Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/March

Image of a warship that I took
I was led here by a few fellow editors in the Help desk. Anyhow when I took a picture of the ex-USS Maricopa County laid up at the south of Vietnam, I considered posting it here yet my doubts got the better of me as it's technically a military ship still in service and would constitute a copyright violation as technically you're not really allowed to take images of military stuff in their home bases (from my common knowledge, that is).

Six months onward, I am now considering posting said image again, yet I would have to confer to someone experienced in this area... So should I post it here?

Kind regards, e (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you broke the law (of Vietnam) by taking that picture is not a matter of copyright. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. e (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

File:LouisTikas.jpg public domain?
This file is marked as nonfree. However, as Tikas died on 20 April 1914, and this photo depicts him alive, it must clearly have been taken on or before that date. While its exact source is not known, would anyone see a reason not to mark this as PD-old due to its obvious age? Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes:
 * It can't be stated that the photographer has been dead for more than 100 years if the photographer is not known.
 * The photo doesn't look like a selfie.
 * It fails PD-old-assumed.
 * The publication history is not known.
 * -- Asclepias (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The image was uploaded here in May 2014, with the unhelpful attribution "Immediate source: web". The earliest version I can find online is, where it is less tightly cropped (it shows two people), and is attributed "courtesy of the Denver Public Library, Western History/Geneology Digital Collection". An even looser crop (amber in tone, and showing three people) is at, for example,. TinEye finds additional versions of each. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If that's from the Denver Public Library, I can stop in next time I'm down that way and see if they have any information on where it came from and if and when it was published or who took it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Congress.gov bio
I'm curious on the copyright status of a biography pubished at congress.gov here. There is no copyright statement on the document, and it is unclear as to the author. Should I assume that it is copyrighted, or assume that it is a Federal US document? Bilby (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * What is the page (URL) on the web site where you found this? I suspect it's PD, but it is useful to be able to look at the page where it came from for any additional information. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but sadly I don't have a separate page. I'm asking because I came acorss David Halperin (political advocate), which is a straight copy and paste of the bio on congress.gov. My initial reaction was to be safe and assume copyvio, but given that US Government material is often PD I thought I'd dig further. - Bilby (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The original source seems to be Footnote 1 of his witness statement, which suggests that despite being written in the third person, it was contributed by him rather than written up by Congress staff. This would suggest that it may well be under copyright. Felix QW (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Is "King Of Jazz" (1930) in the public domain?
Someone from archive.org says so but I can't find that information anywhere else. Do you know any databases where I can check this? Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kazachstanski nygus The copyright databases and renewal databases are mostly on archive.org (main page ) King of Jazz was registered in 1930 and looking in the 1958 catalog it was renewed which keeps it under copyright until 1 January 1926 (95 years after first registration). If my reading is correct then I'm not sure why the version you've linked to is marked as being public domain. Nthep (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nthep Thank you very much for the answer. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2026? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1 January in the 96th year after first registration. The 95 years (and the 70 years pma in other copyright jurisdictions) runs till the end of the calender year. Nthep (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Empire of Dreams
Hello, I have a copyright question. There is a documentary on Star Wars that was made for a Star Wars DVD box set. It has also been uploaded to YouTube by multiple channels. I'm assuming those uploads are copyright violation, but I wanted to ask anyways. If they are, is there any way I can direct editors to YouTube to watch the documentary? It's been cited 40 times in the Star Wars article, and I was hoping to find a way to let future editors know that they don't have to track down a DVD in order to watch it. Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No you may not link to it if it is a copyright violation.  See WP:COPYVIOEL.  If the channels have the right to show it,  then it would be okay.   -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Is there any way to tell if the channels have the right to show it? Wafflewombat (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article already says it is available online from Disney, so no DVD needed. You can check the official Disney and Star Wars YouTube channels to see if it is posted there.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Photograph of contents of doll accessory pack?
Hi there. I am trying to determine what an appropriate image could be for the page "Barbie's careers". I understand that photographs or promotional photos of career-themed dolls or accessory packs would be copyrighted by Mattel, in terms of derivative works. What I'm trying to understand is if it still counts as a derivative work if i were to, for example, take out the contents of a career-themed accessory pack and lay them out and photograph that, without any of the accompanying packaging.

