Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ 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.

Please note

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.
Have you read the FAQ?
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.

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.

Churches and Dutch FOP.[edit]

COM:FOP Netherlands does include in its description that interiors of public buildings are covered by FOP. And Commons:Deletion requests/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-2.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-3.jpg were both decided as keep that church interiors are covered by Dutch FOP. Should it be made more explicit that church interiors are covered by Dutch FOP? @Ellywa: @Jameslwoodward: @Vysotsky: @Mdd: @JopkeB: @Adamant1: as interested parties. Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'd say no since according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands there are to two criteria the building has to satisfy in-order to qualify as a public place "whether an entrance fee was charged, and whether access may be denied on private law grounds." While churches might satisfy the first one since they don't charge an attendance fee clergy can (and do) deny access to whomever they want to for whatever reason they feel like. So churches aren't public buildings regardless of if they charge a fee or not. Otherwise you might as well say places like private residences are public buildings just because people don't charge their friends to come over for a visit. That obviously not how the law works though. There's no reason churches should get a special pass either. It's clear they are private buildings because they can deny access to whomever they want to based on private law grounds regardless of if they charge an entrance fee or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: just wondering whether that is true that churches in the Netherlands can arbitrarily deny someone admittance. I'm sure they can have rules for entry, especially ones about dress or behavior (but so can a stadium, or even a government building), but can they really arbitrarily tell an individual they may not enter? Would it then be legal for a church in the Netherlands to exclude a racial group? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think this is correct. Excluding a racial group would most certainly be illegal. (I live in the Netherlands). Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's essentially what I was going to say. A museum can't legally deny someone entry based on their race but are still considered private buildings because there's other criteria like hours of operation, dress codes, Etc. Etc. I assume the same applies to churches since they have services at specific times and can deny someone entry if they aren't dressed for the occasion or whatever. I'm not really sure how that would apply to government buildings or stadiums but Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands doesn't say either one are public places to begin with anyway. So... --Adamant1 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anything can be closed at certain times. That really doesn't seem to me like a decisive argument. What's the status of train stations or pedestrian underpasses? Would they have to be open 24 hours a day to be "public"? Even a public street might be closed to set up for a street fair, or to shoot a film.

I know that in the U.S. for purposes of FoP (which is only for buildings in the U.S., not for art) a space like Westlake Center (both indoors and out) is considered "public", even though they have the legal right to exclude someone for what they consider "inappropriate" behavior, and even though the indoor part closes at night. - Jmabel ! talk 21:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's true. I don't think its the main or only factor by any means. Certainly the general ability to deny a member of the public from entering the building is more compelling. Opening hours a part of that though. But I definitely wouldn't write or modify a guideline based purely on it. The United States is more liberal for most things so I wouldn't neccesarily think they are comparable. Maybe a place like Germany or another European country since they all have extremely similar laws. Although Germany seems to be a little more strict with FOP then others. So perhaps not them. Im interested to know exactly you think the criteria is though. The fact that museum aren't covered at least narrows it down to not being purely based on if members of the public attend the place and only so many things it could be based on outside of that. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

museum[s] aren't covered: I think that's pretty universal on places with laws allowing FoP, but you are right that it does make it hard to say where the line is drawn about interior spaces. Or even what defines a "museum" in this respect: presumably in both Germany & the Netherlands, FoP would apply in a free outdoor sculpture park even though it's a type of museum. I doubt that would be less so if they closed a gate at night. FoP in both of those countries certainly applies to cemeteries, which really aren't that different than churches in terms of being able to enter, they just happen not to be indoors. I bet a lot of this is unclear and poorly tested in terms of case law. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. I think with the free outdoor sculpture park it would depend if it was fenced off and their was an entrance gate with attendants or not. In that case I assume it would be private regardless of it was outdoors. I think German FOP takes a similar stance with private parks, where they aren't considered public places even though they are outdoors and allow public access because the owner can deny access if they want to. If it's not fenced off and/or attended to maybe though. Cemeteries are kind of a weird example. I image there it's more to do with respect for the dead and their family members then anything else. It's possible you could make the same argument for churches, but I wouldn't hinge anything on it. Tangentially related but part of what instigated the discussion was this DR. In that case the building is an old monastery that was converted into a museum. Surely it's at least a bit of a stretch to say museums in old church buildings qualify for FOP even though they don't otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. For churches in the Netherlands I think we should differentiate between protestant and catholic churches (and perhaps other denominations, but I do not know them well).

Protestant churches have very limited opening hours, just when there are services, usually once or twice on Sundays, and incidental for other occasions (like weddings, funerals, Open Monument Day). But during services it is not respecfult to act like a tourist (which I guess is implicit to FOP: that you can wander around, look in detail to the works of art and make pictures). If you want to visit the church on other times, usually you can make an appointment with the sacristan of the church. There also may be concerts, but then there is a fee involved. Visitor attractions like the churches in Naarden and Gouda have longer opening hours, but then you have to pay an entrance fee.
In general catholic churhes have longer opening hours, usually daily several hours.

About access: I think owners have the right to deny access to their building. Usually the municipality (civil government) owns the chuch tower (dates from the Napoleonic time, see for instance Planviewer.nl) and the church community owns the rest of the building, which are private parties in the Netherlands. And in principle private parties have the right to deny access to their building. Perhaps they rarely exercise that right, but they do have it.
So I doubt whether churches in the Netherlands can be considered public places for FOP, perhaps catholic churches, but protestant churches certainly not. --JopkeB (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps @Arnoud Engelfriet: has time to add his insight on this matter: can we publish photos of artwork in churches? He has published about panoramafreedom in the Netherlands before: https://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/foto/openbarekunst/ . I decided to keep these photos. But I am in doubt now. Ellywa (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is complicated and has no legal precedent as far as I can tell. The issue is that while churches are publicly accessible, they are also places of worship where rights to privacy and right to exercise religion are very important. It's therefore debatable whether the inside of a church can be seen as a public place with all that implies for FOP. My position is that if you don't photograph during services, do not photograph worshippers (e.g. people burning a candle or praying in a corner) etc then I would consider your photo as legitimate under FOP. If you then can get in without asking permission or paying a fee (church-museum) then it's a public location.

It is not relevant for FOP whether the owner can deny you access. The legal standard is whether the public in principle has access, like with the grounds of a castle that has a sign "Open between sunrise and sundown". True, the owner can still kick you out, but this is "public" for purpose of copyright law. If it has a fence, you have to ring and discuss before you're let in, then it's not public. Arnoud Engelfriet (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much User:Arnoud Engelfriet. I think we can keep these images based on your view (who else could give a better view, if there is no legal precedent?). I do not want to bother you any further, but I noted some time ago photos of one of the Goudse Glazen, File:SintJanskerkGouda-Glas1c-Erasmus.jpg, designed by Marc Mulders, somewhere before 2016. You can only visit the Church where it is located by paying an entrance fee, so possibly that photo's will have to be deleted (I hope not; perhaps somebody can reach out to the artist). Anyway, many thanks! Ellywa (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks indeed User:Arnoud Engelfriet.

@Ellywa: Is it possible to include this new insight in Commons:Freedom of panorama/Europe#Netherlands and/or Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands#Freedom of panorama?

So: photos of church interiors in the Netherlands are legitimate under FOP if:

the photo was not taken during services and does not show worshippers (for privacy reasons) AND
you can get in without asking permission or paying a fee (then it is a public space). My addition: on a regular basis, not only on Open Monument Day(?)

JopkeB (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JopkeB: , I did include this insight on your second link already, in the English and Dutch versions. However not including Monument Day and privacy to keep it consize. I think it is transcluded on your first link. Ellywa (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to question Arnoud Engelfriet's knowledge here, but their opinion doesn't at all sound like how the law works. For instance Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands pretty clearly says "Parliament and the literature explicitly mention that schools...are not public places" and you don't usually have to pay an entrance fee to go on school grounds. I don't think anyone needs to get permission to do so in most cases either. Let alone are a lot of schools fenced off. There's also issues with the whole thing about making it contingent on if the image shows a person doing worship or not. Although I'd be interested to know why exactly Arnoud Engelfriet thinks schools are not considered public places even though they seem to meet his criteria for a place to qualify as one. Also, I reverted Ellywa's edit at least to the English guideline. I don't think a single comment is enough to justify changing the guideline at this point. Especially since it's questionable and the conversation clearly isn't finished yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: Typically a person unconnected to a particular school is not welcome to just walk into the building, whether fenced or not. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admittedly it's been a while since I've been to a school but at least in the United States people can usually walk onto school grounds and play on the equipment or use the sports pitches if they want to. Plus with most colleges and universities anyone can wonder the around campuses pretty unabated. Including going into buildings or whatever. I'm sure it's harder to do for most schools under the college level now with school shootings being common and whatnot, but most small schools aren't really attended by anyone after hours or on weekends anyway. Really, they barely are during school hours. Colleges and universities definitely don't check people at the entrance to the campus. Maybe it's different in other countries though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does Open Monument Day (or Open Church Day, for that matter) make a difference on policy grounds? ReneeWrites (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you may enter a church as a tourist only on one or two days a year, on Open Monument Day and/or Open Church Day, it cannot be considered as a public place and so there cannot be FOP. That is why I brought this element in the discussion. JopkeB (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @SRientjes: @Romaine: and @Germien Cox: for this discussion, on the grounds that they organised Open Kerken Nederland 2023, which had a focus on indoor church photography. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"whether an entrance fee was charged" -> In the Netherlands there is a national park where an entrance fee is asked, otherwise you can't enter the area. Still the area is still considered a public space.

"whether access may be denied on private law grounds" -> This is so far I can see not connected with FOP. A castle garden, owned by a private organisation/family, generally open for the public, is considered to be public space. Even while private law applies. Commonly at the entrance a sign shows what the "house rules" are.

What is more relevant is if the location is considered to be destined for a closed group of people or to be open for the public. A school is destined for a closed group of people (the students who registered + parents). Churches are commonly open for everyone who wish to attend a service, but some churches may be not. Some churches are always open during the day. Most churches are closed because of the risk of vandalism and thieves (and lack of staff), but during some hours they can be visited freely.

