< Commons:Village pump
(Redirected from Village pump/Copyright)


Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


CCTV in the United States Ineligible for Copyright - A Complete Legal Fiction

[edit]

The template PD-automated has been turned into something for which there is zero legal justification for in the United States. Any time a CCTV footage or picture in the country takes a shot of something notable, users upload it to Commons, thinking, erroneously, that the picture cannot be copyrighted. That is a complete legal fiction and the usage of this template for images originating in the US should be curtailed and all such images being justified under this template should be removed. Two of the best examples to counter this ridiculous claim are, first, the Andy Warhol movie Empire, which is an eight-hour film that is composed entire of a still shot of the Empire State Building. The second example is Wolfgang Staehles' time lapse work, "2001", that captured the 9/11 attacks. The former has been inducted into the National Film Registry and is under copyright.

There is no legal precedent in the US that CCTV footage is copyfree. Further, the template is now being used to try to claim that bodycam video in copyfree. There is no end to how this template will be abused because there is no clear directive or policy when applying the template. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of YouTube channels that exclusively use CCTV, bodycam, or otherwise fixed, automated photography for their content and all their content is rightfully copyrighted. I believe this template should be nixed for any all all use within the US and that those photos and videos currently uploaded under this template should be removed or blanked unless their verified authors upload them themselves. -- Veggies (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In COM:CRT/US, we have a sentence that reads "In the United States, copyright can only be assigned to "works independently created by a human author"[1]." This is corroborated with COM:TOO and COM:TOO US. Your hypothesis "There are dozens, probably hundreds, of YouTube channels that exclusively use CCTV, bodycam, or otherwise fixed, automated photography for their content and all their content is rightfully copyrighted." about the copyright status seems flawed. Most fixed camera installations simply lack the human input that is necessary for and behind (receiving) copyrights. The Warhol and Staehle examples aren't opposed to this concept, as these humans used material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication; by this intent, there's a foundation for copyrights. You cannot go by simple technical characteristics, but you have to consider the purpose and intent of something that may be a copyrightable work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most fixed camera installations simply lack the human input that is necessary for and behind (receiving) copyrights. The Warhol and Staehle examples aren't opposed to this concept, as these humans used material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication Sorry but that is a distinction without a difference. If the owner of a CCTV camera decides that their random footage is now (ahem) "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication" who are you to say it isn't and would that suddenly validate their copyright claim? -- Veggies (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a owner of a rock decides that is now "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication", the Copyright Office has said it's not. Even if the human polished it up. You don't get to take stuff that exists and claim a copyright on it. Warhol intended to create an artistic work from the start.
If someone edited a work out of a CCTV camera, I wouldn't be arguing it. But those are never the cases on here; the videos are obvious cuts to the video to the parts of interest. Taking a PD movie and making a shorter cut could be copyrightable; taking a PD movie and cutting it to a scene, especially when there's one or two obvious scenes to cut.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a owner of a rock decides that is now "material to make a human expression of ideas, to make a human communication", the Copyright Office has said it's not. Even if the human polished it up. A rock is a natural object. Rocks are not created by men. Rocks existed before humans. There is a natural process by which rocks come about. CCTV videos are not natural objects. CCTV videos are created by people. CCTV videos did not exist before humans. There is no natural process by which CCTV videos come about. You just made my point for me.
If someone edited a work out of a CCTV camera, I wouldn't be arguing it. That's exactly what is on Commons. Uploaders don't upload the entire CCTV feed, they upload the short clip or still image that they find relevant. Second, you're still presupposing that CCTV video is PD. It isn't. There's zero legal precedent for claiming that it is. -- Veggies (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rocks are polished by humans, but that's not enough input for the work to be copyrighted. Kinetic sculptures are made by humans, but aren't copyrighted, because they aren't fixed.
It feels like you didn't bother reading what you're responding to in your haste to respond. Turnings hours and hours of film into one work is a creative action. As I said above, making two cuts in the film, one when the action starts and one when it ends, is not copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to nitpick but recent court decisions would seem to contradict your analysis of “fixed”. January decision by the 9th Circuit found that sculptures or 3d works with moving or manipulatable parts can be eligible for copyright; they compared movable sculptures (in this case children’s toys) to dynamic works like songs or dance and concluded that the movement does not violate the “fixed” clause. Tangle, Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc., et al, 9th Circuit, January 14 2025. 19h00s (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no legal precedent in the US that says that CCTV camera footage is not "created by a human author". A human set up the CCTV camera, choosing camera location, framing, zoom, and potentially other things such as exposure, contrast, frame rate or even lighting. How far are you willing to take this argument? Is a photograph taken with a digital camera created without a "human author" since it was the camera's processor that actually captured the image? What if it was a point-and-shoot camera with all settings handled automatically? What if a tripod was used so a human wasn't actively pointing the camera? What if a delay timer was used (perhaps to eliminate camera shake on a long exposure) so the human wasn't touching the camera when the image was captured? Where do we draw the line? Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can ask the same question of you, about where the line is drawn. If someone builds a trail up a mountain, is that copyrightable? What if someone traverses a trail enough times to make a trail? What if a person leaves a footprint on a trail? If that footprint causes the rainwater to erode the mountain in a slightly different way than it would have, does that make the whole mountain their copyright?
If we want to discuss this, let's talk about what's being discussed, instead of making strawmen. I would argue that it's clear that works made without intent, like those footprints, aren't copyrightable. The question is about automated CCTV footage, whether endless footage taken for those ten seconds a thief comes by is made with the appropriate creative intent to make a copyrightable work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Copyright Office has ruled time and time again that works without a human author (the notorious monkey case or AI, in more recent years) cannot be copyrighted. Who would be the human author of a CCTV camera? The owner of the camera? No, because they did not have any input on its creation. The brand that made the camera? Also had no input on any creative work. It can't be the person who "set it up", because the monkey copyright suit had a person setting up the image that the monkey took, and yet it was ultimately ruled uncopyrightable due to lack of human authorship, because what made the decision about when to snap the camera and how was the monkey (a non human). Similarly, an AI, even if prompted with creative input, cannot produce a copyrightable work. There is simply no human author in which to vest the copyright here. With Empire, Warhol chose to start filming, and chose when it ended, and chose the location with lights for artistic reasons. With 2001 it was a video at a specific time for an artistic reason with specific artistic choices. They chose to film, they chose where to frame the camera for creative reasons. There was human input in both cases, in both the original production and in its representation (the time lapse and slow motion elements and such). If CCTV footage is significantly altered in a creative manner after the fact, or edited in a specific way, or there is some especially creative placement of the cameras for an artistic work that could be copyrighted, but that is almost none of these cases, which are almost uniformly security cameras. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The owner of the camera? No, because they did not have any input on its creation. Of course they did. They or an authorized agent of theirs set it up, chose where to point it, and incurred the costs for buying, maintaining, and preserving that footage. We're not talking about "monkey" photos or AI here—stay on topic—we're discussing CCTV footage. With Empire, Warhol chose to start filming, and chose when it ended, and chose the location with lights for artistic reasons. The very same thing that someone with still-camera footage chooses when setting up, publishing, or releasing their images. With 2001 it was a video at a specific time for an artistic reason with specific artistic choices. As I said above to someone else's comment, that's a distinction without a difference. "An artistic reason" is not a pre-requisite for copyright. If I install a doorbell security camera and, inadvertently, end up capturing footage of something unexpected (natural phenomena or some human act), would you demand to know if I had "an artistic reason" for setting up the camera before granting me a copyright? That's risible. -- Veggies (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If your home painters spilled paint on the floor, and you posted a photo to Facebook, and they claimed you violated the copyright on their floor painting, would you think that not risible? Taken to court, would your lawyer's first argument not be that accidentally spilling paint on a floor is not a copyrightable act? In a country with stronger moral rights, you might be enjoined from destroying their artwork they made on your floor. Artistic intent makes a big difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taken to court, would your lawyer's first argument not be that accidentally spilling paint on a floor is not a copyrightable act? No, because spilling paint is very much copyrightable. My lawyer would simply state, first, that the painters failed to state a claim because they hadn't demonstrated how a photo uploaded to Facebook violated their copyright in any meaningful way. Second, he would argue that the painters were agents hired by myself to do specific work on my property, which did not include painting the floor, so I was entirely within my rights to have them clean the mess up or clean it up myself, effectively destroying their creation, as being outside the bounds of what they were contracted to do. So, no, your analogy falls flat on all counts. You didn't even attempt to answer my hypothetical doorbell scenario because there is no "artistic reason" prerequisite for having a copyrightable work. -- Veggies (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Veggies: I was just thinking about a scenario where someone is taking a photograph on their phone, drops it, and the camera goes off after rolling down a hill. Obiviously there's no human input or "creative process" involved in that case. But is anyone seriously going to argue the person doesn't own the copyright to the photograph? Otherwise, what exactly would be the standard there? How many times the phone rolled before taking the picture? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that De jure, there's no copyright for having an image snapped due to a technical mishap or fluke, your example is similar to the monkey grabbing a DSLR and pressing the shutter. But in practice, that would be often hard to prove. By the way, there's a photographic technique involving setting your camera to triggering the shutter with a short timer (1 to 3 seconds) and then to cast it in the air. After you caught it when coming down, you have sometimes pictures with funny novel perspectives. I would say that this is undeniably a creative process, even if you're using a lot of randomness. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference, legally, between the copyright of a picture taken by dropping your phone accidentally versus dropping your phone intentionally? I don't see one. It's still a human act. -- Veggies (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Copyright Office says "An original work of authorship is a work that is independently created by a human author and possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity." Accidents aren't creative.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The laws actually make more or less huge differences between accidents and intentions. See Act of god, manslaughter vs. murder vs. negligent homicide and battery for examples, admittedly not related to copyrights but mostly with human acts. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a picture of a painting, then that photo is a derivative of that painting and distributing it without a fair use justification is copyright infringing. You can argue that you can destroy this copyrighted painting, but if you accept that it's a work of copyright, I'd wait until the court tells you it's A-OK in any country with strong moral rights. If you install a doorbell cam for someone, are you claiming copyright over any of the footage that results? If someone comes out from Lowe's to install the doorbell, does Lowe's have the copyright to all the cameras its workers installed?-Prosfilaes (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Spilling paint" is not copyrightable. Spilling paint is a technique which can be used in the creation of a copyrightable work. There is a difference. Within the context of the creation of a work, a person can spill paint in a way that reflects their originality and control over the creation of a process. But it is only the intentional application of intellectual creativity, rather than the spilling of paint (or whatever other physical act) that produces a copyrightable work. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it is only the intentional application of intellectual creativity, rather than the spilling of paint (or whatever other physical act) that produces a copyrightable work There is absolutely nothing in copyright law that necessitates (ahem) "the intentional application of intellectual creativity". If I accidently spill paint on my floor and I think it spilled in a neat pattern, I can cut the floor out and copyright the whole spillage, sell derivate works from it, and zealously protect it as my intellectual property from people who want to duplicate it without authorization. -- Veggies (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The law is very clear about protecting only creative acts. If you accidentally spill paint on your floor, and you're honest about that, then the US Copyright Office won't register your claim of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because they did not have any input on its creation. Lots of security cameras are remote controlled. There's no way to know on our end which camera footage was or not either. With body cams specifically, obviously whomever is wearing the camera controls what is being recorded by moving or looking in a certain direction. The question would be if something like that is intentional enough to be considered creative. It certainly seems to be in instances like someone wearing a GoPro camera to record themselves doing an extreme sport. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of files of Red Bull videos on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could clearly tell from the way the footage moves, and if you can't tell, you run into the same situation as the monkey copyright thing, where what little influence the human may have is not enough to make them the author - after all, he orchestrated the monkey shoot and set it up and moved into its position, still not enough. On the body camera question: yes, I agree, and so I didn't mention body cameras, because there is creative input in how one moves and operates the camera, whether it is attached to one's person or not. Those are not really "automated", their movement and capture is wholly dependent on a human. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think the monkey footage is copyrightable. Probably CCTV footage that clearly looks automated isn't either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I place a camera somewhere to film for an hour and I am not touching the camera during this hour no one would say that I do not have a copyright on the video. But if I do the same but leave the camera for two years the copyright vanishes? Is there then a point on which the recoding before is copyrighted and the recoding after. Will the copyright of the first hour be revoked because the camera was standing for two years. This does not make sense to me. There are similar questions on some FOP cases where we decided to delete them all per PCP. GPSLeo (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All is about the intent. The objective of a security camera is not to produce any work. It is only to provide security. If you set a camera with the intent to create a work, you get a copyright. Yann (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about the US law but in EU law intent is definitely irrelevant for the copyright of a work. The only think that matters is if there was a creative process. If placing a camera is a creative process keeping there for a longer time does not remove the creativity from the process of placing the camera. GPSLeo (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ain't that simply two ways of saying the same thing? Yann: "If you set a camera with the intent to create a work, you get a copyright." GPSLeo: "The only think that matters is if there was a creative process." I understand it as such: Intent to create = Creative process, if you have the intent to create, then you've taken the first step of a creative process. I do not see how creation without intent could be possible. Grand-Duc (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say placing a camera at a certain place is always a creative process. GPSLeo (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Fixed cameras are usually installed by technicians, not by videographers. And for determining the intent, search for who pays for the camera. For security cameras, a private or public organization pays for it with the intention of providing security. Yann (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that you had to be a professional videographer to hold copyright. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If I place a camera somewhere to film for an hour and I am not touching the camera during this hour no one would say that I do not have a copyright on the video." Not necessarily. If I place a digital thermometer outside and it records the temperatures though-out the day, I don't have any right to stop others from copying the same exact data and publishing it themselves.
Copyright is limited-time government granted monopoly it can choose to bestow or withhold as it sees fit. It chooses not to bestow that monopoly in cases where recovered information lacks human originality. Feoffer (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an extension of Burrow-Giles v. Sarony. The question has nothing to do with the mechanical process, but whether or not the photograph (or video) represents the "original intellectual conceptions" of the author. In the case of a planned or manually shot video, there is consistent control over the output. If you are watching the camera, you have a choice at any moment whether to move it or not, to adjust it, etc. — putting aside, of course, any control you may exercise over the events that take place in front of it. If you leave a camera unattended, however, then the frames captured will have less and less to do with your intellectual conception, to the point where you may not exercise any significant authorship.
