Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 29 December 2023 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/December) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

    How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
    1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
    2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
      • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
      • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
      • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
    3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
    4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
    5. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
    Note for those replying to posted questions

    If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

    Click here to start a new discussion

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

    File:Flag of Lancaster County, Nebraska.gif

    File:Flag of Lancaster County, Nebraska.gif
    So - I know that flags can sometime be a topic of issue on Wikipedia... the image in question is the flag of Lancaster County, Nebraska, United States. It was used on the Lancaster County, Nebraska Wikipedia page under fair use, but a bot removed it. Is the copyright tag wrong or am I missing something as to why it was removed (copyright can be such a pain)? Thanks much in advance! Hanyou23 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair use images can only be used in the article (singular) specified in the fair use rationale (FUR), the bot will remove images from other pages. The FUR for this flag gives the article as Lincoln, Nebraska even though it's not used in that article. If you amend the FUR to Lancaster County then the issue should go away. Nthep (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Man, that was a horrible overlook on my part. Thank you very much for the help!!! Hanyou23 (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How can I use author's explicit permission in English Wikipedia

    Hi,

    Recently, I've contacted one of my favourite illustrator (Turkish: tr:Bartu Bölükbaşı) to use its illustrations in Turkish Wikipedia. Explicitly, he gave a permission to use illustrations in 2 of his books, also illustrations he shared on twitter, instagram accounts, limited by Vikipedi (Turkish Wikipedia).

    I would like to upload some of them into the articles like Sheikh Bedreddin as I think they will contribute to the article in English Wikipedia. I can ask the author to give or send an email to Wikipedia to use them on English Wikipedia with full resolution.

    My questions about picking right licence:

    1. I am looking for a non-commercial, restricted to use in only Wikipedia licence. I don't want to ask author to lose out from his rights to commercial usage. I think CC-BY-NC fits in this definition? I would like to ask it to confirm, is there something that I miss or wrong?
    2. or I can proceed with Non-free fair use 2D art, as I think that it satisfied those criterias.

    TarantaBabu (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    en:Wikipedia doesn't really do Wikipedia-only permissions - if files are uploaded under a non-free licence like that then it will need a full non-free justification, whether or not it has the creators permission for use on Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok then quick question on CC-BY-NC: If author makes it available for Wikipedia, can he at some point in future, retract the licence by emailing to Wikipedia? TarantaBabu (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CC-BY-NC is not considered "free" by Wikipedia. Except for images under a non-free-use justification, Wikipedia only accepts images that are free for reuse by others, including for commercial use. Since these licenses grant permission to anyone to use the images, they are not revocable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Follow-up question: Then what makes for my request, is to test whether my upload satisfies Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. TarantaBabu (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a link to the image you would like to use in Sheikh Bedreddin and briefly explain where in the article you would be using it? I don't see anything in the "Sheikh Bedreddin" article that immediately cries out "a non-free image is really needed here to help the reader truly understand this part of the article", other than perhaps an image of subject of the article. However, meeting the WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS conditions for even the non-free use of an image of Bedreddin might be pretty hard given that he died in 1420 AD. Obviously, photography didn't exist at that time so there would be no photos of him; there might, though, be some old paintings of him that are now within the public domain that could be used instead of a more recent creative representation of how someone "thinks" Bedreddin looked. Someone's recent illustration of Bedreddin seems like a form of fan art or WP:IMAGEOR, two things which probably should be avoided in biographies about historical figures, in principle, unless they're are recognized by relevant reliable sources as being really accurate representations and have been discussed as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, this illustration of Sheikh Bedreddin that I would like to use it. Bartu Bölükbaşı is widely known in Turkey for his research of making accurate representations of historical figures and mythology. He is awarded by prominent organization in the related field. When it comes to Sheikh Bedreddin, I couldn't find any painting of Sheikh Bedreddin for various reasons that I understand why there is none. The drawings of his appearance that you can find in the Google is not known with their author. In this particular case, we have a permission from the copyright holder, we know his specialization for the field. As he gave permission to use them in the Wikipedia, I don't want to miss this chance to make it available for everybody.
    I think it satisfies requirements of uploading this illustration, the reason I continue to ask and looking for understanding rules, is about I don't want to make a mistake. TarantaBabu (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal opinion is that particular illustration doesn't really seem appropriate for Wikipedia's purposes, but others might disagree. However, the images that the illustrator based his work could possibly be better suited for Wikipedia. Perhaps you could find out what they were and one of them would be within the public domain and could be used instead. Finally, I don't think that the image you want to use would meet all WP:NFCCP, particularly the WP:FREER required by WP:NFCC#1 because if one person could create such an illustration than another probably could do so as well and also choose to release it under a Creative Commons license that doesn't place any restrictions on commercial or derivative re-use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    United logo 2010-present reverted on history of United airlines tab

