the two cases involved tourism merchandise items that are judged to be violations of artists' copyrights.
@Юрий Д.К. Swedish case is a different matter. Sweden was to become "not OK" after the Swedish SC ruling, but Wikimedia Foundation intervened and stated that Commons should not remove images of all contemporary Swedish buildings and monuments en masse. Unlike the case here, Wikimedia Foundation has yet to issue a legal statement which may be favorable for Spanish Wikimedia community (choosing to follow the word of the Spanish law) or not (choosing to make Spanish court rulings binding on Commons). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 12:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well.... it is up to them of course... But if no images appear in the Wikipedia articles of the modern arwork/buildings in Seville for instance, they will regret that I assume. These are a reason for a visit. Sevilla. Ellywa (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ellywa it's a "nightmare" for many European wikis, which typically follow local laws. The responses of local wikis, I think, would become varied. German wikipedia may choose to apply German FOP over the impacted Spanish buildings and monuments, but Danish Wikipedia may only host unfree Spanish buildings using Danish architectural FOP, and not monuments. Remains to be seen for Spanish Wikipedia's response.
For English Wikipedia, they can get away from Spanish laws using U.S. laws only; they reached a consensus in 2012 in which they only respect U.S. laws, including U.S. copyright law, and not laws of all other lands. This is why the template w:en:Template:FoP-USonly exists and used in full-resolution images of Burj Khalifa and other buildings from countries with no-FOP. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 12:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I was not clear. We should follow the Spanish law and jurisprudence, as we do in all cases, as we follow the local situation on copyright (as well as US in some cases when needed). Ellywa (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikimedia Foundation intervened and stated that Commons should not remove images of all contemporary Swedish buildings and monuments en masse. I don't think anyone would advocate for deleting every possible image that might violate FOP in Spain in a single go anyway, but just to be on the safe side if or when the status is changed it should come with a disclaimer not to mass nominations of potentially copyrighted images. Really, there's no legitimate reason that images shouldn't continue to be judged on a case by case basis regardless of the change. How the various wiki's deal with it will of course be a "nightmare", especially for European ones, but that's not really our issue and can be somewhat mitigated by us not doing mass nominations. It's unfortunate that more Wikis outside of English Wikipedia don't allow for fair use though since it really puts Commons in a bad situation any time something changes in favor of deleting images. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My country does not allow fair use, so a Wikipedian would be personally liable on NL Wikipedia. The Foundation waives all responsibility. So it IS really "OUR" problem because this is an international project and we should act according to the appliccable local laws. That is listed somewhere in the guidelines on Commons. Ellywa (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, we should follow all locals laws. Not keep images that violate local copyrights, or can't be used commercially, just because some non-English wiki doesn't allow for fair use. That was my point. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, it's not "some wiki" that doesn't allow for fair use. They aren't in the position to allow something which is illegal or violates copyright in the concerned country, it's the copyright-law. --Túrelio (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its kind of an irrelevant side thing to the coversation to begin with, but I'm sure there's at least a couple of countries where it would probably be fine depending on the circumstances. None of them are Spain of course, but fair use at least on the the internet is a grey area that hasn't really been tested in court well (if at all) no matter the country. That's not to say any Wiki should try it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 furthermore, a few wikis do not allow local uploading. Simple English Wikipedia is one thing and Kyrgyz Wikipedia is another thing, AFAIK. I think Estonian Wikipedia discourages local uploads but I may be wrong though. The court rulings can have negative effects for smaller wikis. @Ikan Kekek: , this may also force Wikivoyage community to upload locally copies of the same images in all language editions of Wikivoyage, should Spanish courts continue to interpret the Three-Step Test as a NC restriction disallowing uses of recent Spanish landmarks in tourism items et cetera. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 04:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the notice, JWilz12345. Will we be given time to do that? That could be a big task. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it retrospective? If it does, it takes a long time to clean up, because we had 10,000+ files are under FoP Spain category. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, it would take a long time to delete everything, I guess. Maybe once a decision has been made, if deletion is necessary, it could start with photos that are not used by other wikis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I've seen what we have are two court cases, both from 2006 (so a while ago), both from Provincial Courts, which accd. to en:Judiciary of Spain are a rather low type of court (second lowest in Spain). Are these the only two Spanish court cases concerning freedom of panorama? Are there others, newer than 2006, from higher courts? Two cases from lower courts like these could still be outlier decisions. I'd hesitate to totally nix Spanish fop (for our purposes) based on just these two cases. --Rosenzweigτ 17:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's also the sentence in the guideline saying "A number of sources state that 35(2) is entirely revoked by commercial use" and they don't seem to be related to the two court cases from what I can tell. So we don't just have the two decisions by the lower court. Although is there any reason to think the two cases aren't legally sound or would otherwise be turned over by a higher court even if they are were the opinions that 35(2) is revoked by commercial use are coming from? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. I was thinking about several court decisions regarding freedom of panorama in Germany, where various courts made contradicting decisions about drones and fop. A lower court decision (which still stands, it wasn't overturned) said they're allowed. But then a different lower court said they're not allowed, a higher court confirmed that decision, and it looks like there will be a decision on the matter by Germany's highest court in a year or so. Legal commentaries are mostly on the side which says they're not allowed. So all I'm saying is we should get the full picture before deciding anything. --Rosenzweigτ 05:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. That seems like a complicated case and I don't necessarily have a problem with waiting for a fuller picture in practice. Although it seems wrong to intentionally take a hands off approach to this just because the court hasn't made decision on it yet when both the lower courts and legal commentary both seem to agree that there's no allowance in Spain for commercial usage. COM:PCP makes it clear that anything along the lines of "we can get away with it" is against Commons' aims. In the least continuing to allow for full FOP in Spain could lead to other cases in the lower court, which clearly isn't in line with the goals of the project. You could argue the higher courts needs to clarify it in the long run, but that doesn't stop people from being sued in the lower court up until then or that we should take a laissez faire approach to it until they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think we should paint Spain red without any professional legal analysis. FoP is not just a yes or no issue. There are countries for example where buildings are free and monuments (which also have architects sometimes) are not. I would like to see a conclusion what is exactly not ok according to Spanish laws / legal practice, and I am afraid the only actor in a position to provide this conclusion for us is WMF.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very nice of you asking a long-term Commons administrator whether he is familiar with the basic principles of the project, but yes, sure, I have read it. Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder, that which kind of behaviors mentioned by both court cases, to let justices to rule both copyvio cases, by missing or mis-providing attributions? (just another COM:FOP China-like behavior, :P) by re-using some small, extra stuffs without separate licensing from those owners? (wow, Spain could be the first ever EU country that COM:De minimis is NOT OK?!) by playing Trick or Treat in courtrooms? or else? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226 you haven't read most of the previous discussion, I think. The Spanish courts took the Berne Three-Step Test to the most extreme level, in which the Three-Step Test, for them, disallows any commercial use like tourism merchandise. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 03:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If so, then I Support to re-write FOP Spain section as just not ok, @Aymatth2: any against responds? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Rosenzweig and Ymblanter (and other users): few court cases do not change the copyright law of a country, and the PCP is not "copyright paranoia". If there are systematically high court cases about FoP in Spain, that state that it is not OK to do DW of some kind of work in a public place, then we'll modify our rules. But it's pointless to start deleting without being sure of what are the legislator's intentions. Ruthven(msg) 10:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about my opinion and Liuxinyu970226's opinion? They support to change Spain to red(no FoP). Ox1997cow (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Changing to "not ok". 2 cases in 2006 by second lowest courts in Spain isn't a valid reason to delete Spanish FOP-related files. Юрий Д.К 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree; it would be good to have further information than to outright delete the files in question. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We might want to add a prominent warning to {{FoP-Spain}}, so that reusers can judge for themselves whether they want to take the risk. As long as we don't know whether the supreme court of Spain agrees, I don't think we need to delete the images.