To ask you another question: let's say you start shooting a video, and, after an hour, you hand your camera off to me (without turning it off) and I shoot video for an hour. During those times, we both have control over the camera and the various aspects of the photographic process. Once you stop exercising authorship, however, whatever the camera captures is not your work (but, in this case, mine). Look at Burrow-Giles. The photograph is found to be copyrightable because is a "useful, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture, and that plaintiff made the same … entirely from his own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit." In a CCTV case, very few of these criteria, if any, are fulfilled. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what many on Wikipedia/Commons claim, the US copyright office never ruled on the monkey selfie. Yes, they issues a pamphlet that said that in a hypothetical situation in which a monkey took a photograph that it wouldn't be eligible for copyright, but there was no ruling on the situation in which a human set up a camera, adjusted all the settings, composed and framed the image, and did everything other than actually hit the shutter button as to whether the image could be considered to have been created by a human. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices: The crucial question is “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” - If the CCTV is a static CCTV feed, it's ineligible. If someone's controlling the camera, it likely is eligible. I don't think it makes sense to apply it to body cameras, though. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That interpretation has zero legal precedent or foundation behind it. It's, essentially, a highly disputable reading of the Copyright Office principles. In fact, none of the examples given after that passage even remotely come close to what you're suggesting. -- Veggies (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree, and have encouraged people not to use {{Pd-automated}} for US CCTV. It would be useful to get WMF Legal to weigh in on the copyrightability of prepositioned cameras via m:Wikilegal -- I was going to request it a while ago, but never got around to sending the email. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you think the copyright would vest in? Hypothetically they were copyrightable, who would get it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, the copyright is assigned to the property owner, if my memory serves me. Though in the UK, something as simple as a signature can be copyrighted.
Perhaps someone could email the Copyright Office and ask them to weigh in? JayCubby (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any nation with sweat of the brow doctrine I feel it would logically go to whoever bought the camera, but the United States does not have that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody saying that these are easily in the public domain - well I hope they're right, but given the very low TOO in many countries, and the fact that this principle has been completely untested in the US, means we don't know until something goes to court. As a rule, I'd say CCTV is hopefully fine, while dashcams and bodycams are more dubious because there is far more likely to be human placement/decision in filming angle, what they're filming, when, ect. It's different from the monkey case, because the monkey produced a still and the choice of when to take the still is likely what bumps the copyright to the monkey rather than the human. But we don't know. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
US law is clear: Copyright applies to art, not data. When there's no artist, there's no art, and thus no government-granted monopoly to restrict copying. It's not a legal fiction, it's a well-established legal reality. Feoffer (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you distinguish 'art' from 'data' in an image? -- Veggies (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well... The law is actually really unclear on this point. "Art" is never explicitly defined in the relevant statutes in the same way you're defining it here. You can call anything "art", that doesn't make it copyrightable. You can also call anything "data", that doesn't make it copyright-ineligible. Indeed, the shades of grey are the most important aspects of this situation - it comes down to how courts and the CO have interpreted and analyzed similar "works" under the relevant statutes, it does not hinge on whether we personally think it's "art" or "data". As OP correctly pointed out, there are multiple examples of copyrighted films that comprise nothing more than a single, continuous, static shot - Warhol's Empire for sure could be a case of the Copyright Office granting registration prior to a court decision that would nullify the effect of the registration, but we just don't know if that's the case, it hasn't been tested in court. I'll stop there as I don't want to get knee-deep in this discussion, but the idea that "art" vs "data" is a simply explained binary within the language of US copyright law is just incorrect. 19h00s (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some reasonable arguments that some installations may be PD-ineligible, which is more a question if there is no identifiable human authorship. For a photograph, the usual aspects are framing and angle -- while those may be limited and more obvious for security cameras (merger doctrine arguments), it still may be enough for copyright. A camera could be positioned by an installation company, or tweaked by an employee, and maybe that is enough. It may also be very difficult for us to determine. I did find one registration, PA0002103805, which is I think for this video. Which means it's certainly possible for some fairly basic security cameras to get a copyright registration in the U.S. It's a pretty untested area of law, where we are guessing. If there is any remote control of the camera, I would assume it's copyrightable, for sure. The CCTV aspect is irrelevant in and of itself. I'm not sure the Copyright Office or any court has given us any decent guidance over what aspects to look for. It's arguable, but I can also certainly see arguments that it's gray enough that there is significant doubt on such works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree. I think COM:PCP probably wins the day with me so far. Someone chose to put the camera there with the intention of capturing things in that area at that angle. It may be for utilitarian reasons and not "art", but AFAIK, there is no utilitarian exemption for video. GMGtalk 22:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am leery of {{PD-automated}}. I do not think there is caselaw that supports a blanket ruling that such footage is PD-ineligible. The copyright office has ruled that technical images such as x-rays are PD-ineligible. An x-ray technician does not have much freedom in making the image. I'm sympathetic to PD-ineligible in some circumstances. If somebody screws a Ring doorbell camera onto the wall, there is also little choice available from framing the shot. The same can be said of dash cams and Tesla cams. I'm less sympathetic to PD-ineligible when the installer has a lot of freedom about where to install the camera and where the camera points. A few months ago, I saw a discussion about a camera mounted on top of a building to monitor the parking lot below. Yes, a functional image, but the image was also pleasing as it had good composition. I can easily see a human exercising judgment to make a pleasing image. There are clear cases of copyright. If someone sets up a camera to catch the surf pounding the shore or some wild animals feeding, that someone should not be denied a copyright merely because they left the camera unattended for hours on end. The photographer intended to catch some interesting footage. That a security camera captures an unexpected event such as a plane crash makes the issue of copyright less clear. The photographer was not trying to frame the unexpected crash, so everything else might be incidental. If, however, the photographer wanted to capture images of ships passing underneath a bridge and happened to capture a ship striking the bridge and collapsing it, then the framing is not accidental, and I see no reason for PD-ineligible. In summary, the law is not settled, so Commons should be cautious about claiming {{PD-automated}}. Glrx (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to say it has no basis in law, not that it is a "legal fiction." There is such a thing as a legal fiction, and this isn't an example of that. The question is whether or not the video has within it a modicum of originality which constitutes human authorship of the video/image.
Copyright exists only in works containing such originality, not in the mechanical process used to create them. If you run a camera for an hour with the lens cap on, you will produce an hour-long video, but it will not be copyrightable, because the output (a black screen) will not contain the modicum of originality necessary for something to be a copyrighted work. The best argument that CCTV is copyrightable in general is that the camera has been placed by a human and thus that there is human authorship in the framing of the image which is output. This may not always be the case — in some cases, the person who set up the camera may have little to no control over its positioning. There is no aspect of static CCTV which can possibly include human authorship, except for this initial framing of the image. And, even then, the contents of what is in front of the camera can be left uncontrolled to the point where the initial (minimally) creative image is no longer reflected in the output of the camera.