What Arnoud Engelfriet is saying is the key here for churches: "If you then can get in without asking permission or paying a fee (church-museum) then it's a public location. It is not relevant for FOP whether the owner can deny you access. The legal standard is whether the public in principle has access, like with the grounds of a castle that has a sign "Open between sunrise and sundown". True, the owner can still kick you out, but this is "public" for purpose of copyright law. If it has a fence, you have to ring and discuss before you're let in, then it's not public." Romaine (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess that sorta makes sense. I don't see how basing it on if they charge a fee or not would be a workable policy regardless though since most of the time that type of information isn't readily available and varies depending on the particular circumstance. Also in a lot of cases, for instance museums, some parts of the building are free and some aren't. Although I still don't think it matters, but there's no way to base a policy on if a places charges or not anyway even if it does. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many, if not all, churches in the Netherlands have a website on which the opening hours are mentioned, as well as whether there is a fee involved outside service hours. So this information is available, at least for the majority of the churches. The same for parts of museums that are free. JopkeB (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most people on here including me don't speak Dutch. Nor is it necessarily easy to find or navigate non-English websites in a lot of cases to begin with. So I don't know how that would be workable for deciding DRs. Except for people who don't speak the language would having to just take the word of people who do, which clearly isn't a functional way to do things. The outcomes of DRs shouldn't hinge on specialists or people from a single country who are going to bias toward keeping photographs taken there. Really, someone should be able to tell if an image is a copyright violation or not simply by looking at it. That's usually how FoP is. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then I don't know. I only see that a lot of cases concerning FOP in the Netherlands go to Category:Dutch FOP cases and I know for sure that the administrators who manage it (as far as I know they all speak Dutch) are not biased and will stick to the copyright law of the Netherlands. What I have experienced is that they think keeping the law is more important than keeping files. And I think one have to be at least a little bit of a specialist in Dutch copyright law to be able to judge those FOP cases, know more about it than is in COM:FOP Netherlands, be able to read Auteurswet and perhaps even to search for case law. So I am afraid that you have to rely on them. And you can always ask on Commons:De Kroeg whether someone will look up a website of a specific church for the opening hours and/or fees. JopkeB (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually have doubts about the fee bit. Imagine a church dies not charge a fee, and then decides to start charging it. I hope it does not mean that the photographs taken during the "non-charged" period suddenly become unfree. And I do not think the information on when the fee was charged is readily available. Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ymblanter: By far churches in the Netherlands are open to the public and visit is free, during service or at other moments, so according to Arnoud Engelfriet artwork on permanent display in these churches would fall into FOP and can be photographed (as they are positioned; so not in detail). A limited number of churches has been transformed into a museum, you have to pay an entrance fee (except perhaps on some special dates) and these churches are not used for worship any more. They show artwork (like World Press Photo today in "Nieuwe Kerk" Amsterdam). I have never seen a church which is operated as a place of worship suddenly asking for an entrance fee. But if this would happen, photo's taken before this date would still fall under the Dutch FOP imho. Ellywa (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't disagree about administrators. They are usually pretty reasonable when closing DRs. It's more to do with voters being biased towards keeping images related to their countries for mainly nationalistic reasons, not anything having to do with the guidelines or copyright laws. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decisions about FOP are not a matter of majority vote, they are taken by an administrator who enforces copyright law, no matter what others may say. JopkeB (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, JopkeB. I never said it was a majority "vote" and people being bias in DRs is still an issue regardless of if administrators will ultimately ignore what they say or not. Even though "voting" exists for a reason, which kind of means it's a factor in the final decision at least to some degree. Although sure it's minor in most cases, but that doesn't mean it's a completely non-existing one. The guidelines should be written in a way users can understand, work with, and that don't lead to unnecessary conflicts regardless though. None of which is satisfied by making it so only a small group of people can nominate images from a specific country for deletion or figure out if said images are COPYVIO. This is a global project and most don't speak Dutch. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your frustration. But the law is what it is, sometimes it is complicated and only applicable with more information in the local language. When people have a suspicion of copyright violation of the Netherlands, but have not enough information, they can always nominate a file or group of files for deletion or ask on Commons:De Kroeg and then (in this case) Dutch speakers can investigate the case. JopkeB (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn't seem like a good standard to me at all. If anything it just goes against the DR guidelines that "the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept." I don't see how would be met if the person who is nominating the image for deletion has to investigate if the church charges a fee or not before nominating the image for deletion. Let alone should they have to ask about it on the Dutch language forum beforehand. Both just puts an undue burden on the nominator that goes against the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what is your solution? I sometimes ask advice to collegue admin @Rosenzweig: when in doubt about German FOP cases. Or seek a Chinese admin for nomination in their language if insuffient motivation is given to decide. I do not see what is wrong with that. Often, if information is lacking, images have to be deleted, regrettably, per COM:PRP. Based on above interpretation of the law of the Netherlands by mr. Engelfriet, expert on the field of copyright on internet, images of art in ordinary churches can be kept. Images made in churches converted into museums, which will be obvious from their websites, even for non native speakers, will have to be deleted. It is very easy to understand and find out imho for any admin or interested person. Ellywa (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a problem with people "sometimes" asking for advice. I do that myself. The issue is that making it a requirement that people speak Dutch to research if the image COPYVIO means anyone who doesn't speak the language would have to ask for advice or not nominate the image for deletion. I'm sure you get the difference and why the later is an issue. In the meantime Arnoud Engelfriet has made it clear that this is complicated has no legal precedent as far as they can tell. So it's really all speculation regardless of if they are an expert in the internet copyright field or not.

That said, we have actual examples from parliamentary debates of places that are not considered public places despite them being free to enter. Schools, entrance halls of businesses, and museums even though plenty of them are free. So if the place charges a fee or not clearly isn't the deciding factor here. What is? We can really just skip arguing over the details and look to what is considered a public place to figure out if churches are. Public roads, squares, and railway stations are public places. Now ask yourself, does a church have more in common with a public road or a museum? Obviously a museum. So it's pretty likely they aren't covered by FoP. The specific reasons for that don't really matter because guidelines are based on extrapolating the laws from existing examples to begin with and in this case those examples clearly point to churches not qualifying for freedom of panorama. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, what is your proposal? The free museums in Amsterdam from the list are totally different situations. These are not real musea with modern art on permanent display, like an altarpiece in a curch. As you undoubtely know, permanency is a requirement for FOP in the Netherlands. Please stick to the original discussion. The point is, normal churches have FOP in the Netherlands, according to the interpretation of Engelfriet. So you can make and upload photo's of anything on permanent display in these churches, as they are shown (including surroundings). The same you can do with a mural in a railway or bus station building. But you cannot do the same in any free museum, this is totally different. Please, again ... what is your proposal? Ellywa (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Either maintain the status quo or make it clear that churches probably aren't covered by FoP. I'm not the one who wants to change the guideline though. So it's not on me to propose anything. It's on the people (or person) who want to change it to come up with a valid reason to do so. Which I haven't seen anyone here do. So what's your proposal since your the who's so admit about changing the guideline? Also, where does the guideline say anything about the permanency of art on display at museums having anything to do with if they are public places or not? Those two things have nothing to do with each other. Even if they did I've provided multiple examples of places that have nothing to do with artwork but still aren't public even they are free. So having to pay or not to get in doesn't matter regardless.

Also, nowhere did Engelfriet say "normal churches have FOP in the Netherlands" and there were multiple caveats on their speculation even if they did. Best case scenario here churches that don't charge an entrance fee are covered by FoP and we can upload images in those instances only if the images don't show worshipers. I still don't think the fee thing is supported by the evidence though. More so since you seem to be ignoring it and deflecting by making this about how long the artwork is on display, like that has anything to do with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Netherlands (and I hope in other countries as well) explanations of laws are also part of the law. For the Auteurswet the responsible minister has given more information about what a public place is in (translations by Google Translate; it is about Article 18, Artikel 18 in Dutch):

Kamerstuk 28482 nr. 8 16-05-2003:
- A place that is freely accessible to the public by virtue of destination or fixed use.
- This may include whether entrance fees must be paid for access, and whether access can be refused to persons on private law grounds.
- Opera houses, regardless of who manages them, may be refused entry to persons on private law grounds or may be subject to payment of an entrance fee. Access to schools can also be denied on private law grounds to persons other than pupils and parents.
Handelingen Tweede Kamer 11-02-2004
- A museum is not freely accessible, even if no admission fee is charged. However, the public gallery in the parliament building, even if a check will take place for security reasons, must be regarded as part of a place freely accessible to the public.

I hope this is evidence enough to convince you that we do not just make up criteria. JopkeB (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I used the word "made up" anywhere. What I did say is that Arnoud Engelfriet's comment was speculation and it clearly is because there's zero evidence that anything they or anyone else has said applies to churches. You can cite the minister all you want, but I wasn't debating criteria. What I am debating is that those criteria applies in this case. So what's your evidence that it does? And maybe answer the question without miss-construing what I said this time. Like what you quoted says it depends on whether access can be refused to persons on private law grounds. Cool. Putting aside that I was the who cited that quote in the first place, what evidence do you have that churches can't deny access to members of the public based on private law grounds if they want to? Surely if Dutch churches can deny the police access while a service is going then they can also deny it to members of the public. That's a pretty text book definition of a private place. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry that I used the word "make up".

You had questions about the legitimacy of excluding to FOP, for instance:

Schools (18:50, 10 August 2023)
Whether places can be considered not a public place though they do not charge a fee (08:47, 13 August 2023)
Having to pay a fee ("I still don't think the fee thing is supported by the evidence though." 10:10, 13 August 2023)

I have tried to answer these quesions here.

I do not think Arnoud Engelfriet's comment was speculation, as he wrote: "My position is", so it is his opinion. An opinion of an expert, which Ellywa and I value highly in this matter. And yes, there is no legal evidence specifically for interiors of churches. But we can apply the criteria we do have for judging this case. And that is what most of the participants of this discussion did. JopkeB (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tried to answer these questions here. No you haven't. I never asked why museums, opera houses, or schools are considered private places. I said they are and asked what the difference between them and churches is, or more to the point, what makes churches different from those places where they would be public places but schools, museums, and business halls wouldn't be. In fact I never even brought up opera houses, you did. You also didn't answer my question about what evidence there is that churches can't deny access based on private law grounds. It seems that them being able to deny access to cops during services is an example of exactly that. So again for like the fifth time, what makes churches unique compared to the other places I mentioned that don't charge fees but are still private places and what evidence is there that they can't deny access based on private law grounds? And don't respond by telling me Arnoud Engelfriet is an expert or bring up opera houses. Just answer the questions. It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criteria, application and conclusion[edit]

The question is: Are interiors of church buildings in the Netherlands to be considered public places for FOP? There is no legal precedent (Arnoud Engelfriet, 08:56, 10 August 2023). So we have to apply the legal criteria ourselves. These criteria and my application of them are:

Are church buildings in the Netherlands freely accessible to the public by virtue of destination or fixed use?
1. Usually churches are built for, paid and maintained by the members of a denomination, not for the general public. But also usually those denominations are welcoming all people into their church buildings, not only their members.
2. Perhaps we should introduce here opening hours to decide how public a building is: is a church building only open during services, concerts and perhaps once a year on Open Monument Day (then I think it is not a public place)? Or is it open more often, also on week days (then I think it might be considered a public place)? Websites of churches usually show their opening hours.
Must an entrance fee be paid?
1. Not to attend a service, though it is common to donate some money, but there is no set amount.
2. Some church buildings charge an entrance fee to visit the church as a tourist and then we can define it as a museum (= no public place for FOP).
3. So we have to distinguish between church buildings. And we can do that using the websites of the churches.
Can access be refused to persons on private law ground? If yes then a building is not a public place.
1. Yes, as Adamant1 wrote on 17:45, 9 August 2023, they "can (and do) deny access to whomever they want to for whatever reason they feel like." Indeed, legally they are private buildings (except for church towers), and so access can be denied, except for racial and other discriminatory reasons.