The reason I want to add an image is I have heard from some people that "a doll isn't a person and thus can't have a career" and I think the image would support the understanding of how a career can be "depicted". I'm just struggling to figure out what would be a viable illustration. What about "fan art" or drawn representations of a career doll or contents of an accessory pack? Is that a derivative work?

In any case, I'm mostly interested in understanding the copyright aspect, not debating whether or not this specific article "deserves" an image. Thanks! Antihistoriaster (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * See c:Commons:Derivative_works. Toys are generally copyrighted, so this unfortunately wouldn't be permissible. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

R C Anderson, The Rigging of Ships (etc.)
I would like to check that the book The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, 1600-1720 is out of copyright. It was published in Salem, Ma in 1927, per. The copy that I have to hand is a facsimile edition ("an unabridged republication") published by Dover Publications, New York in 1994 with the ISBN978-0-486-27960-2.

I may want to use some of the illustrations in this book, but obviously only if they are copyright free. I am not sure what the significance of the "unabridged republication" statement is. Strangely, this book is not fully available on Google books, which makes me wonder what is going on. I could probably obtain a copy of the 1927 original edition without too much difficulty if that made a difference. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Anything first published in the US before 1 January 1929 is now PD. Subsequent republication doesn't change that. Nthep (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I use File:Willy's Chocolate Experience advertisement.png freely in Canada?
The UK offers limited copyright protection to AI-generated works, but Canada does not. If I use this image in Canada, can I use it free of copyright, or does the UK law take precedence since it was generated in the UK? Félix An (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Normally, the law that applies to the use of a work is the law of the jurisdiction where it is used. That is merely information about a basic principle. But Wikipedia does not give legal advice about what you do. For legal advice, please consult a professional in the relevant jurisdiction. (For my personal curiosity, can you please share the source for the statement that AI works are copyright-free in Canada?) -- Asclepias (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Question about Fair Use on Wikipedia with respect to Crown Copyright
This file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Calgary.svg has been marked for deletion due to apparently infringing on Crown copyright. Given that it is a municipal flag, though, doesn't it fall under fair use? What are the rules here? DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Relatedly, assuming the image itself is permitted on Wikipedia, would it fall under fair use to be used in the infobox for, say, 2013 Calgary municipal election so the infobox doesn't have any visible wikicode? DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The statement in the nomination deletion is very dubious. There is no evidence that the flag was made for or published by the Canadian government or by the Alberta government. There is no evidence that this flag has to do with Crown copyright. If this flag is copyrighted, it would be by ordinary copyright, owned by Yvonne Fritz, author of the flag, or successors or by the city. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I took this photo
I took the photo File:Crusifino Fight at Crystal River FL Feb. 9 2024.jpeg. Can someone help me? Everything is detailed in the description, but it still says it’ll be deleted. Can someone fix this and tell me when they do? LordBirdWord (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Book cover photo for Maid by Stephanie Land
Hi, I am new, so I am sorry if I do not use correct terminology. I created a new page for Stephanie Land's book Maid. Here is the link: Maid (book)

I uploaded the cover of the book following all instructions for using a copyrighted image under Fair Use. I provided the non-free book cover rationale when uploading the image. On Sunday, I received a bot message:

Does this mean I should try to upload the cover again? Thank you for your help. Cyborgwriter (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cyborgwriter I think the problem was that in this version you didn't add the rationale in way the bot recognized (and it was a little short on detail). But afaict, in this version  you did, so everything should be ok now, image-wise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! I'm new so I really appreciate the advice. Cyborgwriter (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Kate Middleton's Mother's Day photo alright?
Per Talk:Where is Kate?, I'd like to know if the Mother's Day photo would be alright to upload. Here's a BBC article with the photo included, in case it helps. Slamforeman (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What part of "Source: Prince of Wales/Kensington Palace" did you not notice? Copyright is not waived in any way. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to ask about copyright, (apologies, I can see now I did not clarify), I meant to ask if it was useable as Non-free content. It is currently being used, but it has been called into question so I wanted to be sure. Slamforeman (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Slamforeman, in my opinion, the photograph is fine from an NFCC perspective because its section is dedicated to significant, sourced commentary about it. ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 04:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status of works by the Navajo Nation government
Hello,

I found this image of JoAnn Jayne on the official Navajo Nation website, but after a lot of research, I'm not sure of its copyright status. I did not see anything in the Navajo Nation code which expressly deals with the copyright status of works created on behalf of the government (though to be fair, I don't know if it is a work created on behalf of the NN government), and cannot figure out if this would be a federal issue or not because of tribal governments' unique status in US law.