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is there "legal precedent" for cctv footage being copyrightable? ltbdl (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, not. In the UK there is legal precedent for it being under copyright (Hyde Park Residence Ltd v. Yelland), in Russia there is legal precedent for it not being under copyright. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CCTV footage in the United States is clearly ineligible for copyright as there is no human authorship. As the U.S. Copyright office states: Copyright "applies to the protection of intellectual property and authorship rights over original, creative works produced by a human." Sweat of the brow is not a valid legal doctrine in the United States. I also don't understand how Andy Warhol's Empire is at all relevant to the issue. CCTV footage and documentaries (even long monotonous ones) are different things. Nosferattus (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because at the end of the day, that film is essentially identical to most CCTV footage placed at a static location. Warhol physically set up a camera and let it film continuously from a specific angle, before taking the footage and publishing it as a continuous shot. When a CCTV camera is set up, a human being physically puts it up and angles it to get a specific shot, and another human operator may even be changing the angle or deciding when it records or not. Those are almost identical actions creating almost identical works, Warhol's simply has the imprimatur of "art" while the other is generally not viewed as such. Just because a maintenance worker without "artistic intent" carried out the acts to set up and ultimately film a CCTV video does not mean that "work" is less copyrightable than a nearly identical work created with "artistic intent". Nowhere in the relevant statutes does it say a human has to have intended to create a work for it to be eligible for copyright, the work just has to have been created by a human (along with all the other requirements/rules). Indeed, the USCO's compendium explicitly states: "When examining a work for original authorship, the U.S. Copyright Office will not consider the author’s inspiration for the work, creative intent, or intended meaning. Instead, the Office will focus solely on the appearance or sound of the work that has been submitted for registration to determine whether it is original and creative within the meaning of the statute and the relevant case law." 19h00s (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see any difference between Empire and CCTV footage, nothing I say is going to convince you. We seem to have entirely different ideas of what "creativity" and "authorship" mean, so I don't think this discussion is going to be fruitful. Nosferattus (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear artistic difference between the two - but the copyright office doesn't care about artistic difference, they care about the visual attributes of the "work". I'm talking about the basic visual/physical attributes: a static, continuous video, set up by a human, recording an unmediated scene. 19h00s (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a camera was carefully positioned by a human, it would be copyrightable, just like any photograph. Even pretty casual snapshot photographs get a copyright, as they were still positioned by a human. Security cameras are often positioned in obvious places, but it's a difficult question to figure out when such an act becomes uncopyrightable. Taking a straight-on photo of a painting is not, but we have little other clear precedents. Do you think this video has a copyright? If so, what makes that copyrightable but others not? Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That video may not be copyrightable, but the license is a guarantee that the video can be used without any fear of litigation. Plenty of stock photography sites sell public domain images, I'd lump this in with that. JayCubby (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except the U.S. Copyright Office looked at it, and granted a copyright registration (PA0002103805). So, that is supposed to be prima facie evidence that it's copyrightable, which you have to disprove in court if accused of infringing it. Are we saying the Copyright Office is wrong? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have missed that. I found some other registrations with a query (this for one). This one is edited, which would seem a more credible claim of copyrightability.
Though @Clindberg--the example you gave was part of a compilation of clips, which might be worth noting. JayCubby (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JayCubby: That compilation link does not work for me -- many cocatalog.loc.gov URLs only work temporarily. That particular registration has a "PA" number (performing arts) and is listed as a motion picture. The author assigned copyright to that company which is now selling the clip, and that is the only work that author is listed for. They may have registered several works at once, but not sure that is part of a series really, and works inside a compilation have their own independent copyright anyways (though you can have a copyrightable compilation of public domain works too). But yes, it would seem that the Copyright Office is issuing registrations for security camera footage in many cases, and I have not seen a case where they rejected one. That would argue against us allowing them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg, I fear that may be the case. I was initially biased against its copyrightability, and still am. I see still the possibility that the USCO hasn't formally considered the copyrightability (as it's in the courts that such rulings are more often made, no?). I, of course, am neither a lawyer nor an armchair lawyer. JayCubby (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CCTV footage in the United States is clearly ineligible for copyright as there is no human authorship. Really? So... god put the camera there? Or did CCTV cameras coalesce out of the aether? -- Veggies (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I make a computer program to automatically generate art for me, do I own the copyright to the output? If I place a camera, but a non-human entity takes the shot (a computer program, or a monkey), do I own the copyright to it? No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I make a computer program to automatically generate art for me, do I own the copyright to the output? Irrelevant to this discussion. It isn't about computer-generated art. If I place a camera, but a non-human entity takes the shot (a computer program, or a monkey), do I own the copyright to it? Maybe. That hasn't been decided in the courts or the legislature—only on Commons based on an ad hoc pronouncement by the Copyright Office. Here, a human entity installed the camera and chose the angles to record. The footage and its rights belong to them. Again: look at Staehle's work, "2001" mentioned above. -- Veggies (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke to a (former) copyright lawyer on the matter. He believed that CCTV was copyrightable, as it's a work in a fixed medium. However, it's a "thin copyright," so it's apparently unlikely that someone will even pursue a case. JayCubby (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how I interpret "thin copyright". If I use the original footage, then he can sue me successfully. If I make my own footage that looks similar to his, then his lawsuit will fail. For example, X can take a picture of the Statue of Liberty. X has a thin copyright to that image. X's thin copyright does not prevent me from taking a nearly identical picture of the Statute of Liberty from the same place, with the same framing, and similar lighting conditions. CCTV footage of a plane crash on the Hudson River may have a thin copyright, but I'd be hard pressed to set up a similar plane crash with my own CCTV equipment a week later. A stronger copyright is where Y sets up the scene and controls the action. If I try to recreate a scene from a recent movie, then I'm probably violating a copyright. Glrx (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the other part of what he said, and it appears I merged his two points: that the recreation of depicted things is permitted (thin copyright) and that it's highly unlikely people will find it worthwhile to pursue litigation of CCTV that Commons hosts (it's not known if it will hold up in court, and damages are going to be tricky). JayCubby (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I want to address the point about "the Office will focus solely on the appearance or sound of the work" that 19h00s brought up above. (New section so as not to derail the main conversation.) Yes, I know that is the theory, but I'd say it is clearly not the practice. For example, copyright has been granted to Richard Serra works that are visually indistinguishable from ordinary walls. Yes, he made very deliberate decisions about where to place them, but that's exactly what this doctrine theoretically ignores. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, funnily enough... I actually reached out to the CO about this specific issue in re: Serra's Tilted Arc. You were the first to spur me to realize that there's a good possibility that registration wouldn't be granted today (don't have the link as that conversation happened long ago now), and eventually it bothered me so much that I just asked the Office. Specifically asked if they had any guidance on the application of the threshold of originality on minimalist, monumental sculptures in the wake of rulings like Feist and Star Athletica, and if there was any correspondence related to Serra's registration that might elucidate why it was allowed. They gave the basic expected canned answer - "Can't speak to specifics or offer any communications, can only point to the Compendium" - but the public info officer hammered two points specifically and multiple times: a) the Serra registration stands and cannot be reexamined in any way other than through litigation and b) the USCO works on a case-by-case system, meaning the registration of one work does not guarantee the registration of a like work. I have to assume that if someone managed to get to court over Tilted Arc, it would be ruled ineligible, but the USCO ruled it eligible at the time. The most important precedent showing it would be ineligible today is, in my mind, Cady Noland's Log Cabin, a work that was denied registration specifically in spite of the artist's intent and conceptual merit (Noland's case has been discussed extensively in copyright & art history academic literature). Anyway this is all tangential so apologies for going long. 19h00s (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forestry Images