Not deleting is especially important as it seems these lower courts think that full FoP is illegal not only in Spain, but in every Berne country (isn't the 40 bis wording similar to that in the convention?).
Deleting them could inspire copyright organisations worldwide to try to get similar court decisions. (The uploader and Commons don't risk prosecution, as neither uses the image commercially.)
I can't see how Spain has suddenly become a non-FoP country just picking 2 random court decissions and assuming that is the general rule to follow in this project. Going further, we would create an absurd scenario if we consider Spain as a dubious or non-FoP country. Let me explain: we assume we can host these images because of FoP issues, but we are entitled to upload pictures considered as "mere photographies" (art. 128 LPI) that were created more than 25 years ago and published before 1996 (to avoid collisions with American law) and that would be fine as per Spanish law, because these works would be considered public domain. How is that even an option if Spain is a dubious/non-FoP country...? Furthermore, in the section Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Spain#Freedom_of_panorama, the two references added go in this line: ref number 8, regarding the Osborne's bull case, the analysis on that paper concludes that the court decission was incorrect and there was not a crime against intellectual property in that case and it was a court misjudgement; ref number 7 mostly mentions the "three steps rule", that the Spanish law pretty much copies from the InfoSoc directive. These steps are:
The limits - exceptions provided for in the act are applied in a strict and restricted manner.
are interpreted in such a way that they do not conflict with the normal (pre-existing) exploitation of the work; and
Are interpreted in a way that does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
Considering all these details, what is dubious about FoP in Spain? Rastrojo(D•ES) 20:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really buy the argument that the Three-Step Test in the Berne convention matters here or that the court rulings were misjudgments because of it. Since from what I can tell there's nothing in the three points that precludes a country from disallowing freedom of panorama in cases of commercial usage if they want to. Not to mention there are countries like Italy who are signatories to the Berne Convention but allow for FOP in the first place. If a country that has signed up for the Berne Convention can just deny FOP to begin with then there's no reason one can't restrict it to non-commercial usage if they want to.
As a side to that, the status of FOP in Spain has been dubious for a while now, or at least it's status has been "Unsure" for a while. It seems like prior consensus is that when the status of something is "unsure" we discourage people from uploading images in those cases or at least there's a template warning people that the country doesn't allow for commercial usage. Neither of those things are being done in this case though. I could ultimately care which option we go with, but it seems against the guidelines and how we deal with other similar situation to put that the copyright status "unsure" a guideline but then essentially treat as if everything 100% fine and OK. If the status is unclear then there should be something on our end beyond just acting like everything is business as usually. I'm fine with a warning template, but the reasons for not just saying there's no FOP in Spain seem dubious at best and again, that's not usually how similar cases are usually handled. Otherwise the status should just be changed to "OK" instead of treating it like there's an issue when there isn't one. "Unsure" makes it seems like there's a problem though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand the Spanish law amendment, it more or less repeats the three-step rule. Thus, Spain hasn't decided to make FoP more restricted, but (some of) their courts have interpreted the rule in an extreme way.
I think we should add a warning to the template. Then reusers can make an informed decision. There seems to be a significant legal risk for them, even if the supreme court overturns these decisions eventually. Deleting the images would be to accept the decisions, which I think is premature.
If the supreme court makes a non-ambiguous decision on the same line as these courts, then we should have a policy discussion, like that on faithful reproductions of PD 2D art – as the decision really is about the three-step rule and thus commercial FoP overall.