Thank you for any help on this question, JohnSon12a (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Barring any declaration to the contrary, the material would be copyrighted by default. Although the particular page and its home page carry no terms of use link, the Navajon Nation main site terms of use does declare its material as copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Lithograph copyrights
According to this listing this lithograph was published by Landfall Press, Chicago in 1981, so there is a chance that it fell into the public domain if it was published without a copyright notice and not subsequently registered. Does anyone here know what the common practice was with lithographs? I have not been able to find an entry in the copyright catalog, but that doesn't mean much. Felix QW (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User HMAwiki uploaded File:Philip_Pearlstein-Nude_on_a_Bamboo_Sofa.jpeg as their own work. I have doubts about this, but don't what to do about it.  Do I need to raise this at WP:FFD?  Or what is the process?  The user has not edited since 2014 and Pearlstein died in 2022.  RudolfRed (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Own work" claim is clearly bogus. I was planning to send it to FFD, but then it occurred to me that the lithograph may conceivably be in the public domain if it had been published without a copyright notice. Should no one come up with any better ideas over the next days, I would go to FFD, but do please go ahead with it yourself if you would like to! Felix QW (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As there were no more responses, I opened an WP:FFD discussion here. Felix QW (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Menotomy Hunter Cyrus Dallin.jpg
I was Googling myself, as one does, when I came across this image on Wikimedia Commons. It's credited to @AndrewTJay as "own work" but, as you can see from the metadata at the bottom of the page, I took this picture. I originally uploaded it to a project website of mine, Icons of Arlington, at a page called Menotomy Indian Hunter (Andrew seems to have cropped it). I am fine with the image remaining on Wikipedia, but I would strongly prefer that it be listed with the correct credit. How does that work -- do I just edit the page to change the credit? Rmhbernoff (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The image is on Commons so you will need to ask there. I suggest posting at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.  -- Whpq (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. Thanks! Rmhbernoff (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