My overall conclusion: Interiors of church buildings in the Netherlands are only a public location for FOP if people can get in as a tourist without asking permission (that is: during regular opening hours on at least several week days, for every week in the year) or paying a fee, and do not take photos during services or of worshippers (for privacy reasons).

Questions for @Abzeronow, Ellywa, Jameslwoodward, Vysotsky, Adamant1, Jmabel, Ymblanter, and ReneeWrites: Do you agree on:
1) The three criteria
2) My application of the criteria
3) My overall conclusion? --JopkeB (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say no, they aren't public places for two reasons. 1. Similar places don't charge a fee but are still considered private places 2. They can clearly deny entry based on private law grounds. As the example I've provided where they can deny entry to cops during services shows. Also, private law pertains to organizations, which churches clearly are. No offense to Arnoud Engelfriet since they are clearly an expert, but their opinion was vague at beast and mostly just repeated things that were already said in previous comments. None of the examples I brought up were ever adequately disputed either. So there's no reason what-so-ever to conclude that churches are public places. But there's multiple reasons to conclude they aren't. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Romaine: You provided considerable insight on this discussion as well. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: 1. There are not similar places with the same conditions, so this comparison is false. Other religious buildings aren't open to the general public and do not have opening hours in what the public can freely visit the building. 2. You say "clearly" and then connect it with FOP, however that connection is absolutely not clear. The example of the police is not related to copyright, but is the result of Article 6 of the Constitution that says that everyone has the right to freely practice his religion or belief.¹ The police may not enter (unless red-handed crime) because it must respect the religious freedom, and not because it is a public/private location.

"Also, private law pertains to organizations, which churches clearly are." -> A library is a public place and is also an organisation, as almost everything in the Netherlands is organised in organisations. Who owns the grounds of the library or the church, nor what kind of organisation who maintains the building is relevant for copyright law. What is relevant is if the location is freely accessible for the general public, which for most churches is the case (with their opening hours).

"Arnoud Engelfriet since they are clearly an expert, but their opinion was vague at beast and mostly just repeated things that were already said in previous comments." -> Interesting that you frame the description of the law by this legal expert as "opinion". What I have read above was not vague at at all, but a clear description of what the situation is in the Netherlands. If you consider something vague, please describe this so we can have a look at this and clarify. That other users have said the same as this legal expert (as you clearly say), is because they describe the actual copyright situation. Let me try to look up your reasons/examples.

"Also, nowhere did Engelfriet say "normal churches have FOP in the Netherlands" and there were multiple caveats on their speculation even if they did." -> No, this is not speculation, but he is taking into account that the situation differs for a limited amount of churches. As said, there are churches with daily/weekly/monthly opening hours, there are also (a limited amount of) churches that are only open for their members without opening hours to the general public. The "normal" refers to that it applies to most churches.

"Public roads, squares, and railway stations are public places. Now ask yourself, does a church have more in common with a public road or a museum?" -> Obviously with railway stations and libraries. People can freely visit (most) churches during the opening hours, exactly the same as with railway stations. (After the last train arrived, a railway station closes to open early in the morning.)

In railway stations, public libraries and churches open to the public, people can't be refused access during opening hours. (Except for the situation when someone violates the "huisregels" (rules for entering the area or building), which are often described at the entrance.)

Any examples I missed? Romaine (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are not similar places with the same conditions, so this comparison is false. Romaine What places exactly and are they are public or not? My guess is you won't have an answer. Same if I asked what makes churches different or unique from the other places I've already mentioned that are private. I think the comparison to schools is probably the best one. Both have buildings with multiple rooms where a group of people from the public sit down together and are lectured on a subject. In both cases the lecture is being led by a teacher who can deny people entry if they want. Services are for people who signed up for them, or in the case of churches people who believe in the religion and are members of the church (but also sometimes sign up). Members attend services, lectures, classes Etc. Etc. at specific times of the day and week. Neither one is something that is always opening and happening. Both have dress and conduct codes for enter the buildings Etc. Etc. Just because the people are being taught religion doesn't make churches unique or special. Like if the church were a Jewish Synagogue or Kingdom Hall it's kind of baked into the thing that it won't be regularly trafficked by the general public. Just like most members of the public aren't going to attend a third grade class. Otherwise, you tell me what the unique difference between a class room/school building and your average Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall is.

As to your last part, I assume libraries are public places (if they even are) because they are government funded. The last time I checked churches aren't and there's a separation between church and state. So I don't see how your comparison is relevant. At least IMO railway stations are public places because they are usually wide open buildings that receive constant, unimpeded foot and vehicle traffic from members of the public. Which is nothing like churches. If your going to compare something as an example it should at least be semi-close and have things in common to what your comparing it to. The fact is that those no example of anything close to churches in form or function that are public places. Otherwise be my guest and provide one. Re "he is taking into account that the situation differs for a limited amount of churches." OK you tell me, where exactly is it the "situation" that churches who don't charge a fee are covered by FoP or that FoP depends on if the picture involves people doing religious worship? The last time I checked neither one of those are the state of affairs and it's just speculation that they are. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @ReneeWrites: . Excuses to Romaine, it was not my intention to leave anybody out. JopkeB (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the conclusion by JopkeB is sound based on the discussion generated so far. Churches can be as a public place as a railway station or a library as Romaine says above. The criteria and application of those seem like a good test if a particular church can be considered a public place according to FOP of the Netherlands. Obviously, FOP in the Netherlands has some complex nuances to navigate, and I'm grateful for the insights that have been shared. Abzeronow (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually churches are built for, paid and maintained by the members of a denomination, not for the general public.

Libraries only let you borrow books if you're a member, but you can still enter the building and look around even if you're not. Likewise you can enter a church and attend a service or light a candle in the chapel even if you're not a member. So for point one, are churches "freely accessible to the public by virtue of (...) fixed use", the answer is yes.

The inclusion of the opening hours criteria strikes me as arbitrary and should be removed. (Are we going to remove photographs of churches that are only open one day a week, or that only mention the sunday service on their website? What if the website hasn't been updated in a while? What if there is conflicting information between websites, the Google profile and social media profiles? etc.) It has no basis in law and for Commons it is wildly unpractical.

For point 3, Engelfriet and Romaine have stated that the ability to be denied entrance to a building is not relevant to FOP if someone were to for instance violate the house rules. This makes sense to me; if someone is removed from a town or city hall for being disruptive, this does not suddenly mean that's not a public building anymore. I would like some more clarification on this point, though (specifically from Romaine or Engelfriet or someone else who's knowledgeable on this subject), and how this squares with the current definition of FOP-NL. ReneeWrites (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it matters so much if someone is removed for breaking the house rules, but it does if there are rules that someone can be bared from entering the building if they aren't following in the first place. For instance dress codes, membership requirements, behaviors that have to be followed like showering before going to a church service or not attending services while being inebriated Etc. Etc. I think that's one of the main differences between churches and public places like train depots. No one is going to be denied access to a train depot if they smell bad, don't have the right clothes on, or are high on pot. You can be denied access to a church building for any of those things though. And the access can be denied based on private law grounds. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re "Usually churches are built for, paid and maintained by the members of a denomination, not for the general public." The Netherlands is one of the many European countries with an established church. I believe (though I'm not certain) that Dutch Reformed churches in the Netherlands are typically paid for by the government. Am I wrong about this? - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I am afraid you are wrong. The national government (ministry of Culture) only partly pays for restoration of church buildings that are cultural heritage monuments (the rest should be paid by the members of that church, who usually try to fundraise, by the municipality and perhaps by the province). That is it as far as I know. Like in France state and church are strictly seperated (during the French occupation, around 1800, the French changed a lot of our legal structures). JopkeB (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Church and state are not as strictly separated as in France (or US). With the restoration of church buildings the government pays a part or whole, but (after the French left) the government also has paid for dozens of churches and we have had a ministry for religious practises. Romaine (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I follow what ReneeWrites says in the message from 15 August 2023 00:55. @ReneeWrites: what exactly would you like to have some clarification for?

Freedom of Panorama applies to all works that are on permanent public display and photographed in the "openbare ruimte" (public space). This "openbare ruimte" refers to all the space where people can freely move without limitations (except house rules and legal limitations). Just as a library and railway station, you can freely enter a church. If you enter the city hall with the upper half of your body naked, you likely will be likely asked to leave the premisses, as you will when entering a library and church. The main purpose of house rules in city halls, libraries, churches, railway stations, etc is that the people visit do not disturb the function of the building and thus creating inconvenience to others. In a library you commonly are not allowed to shout. If I remember well, a few years ago in a tv show who followed the local police/boas, a man was asked to leave the railway station who created inconvenience to travellers because he smelt really really bad. Also, if you are homeless and sit on some carton on the floor, you can be removed from the railway station. If you decide to lay down on a bench in the station, you can be asked to leave. In a church they serve you wine, in the railway stations I have travelled you are not allowed to have alcohol with you. You can be denied access to libraries, railway stations, churches and city halls for any of these things, based on the house rules (and nowhere based on private law grounds). Romaine (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do have an answer. Churches are religious places where members of the community gather for their ecclesiastical customs, and specifically here in this discussion it matters that they have opening hours where anyone is free to enter the building. If you want to make a comparison with other similar places, they need to be religious and have opening hours. Do you know any of such religious places? My guess is you won't have an answer. I haven't read it in your messages here. So no, your comparisons of "similar places" are false.

"Same if I asked what makes churches different or unique from the other places I've already mentioned that are private." -> Be specific, which places you mentioned that are private you refer to? As already written above, a school is not a public place where anyone can enter the building. Only people who are registered as students (and their parents) are allowed to enter. If you decide now that you want to follow a class in geography, you are not allowed to enter. In a church anyone can enter without registration. If you decide you want to visit a church mass, you are free to do so. Even if you are atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever religion/believe you have.

"Both have buildings with multiple rooms where a group of people from the public sit down together and are lectured on a subject." -> In the Netherlands, libraries are buildings with multiple rooms where often the public can sit down at scheduled times to get lectured on a subject (organised by the library).

"In both cases the lecture is being led by a teacher who can deny people entry if they want." -> In schools the teacher cannot deny entry for a student (unless breaking the rules). So what you say is nonsense.

"Services are for people who signed up for them, or in the case of churches people who believe in the religion and are members of the church (but also sometimes sign up)." -> In the Netherlands, church services are not only for people who signed up for them, also not only for members (in most churches) and you don't even have to believe in that religion to visit a mass. My mother says she is not religious, is not Christian or Catholic, but likes to visit church masses because she likes the atmosphere. She does not ask permission to be there, she (and anyone else) can just enter the church and sit down. So, in schools you must sign up to enter, in churches in the Netherlands you must not. So what you say is nonsense.