    Hello how is it going hope you’re having a safe holiday? I want to ask a quick question if you don’t mind. How come the United globe logo from 2010-present day on the history of United airlines tab was erased? I thought it was rational because I think it next to the logo brands throughout its history and people want to know about their history and it was used in at least one other article and was considered encyclopedic. I didn’t mean any harm when posting it so I’d like to ask what exactly went wrong and what can we do to work something out and get it published again a different way in a way that makes sure all requirements are fulfilled? I think it would be good to do so because so people know both the history and the current identity but at the same time I want to do it right. Thanks for your hard work and contributions 2600:1007:B032:51CD:686C:8758:1284:F8EA (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Each use of non-free content needs to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria listed here, and the bot that removed that particular file from that particular article has been tasked to find non-free content that doesn't comply with non-free content use criteria #9 and non-free content use criteria #10c. In this case, the bot removed the file for #10c reasons because the file didn't have a non-free use for that particular article. As explained here, which the bot linked to in the edit summary it left when it removed the file, non-free content is required to have two things: a non-free copyright license and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the file. In pretty much all cases, only one non-free copyright license is needed regardless of how many times a non-free file is being used; however, not all non-free uses are equivalent (even though they might seem similar) as explained here, and this means a separate non-free use rationale specific to the way the content is being used needs to be added to the file's page for each use. In other words, this file had such a rationale for its use in the main "United Airlines" article, but it didn't have one for the "History of United Airlines" article; so, the bot removed it. The way to stop the bot from removing the file would be to add a rationale for that particular article to the file's page and then re-add the file to the article; however, as mentioned above, providing a rationale is only one (more specifically, only part of one) of the ten criteria that need to be satisfied as explained in here, and failing any of the other nine criteria makes the non-free use invalid. In general, non-free logos aren't allowed to be displayed in image galleries or in an image gallery like arrangement, which is how the file was being used in the "History" article because of WP:NFG, WP:DECORATIVE, MOS:LOGO and WP:NFC#CS reasons. So, before trying to re-add that file again (even after adding a rationale to its page), you're going to need to clearly establish how the file's use in the article satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it thank you. Obviously I don’t want to do anything that violates anything. I want to do things right. How do I add a rationale put of curiosity? I ask cause I think it is important to show the current identity next to the old ones but like I said I want to do it right. Any help or tips on how to do that process whether it is on here or on a website would be greatly appreciated and merry Christmas to all of you. 2601:40D:8281:F3C0:8D10:8C8A:878A:AD26 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are essentially two ways to add a non-free rationale to a file's page; you can either use one of the templates that have been created over the years for certain types of non-free use or you can add your own rationale that provides all of the needed information. In other words, the format of the rationale isn't as important as the information it's supposed to contain. Anyway, there are brief explanations on how to do both given in WP:FUR. As posted above, however, adding a rationale doesn't automatically make a non-free use policy compliant. Providing a rationale is just one of the criteria that needs to be met and a rationale that doesn't meet all of the criteria is considered to be invalid. Opinions on whether a non-free use doesn't meet the criteria can vary so sometimes a WP:CONSENSUS needs to be established at WP:FFD when there's disagreement. For reference, when it comes to non-free logos, it's generally considered OK to use the logo in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the organization, company, team or whatever the logo represents for primary identification purposes like is done in United Airlines and United Airlines Holdings. Relevant Wikipedia policy, however, strongly encourages us to minimize non-free use as much as possible and use free alternatives (e.g. Wikilinks, text, free images) whenever possible because a single use of non-free content is already considered to be quite an exception to WP:COPYOTHERS; so, for this reason, the single use of such a file in the main page about the organization is, in most cases, deemed sufficient for Wikipedia purposes. An additional use of the same logo is another articles or in another way in the same article is considered to be even more of an exceptional case requiring an even stronger justification per policy; so, while not impossible, it tends much much harder to justify. Since the file is already being used in two separate articles for primary identification purposes, trying to squeeze one more use out of it might be considered as being too much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it thank you sm for the cooperation and support and specifics. We’ll see what happens whether it is me or someone else but either way we all want things to be executed the right way. Is there a template I can use to copy and paste that link? Because all it’s giving me is the template format like how do I use that template format to copy and paste it in there to try and get approval? 2601:40D:8281:F3C0:2CA4:7121:262C:C911 (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license