How much of copyrighted poem ok to copy?
On Talk:Descartes' theorem/GA1, the Good Article reviewer (, please correct if I am misrepresenting your position) is pushing to include more lines from a still-copyrighted poem (published in UK 1936, author died 1956, so still in copyright for a few more years) and its slightly later and also-still-copyrighted extension by another author. The poem consists of three ten-line stanzas, with one more stanza in the extension (it can be found in full in its original publication at https://www.nature.com/articles/1371021a0 and elsewhere). Currently we quote two lines, properly formatted and cited as a block quote per WP:NFCCP, an amount I'm comfortable with being within the bounds of fair use (for a poem that made the topic famous and itself is discussed in more detail in the article). The quoted lines appear in the lead, with the double intent of serving as a summary of part of the article discussing the poem and as an accessible summary of the theorem itself. However the reviewer feels that material in the lead should be expanded later and that the later discussion of the poem doesn't count as an expansion: to quote the poem in the lead we need to quote more of the poem later. I guess the MOS:LEAD question is off-topic for this board, but a better question for this board would be: is there a valid fair-use case for quoting the poem at any greater length, for instance for the purpose of expanding the lead? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @David Eppstein Interesting, I've not seen a poem used as a summary before. Per NFCC#8 it's down to contextual significance and is the poem itself the subject of sourced commentary. The other test would be, does including any more of the poem increase the reader's comprehension of the article? On a brief reading of the poem in full and the article,  my personal opinion is no (but then Wikipedia articles on maths make my eyes glaze over after a short whole, so perhaps I'm not the best judge), the couplet is succinct and gets its point across. Nthep (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (If the question above is there a valid fair-use case for quoting the poem at any greater length, for instance for the purpose of expanding the lead is actually about WP policy regarding fair use then my comment here isn't very helpful)
 * Generally, copyright law allows the reuse of small amounts of material so long as they don't interfere with the rights of the original. So the first test is: would the amount quoted deter someone from purchasing the book, because they had already read most of the poem? The second test is, whether the snippets taken serve the stated purpose of criticism and review of the poem. If the snippets are needed to explain the points being made, then that is fair use. If on the other hand, they repeat points already made, then you'd need to explain that the repetition is the point your are explaining; if the sense added is just giving the reader greater enjoyment or aesthetic appreciation, then fair use proabably doesn't apply.
 * To be on the safe side, I would say that whatever explanation of the poem should appear with its use.
 * If you want to be cautious, repeating the same quote might be unwise (it could be seen as "unecessary")
 * I don't think that internal questions about the use of the material have any relevance to copyright law. The whole point is whether the use interferes with the rights of the author, and whether the use itself is for a reasonable purpose (that couldn't be completed without the use of the material).
 * Where I think you may have a problem is that the poem doesn't seem to be central to the question. It's being used for explanation, rather than "criticism and review". That might interfere with the rights of the author, and it isn't clear that the poem is in any way necessary to explain the theorem, it's just nice to have.
 * Thus, quoting it to say "this is really [simple / neat / complicated], so much so that someone wrote a famous poem, the essence of which can be seen in this quote" might be OK, but using it as a tool to take the reader through the issue, feels like you would need to argue "educational purposes" but again that feels hard to claim since the poem isn't the topic of the article. US folks may have a wider view on educational purposes though. It might work better if the article was an explanation of how to explain concepts with poetry, as a worked example, or if thr article was an explanation of how the poet / poem explained the theorem. --Jim Killock (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do think the fair use case is good enough to quote an entire stanza of the poem, which is usually quoted at length when the theorem appears in the recreational mathematics literature. Some of the poem is in my view necessary to include simply because it introduced and popularised the terminology "bends" and "kissing". That said, I do not think I am "pushing", I am merely suggesting, and I know that my own view on lead sections (I believe they should be a summary of the body that makes sense on its own, and also that the body should make sense independent of the lead, so they are like putting the Micropædia and Macropædia together) is not fully aligned with everyone else's, so following my GA review suggestions is certainly not mandatory. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Quoting the original source of certain terms might well be reasonable "fair use", so long as it was only enough to understand the sourcing. If a stanza is commonly quoted, I would think that's OK to use because of the context - you are explaining / educating people regarding what is often quoted and why. If the poem had an educational purpose, ie was intended to be used to teach or explain this way, include information on that, if you can. Context is everything :) There aren't any hard and fast rules, even more so in the USA. In the main, fair use implies you don't over do it, have a clear ideally unavoidable reason for it, and ensure full attribution (for WP, this might mean to attribute each time, record your reasoning in a reference or efn perhaps, as per WP images etc? Odd to note that WP has massive governance over fair use in images but little regarding text). Jim Killock (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My impression is that sources that quote entire stanzas (1/3 of the poem!) tend to do so with permission rather than through fair use. At least, that is, sources in reputable publications that pay attention to copyright issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are songs viewed in the same way as poems in this regard? The limit for audio samples of songs is 30 seconds or 10%, whichever is the smaller. Does a figure of 10% (wherever this has come from) also apply to parts of a written poem / song? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is, contrary to popular myth, no "magic number" for fair use. Sometimes even use of a tiny portion of a work would fail the fair use test, and sometimes use of the whole thing would pass it. 10% is a decent rule of thumb, but that doesn't mean it's always okay, and generally speaking the less used the better. Aside from fair use, this is also a free content project, so in general we also should keep our use of nonfree material to an absolute minimum and only when there is truly no alternative. That normally pops up in relation to images, but it is equally true of nonfree text. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Evidence that an image is accepted as Public domain