[edit]

Hi! User:Leoboudv raised a question on my talk page about images from forestryimages.org. Earlier many of the files were licensed CC-BY-3.0 but now they have changed to CC-BY-NC-3.0. Some files on Commons were uploaded with the template {{Forestryimages}} and some without. Some were reviewed and some were not. If the files still had the original license we could have a bot mark all the files for review (or even review them) if they were not allready reviewd and we could have a bot add {{Forestryimages}}. But now the license have been changed it will just mean that the files will be impossible to review. We have users that request license review for files uploaded many years ago even if its impossible to review the files so I'm sure at some point we will see the files end in the license review category.

Per Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Add_an_outcome_of_LicenseReview it is agreed that we need to do something about files that can't be reviewed (I tried to fix the template but per Template_talk:LicenseReview#Outcome I did not manage to get it to work).

I would like to hear if anyone can think of a way to review the files. And if not perhaps we could make a template like {{Flickr-change-of-license}} (or change the existing) saying that the license was changed or that the file was licensed freely according to the uploader but we can't verify it because now all licenses are non-free.

As a minimum we could add a template saying that users should NOT ask for a license review. If for some reason they doubt that the file were licensed freely they should check the file themselves and if thats not possible they ahould start a DR themselves. MGA73 (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I tried with the new url and that did ofcourse fail. Perhaps someone can make a bot that can check if a file exist on web.archive.org and if it does the put the file to a list or in a category. --MGA73 (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Rasbak understands licenses at forestryimages.org I have marked hundreds of images by him but now he has many in the license review category from 2020 especially...before the change of license. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: However, if it is an uploader with just 1, 2, 3 or 4 images on Commons--with one or two from forest images--obviously the best solution is delete. We cannot trust this kind of uploader understands image licenses. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio (logos and graphic creations)

[edit]

Hello happy contributors,

Since the early 1980s, the graphic design of the Canal+ companies and channels has been the subject of spécific artistic trademarked creation, branding and corporate identity conventions, spécial copyrighted fonts and images created by the renowned Frenchman Étienne Robial. All channels and service logos are protected in France, in accordance with copyright law (since the author is still alive and it would have taken 70 years after his death for these creations to be in the public domain).

In addition to copyright protection, all these logos are registered trademarks. Finally, these are not just simple text use but a genuine artistic creation, notably using a specific font, registered under copyright. While uploading to fr.wikipedia.org is permitted, uploading and publishing them on Wikimedia Commons is absolutely not in compliance with current rules. Unless expressly authorized (OTRS ticket validating the authorization of Étienne Robial himself and head of the Canal+ group companies), it is therefore not possible to preserve the dozens of files of this type in Commons at this time. Especially since an alternative is possible at fr.wikipedia.org. Example among dozens others:

Best regards. Tisourcier (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again... I need help !
Another contributor has revert my speed copyvio deletion requests for theses files without warning me and choosed to add a wrong category for these files :
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_Canal%2B_4K_UHD.png&diff=prev&oldid=1024892146
I'm not very comfortable with mass deletion request (for all logos categories involved of Robial's creations), so if any nice contributor could help me on this purpose, I'd be very grateful. ;) Tisourcier (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a contested deletion, then open up a regular deletion request on the files in that category so there is space for giving arguments, and a documented record as to why (or why they were kept). They are clearly not copyrightable in the U.S., and likely many other countries. France in particular may give copyrights to custom fonts though, so this may be a special situation there. They are among the few signatories in the 1970s to the Vienna Agreement for the Protection of Type Faces (which is not in force because not nearly enough countries have agreed), and I do see in this court case they ruled that a font was copyrightable (but not infringed in that case). I'm not sure if a usage of a font can become copyright infringement -- that case was about being infringed by another font, a different situation. The Vienna treaty mentioned above limited the protection to being infringed by other typefaces, not to usages of those typefaces, which I presume Canal licensed in this case. I think UK law is similar in that regard. I think you need to back up your case with that type of argumentation, that it's particular to France but not much wider than that, as most editors are used to looking at logos like that and seeing it qualify PD-textlogo (which it does, for the U.S.). Is there a French case where copying of a logo by someone other than the licensing party was actually deemed a copyright violation of the typeface? If not, then it's not clear that the logo being here is a copyright violation, even though the font itself almost certainly has a copyright in France. Whether French law recognizes a copyright in the rest of the logo, less sure on that, but that is what you may need to argue given other court cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello @Tisourcier, I wasn’t the contributor that reverted some of your speedy tags, but I had converted the rest of them to this regular DR. I just noticed this thread and I didn’t know about the reverts by the other contributor before, so now I have added those logos into the DR I opened anyways, since they are related to the same topic. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sede de Cervecería Polar (1941)

[edit]

Buenas se puede publicar a Wikimedia la sede de Cervecería Polar como esta imagen en 1941 para agregar {{PD-Venezuela}} (60 años) ósea en Venezuela estará al Dominio Público en 1965 o antes? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, AbchyZa22. Los 60 años empiezan desde la fecha de publicación, no de creación. No es claro cuándo se publicó la imagen. Es decir, si no se publicó antes de 1965, creo que no está en el dominio público en Venezuela.
La imagen también debe estar en el dominio público en los Estados Unidos (donde están localizados los servidores de Wikimedia Commons). Creo que los derechos de autor en los EE.UU. permanecen por 95 años desde la publicación, según la URAA/LARU. (En detalle: La URAA restaura los derechos de autor en los EE.UU. si la imagen estuvo protegida en el país de origen en la fecha de restauración [1 de enero de 1996 para la mayoría de países, incluso COM:Venezuela. Aunque se publicara la imagen en 1941, los derechos de author todavía no vencerían en 1996, entonces los derechos de autor son restaurados en los EE.UU.)
Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 03:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anon126:Abajo de la imagen aparece 1941 como fecha de publicación. AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Bueno, pero como lo dije antes, creo que la imagen aún no estaría en el dominio público en los EE.UU. La política sobre material en el dominio público requiere que la imagen esté en el dominio público tanto en los EE.UU. como en el país de origen. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anon126:Buenas,no todos los logos pasaron al Dominio Público en EE.UU. pero existe logos que ya pasó al Dominio Público en Venezuela no en EEUU por ejemplo (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachu stick figure