    The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia [1] says content on the site is Creative Commons. Does this allow for bots to scrape data from the site on a regular basis, like from this page, host it on Wikimedia somewhere, such as in JSON on Wikicommons, then templates could display the most up-to-date data in articles? Exoplanet ouvre on Wikipedia is a mass of data points that change based on revised discoveries and so it gets outdated and not maintained. As of Dec 20, 2023 there are only 5,575 planets, it doesn't seem impossible to consider something like this (but over time, there might be "billions and billions" of planets). ​ -- GreenC 02:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    From a licensing perspective, assuming the data is not part of "Except where otherwise noted", then that would be okay. I have no idea whether the source site would be okay with a bot scraping the data or what the best way to host the scraped data would be. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks, I don't see anything about the data being excepted.
    Technology wise I've done something like this before with {{NUMBEROF}}. A bot queries the Wikimedia API for statistics data, uploads it to commons in JSON format ie. here, then the NUMBEROF Lua module reads that data and displays it on-screen like this {{NUMBEROF|articles|fr}} = 2652662. The bot retrieves the data every few hours. The same structure could be built for just about anything. Since the data is hosted on Commons, it's available to all Wiki projects and the Lua module can be copied to other projects.
    The problem I see is in articles like List of exoplanets discovered in 2020, which contain a ton of data that is very hard for humans to keep accurate. -- GreenC 18:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The director? The cinematographer? The director in this case died in 1929 (it is a German film from 1920), and the cinematographer died in 1969. Or does it belong to the company?

    Since it's before 1928 it's good for America but it comes from a country that has life of the author + 70. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @PARAKANYAA it may vary from country to country but for the UK it would be pma+70 for whoever died last of these:
    1. the director (main director if more than one)
    2. the writer of the screenplay
    3. the author of the dialogue
    4. the composer of any music specially created for the film (if applicable)
    For silent films, the composer would not apply if you were using the film without a later added soundtrack. Nthep (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nthep What would it be if it was just a still from the film? No dialogue or audio. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not 100% sure, but I think the same rules apply to a still as they do to the full film. But, I could see an argument for it being just the director in that case. Nthep (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Antiquity is a journal which has been around since 1927; it is published in England but circulated broadly. Could anyone please advise as to the copyright of the cover of the December 2023 issue? As I see it, it has three elements: (1) a variety of text, (2) photographs of gold objects, and (3) a sketch of Stonehenge. As to the first, it appears too simple to be under copyright. As to the second, they are clearly under copyright, although it may be possible to work with the copyright holder (see this, which is the bottom left image). The third is where I'm not sure. The design came into use sometime between 1958 (see here) and 1960 (see here), although probably in 1958, when Glyn Daniel took over as editor from O. G. S. Crawford (who died in November 1957). I don't know who drew the image. Could someone please weigh in? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If first published in the UK around 1958, the sketch would probably be covered by URAA restoration, which would mean it's copyrighted under US law until around 2053. Toohool (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Toohool. Is the reason why the URAA might apply that the image may not have been not under copyright in the US in 1996? If so, what would have conceivably brought the image into copyright in the US—does it matter that Antiquity is distributed in the US, or would it have needed to go through a formal process? Separately, the pre-1958 illustration of Stonehenge that the journal used (linked above in the "see here" parenthetical after 1958) is substantially similar, and was used from the journal's inception in 1927. Is the similarity sufficient to have publication be traced back to 1927 instead of 1958? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most foreign works published back then forfeited their US copyright by being published without a US-compliant copyright notice. URAA automatically restored the copyright for all eligible works in 1996, no formal process needed. If the drawing was published in the US within 30 days of its first publication elsewhere, then it wouldn't have been URAA-eligible. But that can be hard to demonstrate if the work only lists a UK publisher. As for the 1927 version of the drawing, it's similar at a glance, but quite different on closer examination. I'd say there's certainly enough originality in the later version to qualify for a new copyright. Toohool (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again, Toohool. What counts in terms of US publication? That is, would it need to be separately printed in the US, or would being mailed to US subscribers of the journal count? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The definition of publication in 17 USC § 101 doesn't clearly answer that question, and I haven't seen any court case that has taken it up. Ricketson's International Copyright, a leading treatise, argues that mere distribution of copies within a country, such as by mail order, doesn't qualify as publication, rather that there must be "some centre (or centres) for distribution within that country" (pp. 268-269). (He's discussing the definition under the Berne Convention, not under US law, but one can surmise that US courts would try to harmonize the interpretations, since the statute is meant to satisfy the US's obligations under Berne). So, it's not entirely clear, but seems safer under the precautionary principle to assume that this would not have been considered publication in the US. Toohool (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again Toohool; those are very helpful. The statutory definition appears to be broader than Ricketson's interpretation of the Berne Convention; it requires that publication be made "to the public", but sets no limits on the method of publication besides that it entail "the distribution of copies ... of a work ... by sale or other transfer of ownership." If Antiquity was sold from the UK to a member of the public in the US, it meets that definition. (There is no question that it did direct sales at the US; this 1963 volume, for example—the earliest for which I could find front matter online—indicates that an annual subscription is "ONE POUND TEN SHILLINGS Sterling, or FIVE DOLLARS".) Likewise, the second sentence of the definition suggests that a US-based central distribution system is an additional method of publication, not a required method: "The offering to distribute copies ... to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution ... constitutes publication."
    Some further support for the broader definition is found in Section 1905.1] of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (which I found while researching the definition in 17 U.S.C. § 101). The examples of publication it gives are unmistakably broad, such as "Distributing copies of a leaflet on a street corner". But it also mentions that "Mailing copies of a catalog to potential customers constitutes publication of that catalog and any unpublished works revealed in that work", without any requirements as to from where the mailing must originate.
    Unless you see it differently, I think we can assume that the Stonehenge image was published in the US between 1958 and 1960 (probably 1958). If I'm reading this chart correctly, that would mean it has potential protection through 2053, but only if the original copyright was (a) perfected, and (b) renewed around 1986. Does that seem right to you? --Usernameunique (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this image "File:How_heterosexual_couples_have_met,_data_from_2009_and_2017.png" which looks like it might be a copyright violation. It comes from this paper , which is publicly available online, but I can't find any evidence of an open license. Of the universe (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    File:How_heterosexual_couples_have_met,_data_from_2009_and_2017.png was uploaded to Commons and Commons files, in principle, need to resolved on Commons. For reference, the file has been nominated for deletion at Commons by another user and it's being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:How heterosexual couples have met, data from 2009 and 2017.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RD1 for fake song lyrics attributed to Lady Gaga