Adding a warning to the template is a good idea. Although it seems inadequate on it's own if we both agree there seems to be a significant legal risk to reusers, but baring something like a decision by the supreme court about it I'd still support a warning as an interim step so we at least did something to protect people on our end. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would ignore the copyright claim. It's not unusual for Getty Images to falsely claim copyright. In fact, we have an entire category dedicated to media "licensed" by Getty Images: Category:Media licensed by Getty ImagesFunnyMath (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, didn't see that category. I'll go ahead and upload it, see what happens. PascalHD (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually just got in a big back and forth with a couple of other users about the same thing in this DR and it didn't go anywhere outside of the files being kept. Although I agree that using {{PD-US-no notice}} on newspaper clippings probably isn't correct since whatever notice existed would have been for the paper in general, or if not the paper in general at least specific pages of it. I don't think people should be to crop small parts of larger works and claim they carry the same license though. Since for one, it's just hard to verify, but also because that's not really how copyright works. At least not when it comes to works that have or might have copyright notices on them. If anything, its just a way to get around having to prove the work that the image is a crop of doesn't have a copyright notice. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My question isn't only about images, but also about the text of the articles: it's possible that both are still protected by copyright independently of the other. FWIW, I commented in the DR you've referenced above, and those files seem to primarily be advertisements and advertisements in print publications were required to have their own copyright notices, seperate from the host publication. I'm not sure the same applies to these three files since they seem to be actual reported news and not advertisements. Anyway, I remembered after posting the above that the "Moon landing" was previously discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/02#Scan of 1969 newspaper front page, but it doesn't seem to have resulted in a clear consensus over the "no notice" licensing. That photo, however, might be different in the sense that it was international news that came from a wire service, whereas the other two files appear to be local stories and photos originating from the local paper en:The Morning Call. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least a couple of the images I nominated for deletion that DR had separate copyright notices but were still kept. Regardless, it at least shows that the newspaper itself considered articles or at least advertisements to be separate works that needed their own copyright notices. Although I don't see why say an advertisement for Hollywood film that was probably ran nationally would be out of copyright just because it ran in a local newspaper that is. Really, the same goes for articles that there's no evidence were written specifically for the newspaper. Like if they republish an excerpt from a book or national news story there's no reason it would be in the public domain just because the paper is. Even if in the case of local authors there's no way of knowing what kind of agreement they had with the paper or if it was the works first place of publication. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works in the US had to have copyright notices on virtually all copies, or they lost copyright. Period. (Advertisements had the additional requirement that they had their own copyright notice.) If it was published outside the US, the first place of publication might matter; if it was published inside the US, it didn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How that even work? Like say an author in the 30s wanted to publish an excerpt from their book in a paper as part of a story about it, or just for advertising purposes. Would the excerpt have to contain it's own notice or if not the whole book would lose it's copyright status? Say there's a screenshot of a character from a Hollywood film in a newspaper, would that have to contain it's own copyright notice or the film would then somehow be PD? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This had already been discussed internally where we have lowres and small and black and white album covers (derivative copies) in ads in Billboard magazine versus the hires and large and color, actual album cover with a copyright symbol. The ad is not copyrighted and can be hosted, but that does make the original full album cover hostable. After 1989 the symbol was no longer a legal requirement, all IP is automatically copyrighted at creation. However people still send copies of their songs and books to the copyright repository at the Library of Congress so that they get an accession date. This ensures if their is litigation about precedence or participation, a contributor has documented their contributions. --RAN (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't know how it works, then why are you commenting like you do?