[edit]

I made a stick figure Pikachu drawing that I think should be OK here. It's based only on uncopyrightable biological facts (e.g. "Pikachu has a zigzag tail"), and strictly speaking Pikachu isn't a fictional character, so these don't become protectable character traits just because there are characters that happen to be Pikachu (like Ash's Pikachu, Sparky, OCs, etc.). Honestly, the drawing might be below COM:TOO anyway (which is fine). I'd like to get a second opinion before I upload it here, though. Qzekrom (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it meets Common's scope requirements, as it doesn't seem to be educational media (or useful to other Wikimedia projects). Nosferattus (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth can you say that "Pikachu" is not a fictional character? And how could you say that a Pikachu has any kind of "biological facts"?! In the same vein, one could say that an older duck who makes head-first dives into a basin full of coins, or that a spider bites makes someone wear a red jumpsuit are biological facts. Any depiction of a Pikachu is always a derivative of the Pokémon character. On the other hand, your stick figure is abstracted enough to not infringe on Pokémon copyrights, but that's also a reason to not be in our project scope. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I think your argument conflates Pikachu as a species with specific characters in a story. Scrooge McDuck and Spider-Man are indeed characters; the "traits" you described aren't just facts but are essential to the story being told. Likewise, Ash's Pikachu is a distinct character: he stubbornly refuses to get in a Poké Ball, refuses to evolve, refers to Ash as "Pikapi", occasionally shocks Ash, and cried the one time that Ash got turned into stone. Those are protectable character traits for a distinct fictional character that is part of a story.
By contrast, a wild Pikachu that appears in a Pokémon game is an individual Pokémon you can catch, train, and battle with — a "character" in the sense that it has independent existence within the game world — but it has no fixed character traits that contribute to the overarching plot. Its existence is procedural and mechanical, depending entirely on the player’s choices.
Because Pokémon Red and Green (released in Japan in 1996) predate the anime (which first aired in 1997), there were already an unbounded number of Pikachu-individuals existing on game cartridges, well before Ash's Pikachu was introduced as a distinct narrative character. This further limits any claim that "being a Pikachu" is a protected trait specific to Ash's Pikachu's identity.
That said, I'm glad we agree that my drawing does not reproduce any protectable expression from the Pokémon franchise, and therefore is not a derivative work. Only the specific visual design of Pikachu — including the red cheek pouches, the exact shapes of its eyes and tail, and other detailed features — is copyrightable, not the bare facts about its biology and game mechanics. With that in mind, I'd like to bring this discussion back to project scope.
As for educational use: the image could illustrate Stick figure (as an example of recognizable abstraction and of non-human stick figures), or serve as a reusable template in xkcd-style educational diagrams, such as for a Wikibook about Pokémon game mechanics (such as breeding or Electric-type moves). Since a more detailed visual representation of Pikachu would not be permitted on Commons, an abstract representation like this is necessary to enable those uses. Furthermore, this drawing is not "low-quality"; it is intentionally minimalistic, designed specifically to provide an educationally useful template while respecting copyright boundaries.
I would also welcome discussion on a related conceptual question: whether this drawing itself meets the threshold of originality to qualify as an independently copyrightable work, which would determine whether {{PD-ineligible}} or {{Cc-by-4.0}} would be the more appropriate copyright tag. Qzekrom (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I can follow the opinion that only Ash's Pikachu is a distinct character. I think that every single Pokémon, be it a Pikachu, Bulbasaur, Charmander, Zekrom, Mewtwo or whatever you want, is a copyrighted creation, at least by the 2D and 3D artwork in games, anime and manga. We have Commons:Fan art which seems to go a bit more in-depth about this subject. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Board Game Artwork

[edit]

I am very unsure about how to use Wiki-Commons. I am just about to do some major editing of a Wikipedia article about a board game, e.g., en:Brass (board game) (Wikipedia 'free link'). I screen-shot the artwork of the game's title on the computer game version, available through Steam. The header is the word "Brass" on a brass plaque. The artwork is clearly not my own work, and I am not sure whether it is the game's logo, as it is the game's title. In addition, since it is a graphic of the game, I assume that the person in control of illustrating the computer version, Magdalena Mudlaff, or the illustrator of the original board game, Peter Dennis, have a copyright over such a graphic. How would I go about working out whether I can use the graphic or getting permission? I seem to see other board games with a complete picture of the game's box cover, including the board game logo, but I am just not sure how they managed to do that. Are such illustrations in the public domain, and, if not, how do they become so? Can you advise me? Thanks in advance for the time taken to lend your assistance.SMargan (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SMargan: There are two separate issues here:
  1. Can you upload these materials to Commons? Without seeing the images in question I can't say anything definitive, but it is very unlikely anything related to a game create in recent decades is in the public domain, unless (for example) the logo is too simple to copyright and you want to use that, or the game simply reuses images whose copyright has expired. Otherwise, you'd need the owners of the copyright to release these materials under a free license, and very few owners of commercially valuable materials are likely to do such a thing. If you want a detailed explanation of the issues involved in uploading materials like this to Commons, see Commons:Uploading works by a third party.
  2. Failing that, can you upload these as non-free materials on the English-language Wikipedia without involving Commons? en:Wikipedia:Non-free content allows for allowing certain non-free content (such as logos) directly to en-wiki.

- Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luchador masks

[edit]

Hello, I have a question regarding Luchador masks. In the past, the File:Mascara Blue Demon.svg has been deleted for copyright violation, even though it was in use on the professionnal wrestling project in French. Yesterday, I flagged the File:BlueDemonMask.png for copyvio, as it is a close picture of the unworn mask. I am not sure if I did the right thing or what the rule is regarding the masks of Mexican wrestlers. Does anyone have any advice? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request is here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:BlueDemonMask.png CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hormiga luchador.jpg which came out of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Estrellato. The second DR was kept but it was mainly for procedural reasons because of how many files were included in the request. It's been a minute, but from what the remember the standard for masks is the same as it is for everything else. I don't think the mask in File:BlueDemonMask.png is complicated enough to copyrighted. More complex ones would be though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raúl Montero.jpg

[edit]

Hi all,
Can anyone (probably Spanish speaking) help find if [2] contains anything about the license the uploader stated. Quick1984 (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks alright. While I do not speak Spanish, the written language is sufficiently close to others I manage to check the "Condiciones de Uso" (easily understandable for me as "terms of use") linked of the page footer. These words are actually a link to the CC-By 3.0 license on Creativecommons.org. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about file

[edit]