Hi there, I recently uploaded c:File:Drawing of the Shrine of Little St Hugh, Lincoln Cathedral, William Dugdale, 1641.png. The image is discussed at this FAC Image Review, where I was asked when it was first published: the answer being 1986. This means it may be in copyright as a relatively newly published work. Information is unclear. However, I contacted the British Library as the repository and owner of the original domcument and they have confirmed by email that they regard the original as public domain, thus scans or photographs would count as copyright free; they have no objection to the image being published here. I understand that WP may have a process to record this, such as keeping email records etc - can someone point me to what I should do to ensure WMF has a copy of this confirmation? Jim Killock (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I've reposted this to Commons Village pump as they might be better placed to answer this. Jim Killock (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Rightful owners need copyright license. Evidence can be provided.
File:Ginger Jar filled with Chrysanthemums By Van Gogh.jpg The current owners never sold it to the creative commons license holder. We have proof of ownership. This should be cross checked and decided fairly. Myfirsts (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , that file is on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. We do not have any control over Commons, so if you think there's a problem with an image there, you would have to resolve it there. That said, as van Gogh died in 1890, his work would, at least so far as I know, all be in the public domain at this point. But if you have a specific question about its copyright status, you could raise that at their discussion area for copyright-related issues. I would suggest being more specific than you are above; it is not very clear what you're trying to say. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Have mentioned the issue at the discussion page as well. The issue is not the copyright of the picture but as this file link has been used to showcase the current possession of the painting  under the CC licensee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Vincent_van_Gogh it clearly disputes the fair use. The rightful owners have the possession of the painting and would like to claim the CC license and current location as well.
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ginger_Jar_filled_with_Chrysanthemums_By_Van_Gogh.jpg#%7B%7Bint%3Alicense-header%7D%7D Myfirsts (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change that it is, due to age, in the public domain. So, to be frank, what they want does not particularly matter. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If the point is that the Creative Commons license and Own Work claim made at the file page are incorrect, I fully agree. Someone should correct that page, put van Gogh as the author and add the proper public domain license. Felix QW (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That would lead to fair use. Van Gogh as the author and public domain license instead of individual copyright. Myfirsts (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This version of Ginger Jar Filled With Chrysanthemums isn't in use in List of works by Vincent van Gogh, this version - commons:File:Van Gogh - Ingwertopf mit Chrysantemen.jpeg is, where it is noted as being in the possession of Titan Investments. If that statement is incorrect and the list article needs updating, that can be addressed. Nthep (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This work is listed as No: F 198 JH 1125 Year 1885 in the List of works by Vincent van Gogh, and commons:File:Van Gogh - Ingwertopf mit Chrysantemen.jpeg and also at No F 198 (serial no 274) at el wikipedia [] and all listings have it as collection of Titan Investments. This statement is factually incorrect and a source of right information can be invoked to rectify the listing in the above mentioned page. Myfirsts (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Myfirsts So, what is the right information and the source for that. All it needed at the start was an edit to say - this isn't owned by Titan Investments, it's now owned by XYZ and here's the source(s) that verifies that. Nthep (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Right information is in form of Insurance provided to the owners for the painting and can be shared as a pdf. The apprehension is to not reveal the name of the owners but to keep it as private collection. Please suggest how and where to share it.
 * Myfirsts (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not the right forum for this discussion, but on the other hand, spreading it may not be a good idea. The only still-active source for it that we cite in the list article, the Van Gogh Gallery, lists it simply as "private collection". On the other hand, a 2021 article by TechBullion explicitly names it as an asset of Titan Investments. Felix QW (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of other tech/crypto sites mention Titan Investments in 2021 so I'm inclined to believe these are articles based off a press release. If we think the Van Gogh Gallery is a more reliable source then let's just change the list article and file descriptions to say it's in a private collection.
 * (Correct, this wasn't really the place to go beyond the copyright issue, but no harm done in keeping it in one place and finalising it). Nthep (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nthep I'd be happy with that, in particular because "private collection" is in fact more general and does not make any decision on this putative ownership dispute. Felix QW (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Going by how the WMF has handled the dispute from the National Portrait Gallery, we consider mechanical reproduction of 2d works that are in the public domain (that is, a simple photographic image of the art) as uncopyrightable and thus would be in the public domain. This is consistent with the US Copyright Office stance. So while they may believe they claim ownership, we are just going to ignore that, with the backing of the WMF. M asem (t) 16:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is to put this image as public domain license as you rightly pointed out and to stop misuse of CC licensee by Titan Investments to claim possession of painting.
 * Myfirsts (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Myfirsts, I have changed the licensing information. Reply here if there are any more issues. ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 11:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ! This is fair and correct. Please see below the other issue.
 * has provided information that Van Gogh Gallerylists it simply as "private collection". Another article article by TechBullion mentions it as an asset of Titan Investments. But this an fabricated information based on a withdrawn sale agreement and Titan Investment's trick of CC licensing of an Photographic image of Art. Titan Investment also managed (based on CC license) to mention that they are in possession of the painting and to get listed as possession holders as No: F 198 JH 1125 Year 1885 in the List of works by Vincent van Gogh, and commons:File:Van Gogh - Ingwertopf mit Chrysantemen.jpeg and also at No F 198 (serial no 274) at el wikipedia []. This is factually incorrect. Latest Storage slip of the painting at the Art Storage facility at Berlin and Insurance copy provides the names of current owners. This information can be shared through PDF (please suggest where) but then be listed as Private Collection as art is normally listed as an option, in the above mentioned pages and file.
 * Myfirsts (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ! Thanks for responding earlier. Please suggest the way ahead.