    An edit posted by Tools4$ale (talk · contribs) at Song in November 2022 purportedly contains the lyrics of an unnamed Lady Gaga song about the war of the currents, but a search result suggests that the lyrics likely made-up.

    The question remains: Should we RD1 content that is purported to be a copyvio, but is obviously fake? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I would treat the material as a hoax which is outside the scope of RD1. -- Whpq (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been working on describing plants, fungi, and animals. The edits include facts which consist of description of measurements or where an plant is found and I have made similar publications in published scientific journals with no issues. But here I ran into issues with several users claiming copyright infringement on my content.

    In this edit I spent time paraphrasing the description from this source and I added attribution.

    Also I copied a list of synonyms from kew and added attribution.

    On this page I had my edits of a single sentence of 18 words stricken from the history because my statement of the facts are too similar to the source material where they made the description.

    I thought these list of information was allowed based on the supreme court opinion from Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. case where:

    • "The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are. Each of these propositions possesses an impeccable pedigree."((Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. (1991) 499 U.S. 340, 344)
    • That there can be no valid copyright in facts is universally understood."No author may copyright facts or ideas. The copyright is limited to those aspects of the work -- termed 'expression' -- that display the stamp of the author's originality. (Id at 350. citing Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises)
      • The descriptions I am adding are measurements and shapes of a the plant written by taxonomist distinguishing the difference between them
    • "To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. See Harper & Row, supra, at 547-549. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity" (Id at 345)
      • I believe the use of a scientific description of a plant or a group of plants is similar the Feist case where the work author of this source copied the measurements from other books as listed in their bibliography

    It is my understanding that using paraphrasing to represent facts is fine because of the Feist opinion where "This inevitably means that the copyright in a factual compilation is thin. Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement." (Id at 349)

    Here is a link to the Feist case.