"Members attend services, lectures, classes" -> False again, a church mass is not for members (but for everyone), and a school class is not for members but for registered students only.

"at specific times of the day and week" -> The railway station, the library and churches here nearby are open at specific times of the day and week.

"Both have dress and conduct codes for enter the buildings" -> Every place has dress codes and other rules.

"Just because the people are being taught religion doesn't make churches unique or special." -> It's not the religion that makes a church "special", but that they are generally open for the public during opening hours makes them a public place. Comparison with schools is false as that is never generally open for the public.

"Just like most members of the public aren't going to attend a third grade class." -> Nobody of the public is allowed to attend a third grade class, unless being registered as student. Did I already mention that everyone can attend a church mass.

"Otherwise, you tell me what the unique difference between a class room/school building and your average Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall is." -> As student you are required to attend the classes, whatever believe/religion you have. On the website of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Netherlands I read that I have to file request before I can visit. If I can't freely visit a Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall, it is not a public place and not subject of the discussion on this page. In the Netherlands, 99.99...% of the churches are not an Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall. I do not know your local situation, but if this is your perspective from what you look at this subject, I can see why it is not matching with the actual situation in the Netherlands.

"As to your last part, I assume libraries are public places (if they even are) because they are government funded." -> For 80-90% public libraries are funded by the government, but their way of financing does not make them public. What makes them public is that anyone can visit at any time during opening hours. The government also fund some private libraries. In those libraries you cannot freely enter. Government funding does not make something public, and the absence of government funding does not make it a private location. What matters if a location is public or private, is the question if you can freely enter or that you have to ring and discuss before you are allowed to enter.

"The last time I checked churches aren't and there's a separation between church and state." -> The last time I checked the Netherlands was not France, nor the United States. There is some degree of separation of religion and government, but there is no separation of religion and politics. If the government wants to pay for the restoration of a church, it can. In fact, the government frequently pays for the maintenance works on churches. Also the Dutch government has a history of building and funding churches, even after the separation between church and state was established.

"At least IMO railway stations are public places because they are usually wide open buildings that receive constant, unimpeded foot and vehicle traffic from members of the public." -> Major churches in the cities are commonly wide open buildings that receive constant, unimpeded foot and vehicle traffic from members of the public. Churches are more freely accessible than most railway stations: while you can freely visit the church (commonly except for the area around the altar), in the largest part of railway stations (after the ticketing area) you only have access if you have paid. Railway stations are considered public places, even while visiting is more restricted than in churches.

"If your going to compare something as an example it should at least be semi-close and have things in common to what your comparing it to." -> I did, you did not. You come up with that a school has multiple rooms, that there is a teacher, etc. What matters in this discussion is who can visit and under which conditions. In the Netherlands, what we call "openbare ruimte" (public space), the government and society refers to all the space (privately and publicly owned) that is opened up for the public (read: anyone can visit). Railway stations, libraries, churches, etc. all can be freely visited by any member of the public.

"The fact is that those no example of anything close to churches in form or function that are public places." -> That is not a fact, but your opinion, an opinion not based on the local situation here in the Netherlands.

"OK you tell me, where exactly is it the "situation" that churches who don't charge a fee are covered by FoP or that FoP depends on if the picture involves people doing religious worship?" -> I did not say that pictures cannot contain people during their religious worship, but I can shine a light on this. Overall there is so far I know no legal limitation in photographing people during their religious worship. In this matter two factors are relevant. First, like any location, a church can have set in their house rules that it is forbidden to take photos of photographing people during their religious practise. Second, in the Netherlands we have strong privacy laws, which limit the photographing of people in such a way that they become identifiable. An exception exists however for media (including Wikipedia). Still, out of courtesy and respect for the location (and to preserve the freedom of religion), photographing praying people is avoided. Romaine (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

so far I know no legal limitation in photographing people during their religious worship. I don't have the time or urge to respond to your way over long screed, but that was my point. On the one hand we are suppose to take what Arnoud Engelfriet said as gospel and base the guideline on their opinion because they are an expert. But on the other they are clearly wrong that "if you don't photograph during services, do not photograph worshippers" or it won't qualify for FoP. You can't have it both ways where we should go with their opinion "because expert" but then ignore the fact that what they said is clearly wrong in the process.

That is not a fact, but your opinion, an opinion not based on the local situation here in the Netherlands. That you say it's "my opinion" that there aren't other examples of anything close to churches in form or function that are public places in the Netherlands, cool. Provide an example then. All you and the other people who have taken issue with what I've said has done is play devils advocate. Be my guest and actually back up you said with some evidence then. What similar places to churches are public? Ten bucks says you don't have an answer. The rest what you said is just Gish Galloping and shadow boxing about things no disagrees with. So I'm not going to waste my responding it. "What matters if a location is public or private." No really? Golly gosh, thanks for telling me and here I thought we were discussing something totally different "eye roll." Just change the guideline dude. There clearly isn't going to be an actual conversation about this. Maybe next time just say you don't care about other people's opinions instead wasting everyone's time acting like you do. I definitely have more import things do then read or respond to a many essay full of mindless, irrelevant talking points that have nothing to do with anything and no one disagrees with. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The size of my reply is 100% correlated to the amount of nonsense I read. You try to influence this discussion with false and incomplete statements, you shouldn't then be surprised that I reply in detail.

" I don't have the time or urge to respond to your way over long screed, but that was my point." -> So you have time to produce nonsense, but when someone is saying something about it and bringing arguments against it, you don't have the time?

"base the guideline on their opinion because they are an expert" -> Or we base it on people who have sufficient knowledge on the subject, or we base it on fantasy. I believe this discussion has as goal to get arguments and insights on the table, so we get the situation clear. For that purpose it matters certainly that someone is knowledgeable in this field.

"but then ignore the fact that what they said is clearly wrong in the process" -> I explained the situation about photographing worshippers. Or you haven't read it or you ignore it. If it is unclear I am happy to explain it further if needed.

Your focus on "similar places" is weird to me. You want to compare churches with other places, but I said there aren't any. Still you insist on coming with more comparisons.

"Be my guest and actually back up you said with some evidence then." -> I have, but you refuse to read it.

""What matters if a location is public or private." No really? Golly gosh, thanks for telling me and here I thought we were discussing something totally different "eye roll." Just change the guideline dude." -> You're welcome, apparently this isn't clear to you. Can anyone as easily visit a church as the city hall, as the public library, as the railway station? Yes!

"Maybe next time just say you don't care about other people's opinions instead wasting everyone's time acting like you do." -> I don't care about anyone's opinion, because I think in a discussion it aren't the opinions that matter, but the arguments that matter.

It is also important that in a discussion we talk about the subject, and do not start attacking each other. You are clearly attacking me, and at the same time you refuse to respond to refutations of the statements you made. In my opinion that is a clear sign that such user has lost the discussion, and refuses to accept it. Romaine (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have, but you refuse to read it. It's not that I didn't read it. It was just to rambling and incoherent to parse through. I'm sure you get the difference. Maybe next time if you want people to understand what your saying don't write a 100 line, 50 essay in reply to a simple, 2 sentence question. It's a pretty common tactic for people who don't have an actual argument to just try and overwhelm the conversation by writing walls of rambling, multiple point paragraphs that no one can make sense of or reasonably respond to. Regardless of if that's what you were doing or not, it's not my problem that you can't write a half coherent and concise response to my message. Sorry. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if we left the conversation there since continuing the back and forth clearly isn't going to be productive. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long is not the same thing as incoherent or rambling. I understood it perfectly. I think most people here do. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"It was just to rambling and incoherent to parse through." -> No, it was written very clear and to the point. Point by point I explained based on arguments why the things you wrote are untrue. If it is unclear to you, you can ask questions about it. If you think something is not true, then you can provide arguments why it is not true.

"pretty common tactic" -> The only tactic applied in discussion is that one user, you, refuses to reply to given arguments. Law is a complex matter with all kinds of nuances. I tried to answer your reply carefully and precise, as you made various mistakes. The only way for you to be productive again, is when you actually reply to the provided arguments. Romaine (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anything that is still open to discuss? Romaine (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's at all been settled (see my comment above) but it's clear that this conversation isn't going anywhere because thee side who wants churches in the Netherlands to be covered by FoP could care less about having an actual discussion about it. The guideline is obviously going to be changed regardless, but I don't think anyone is going to object after the way I've been treated for disagreeing and your wall of text. So at least IMO there's zero point in continuing this. I certainly have better things to do then deal with it anymore then I already have. Even if I didn't though there's really nothing to say in response to comments like the one you wrote this. At least not outside of what I already did, which isn't going to change anyone's opinion who thinks churches should qualify for FoP. Clearly nothing will. So I'm not personally going to waste anymore of my time or energy trying to having a genuine discussion about it. -Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a discussion arguments matter and only arguments should be used to discuss a topic. The arguments you provided have been refuted. Your continuation with personal attacks and the refusal to read the arguments provided by others is problematic. Romaine (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one refuted my arguments and I didn't personally attack anyone. Whatever you say though. Maybe your multiple screeds that are impossible to parse through refuted something. Unfortunately I have no way of known because they are to convoluted and long winded to read through and say that as someone who tends to long messages. Regardless, I have nothing else to say about this, which is I said I was done with the discussion. So why not just leave it that and drop the stick? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the arguments you provided I listed, and I explained why those are wrong in a very clear and precise, but nuanced language. Next you refused to reply to them with the given reason that the text is too long and other arguments referring to me as a person instead of the subject.