Hi! I have a question about if a file would be protected under copyright laws. In the US. This image was taken for the Southern Courier, a newspaper from the South that covered civil rights issues among other things. The newspaper archives are available, and not published with a copyright notice, qualifying them for the PD-US-no notice. The image at the first link, one that would be great to use for an article I am working on for the subject of the photo. That image was never published in that newspaper, and I am unable to find when it was truly first published. The AL digital archives indicates no clear copyright, just that it may be held by the state. The first image was taken for the Southern Courier, but not published there. The second batch of images at the digital archives were also not published from what I can find, but I am not sure. Could anyone weigh in on this and let me know? I understand that not every page needs a picture, it would just be helpful Yoblyblob (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or this image Yoblyblob (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be on much cleaner ground if you can find images that you know were published, without notice, in the U.S. before 1989 than in trying to work out the status of images that were not published in a timely manner. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments : Unicode licensed data

[edit]

Hello all, Unicode has interesting multilingual data under a new Unicode licence approved by the Open Source Initiative. This Unicode license states :

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of data files and any associated documentation (the “Data Files”) or software and any associated documentation (the “Software”) to deal in the Data Files or Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Data Files or Software, and to permit persons to whom the Data Files or Software are furnished to do so, provided that either (a) this copyright and permission notice appear with all copies of the Data Files or Software, or (b) this copyright and permission notice appear in associated Documentation.

We (Lingua Libre/Commons contributors supported by Wikimedia France) would like to import such data on Commons in order to feed Wikimedia tool Lingua Libre. But I'm not jurist. I put in bold the points which seems the most relevant to us : the widely open sharing conditions similar to CC licenses (first bold section) and the second bold section requiring to display their UNICODE license with the data.

Therefor, from my non-jurist understanding maybe adding the UNICODE license text at the end of the Wikipage would be enough to respect both the source's UNICODE license and the host's Commons CC-BY-SA license ? What do you think ? Comments and thoughs welcomes. Yug (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that appears to be a free license; it satisfies all the conditions set out in Commons:Licensing. Which Unicode data are you referring to in particular? Omphalographer (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your answer Omphalographer. The Unilex project. It provides lists of words like this one which we use to record audio files for Commons and Wiktionaries as in Category:Lingua_Libre_pronunciation-eus.
Wikimedia France is funding a code revamp and we want to move our open lienced lists to Commons so they stays editable in a crowdsourced wiki way. Yug (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Law for Text-to-Speech

[edit]

Hello, People with visual impairments face many challenges accessing Wikipedia articles. In most cases, the audio version of the articles is not available. With the advent of AI tools capable of transforming text into voice (such as ElevenLabs), I think it would be a good idea to conduct a test, starting with high-quality articles and featured articles. Here’s an example from the lead section of the article (in French) on Elizabeth Willing Powel (using ElevenLabs). However, I am unsure about the copyright implications regarding these generated audio files. Does anyone have information on this issue of usage rights? Thank you. Riad Salih (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should be whatever the copyright of the original text is. Automated transformation does not add any copyrightable expression, and in this case sounds like it would pretty much contain all of the expression from the source work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Riad Salih,
ElevenLab and jurisprudence are clear that ML generated transformations are Public Domain. The text being from wikipedia, the audio would be CC-BY-SA as per Wikipedia's license.
An user group interested by this avenue ML speech synthesis is gathering at meta:Wikimedia_machine_learning_text-to-speech_group. Yug (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

hello,

I would like to ask for clarification regarding the copyright status of a CCTV image from a Transport for NSW surveillance camera, dated 26 January 2024 (direct link, article source). according to this template, automated surveillance footage might not reach the threshold of originality in some jurisdictions and and may therefore be in the public domain. however, I am unsure whether this would apply under Australian copyright law. is there any precedent or community consensus about CCTV footage from Australian government bodies, especially Transport for NSW?

thanks in advance for your help! GloBoy93 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there is much precedent anywhere. That tag is under discussion (the U.S. Copyright Office has registered a few security videos as being copyrightable). Australia has a very, very low threshold of originality. I'm not aware of any court cases though.
[edit]

Should files with restored copyright by the URAA speedied as copyvios? 2A02:A31B:20DD:6F80:4425:79F0:ED98:FDAA 12:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to have regular deletion discussions IMO, to give room for debate and time to check the several factors there are to be considered when it comes to URAA. --Rosenzweig τ 13:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on images from European Parliament (EP)

[edit]

Hello, I wanted to ask whether images from European Parliament (EP) is allowed here in Commons. In the copyright notice [3] on their website, it states:

  • it “authorized…commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged.” Clearly it allows for commercial use, but does the pharse “entire item is reproduced” means their images are non-derivative?

I am asking because me and another user (pinging @PascalHD) were in a discussion whether this portrait of Mark Carney is allowed in Commons since the EXIF data credited EP as the source. PascalHD mentioned that it is allowed by law, but I was confused because in a previous DR, images that were also credited to EP in the EXIF data were deleted. So should these images be undeleted if they are freely licensed by law? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the law itself does not restrict non-derivatives, only the disclaimer- I think the license is fine as you can't make a copyright more strict later. I also think the images should be undeleted. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I linked the wrong EU law, that one was for the EU Commision. However, I found the law specifically for the EU Parliament - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1024/oj/eng. The law is in line with the Commons. Perhaps the template should be updated or a new one should be created specifically for the works of EU Parliament. PascalHD (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that if you read the Copyright notice for any other language than English (Italian for example;[4]) it states: "...for which the European Union holds rights of use is authorised for personal use or for commercial or non-commercial rebroadcasting, provided that the integrity of the reproduced elements is respected and the source is acknowledged...". My guess is that the English Copyright statement is a mis-translation of this. PascalHD (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"provided that the integrity of the reproduced elements is respected" and "provided that the entire item is reproduced" both sound roughly similar, and both seem to be putting limits on changes and derivatives. Is there a European law which states that a "© European Union 2020 - Source : EP" photo is considered free by our definition? Consigned (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is the english translation of no longer human in the public domain?

[edit]

see this copyright renewal entry. COM:US says copyright needs to be renewed in 28 years. the renewal was after 28 years and 3 months. is it still copyrighted? ltbdl (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the [actual law] and it says copyright expires after one year if the request is not made in the first 28 years. As this has a renewal entry, I believe they probably filed it before the end of the 28th year and were thus allowed to keep copyright (the three months was probably bcs it took time for the application to be approved). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
darn! thanks. ltbdl (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi all