If an author in the 30s wanted to published an excerpt from their book in a paper, they would need to make sure it had a copyright notice, on the excerpt or the whole paper. If they didn't, the excerpt would lose copyright. The whole work wouldn't. Only advertisements needed their own copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the general idea of how it works. That doesn't mean I know every detail about every single possible scenerio involving newspaper clippings though. Do I have to know all the minutia involved in this to participate in the conversation or can I maybe just ask a question and have it answered without receiving a conceding response just because I don't have a Phd in the subject? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That newspaper did not renew any copyrights, so issues from before 1964 would be OK. A copyright notice on the entire newspaper will cover any articles or photos inside (unless previously published, or unless they had their own more specific copyright notice). If there is no notice on an article and you want to reprint it, you need to contact the newspaper -- if someone else actually owns the copyright, they would direct you that way, but no way to assume public domain status (unless it's an advertisement). If the newspaper did not have a copyright notice, then these would be OK, but we'd need to see the full issue (or at least the credits area). A newspaper missing a copyright notice probably would not for example inject an AP article (which appeared in many newspapers) into the public domain, but anything done by their staff it would. Advertisements by case law (and later statutory law) always needed their own copyright notices; they are not covered by the overall notice. It's fair to assume that if an ad was missing a notice in one paper, it was missing in another. In general if only a "relative few" copies did not have a notice, then copyright may not have been lost. Normally it would be pretty hard to argue that on something with as many copies as a newspaper. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is no notice on an article and you want to reprint it, you need to contact the newspaper So if I'm reading your comment correctly we shouldn't host images of clipped articles because anyone reprinting them would have to research if they where published somewhere else prior to being printed in the newspaper and contact the newspaper for permission beforehand, both of which we aren't doing on our end. But specific pages or the newspaper as a whole would probably be fine for us to host images of depending on if the newspaper isn't copyrighted. Is that a correct reading of your comment or am I miss-understanding what your saying? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most newspaper articles are first published in that newspaper. If it's credited to AP or UPI, i.e. something published in a great many newspapers, I would be more leery as one newspaper would probably count as a "relative few" and not lose copyright. Not sure there has been a test case on that scale. Otherwise though, the notice had to be on *all* copies, and if an author printed an article or excerpt in a newspaper without a notice, that almost certainly would not be a "relative few" copies. There is a page here which notes a couple of cases, and a judgement here which notes several cases which ruled on "relatively small number of copies" (part of the 1978 law, but followed from case law before that) and the dividing line seems to be somewhere above 1% but below 2%. I was referring to an article without its own copyright notice, but in a newspaper with a copyright notice -- that means that it would be covered by the overall notice (even if they were not the actual copyright owner), and you would go through that named copyright owner for more information if you needed to use the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it sounds like a good line to draw is at clippings from national stories or ads, and excerpts from preexisting works since there's no way to confirm if the lack of a copyright notice was just an oversight in those cases and if the threshold has been met or not if it was. Whereas with articles from the AP or UPI, it sounds like the best option there would be to upload an image of the original or at least the whole page/newspaper to be on the safe side. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Advertisements were different -- the newspaper notice can not apply, so you needed a notice on the ad itself, something easily within control of the copyright owner when giving it out. I think it's fine to assume that ads without a copyright notice were like that in most newspapers (though if we show evidence of other copies with notice, maybe we'd have to debate that). But national stories, yeah I would be leery as those probably assumed that the newspaper notice would cover stuff, and would in most every case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wasn't the form requirement for copyright notices specifically the copyright owner's name ("sufficient to identify")? If so I have trouble seeing how a copyright notice naming a different party could satisfy the requirement.
Then again, I fail to see how a later partial republication (e.g. an excerpt from a book printed in a newspaper) could invalidate an already extant copyright. Are we really arguing that the number of copies of the newspaper that were sold relative to the number of copies of the original book (to get to that magical 1–2%) is determinative? What about excerpts printed under fair use without the original author's involvement? Lost copyright would be cumulative, so with enough excerpts in enough newspapers The Lord of The Rings would be public domain. Xover (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Morning Call newspaper did not have a copyright notice in 1969 or before. I will be checking up to 1977. I found that in 1988 they had "copyrighted" and "All rights reserved" on the masthead on the front page. Now it is just a matter of finding the exact year and issue in which the copyright notice appeared. --RAN (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photographs of identifiable people in the article en:Educationedit
Whether such photos are legal or not depends on specifics. It is very easy to make it seem that you are telling something about the specific persons, which could result in accuse of defamation. However, the current use seems unproblematic in my layman eyes. Still, I am from Finland, so I know little about cultural or legal norms where the images are from or in any jurisdiction relevant to you. –LPfi (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi: Thanks for taking a look at the article and clarifying the issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that in this case the photographer is the subject of the photo. Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say the same as Ruslik here. Usually there is deliberate posing involved. A machine clicks the shutter, but the same is true for a shutter-delay self portrait taken with a conventional camera. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using an image taken by National Astronomical Observatory of Japanedit
I would like to use an image of an ultra diffuse galaxy in an article I'm working on. It was taken by the NAOJ. Looking at their copyright page https://www.nao.ac.jp/en/terms/copyright.html it seems the image I want to use falls under Scope of Free Use but nowhere in that page there's a legal code I can use in order to upload it to wikimedia. I'm sure more experienced editors have dealt with such situations. I would appreciate any help on the issue. DGSATI (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DGSATI: certainly not OK for Commons. We accept only images that allow both commercial use and derivative works.