 * Myfirsts (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Myfirsts, I haven't been following the discussion, so I'm not sure I can help much. Do you have an issue with the collection field saying "Private Collection"? ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 12:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ! This collection is "Private". It was claimed otherwise
 * based on CC license. Myfirsts (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So there is no more problem, right? ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ! For now, yes.
 * Myfirsts (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on rock climbs
I have done/tidied up articles on Wikipedia on famous rock climbs. It is very hard to get license-free images of the routes themselves that can be uploaded to WikiCommons. Am I allowed to upload 'non-license free' examples to en-WP under a non-free use rationale? For example, the famous route Indian Face has great non-free images showing how terrifying it is in this article. Am I allowed to upload one of these images (they are not large or high-res) under non-free use to en-WP for use in the article? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Aszx5000, in my opinion, this would unfortunately not be allowed. Even if no equivalent free images currently exist, the non-free image would likely be considered replaceable with a free image because it would be theoretically possible for someone to make the climb and take a picture themselves. ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Work. 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Pinxton Castle Lidar.png source says "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0"
Is that enough? It isn't one of the choices I get when I upload. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller Looks like you need OGL-3.0. If there's any attribution required, you can add it in the template. Nthep (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But how do I add that? It should be listed in the dropdown box. Doug Weller  talk 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * which upload method did you use? Nthep (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, there is a higher resolution (1m lidar) version available here (and is there a specific reason why it isn't on Commons?) –  Iso chrone (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks better. Are you saying it has a compatible licence? I used special upload.[Special:Upload] . If you mean my file, I didn’t want to upload to Commons without a licence.  Doug Weller  talk 19:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller All Environment Agency LiDAR data is released under the OGLv3. I am happy to move the file to Commons with the correct licence if you wish. –  Iso chrone (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be great, thanks. Doug Weller  talk 19:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅, see c:File:Pinxton Castle Lidar.png –  Iso chrone (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I definitely have to write the article instead of putting it off! Doug Weller  talk 19:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Link to IA copy of The Eternal Jew (film)
WP:COPYLINK states that if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. Since copyright protection in Germany technically lasts until 70 years after the author's death, would The Eternal Jew (film) be considered to be under copyright protection? And if so, should a link to the Internet Archive page hosting a copy of the film be included in the article under WP:COPYLINK? Liu1126 (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Essentially the same question I've poised above at so following. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The first question would be who actually owns the rights to the film. Is it a person, company, or defunct government? -- Green  C  15:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hard to say. My understanding of UrhG is that the director, screenwriter, and maybe even the editors, narrators, and cinematographers would hold joint authorship of the film (it seems that only individuals can hold copyright in Germany; companies and other organisations cannot). On the other hand, UrhG was first enacted in 1965, long after the film's publication in 1940; I'm not sure if it applies retroactively. Furthermore, given the film's sensitive nature in relation to antisemitism, some of the authors, especially the director, have regretted or denied their involvement in the film, which further complicates the issue of authorship. Liu1126 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, according to this paper in the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, Nazi propaganda and documentation materials generally remain under copyright, since many of their creators survived the War. I guess this answers the first question of copyright, so the situation is pretty much the same as ferret's question above (though I suspect the authors of these propaganda works may be less inclined to sue for copyright violations) . Liu1126 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's an awful lot of copyrighted works uploaded to Internet Archive, often by people who don't appear to have rights to do so - we should not be linking to books and films on the Internet Archive unless we either convince ourselves that they are PD or that they have been uploaded by someone with the rights to do so. If in doubt, don't link.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point, I've removed the link. Liu1126 (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The copyright on Mein Kampf was tightly held by the Government of Bavaria, which tried to tightly control who and how it was reproduced.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As per Copyright law of the European Union "For films and other audiovisual works, the 70-year period applies from the last death among the following people, whether or not they are considered to be authors of the work by the national law of the Member State: the principal director (who is always considered to be an author of the audiovisual work), the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work." So, in case of the Eternal Jew, the director died in 2002, so it will be copyrighted in Germany until 2073 (or longer, if I've missed someone.)
 * In the US, which is more relevant, I think it's probably in the public domain, since it probably wasn't renewed, and then the URAA wouldn't have restored copyright to a German governmental work. That's a gut feeling, because I don't have more time right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Yale Paper linked by Liu1126 is fascinating generally. There is a section starting on page 154 called "Anonymous Masses" that is purpose-written for sites like archive.org and Wikipedia, dealing with mass digitization, orphan works, libraries and copyright. Page 156 says the law allows libraries to archive these films, but they can only be viewed within the premise of the library. Internet Archive is a registered public library, but also entirely online, there is no physical library in the tradition sense, only racks of hard drives. The law has not accounted for this yet but the paper (2018) says there are efforts to do so. --  Green  C  15:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there an exception from the rule of the shorter term for US works under UK copyright law?
During my research for my post in the WMF blog for this year's Public Domain Day, I came across the odd fact that because of an 1892 agreement between Germany and the United States (de:), German copyright law disregards the rule of the shorter term for (some) US works.