Again, I am happy to continue further discussion with arguments about the topic, but I provided an answer with arguments to all the points you brought up. So far I can see all arguments you provided have been disproven and refuted, and I see no new arguments coming in your latest messages. So if you want to drop the stick, go ahead, I am not going away. Romaine (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No further questions on my end. Thank you very much for your time and your expertise. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Government/law office[edit]

Even while the input from Arnoud Engelfriet is very clear in this matter, I decided to call the government and the law office to get their input in this matter. I described to them that we have Freedom of Panorama in the Netherlands, which applies to the public space. The question I asked is them what we should see as this public space, and more precisely where the divide is between public and private, and how we should see this with churches. As reply I got from them that the general rule is that if places can be freely entered by anyone from the public, this is considered to be a public place, otherwise it is a private place. Specifically churches, if a church has opening hours and anyone can freely access and walk inside, it is a public place, if a church is only open with services then it is not. They said it does not matter if the place is owned by the government or a private organisation, openbare ruimte applies to what is accessible to the public. Romaine (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old orphan works[edit]

Hi, FYI, I closed this as "accepted". No real opposition, and stalled for nearly 2 months. Can anyone help create a template for these? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were the proposer of that proposal, should you have closed it? Nonetheless, you may understand the intricacies of your proposal better than I do, but I don't think your addition of Commons:Licensing#Old_orphan_works accurately reflects the consensus of that discussion. As I understood it the consensus was that, absent evidence to the contrary, that for old orphan works it is reasonable to assume publication contemporaneous with creation despite lack of evidence of publication. So for example, the consensus of that discussion seems to be that it is reasonable for an orphan work created in France in 1900 to be tagged {{PD-old-assumed}}{{PD-US-expired}} (or, more compactly, {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}) by assuming publication contemporaneous with creation. Similarly, a work created in France in 1920 which is determined to be anonymous after a diligent search could be tagged {{PD-France}}{{PD-US-expired}}. However, as an orphan work is not the same as an anonymous or pseudonymous work, an orphaned work created in 1925 in France, where the author is known or otherwise since disclosed, but the date of death is unknown, could not be uploaded until 2046 as assuming publication contemporaneous with creation doesn't help meet the criteria for {{PD-France}} with a known author. —RP88 (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I requested input several times here and on admin board, but got very little answer. I also requested someone else to close, without any answer. There is not much opposition. Now we need a template, and I am open about the wording. Yann (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible that no one closed your proposal when you requested a close was because no one felt the discussion was ripe for closure other than you? Why is a new templated needed? If we adopt a policy that, absent evidence to the contrary, for old orphan works it is reasonable to assume publication contemporaneous with creation despite lack of evidence of publication, we can use the existing templates, no need to introduce a new one. —RP88 (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RP88: He actually did the close after I asked him about it on his talk page. So at least I thought it should have been closed. I don't see anything wrong with him doing it either considering how long it was there for and the fact that he's requests for closer were essentially ignored. There was zero reason to keep it open regardless though. It's not like the outcome was going to change or anything if it sat there for a few more months. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphan work is a legal term in several jurisdictions (at least in the European Union) and comes with a set of legal obligations Wikimedia Commons cannot satisfy. I asked twice for a definition of the term orphan work as far as that proposal is concerned, but did not get a pertinent answer, at least not by the proposer Yann (LPfi answered with a legal definition which should be that of the EU directive, haven't checked closely). So closing such a poorly defined proposal as accepted when (if I counted correctly) only two users besides the proposer agreed and others voiced different opinions ("handle on a case to case basis") is not ok IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 17:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reference: en:Orphan Works Directive of the European Union (or de:Richtlinie 2012/28/EU (Verwaiste-Werke-Richtlinie) in German). --Rosenzweig τ 17:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was stalled for about 2 months, and it seems quite bad faith to come now and oppose it. Yann (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't even given a proper definition what "orphan works" were supposed to be in the context of the proposal, despite asking twice. Not giving any answer, as the proposer, to that fundamental question, then saying the discussion was "stalled" and accusing others of bad faith is a quite odd modus operandi to say the least. --Rosenzweig τ 19:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think we should have a workable definition of "orphan works" because what I said is still true "we should clearly define what would qualify as an orphan work because as it is we have uploads that tell us that they're anonymous or unknown when sometimes the bare amount of research or actually looking at the photograph sometimes gives us a named author." Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphan work is very well defined in Wikipedia. I added a link. Yann (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia says “An orphan work is a copyright-protected work for which rightsholders are positively indeterminate or uncontactable.” So orphan works, by that definition (which is apparently the one you want to go with), are not free in the sense of Commons:Licensing (“not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose”). Accepting them therefore is contrary to one of the basic principles of Wikimedia Commons. I don't see any consensus for that, let alone consent by the WMF which would probably be needed for such a move. --Rosenzweig τ 19:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems you didn't read my proposal. Most of the works are not free at the time of creation, but they come in the public domain some time later depending on the applied jurisdiction. I don't propose that all orphan works are accepted. Only that some old ones are accepted under a very precise restriction. Yann (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read it, but it's confusingly worded and not precisely defined. But even if you exclude many of these orphan works in your proposal, all of them, including whatever sub-set you apparently want to accept, are still protected by copyright per the en.wp definition you gave. So accepting them is still contrary to one of the basic principles of Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 19:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is precisely defined. Only 2 short sentences. Again, it seems you don't understand my proposal. The orphan works I propose to accept are most likely in the public domain, but we don't have proof of that. That's mostly the difference with current rules: loosening a bit the proof requirements. Yann (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, we sometimes already accept these works, but under convoluted arguments and after much debates. So I propose to formalize and simplify the rules. Some orphan works are accepted if an admin uploads them, while a newbie's upload of the same will be contested. So I propose to have precise and formal rules, so that contestation is not on a whim but on facts. Yann (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "only 2 short sentences" are probably the reason why it is not precisely defined. I'm getting the impression that what you mean by "orphan works" is not the kind of works as mentioned in that definition you linked. Is there some kind of a language problem here? So what do you actually mean by that term? Just linking some Wikipedia definition obviously won't do it, you'll have to describe them in your own words, give some examples. And also explain how the kind of works you mean with that proposal differ from those we already accept with {{PD-old-assumed}}. Is your proposal just another version of PD-old-assumed, except it's anything either older than 95 years (unless we know an author and the year they died) or meeting the requirements of {{PD-1996}}? Is this only for works for which we don't know the author, or is it also for works where we do know an author, but not when (s)he/they died? Is it only for photographs or also for drawings/paintings/sculptures, books? Will there be some research required to establish this "orphan work" (or whatever it actually is) status, or do you propose that we just accept anything without further questions? There are so many undefined variables and open questions here. This is anything but precise. --Rosenzweig τ 21:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your clear questions. "Orphan works" mean works "whose authors or other right holders are not known or cannot be located." For example, most graffiti are orphan works. I don't propose we accept recent orphan works, only those sufficiently old than they are most probably in the public domain. I mean to include all kinds of works. I gave as an example a picture of my grands-parents' wedding (1920). Currently we sometimes accept this kind of pictures as anonymous work, but 1. there is always a debate about the photographer's anonymity; 2. we currently require a proof of publication. So I propose that, since it is an orphan work (the last person who might have known the photographer's name died about 40 years ago), 1. we don't require a research about the photographer; 2. we don't require a proof of publication. I am quite open about other criteria. Is that clearer? I am quite open about other criteria. Yann (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see many problems here. They might not be very obvious in your example (1920 family photos), but the proposal is not restricted to family photos, indeed you say that you mean to include all kinds of works. In order:

whose authors or other right holders are not known: Not known to whom, and not known according to whom? For the family photos in your example the person who has the prints and perhaps his immediate family are the obvious people who don't know this and say that they don't know. But what about, say, random photos or illustrations grabbed from somewhere on the Internet and dated to 1927? Do you want to accept that the authors of these are "unknown" if not mentioned by the web site the files were taken from, and don't require any research about the author (as you wrote above)? Even when, as Abzeronow writes above, "sometimes the bare amount of research or actually looking at the photograph sometimes gives us a named author"?

whose authors or other right holders cannot be located: What do you mean by "cannot be located"? That the heirs ("other rights holders") of some authors are not immediately known? Or that somebody (who?) was not able to find their contact address? Etc. Again, probably not a big problem with your example of 1920 family photos, but much more tricky with, say, random files from the Internet.

they are most probably in the public domain: We're talking about 95 year old works here. If they are truly anonymous in a legal sense, those would indeed be in the PD in a 70 years pma country. But can we really make that determination in the case of my example files taken from somewhere on the Internet? (For German paintings, drawings, illustrations etc. before mid-1995 we definitely cannot because the old law still valid for those cases excluded them from the "anonymous works" category.) Considering the 70 years post mortem auctoris for 95 year old works, any author would have needed to die within 25 years after creation for the work to be in the public domain (vs. death within 50 years after creation for {{PD-old-assumed}}). I think it is somewhat reasonable to assume that a large majority of authors will have died within 50 years of creating a specific work. I do not think it is reasonable to assume that a large majority of authors will have died within 25 years of creating a specific work. So I do not share your assessment that the works we are talking about are most probably in the public domain.

What about audio recordings (of music)? The 95 year US terms and {{PD-1996}} on which the proposal are apparently modeled do not apply to them, indeed they have very different and often longer US terms. You say that you mean to include all kinds of works, and this is one of the other kinds of works.

These are only some of the questions that need to be addressed and answered before the proposal can perhaps be included in Commons:Licensing. As of now, it is much too vague and undefined. --Rosenzweig τ 16:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I think it is somewhat reasonable to assume that a large majority of authors will have died within 50 years of creating a specific work." Then I guess it's reasonable to presume I'm dead. - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel This came up in the discussion about {{PD-old-assumed}}, we decided to count an average of 50 years for the dead of an author without more information about it after the publication date + 70 pma. It's an average. We're happy than you're here with us, but I guess that some of the people born the same year as you have checked out already. That's the idea behind "average" =) Ruthven (msg) 08:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And we use a duration of 120 years, as it is mentioned in US law. See COM:Hirtle: "Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire" and "Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known" are in the public domain 120 years after creation. Yann (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the absence of being able to determine author, you have to draw the line somewhere, and I think 120 years is a reasonable place to draw it. I don't think that reducing that to 95 is reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 16:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not in all cases, but it is reasonable for orphan works. Deleting them because of COM:PRP goes much beyond reasonable, that's my point. There is a reason for copyright: protecting copyright holders. When these copyright holders can't be determined, joined or traced, there is no rational reason not to host these works on Commons. I see oppositions here as a matter of principle, but they are not based on practical justifications. Yann (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but why exactly should this be different for orphan works? A photo taken in most European locations in 1920 is quite likely still in copyright unless we specifically know the death date of the photographer, and that is before 1953. Why is there a big difference between "we don't know who took the photo" and "we know who took the photo but don't know when they died"? - Jmabel ! talk 22:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, most of these are not under a copyright. In the example I gave, my grands-parents' wedding picture taken in 1920 is certainly in the public domain in France, but I can't upload it here because 1. I don't have any proof that it was published; 2. therefore I don't have a proof that the photographer is unknown. BTW, does a wedding announcement count as publication? Yann (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: A wedding announcement is almost certainly "publication" (though IANAL). But why are you sure it is PD in France? Wouldn't that require that the photographer died no later than 1952? If you don't know who took it, that seems like an unreasonable presumption. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a picture taken in 1920 in France, the copyright duration was 58 years (50 + 8 years for war extension). So if the photographer died before 1965, it is in the public domain in France and in USA. My grand-father, born in 1890 and was 30 at his wedding, died in 1959. Yann (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But it's certainly possible that the photographer was a few years younger or lived to be a few years longer. Going by the above, I'm only a year younger than your grandfather was when he died, and I hope to be around for a while (no disrespect meant to the memory of your grandfather; my mother died at 47). - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, everything is possible, but it is unlikely. You have to take into account the life expectancy. Yann (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. Leaning to oppose allowing hosting of such works on Commons, at least Philippine orphan works. In the case of the Philippines, our copyright law (GDrive copy by IPOPHL, consolidated version as of 2015) does not provide a provision for orphan works. And even if taking pending House and Senate bills into account, there is still uncertainty on the legality of allowing Philippine orphan works on Commons without undergoing formal permission or authorization clearance. Section 44 of the House Bill 2672 will add Section 179A to our copyright law, allowing use of orphan works as long as the use is subject to the implementing rules and regulations to be released sometime after the amendments are passed. Meanwhile, Section 78 of the Senate Bill 2326 will alter Section 179 of the copyright law by adding subsection 179.2 for use of orphan works. In this Senate bill the provision is more detailed: the user (after he/she exhausted all efforts to trace the copyright holder of the work divulged in public) can exploit the orphan work after getting the approval of the Director of the IPOPHL's Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights and also after depositing a sum of compensation money to the bureau. The amendment provision for orphan works also states that the copyright holder can no longer file his opposition, if he becomes aware that the orphan work is being exploited a year after the authorization granted by the bureau to the user. But here, if the copyright holder became aware less than a year after the authorization, he is still eligible for filing of opposition to call for user to cease from exploiting the formerly-orphan work. Should this provision becomes part of our copyright law, then orphan works from the Philippines are still not legally permissible to be hosted here because permitted uses are not compatible with COM:Licensing requirements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: Any answer to my 4 points above? --Rosenzweig τ 17:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can always take extreme cases, but these go much beyond COM:PRP. That's my point. As I said, we sometimes already accept such works. I propose to formalize the present situation with simpler rules. Yann (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see random photos or illustrations taken from the Internet or audio files as "extreme cases". These types of files are uploaded here constantly. I fail to see why they "go much beyond COM:PRP" or why the fact that we may accept such files in some cases (depending on circumstances, on a case by case basis) should lead to us accepting anything without further questions as long as it is 95 years old. We already have such a category for works which are at least 120 years old, with good arguments for that threshold. I could maybe agree on some kind of policy for photographs which are clearly family photos / private photos, but as you explicitly stated, the proposal is not restricted to that. --Rosenzweig τ 07:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems others do not agree with such a restrictive view, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hohenzollern Typ Hamborn historische Aufnahme.png. Yann (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, Rosenzweig brought that nomination and others up to me, and persuaded me that I closed them in error. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Licensing and the "old orphan works"[edit]