    Is there a reason this is not allowed on wikipedia? or am I misinterpreting the supreme court ruling here or are the other users misinterpreting the copyright law? Please advise --Cs california (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Cs california. This noticeboard is mainly for asking questions related to media (e.g. image) copyright (hence its name "Media copyright questions"); so, you might be better off asking about this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead since that noticeboard mainly deals with text-related copyright matters. You might also want to look at WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE and WP:COPYVIO for reference since those pages also deal with text-related copyright matters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marchjuly Sorry where is the proper venue to ask?--Cs california (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested one such noticeboard in my first response to your question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disputed Fair Use on Requested File

    Hello, I am a reviewer at files for upload, a place where users can request files be uploaded for them if they are unable to do so. This thread requested that this file be uploaded under {{Non-free promotional}}, however it is unclear if the subject's talent agency counts as promotional to the subject. Additionally, it is unclear if the file fails the first fair use rationale, as the subject is living and a free image could replace the file at some point, but currently there does not appear to be a free file that can replace it right now. Thanks, -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 04:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 as an image of a living person. A free image could be created even if one currently does not exist. From WP:NFC: Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people. -- Whpq (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, thanks. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 04:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Freedom of panorama (US only)" and the Berne convention

    Can someone point me to legal precedent justifying our template {{Freedom of panorama (US only)}}, under which images that would clearly be copyvio in some other country (such as France in which photos of buildings are subject to the copyright of the architect) are claimed to be ok to host on Wikipedia because it respects only US copyrights? The images themselves were taken in that other country and, as such, clearly fall under a non-free copyright, the copyright of the architect. There is no argument that the images are PD; they are copyrighted, the question is merely whether the copyright is solely to the photographer or whether it is a derivative work of the copyright of the architect.

    Our article Berne Convention states that the US, as a participant, is required to respect the copyrights of other Berne convention countries. As far as I know it has no obvious exception for copyrights of things that other Berne Convention signatories think should not be copyrighted; as long as it is a valid copyright in its originating country, it is a valid copyright. But I am no legal scholar, so maybe there is some subtlety that I am missing. My lack of understanding of this piece of our copyright policy is making it difficult for me to understand what kinds of images are ok for this template and what are not.

    What I am not looking for: people reiterating what the template states without providing convincing sourcing demonstrating that what it states is actually sound legal advice. I know what it states. I just don't understand why it is allowed. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Using Commons' page on FoP at c:Freedom of panorama#Choice of law, the WMF projects appear to take the lex loci delicti approach that was implied by the EU's "Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations". This paper [2] goes into what that means, but that basically means that WP projects can take a reason copyright stance. That means for Commons, the photograph must strictly pass all copyright requirements, but projects like en.wiki can use cases where US law would allow for free redistribution of the image even if the object in the photo is copyrighted in a country w/o freedom of panorama for that object. Masem (t) 05:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I understand that it means that we can host images that are free or freely licensed according to all applicable pieces of US law but unfree according to someone else's law. What I don't understand is why this applies to images that are unfreely copyrighted under a Berne convention country's law. Is the Berne convention not an applicable piece of US law? Is it maybe that the Berne convention is not actually about transferring the copyright of another country to the US, but rather about creating a separate copyright in the US for creators in that other country, and therefore that it falls under the same rules as all other US copyrights? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The way we have seemed to operate through the years is this - A photograph of a building has two potential copyrights: the building's designer/architect, and the photographer. A building may be copyrighted and have zero FoP in the country it stands, but the photographer would be bound by the country they live in, so a US photographer could say that they have opted to license the photo freely under an appropriate license, given that under US law there is no copyright protections for buildings. (In contrast, a US photographer taking a picture of a permanently-installed work of art in a different country where such art does not have FOP, the photographer would not be able to release it freely because there is still the copyright on the artwork.) Masem (t) 05:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I'm trying to understand the theoretical basis for how we can operate this way, not a description of how we operate. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I linked to Commons and that paper, in that it is asserted there (and would be expected to apply here) that the lex loci delicti principle applies for international aspects of copyright. The origin of where that came about was not just pulled from nowhere on Commons, there was a valid reason to take it, though nothing has yet been established in case law to say whether that is 100% legally right or not. Masem (t) 13:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that a foreign copyright holder is afforded the same copyright protections as a US copyright holder. A US architect may hold the copyright to the design of a building but US law allows for freedom of panorama for that building. As such, a foreign architects rights in the US would be the same. The architect holds the copyright for the design of the building but freedom of panorama applies. IANAL and that understanding may not be correct. -- Whpq (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=1192472755"