This yields to the odd result that the 1928 Disney classic Steamboat Willie, while not being protected anymore in the United States, remains protected under German copyright law.

Could it be that the same applies to UK copyright law because of a similar agreement? Gnom (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not impossible, but the German rule appeared in a specific court case involving a specific bilateral treaty. Did the UK treaty say the same thing? (I'm a bit stunned that the Germans signed a treaty that was so lax and not explicit about US responsibilities; the US could remove all rights from all foreign works and still be in technical compliance with that treaty, and at the time it ensured that if a German publisher published simultaneously in the US, they could get US copyright.) Would a UK court rule that this treaty was still in effect; perhaps the mutual adherence of the UK and US to the UCC and later Berne superseded the previous treaty. I really don't know and don't see any advantage to second-guessing other sources unless the British government puts a stand on the matter.
 * https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-duration-of-copyright-term/copyright-notice-duration-of-copyright-term#foreign-works is the official UK statement on the matter. Robert Brauneis, a scholar in residence at the US Copyright Office, wrote https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2014/01/27/do-most-us-authors-still-only-enjoy-a-copyright-term-of-life-plus-50-in-the-eu/ saying "Some of them seem to provide for national treatment without any exception for term.  In 2003, the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main held that a US work was still under copyright in Germany even though its copyright in the US had lapsed, because of a national treatment obligation Germany had undertaken in an 1892 treaty between the US and the German Empire.  But there is still a great deal of uncertainty in this area: How should those treaties be interpreted? Is there legislation implementing them? And will courts be willing to apply the treaties in the absence of implementing legislation?"
 * Another gov.uk site points to https://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-notice-submit.htm and says "If you’d like more guidance about an area of copyright law[, y]ou can also ask IPO to publish guidance about an area of copyright law. They might publish a public ‘copyright notice’ if your question highlights a gap in the general copyright guidance." I'm happy to let it rest, but if you want the UK government opinion, they might give you one.
 * (Slightly off-topic, I find the rule of the shorter term to be a bad idea. For one, it means that a e.g. Thai judge has to interpret hairy points about where France's "died for France" extensions are still in effect, who could file a US copyright renewal and when, and how Russia's rehabilitation extensions work, even if they have little English, less French, and no Russian. For another, it's driven copyright extensions; increasing a copyright duration locally is going to be a economic loss or draw, with local publishers and artists arguing for and against it, but increasing local works' copyright duration in foreign nations is an economic win, so copyright holders argue for extensions based on the rule of the shorter term giving longer terms in foreign nations.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these thoughts, @Prosfilaes. Let me quickly respond to a couple of points you raised: (1) Yes, the German treaty is very real and does have the effect of granting Steamboat Willie continued protection. The Brauneis article is outdated because the German Federal Court of Justice has since decided on the issue. (2) What I am interested in is actually the UK lex scripta on this issue.
 * Therefore, as a starting point, can you help me check whether there is a similar agreement for the UK, whether it is still in force, and if it contains an exception from the rule of the shorter term? Gnom (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Having looked through UK treaties, I see no treaty on the subject. Looking through US historical records, it seems the UK permitted US citizens to register copyrights in the British Empire without need for a treaty, and correspondingly the US extended the same privileges to British citizens (by presidential proclamation) without further formalities. That's as far as I'm interested in going, as I find the whole thing a little quixotic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)