I think we need to address a problem that did not yet get the attention it deserves. When closing the proposal Allow old orphan works, Yann added the following to Commons:Licensing:

Old orphan works are accepted, provided that
the works were created before 1928

or, the works were created before the pma duration in the country of origin, which would satisfy {{PD-1996}} if published at the time of creation (e.g. works created before 1946 for 50 years pma countries, if the URAA date is 1996).

As noted by RP88 above, this does not reflect the discussion about the proposal, indeed it does not even represent the actual proposal.

What this addition to Commons:Licensing essentially says is that every work that is a) an "orphan work" and b) meets the requirements of {{PD-US-expired}} or {{PD-1996}} will be accepted. In effect, it works like {{PD-old-assumed}} (with its 120 years threshold), except that there would now be a new 95 year threshold, or even lower (with the PD-1996 cases).

The original proposal however essentially said to assume publication of works upon creation for "orphan works" (as long as they would then meet the requirements of either PD-US-expired or PD-1996).

Yann's initial addition to Commons:Licensing did not only completely omit the point about assumption of publication, but also included no definition whatsoever what an "orphan work" actually is, as promptly noted on Commons talk:Licensing#Old orphan works by Jmabel. Because of this, I removed the orphan work clause as inserted by Yann, but Yann simply reverted my change and added a link to en:Orphan work, apparently thinking that is all the definition that is needed. He also created a new {{Orphan work}} template and has since added that to a few files.

The discussion in the original proposal mainly focused on the "assuming publication with creation" issue, with Abzeronow agreeing, but also noting that "we should clearly define what would qualify as an orphan work". I myself asked (twice) the question what is an "orphan work" as far as this proposal is concerned, but did not get any answer from the proposer Yann. Carl Lindberg spoke out in favor of assuming publication unless there is some specific indication the work may not have been published right away, but also said that shouldn't trump anonymous considerations, or PD-old-assumed. Gestumblindi preferred to judge such matters on a case-to-case basis. Adamant1, Ankry, LPfi, and User:Ooligan also participated, and finally, there was some off-topic discussion about "bystander selfies".

So whatever the outcome of the proposal discussion was, it definitely does not support Yann's addition to Commons:Licensing, let alone having the consensus that is (IMO) needed to add such a new policy to a fundamental page like Commons:Licensing. Therefore we should remove this newly added section. --Rosenzweig τ 18:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove the recently added section about "orphan works" from Commons:Licensing[edit]

As I wrote above, Yann's addition to Commons:Licensing does not even reflect his original proposal, let alone the outcome of the discussion. There is further discussion here at COM:VPC (above) showing further problems with Yann's addition.

So my suggestion would be to remove this addition because it has many problems and there is no consensus behind it. Pending further discussion, I will also add a vote about this here if necessary. If we want to have any addition somewhat similar to the proposal, it should only be added after a clear definition is found, consensus is achieved and a vote about it was held. --Rosenzweig τ 18:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minecraft screenshots discussion[edit]

Hello all, I want to start a discussion about potentially allowing screenshots from the game Minecraft. According to Minecraft's commercial use guidelines, Mojang allows the commercial use of "screenshots from your gameplay or your own original art". This means that if somebody takes a screenshot of the game, or makes fan art of the game, they can use it for commercial purposes. So I'm here to ask, should we allow Minecraft screenshots to be hosted on Commons? Feel free to discuss. I think if we do end up allowing it, there should be a license tag for it. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How exactly would we know if the screenshots are the uploaders own gameplay or your own original artwork to begin with? Or are we just suppose to take their word for it? Regardless, assuming the images were created by the uploader it sounds like they are the only ones who have permission to re-use said images. Hence why their guideline says "Your cover art should not use official Minecraft artwork (e.g. the art on our product packaging), but may instead use screenshots from your gameplay or your own original art." Nothing about that makes it sound like anyone can re-use other people's screenshots or artwork for whatever purpose they want to. Only the creator of said images and art can. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that since they allow people to use screenshots commercially, that by default includes the right to let others use it. I'm pretty sure the use of the words "screenshots from your gameplay" is just advice to not violate the copyright of others, IE "don't just use screenshots you find online". The words "your cover" are used because the page is primarily dealing with the scenario of independent book publication, with the implication that the writer and cover designer are the same person in this common scenario. I don't think they would object to, say, designing a book cover for a friend's book using your screenshot. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly makes you think that by default it includes the right to others use the images and wouldn't it be "just using screenshots you find online" if people download images of Minecraft from Commons anyway? Maybe your right that they probably wouldn't object to, say, someone designing a book cover for a friend's book using their screenshot. But that's not really what images uploaded to Commons are used for. Nor are people who download images from the site usually friends of the uploader, obviously. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I said "don't just use screenshots you find online" I was obviously referring to violating the copyright of others. Using stuff online with a free license is clearly not the same. And the use of a friend was just an example to say that using something somebody allowed you to use isn't a violation, you obviously don't have to be actual friends with somebody to let them use your screenshots. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allowing "commercial use" isn't enough IMHO, does that guideline also allow derivative works? If not, then that guideline looks like CC BY-ND like and we unfortunatelly can't allow. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can't, the secion "All uses" says "All permissions and consents are given by us at our discretion and may be revoked at any time if we think that it is appropriate to do so, or we don’t like what you are doing". Commons demands an irrevocable licence. Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permission[edit]

Through message, upon asking by me, an artist told me that I could reuse all his art works (that he uploaded in social media, specifically in Instagram and Twitter) without asking him, even in YouTube but I should mention his name wherever I reused it. But he didn't mention any licensing statement in any of his public uploads! Can I upload those arts? If so, what are the cautions and precautions that I should take up before and after uploading those pictures? Haoreima (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These permissions were given only to you, but not to any other person. So, with such restricted permissions his works cannot be uploaded here. Ruslik (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Haoreima. To expand upon what Ruslik0 posted above, what Commons is going to need is for the artist to give his COM:CONSENT. There are two copyright issues involved here: the copyright of the art work itself, and the copyright of the photos of the art work. Assuming that the artist also took the photos, then that makes things a bit easier since they can give their CONSENT for both at once; if, however, someone other than the artist took the photos, then that person's CONSENT might also be needed. When a copyright holder gives their CONSENT, they're bascially agreeing (in advance) to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download their work from Commons and then reuse it pretty much any way they please. Depending upon the type of license a copyright holder chooses, there may be some minor restrictions (e.g. attribution required) placed on reuse, but any license that tries to place restrictions things like commercial reuse or derivative reuse will not be accepted by Commons. The copyright holder still retains their copyright ownership over the original work (i.e. they're not transferring their copyright to Commons or any other third-party), but they are agreeing to make a visual representation of it available for others to more easily reuse without needed to seek permission each and every time. Moreover, once the copyright holder has given their CONSENT, they can't change their mind at a later date and won't really be able to stop others from reusing the photo as long as they comply with the chosen copyright license. Finally, it's the copyright holder's responsibility to enforce the terms of the license they have chosen and go after any parties that violate those terms. The Wikimedia Foundation will not step in to enforce the terms of the license or to otherwise mediate any copyright disputes between the artist and other parties. So, why it's great that the artist seems willing to allow to use photos of his work, it's important that you try and explain to him what doing so means and that Commons be provided with some way of verifying the artist has given his CONSENT. You might also ask the artist to take a look at this site since it explains in much more detail about Creative Commons licenses, which are often used when uploading files to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

122-year old U.S. photo[edit]

I'm wondering: is there some basis on which we can accept the photo on page 43 of the PDF (numbered 34 in the document itself) at https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0055571? Author unknown, believed to be taken in 1901, early publication history unclear. It's reproduced here in a 1998 doctoral dissertation, and attributed there as "courtesy of Tongass Historical Society, THS 71.7.14.10". If that acquisition number works in the usual way, that means 1971 acquisition by the museum, but I imagine that last is neither here nor there. Rudolph Walton has a Commons category and a Wikidata item that I recently created because I encountered two of his works in a museum, but we don't have a photo of him. & yes, I know what a mess old, possibly late-published, U.S. works can be. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't tell whether the lack of response here after 36 hours or so is, "No, can't be done" or "No one is reading this question." - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we know this was a photo taken by a professional photographer we could say it was published (accd. to older US case law, photo taken for remuneration) and avoid the 2047 calamity. Unfortunately, box cameras were already around in 1900 and widely used by people, and I don't think we can rule out that this photo was made with such a camera by a friend or similar. --Rosenzweig τ 17:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably the later. Seems OK to me since it was created in 1901 and we do generally presume publication for pre-1928 works unless we have evidence that it was unpublished. Pre-1978, a museum acquisition would have meant publication, and if it wasn't registered for a copyright in 1971, then it would have had any copyright expired by formalities. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any case law on the Pre-1978, a museum acquisition would have meant publication topic? That could help solve some problems. --Rosenzweig τ 17:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know there is US case law for publication occurring when a photograph leaves the custody of the original photographer as I have seen RAN cite that, and I remember reading that a work being purchased could count as publication although I don't exactly remember where I read that. Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abzeronow: That should go back to Carl Lindberg's explanations in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 18:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I thought I had read it from Carl Lindberg, but I couldn't exactly remember. Abzeronow (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not aware of any copyright jurisdiction allowing a copyright beyond 120 years from creation. Images found in archives are tricky, sometimes they have already circulated in the wild before entering the archive, and others are presented to the archive by the creator as negatives, and may never have been viewed or never had printed copies distributed. We have that conundrum with the Bain Collection at the LOC, however the LOC has released them at Flickr Commons under "no known restrictions". --RAN (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RAN: You should read COM:USA, the table on the right. "Year of first publication: From March 2, 1989 to 2002 and pre-1978 creation" results in "Copyright duration: If author is unknown or corporate authorship, the earlier of 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, but not earlier than Dec 31, 2047". That could very well result in a copyright term substantially longer than 120 years if calculated from creation. --Rosenzweig τ 18:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): See also User:Alexis Jazz/Assuming worst case copyright. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the 120 year rule was changed in 2003. So it had to remain unpublished prior to 2003. We acknowledge it in {{PD-US-unpublished}}. The Copyright Term Extension Act was in 1998, I have read more to see how 2003 became the year of change. --RAN (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to all of the above. I still don't see anything like a consensus here, though. - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless we can find out more about the photographer, we'll probably have to assume copyright protection until Dec 31, 2047. --Rosenzweig τ 18:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone with access to Flickr...[edit]