I'm hoping this may have been discussed before. Can anyone tell me what laws would apply to freedom of panorama for photos taken on land which has a diplomatic purpose? My understanding is these places are not subject to the host country's laws. The example I have is a current deletion discussion for UN building taken from within the UN compound in France. France does not have freedom of panorama however my understanding is that the UN building isn't in France and French law does not apply.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following research into the legal framework, it appears that French copyright law applies to photographs taken within the UNESCO compound in Paris, including restrictions related to freedom of panorama. Although the compound serves a diplomatic function, it is not extraterritorial in the sense of being outside the host country's legal jurisdiction. This is similar to embassies, which (contrary to popular belief) remain the sovereign territory of the host country. The laws of that country continue to apply, with exceptions limited to those explicitly granted under diplomatic treaties, such as diplomatic immunity for accredited personnel.
The 1954 Headquarters Agreement between France and UNESCO (Art. 5, para. 3) confirms this by stating that "the laws and regulations of the French Republic shall apply at Headquarters", except where overridden by UNESCO's internal regulations, which do not appear to address copyright. Accordingly, France's lack of FOP for modern architecture applies, even within the UN compound.
This reinforces the fact that the building is still under copyright (last architect Bernard Zehrfuss died in 1996, copyright expires 2066), and since FOP is not permitted in France for modern buildings under COM:FOP France, therefore, photos taken from within the UNESCO grounds are not freely usable on Commons without permission from the copyright holder.
While some users have drawn analogies to embassies or diplomatic zones, diplomatic status does not negate the applicability of copyright law. I can't find any legal or treaty-based exemption that would override the host country's copyright framework in such cases. The precautionary principle supports deletion in light of this legal uncertainty. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand of previous discussions on this, extraterritoriality doesn't apply to copyright so these UN buildings are subject to French copyright laws. (Jonatan basically ninjaed me here, thanks for laying out why French law applies) Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your reply, do I understand correctly?
  1. That French copyright law applies to UNESCO HQ in this specific example.
  2. That the laws which apply to embassies, UN compounds etc are agreed by country, rather than a blanket worldwide rule we can apply to all embassies or UN buildings etc. In this example I would assume there is this agreement with UNESCO but also a separate law governing embassies in France.
Is this correct?
Thanks again
. John Cummings (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your understanding is correct on both points:
  1. French copyright law applies to the UNESCO headquarters. The 1954 Headquarters Agreement states that French law governs the site unless overridden by UNESCO's internal regulations, which do not address copyright, so France's lack of freedom of panorama applies.
  2. You're absolutely right that the legal status of embassies, UN compounds, and similar diplomatic premises is determined by specific agreements with the host country, not by a blanket rule. These places are often misunderstood as being "foreign soil" or fully outside the legal reach of the host country, but in reality, they remain part of the host country’s territory. The key distinction is that they benefit from certain immunities and privileges, which are granted through treaties or headquarters agreements.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks so much, I'll think about how best to include this information into copyright guidance pages. John Cummings (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello

I wanted to ask if it would be possible to upload pictures of Erika Szeles and Roza Shanina.

There are some of Shanina under Category:Roza Shanina, but my favorite picture of her is missing. The image (I love her smile in this photo). Author is unknown, unless one of you knows more. Would it be possible to upload it here using Template:PD-Russia-1996?

There are no images of Erika Szeles on Commons, but her photos went around the world in 1956. Image 1, Image 2, Image 3 (on the front page of a Danish weekly magazine). They were made 1956 by the Danish photographer Vagn Hansen. Unfortunately, there is no further information about the photographer here, including whether he is still alive or when he died. Would it be possible to upload it here using Template:PD-Denmark50?

Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A colored version of one of the photos of Szeles is on Ru Wiki[8], but it's marked as a copyrighted, non-free image.
Maybe you could upload a local version on the wiki where you want to use the photo instead of uploading it to Commons? Nakonana (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again.
@Alex Spade: Thank you for your detailed information. It's a shame that nothing more specific can be found about Shanina's photo. Regarding Szeles, the question remains how exactly one interprets the description "Note that "photographic works", which must display artistic merit or originality, enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer...". Personally, I do consider these photos to be original. Any other opinions?
@Nakonana: I know the colorized version from Szeles, and there are also colorized versions of Shanina's image, but they are derivative works. I didn't want to upload it for a specific wiki, but rather so that all language versions can benefit from it. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I do consider these photos to be original. Russia's threshold of originality is very low, so there's a high chance that the photo would be deemed original by a Russian court, too, and thus would qualify for copyright protection as outlined by the law. We would need to know who the photographer is and when they died to determine whether 70 years have passed since their death for the copyright protection to have expired. Without this information, we must assume that it's still protected per the precautionary principle. Nakonana (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hohen Sprenz Kirche Grabplatte Drieberg

[edit]

Wenn das Foto um 1980 aufgenommen wurde, ist leider anzunehmen, dass die unbekannte verstorbene Person, die als Urheber angeführt ist, noch das Copyright hat. Oder irre ich mich? GerritR (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn der/die Uploadende das Foto der Bekannten geerbt haben sollte, dann würde die Person u.U. die nötigen Rechte haben, um das Foto unter einer CC Lizenz zu veröffentlichen. Zum Beispiel mit der Lizenz {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. Nakonana (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PD status of image of Rosa Parks

[edit]

Hello! I am currently working on updating the Wikipedia page on Rosa Parks to FA status. It has been brought to my attention in Peer Review that the public domain status of this image is potentially questionable. Per the reviewer:

File:Rosaparks.jpg needs better documentation of its PD status. I searched archive.gov for "306-PSD-65-1882" and couldn't find anything. The fact that it is marked "unknown author" casts doubt on the claim; typically US Government photos come with extensive documentation including the name of the photographer.

I also found a discussion about the status of the image here, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to shed much light on the topic. If anyone could help clarify or help find more information on this image's status, that would be great. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: several images, including this one, this one, and this one seem to be marked as "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties", but the reviewer has pointed out that it seems as if they were prepared by municipal employees, not federal employees. However, the use of these images is marked as "unrestricted" on NARA, and it seems like they were maybe included in a report as part of a federal court care. What would be an appropriate tag for these images? Spookyaki (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly doubtful those paper forms are protected by copyright in the first place -- it's just factual information at most, and "blank forms" are listed as one of the types of works not protected by copyright, so there is no issue on the form either. If there was a copyright, it would be PD by now as either no-notice or not renewed. Those I would not worry about. The photo of Parks, another matter entirely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a relevant licensing template that could be used for these images then? Spookyaki (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This image is probably {{PD-US}} for publication without a copyright notice, or failing to renew the copyright 28 years after publication. Please note that the original link doesn't work, but the image is available from [9].
I don't think this is from the US government. There is a mention of the Ebony magazine. Copyright notice and renewal should be checked for that magazine. Yann (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, verifying U.S. federal government origin of images related to the civil rights struggle has just become tremendously more complicated because of the Trump administration's purge of many such materials from public display, including on line. - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it is a very unlikely image to have been taken by a government photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see a copy on NARA here with a note that The copyright for this image is held by Ebony Magazine, and it's listed as "Fully Restricted". So looks like USIA took that from a magazine. It looks like all 1955 issues of that magazine were renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see... Maybe outside your jurisdiction, but on the Wikipedia side, do you think it could be used in Rosa's article under fair use? There are maybe other pictures that could be used of her in that space, but none that are as clear, as close to the Montgomery bus boycott, and as demonstrative of her connection to the Civil rights movement. I also think it's unlikely that its use would limit that original issue of Ebony's commercial commercial sales. Overall, I just think it'd be a shame to see it go (though obviously it couldn't be used as the FA image). Spookyaki (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Carl. Too bad, so I created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rosa Parks in 1955. Yann (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1028040701"