Where on an image's file description page is the heading "copyright holder" for the addition of the information such as name or so-and-so's estate? IonaFyne (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IonaFyne: Typically the "so-and-so" here would be the author (and credited as such). Anything beyond that can go in the "Permission" field of {{Information}}. - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alonsa Guevara Aliaga (talk·contribs) uploaded sixteen images in 2015, all of them artwork by the Chilean painter Alonsa Guevara. They are all tagged "own work" and all remain uncategorised.
What's the procedure for asking for an OTRS ticket to confirm she was the uploader? Marnanel (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marnanel: She provided an email on her account and allows users to email her, so it should be pretty simple to contact her and request that. I'd be kind of astounded if they weren't legit, with the possible issue that she might not own the copyright on some of the photos of her.
I would say that if the reply email comes from her web domain the matter is settled right there, but if not then VRT (formerly OTRS) might be in order to prove her identity. Plus, again, the issue of copyright status on the images of her, which may need some sorting out. And we should certainly put the relevant images in a category and wikilink it via the relevant Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the reply is from her domain, the issue is settled, but we still need VRT to document that. Do we have some template for requesting a confirmation of identity? –LPfi (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi: I doubt we have a template. It might be worth creating one. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is quite common for an account to represent some person or entity, and using VRT to confirm that the account indeed is authorised to represent them copyright-wise seems the easiest way to handle such accounts and their uploads. The current VRT page doesn't seem to cover this. I would like second email template (i.e. boilerplate, not MediaWiki) for the purpose. –LPfi (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is File:FreieWählerBayernLogo2020.svg OK as licensed? It might be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States, but things aren't as clear with respect to COM:TOO Germany. If it's OK for Commons, then there's no need for en:File:Logo of the Free Voters.svg to be treated as non-free by English Wikipedia because the two logos are essentially identical. If the file isn't OK for Commons just because of Germany's TOO but otherwise is PD per the US's TOO, then the the file could most likely be reuploaded to English Wikipedia as Template:PD-ineligible-USonly, but the non-English Wikipedia would need to be dealt with separately. If it's not PD even per the US's TOO, then it would need to be reuploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free content. Once again, though, the non-English Wikipedia uses would need to be resolved separately. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion OK for Commons. Germany's threshold of originality is rather high. --Rosenzweigτ 01:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Haoreima per {{Unsplash}}: "Therefore, media published on Unsplash from 5 June 2017 onwards is not considered to be freely licensed and can't be accepted on Commons. Files uploaded to Commons after this date should be subject to careful license review, verifying that the publication date on Unsplash is prior to 5 June 2017." Be sure that the image you're going to import here was published on Unsplash on June 4, 2017 or before.JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 08:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I randomly sample visits to two of the files you posted. Image#5 is not OK because it was published on April 23, 2020, and Image#12 is not OK because it was published in January 2023. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 08:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked through all of them. Unfortunately none of them were uploaded before that date (the closest was #2 in Aug 2017) so none of them are eligible for Commons. S5A-0043Talk 12:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Artwork images with possible copyright problemedit
User FromAbilityToNeed has uploaded three images (File:RAAAF - Bunker 599.jpg, File:RAAAF - Deltawerk.jpg, File:RAAAF - Still Life - Het HEM.jpg) as their own work, but per this convo, that doesn't appear to be the case. The user now claims that a permission was instead obtained from the copyright owner. I didn't want to propose these files for deletion yet, in case there's an easy fix. Can I just leave this here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The uploader has admitted they are not the copyright holder. The true owner/photographer needs to send appropriate permissions via COM:VRT/CONSENT or the images need to be deleted. PascalHD (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jmabel and DoubleGrazing, the owner did send appropiate permission via the mentioned channel on my request, after which I uploaded the images, with a mention of the name of the copyright owner who gave me permission to do so. I have a forwarded email from permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, in which it is stated that the message granting the permission was received, with the following ticket number: [Ticket#2023032310009373]. My intention was to tag the images as being the 'own work' of the copyright owner, but this appears to have been a mistake on my part. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In his video (uploaded on 28 October 2023), Bilibili user "户晨风" announced that he "gave up the copyrights of all publicly released videos and live streaming footage, which can be reposted and distributed for profit on any platform by anyone". Is this a valid statement, meaning that the content he refers to is free? If so, then what copyright caption should be used in this situation. 源義信 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming he is legitimately the copyright owner, yes. {{PD-user}} is probably appropriate, and the "Permission" section of {{Information}} should point to where the person who is verifiably the copyright owner made this declaration. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's their jurisdiction? Giving up copyright isn't legally possible everywhere. –LPfi (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems (according to the discussions and the Hirtle chart) that works published before 1928 (when he was 59 and the park had existed for some years already; 95 years ago) and those published after 2002 (70 years pma) are free. Publication can have been earlier elsewhere even for those now in the park.
There are no hints on year of publication in most of the images, but the bridge was the part first finished of the Vigelandsanlegget. Is it safe to assume that all parts of it were "published" before 1928? The fountain is in no-wp said to have been finished in 1924, but it is unclear whether sculptures were added later ("fikk sin endelige plass og form i 1924" but "Monteringen ble avsluttet i 1947"). For most other sculptures one must probably research their history one by one.
Yesterday, in connection with an editathon I uploaded my photograph of a front page of a leaflet: File:Kun Folkets Vel er Landet Vel.jpg. While I would say I have no copyright (the photo is of a flat textual object), the question is if there is a copyright on the front page graphic. The front page has text (title, speaker, description) in a fairly standard layout. The only usual feature is vertical lines on the left side. File:Ligeløn Arbejderkvindernes Oplysningsforening.jpg was another photo uploaded during the event. Here there is hardly any graphics, see also File talk:Kun Folkets Vel er Landet Vel.jpg — Fnielsen (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I repaired the link to the other file. There the uploader claims "own work", which doesn't seem right (I assume they are just the photographer). –LPfi (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! I recently downloaded a file (File:Mavka.The Forest Song (frame1).jpg) that I found on the website of the Embassy of Ukraine in Poland. At the bottom of this page is the text: "All content is available Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license". Please, help me understand if I understood correctly that all the images on that page are free and can be uploaded to Wikicommons? Thank you! --Bon777 (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An automated translation of that page into English says, "All content is available Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, unless otherwise noted." While there isn't a specific note on copyright, there are several corporate logos on the associated movie clip. I don't think there is sufficient evidence that the Ukranian Embassy in Poland has the right to license the content of a movie. The CC licence for the webpage is unlikely to apply to all of the images. If there is evidence that the movie was created by the Ukranian government, then that would change things. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Over 3,700 images were batch imported from this Flickr account around 2017 (https://www.flickr.com/people/40444351@N04), and many of them look problematic from a copyright perspective. In particular, I see:
How do we handle these situations? The sheer number of photos is almost certainly too large to go through the standard DR process. Omphalographer (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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]
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]
License tags for photographs of original worksedit
I wanted to ask if someone could help me with the license tags of the following files:
15:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
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)
Support to re-write FOP Spain section as just not ok, @Aymatth2: any against responds? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Changing to "not ok". 2 cases in 2006 by second lowest courts in Spain isn't a valid reason to delete Spanish FOP-related files. Юрий Д.К 13:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Mausoleum_-_Hamadan_-_Western_Iran_(7423560860).jpg){kind=link}