...who can send a relicencing request to this user for these three groups? There are some files there that could be useful for en:Salar de Pedernales, but the request needs someone who is actually established. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I will post the request if you give me the precise text to copy'n'paste. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Unfortunately, the Flickr user has declined to open licence any if their images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fort Gorge G. Meade Public Affairs Office/Baltimore Sun Media Group[edit]

This photo was posted by the Flickr account of the Fort Gorge G. Meade Public Affairs Office. Fort Meade is a U.S. Army installation and the presumption is therefore that this image should be in the public domain per {{PD-USArmy}}. It's also licensed under CC 2.0. Meanwhile, there is a photo credit in the caption reading "Photo by: Daniel Kucin Jr. For The Baltimore Sun Media Group." I'm not sure what to make of this. Do we think this is indeed free? Denniscabrams (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It means they posted a (presumably copyrighted) photo from a newspaper. No, we can't accept it on Commons. There is no particular reason to think it was taken by an employee of the U.S. government in the performance of their duties, and a great deal of reason to think it was not. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is certainly a "particular reason" to think it was taken by an employee of the U.S. government in that it was posted by a U.S. government account. I can't think of another instance of a U.S. government account engaging in Flickrwashing. Denniscabrams (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Denniscabrams: actually happens pretty often; we've had to delete things that were on the White House account when it turned out they were taken by a non-government photographer. Again: they are crediting the Baltimore Sun. Why would you think the photo was taken by an employee of the U.S. government in the performance of their duties? In fact, I wouldn't even trust the CC license unless I saw it posted on a site that had a known relationship to the photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 05:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(After edit conflict) @Denniscabrams: People make mistakes all the time and we have seen many cases of US government entities releasing images under an incorrect licence (just search back through the archives of this page for questions about US government licences). There is no need to assume intentional "Flickrwashing" here when it could be just a simple click of the wrong setting at upload. However, both the Flickr caption and the more detailed EXIF data make clear that the photo was taken by a freelance photographer working for a newspaper. For your scenario to work, the camera's settings/EXIF data must be wrong, the Flickr caption must be wrong and the image must be incorrectly licensed as creative commons instead of public domain. If all of the data entered into Flickr is wrong for this file, we can't rely on what that page is telling us. If the EXIF data is correct, then we are left with the question of what right does the account holder have to release the image under creative commons when they are not the author? In either scenario, upload to Commons would be inappropriate while we can't clarify the apparent error(s) on the page. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License determination: File:Lobatchevski - La Théorie des parallèles, 1980.djvu[edit]

This appears to be a 1980(?) facsimile of a 19th century translation of a work by another author. What's the actual date of the trnslation, and does the work contain 'new material' for the 1980 edition which would not be in the public domain? Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No copyright for facsimile. Yann (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License determination:File:Jules Verne - MonsieurdeChimpanze.djvu[edit]

This seems to be a 1981 reprint of a work by Jules Verne, was the original previously published and is there sufficient "new material" to constitute a new copyright for 1981? All I am seeing is some data concerning literary society membership and the cover image. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem here. Any of Jules Verne's unpublished work got out of copyright 25 years after publication. Yann (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License determination:File:Kavitvatatvavicharamu.pdf[edit]

1981 reprint (with a 1981 (C) notice ) of a 1931(?) work. The concern is 'new material', otherwise it's clearly PD-India? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No copyright for reprint. Yann (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have a {{Reprint}} template to explain the situation for subsqeuent patrollers/reviwers? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Reprint}} created. It could do we with some copyediting and internationalisation however. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licence of Wikimedia screenshots[edit]

{{Wikimedia-screenshot}} still says "Text of Wikimedia projects... are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license". Should that be updated to 4.0? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Not until every project is so updated. Or, we can accept this unilateral change to the Terms of Use by @GVarnum-WMF. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo 1983 in Australia[edit]

An organisation has offered to give me a photo to upload onto Commons. Photo was taken in 1983 in Australia. Photographer is unknown. Main subject person in the photo has passed away. Photo is of a person in a public protest event. Photo is in a private collection but has been published in a book edited by the organisation with permission of the owner of the photo. As we are unable to get free licence permission from the photographer, because they are unknown is it possible to use a free licence from the current owner of the photo? Can the owner of a photo release it? LPascal (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LPascal: No. Owning a copy of a photo is completely irrelevant to intellectual property rights. It sounds like it's an orphaned work, and in general Commons can't accept those.

If you want this for an article in the English-language Wikipedia (en-wiki), and they do not already have a picture of this person (or if the particular photo is notable for what it shows), it sounds like this could fit in their rules for non-free use, but to do that you upload within en-wiki; Commons is not involved. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. LPascal (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License determination: - insource:/proceedingsofann541953amer/[edit]

1953 document by private entity (American Railroad Engineering Association), No apparent notice found, and I ran a check for renewals with nothing showing up under that entity.

PDF upload of source document is wrongly tagged as pre 1928, (it isn't).

What should it be updated to? (It's clearly not an obvious copyvio). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2Fproceedingsofann541953amer%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1 - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like {{PD-US-no notice}}. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW I am likely to making a lot of these 'license determinations' in the future, can we set up a proper process for this?, so I can use that in preference to DR for things like this that aren't clear CV, and to avoid request bombing this noticeboard/talk page?

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, as far as I can see the source in this case did not state a rationale as to why this was PD, just asserted that it is. We always want to give a more specific PD tag for those cases. If you believe you have a solid basis for PD on a bot-uploaded file without a clear rationale, just add the correct tag, much as you would if you'd been the uploader. - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-US-not renewed. There is a 1953 copyright notice to American Railway Engineering Association at the beginning of the document. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content on https://scratch.mit.edu/users/cartoonnetwork[edit]

I've noticed that Cartoon Network (i'll be refering it as CN) has an official account on Scratch, where they post projects featuring characters from their shows and encouraging other users to remix them. Per Scratch's TOS, all user-generated content is under the CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic license, excluding Scratch trademarks and other third-party materials ({{Cc-by-sa-2.0-Scratch}}). I wonder though, would that mean all original content on the CN account be under CC and, therefore, be OK to use on Commons? My main concern is mostly with the "third-party materials" exception, but I would like to hear anybody elses thoughts. SergioFLS (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SergioFLS: I think by "third-party" they mean "stuff that the Scratch user didn't make". So I think it would be ok to reproduce material that they have posted to scratch, since CNN has created these materials. And we know this is the official CN account, through that link and this YouTube video. Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License determination: File:The role of the teamsters union in the construction industry. (IA roleofteamstersu00foga).pdf[edit]

No notice found on work, and no works by this title listed on copyright.gov for the given author. Was updated to no-notice in good faith, but wanted a second view. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems alright - given that this is a 1977 work, later registration would not have saved its copyright anyway. As a thesis, the only remaining doubt is whether it has been "published", but deposition in a university library would presumably have been sufficient. Felix QW (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

insource:/culturehis15benn/[edit]

Seeming PD us-no-notice/PD us-no-renewal. ~~No apparent notice in work, and~~ copyrght.gov gave no records for title, authors or museum. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a copyright notice at the beginning of the book by The American Museum of Natural History. 1949 for the first edition. 1960 for the second edition. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for checking, How did I miss it? :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And there is a 1976 renewal for the 1949 edition [1]. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erasing the part of the question to which I replied makes the answer look out of context. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License determination: insource:/ui1960univ/[edit]

1960 publication, no apparent notice, and no renewals found so far. -

File:Remember to order the Pepsi, 1960.jpg is an advert with seperate copyrights. - How do you check renewals for those?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where do you see the copyright notice on the advert? Felix QW (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am from the United Kingdom, and I'm used to things having a copyright unless confirmed otherwise.

For something like Pepsi ads a check for renewals is advised, as they are sufficiently large as unlikely not to have compilied with the relevant formalities. I've sometimes had other contributors find renewals for non-noticed artworks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advertisements in particular were not covered under a copyright notice for the entire collective work (the magazine or newspaper). Thus, if there was no copyright notice on the advertisement itself, it became public domain immediately ({{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}). If there was a notice, I think you could look into either the artwork or commercial prints sections for renewals if it was pre-1964. But if no notice and before 1978, it's public domain (unless derivative of a still-copyrighted work somehow). {{PD-US-1978-89 advertisement}} is for ads with no copyright notice between 1978 and 1989, which requires an additional check to make sure it wasn't registered (though those records would be online at www.copyright.gov). This particular ad is signed (though I can't quite read it), so it's not anonymous, so non-shorter-term countries would protect it for 50pma or 70pma or whatever. But, country of origin is the U.S., so Commons would only care about the lack of copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Free use from Argentina[edit]

BEGIN moved from Commons:Help desk
Hi, I'd wish to upload an image of Argentine serial killer Robledo Puch, to replace the image of Wikipedia with an actual mugshot of his. The mugshot is sourced here as being taken in the 1970s.

That means under law 11.723 art. 34 that the image is under free license in Argentina, as the image of Puch in Wikipedia right now. But I don't know how to upload it because the options do not include Public Domain Argentina and I don't have the ability of the user who uploaded the current image of Puch.

Can anybody help me? Many thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
END moved from Commons:Help desk - Jmabel ! talk 15:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UPDATE: I think I managed to upload it rightly. Can anybody check on it and tell me whether it was correctly tagged? CoryGlee (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, the issue is that the tag asserting public domain status in Argentina says that 25 years must have passed from creation to render the photograph public domain in Argentina, which means its copyright would have expired by 1999 but still subsisted in 1996, the key date for determining whether a work has been copyrighted in the US by the URAA.

However, there seem to be some subtleties there which I don't fully understand.

The Argentine law actually only provides for 20 years of protection but seems to be superseded by Art. 7 of the Berne Convention that provides for 25 years for photographs, which stipulates that

It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the term of protection of photographic works and that of works of applied art in so far as they are protected as artistic works; however, this term shall last at least until the end of a period of twenty-five years from the making of such a work.

COM:Argentina concludes that this only applies for "artistic" photographs (which may exclude mugshots), but in the context of Article 2 of the Berne Convention, which discusses when works of applied art are covered as artistic works, it seems to me more likely that in so far as they are protected as artistic works refers only to qualify the works of applied art named second in the clause.

I am sorry to make this so complicated — it really doesn't help that Argentina has not incorporated the terms of the Berne convention into national law more than 50 years after joining... Felix QW (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think the Berne Convention is relevant for Argentine photographs published first within their own borders. Wikipedia says: "The Berne Convention only requires member states to obey its rules for works published in other member states – not works published within its own borders. Thus member nations may lawfully introduce domestic copyright laws that have elements prohibited by Berne (such as registration formalities), so long as they only apply to their own authors." It should be relevant dealing with the exploitation of foreign works within Argentina (where they should respect the minimum copyright length imposed by Berne), but I really doubt it's relevant in this case in any capacity. --Lugamo94 (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This sounds convincing to me, but then we should really address this at COM:Argentina and the PD-Argentina photo template. There seems to have been some discussion at template talk:PD-AR-Photo as well, but it does not seem to have gone anywhere. Felix QW (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creative Commons licenses, with extra conditions against usage on certain websites[edit]

Can users license images on this page under CC BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY-SA-4.0 licenses, but then add the condition that the images must not be shared on social media?

For example, User:HeinrichStuerzl/Licence states that It is not permitted to upload this file to Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and many other social networks! This file has been released under a license that is incompatible with the terms of service and licensing terms of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc., while publishing under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Creative Commons have stated in 2020 (here) that some social media's TOS may not be compatible with non-commercial licenses, although they say they don't necessarily agree with that notion. However, non-commercial licenses are not allowed on Wikimedia anyway, so that doesn't matter. If I understand Creative Commons licenses, you cannot randomly add extra conditions, and still be acceptable as a license on Wikimedia.

I actually asked HeinrichStuerzl about this in 2021,[2] but never got a reply. I have now run into the same problem again, with an image by J_budissin (who appears to prohibit uploads to Facebook, but seems to be fine with Twitter and YouTube). That's why I decided to now ask about it here. Renerpho (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We already have had this discussion countless times, and even recently. Please read the archives first. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked on the current version of this page, but not in the archive. Sorry about that!

Some relevant links I could find: meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/CC_BY-SA_licenses_and_social_media, and the recent (mid-August) discussion No Twitter/YouTube/Facebook Template, and the template deletion requests [3], [4], [5], and [4 (ongoing)].

So, does this mean we should delete User:HeinrichStuerzl/Licence? And what about the statements on individual files, should those be changed in bulk? Renerpho (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. As I said we discussed this recently, and there was no consensus to delete this statement. Yann (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't say that. Anyway, based on my impression of the discussions I have read, I already went ahead and have nominated it for deletion (before I have seen your reply). Renerpho (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Renerpho: Here's the TL;DR: given the terms of the license, a "prohibition" like this really just amounts to a strongly worded request. It does seem likely that if someone posts one of these to (say) Facebook, they are not themselves violating the license by the posting, but under Facebook's terms of use, they are granting Facebook rights that they have no right to grant. The general consensus (which I don't particularly like myself) is that the third-party illegitimate grant of rights to Facebook or other social media is none of our business, and we can't really prohibit it. In theory if FB (or whoever) then used these illegitimately granted rights, the copyright-holder could sue them, but not the third party. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, Jmabel, but that doesn't convince me at all. I'm going with Nosferattus in the discussion here. Renerpho (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not advocating this; I'm just saying that it is the current consensus, over the half a dozen or so times this has come up. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This oft-repeated doublespeak about "It is not permitted" being a "request" is absurd. "It is not permitted" is a prohibition, not a request. And regardless, the original question here is can "conditions against usage" be added, not "requests against usage". The two are very different things. Nosferattus (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"It is not permitted" is clarified by the following sentence, where it is the site policy of Facebook etc. which is the thing doing the prohibition, not the copyright license as given. It's pretty clear to me that the statement is not part of the copyright license itself. It could be worded better, but given the following sentence I can't see any way to construe that as part of the license. It's in a completely separate box showing it is addressing a different concern. The main problem, is that if someone uploads it to Facebook (legal per the license), but then re-uses it under Facebook's presumed terms (without also following the CC rules) they are likely committing a copyright infringement. Unfortunately it's up to the uploaders here to enforce that, not anyone in between, which is a continuing aggravation for people who upload works here. Informing re-users about that state of affairs, and asking to not make it worse, should be fine. The site policy of Facebook etc. could change at any time of course, which could make the statement incorrect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Informing re-users about that state of affairs, and asking to not make it worse, should be fine. Yes, of course. That's not what the user page currently does, but if it is changed accordingly, I'd be happy with that. Renerpho (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Clindberg: I agree that the situation with Facebook (and Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest, Tik-Tok and pretty much every content platform on the internet) is a problem. The way to address that problem is not, however, with a scary looking legal notice in the Licensing section of file pages. I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but we're not going to change the fact that the entire internet is now defined by content capture and monetization. The open internet is dead. If we start pre-emptively walling ourselves off from the rest of the internet because of that, we're not only throwing the free-licensing baby out with the bathwater, we're dooming ourselves to irrelevance. The way to fight non-compliance with licensing is by educating reusers, not scaring them away (or if that fails, DMCA notices). Nosferattus (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this release good enough for the Trump (et al) mugshots?[edit]

https://fcsoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FCSO-Letter-of-Affirmation-Booking-Photos-8.21.23.pdf Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you mean to post them on Commons, clearly not. It doesn't explicitly allow derivative works (and explicitly prohibits certain derivative works). - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm really not seeing what it disallows other than blackmail attempts involving forcing someone to pay to have the photos taken down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me it is some blanket release form? How is it connected to Trump mugshot. Borysk5 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Borysk5: looks like you are right on the lack of there being no explicit prohibition; I had misread that to prohibit altering the photograph by removing the name, definitely an error on my part. But it still is not explicit permission for derivative works. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Threshold of originality in Netherlands[edit]

Hello!

I recently wanted to upload a vector version of File:Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.png, but as I always do, I checked COM:TOO Netherlands (because I'm a good boy :)

However, it is very vague, with statements such as own, original character [bearing] the personal mark of the maker and [shapes] that are so trivial or banal, that one cannot show any creative labor behind it of any kind whatsoever.

I cannot figure out what Dutch copyright law says is and isn't copyrighted in this regard, due to this vague and very subjective language. Can I upload it? Should I list the aforementioned File:Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.png for deletion if it's under copyright?

--QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 22:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This particular logo was designed by Mevis & Van Deursen, as you can read here: https://www.ad.nl/show/nieuwe-huisstijl-en-logo-voor-stedelijk-museum~a2a99708/ (I hope you can, I have some access to this newspaper). Ellywa (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be surprised if that met the threshold of originality in any country. Nosferattus (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

insource:/britishfreshwate00gurn_0/[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=Search&profile=default&search=insource%3A%2Fbritishfreshwate00gurn_0%2F&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1

1933 printing , London publication (original is 1931?), Author died in 1950. The concern here is a US publication or URAA restored copyright.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I see no evidence of simultaneous US publication in the digitised work itself, which would imply that US copyright had been restored in 1996 and will expire in 2027 or 2029, depending on whether it was first published in 1931 or 1933. 1933 seems the correct date to me, since the preface is dated December 1932, making publication before 1933 unlikely. Felix QW (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volume I is 1931, volume III is 1933. Pages of volume I with: "insource:/britishfreshwate00gurn -_0". -- Asclepias (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Do we know what happened to Vol II ? If it's expired it would be nice to have in a few years time. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked the Catalog of Copyright Entries (at IA) for Copepoda and did get a few hits, but not for this work. So apparently it wasn't registered for US copyright, and the URAA applied in 1996. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you want to raise a new DR or re-open an existign one based on new information uncovered? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/britishfreshwate00gurn 0/. --Rosenzweig τ 20:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image from Indian Space Research Organization[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

I want to upload an image from this pdf for the use in my article PSLV-C2 in Gujarati Wikipedia. However, I am not sure if the copyright laws allow it or not. May I have the expert's opinion on this please! Dinesh (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a continuation of a discussion at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&oldid=798200329#I_want_to_upload_a_picture_.png_and_include_in_my_article_in_Gujarati_wikipedia. While I agree you are right to take this to VP/C, and in fact I told you to do that, I also told you to mention what discussion had already taken place and to post the relevant links. In particular, as I said there, " https://www.isro.gov.in/ has a copyright symbol and says "All rights reserved", which would suggest that the material there is not in the public domain." Still seeking expert opinion, of course, but when doing that one should show what we've learned so far. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel and Dineshjk: Except the copyright policy specifically permits you to upload such material, and that overrides any "All rights reserved message". Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I understand that it means that I can upload but I should acknowledge. May I know some standard format of the message that I should include on the page of the image? Dinesh (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License determination: insource:/annualinventoryr159mcwi/[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=Search&profile=default&search=insource%3A%2Fannualinventoryr159mcwi%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1

Combination of Federal and State authors, imprint is Federal. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubtful images[edit]

I doubt the "author"/uploader Salento81 shot the pic in 1904. OK
Unknown photographer, theorically he could be alive and still in copyright.
1825, so likely PD, but was it really published before 1928? OK
Before 1927, but same as above about publishing date; lacking a copyright status about photographer life OK
Same as above OK
Before 1927, unknown photographer, no data about first publishing date OK
Again no data about first publishing date; source link rot OK
I seriously doubt the uploader AgAndras is the copyright owner.

Are they OK? The descriptions seem incomplete.-- Carnby (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carnby: Could you be more specific about your concern (which I assume is about copyright given where you've posted this)? Incomplete descriptions are not usually (really, ever) a copyright concern. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: I've add a brief ratio for each image.--Carnby (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the Haitian portrait, we presume publication for artwork before 1928, and the 1825 date makes it safely beyond copyright anywhere. Abzeronow (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Isadora Duncan picture is the sort of thing that certainly would have been shot for a commercial purpose, and that I cannot imagine not having been one or another way published within months.

We run into this sort of thing all the time on older photos. No, we can't be absolutely certain of publishing history, but professional photographers did not, as a rule, take pictures like this to stick them in a drawer. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No real issue here. Only File:P D Ouspenski(y).gif and File:Renata Tebaldi with Dina.jpg are not obviously in the public domain. So there are not "Doubtful images", whatever that may mean. I completed some of the licenses. Yann (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ag Andras hasn't edited in over a decade, so we are unlikely to hear from them. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]