This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.
One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
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]
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]
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: , 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]
"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):
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.
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]
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?
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.
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?
Not to attend a service, though it is common to donate some money, but there is no set amount.
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).
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.
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).
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.)
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]
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]
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]
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]
This is somewhat related to the project described at outreachdashboard.wmflabs and at fr.wikipedia (just for more general context, you don't have to read it, it's about the Wikipedia aspect).
The photos were taken with a "photobooth"-type system, where an organization installs a camera box, background etc. at an event and people take their self-portraits by getting in front of the backround and activating the camera and the flash by pressing a button.
There could be various possible interpretations of the situation. 1) From past discussions, I think that in this sort of situation, Commons attributes the copyright to each subject who takes their own portrait (they choose their pose, they press the button). 2) Or the copyright could be to the organization (who installed and chose how they placed the elements). 3) Or there is no copyright to anyone (no original creativity). 4) Ot the copyright is shared by the subject and the organization (both contributed).
The subjects of the photos are writers in Canada. The organization who managed the project is named Rhizome.
The photos were uploaded to Commons by a user working for Rhizome and who is one of the contacts with Wikimedia.
That user uploaded the photos under the license CC BY-SA 4.0 with the source "own work" and the "self" template and her username in the author field. The "own work" and "self" and that username in the author field can be ignored and replaced with the correct information. As the user specified in this discussion on her talk page, she was inexperienced with Commons, the photos are not her individual works and what she meant is that she was uploading them for Rhizome, which is the source.
Rhizome had the good idea of getting a written form signed by the subjects when the photos were taken. With that form, the subjects consented to a free license, which is a good thing, but the wording of the form could be interpreted in different ways, as detailed below.
A copy of the unsigned form (not the five hundred signed copies!) was sent to VRT.
The form has some blah blah that I do not copy here. The more relevant paragraph of the form reads as follows (the original in French, and my approximative personal translation to English):
"Je consens à la publication de ma photographie sous licence libre, à sa republication, à sa distribution, à la publication de travaux dérivés et à son utilisation commerciale. Je comprends également que la licence est perpétuelle (sans date d'expiration) et non révocable."
Translation: "I consent to the publication of my photograph under free license, to its republication, to its distribution, to the publication of derivative works and to its commercial use. I understand that the license is perpetual (no expiration date) and non revocable."
As we can see, it explains the notion of a free license, which is good, but it does not specify a precise license and it might leave open the question of who holds the copyright and issues the license. I certainly hope that we can arrive at an interpretation that is satisfactory for keeping the files with what is already there. Obviously, it would not be possible to contact again the hundreds of subjects. I think there are two main possible interpretations:
A) The copyright of a self-portrait is owned by the subject. By signing the form, the subject agreed to offer a free license and delegated to Rhizome the choice of the precise license.
Or B) The form signed by the subject could be interpreted either as an acknowledgement that the copyright is held by Rhizome, or as a cession of the copyright to Rhizome. And Rhizome offers the license.
Opinions about the best thing to do with those files? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These photobooth photos are basically en:selfies and should be treated as such. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense. So, given the situation as it is, do you think that Commons can keep the photos with the rationale described in "A" above, i.e. the copyright of a self-portrait is owned by the subject, and the written form is to be read as meaning that the subject agrees to offer a free license and delegates to Rhizome the choice of the precise license? Or with the rationale described in "B", i.e. the written form is to be read as meaning that the subject transfers the copyright to Rhizome? Does Commons need to obtain copies of all the hundreds of signed forms? (I suppose it may be possible to obtain them from Rhizome.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that if we decide that the general situation is acceptable, then we can trust Rhizome that they obtained the relevant releases from individuals.
It's really too bad Rhizome wasn't specific about the intended free license including derivative works and commercial use. I'm kind of on the fence about whether the permission they got is specific enough or not. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just thought of a solution. If the CC BY-SA 4.0 license cannot be justified by the notion that the authors authorized Rhizome to choose that license in their name, then, on the description pages, we could replace the CC BY-SA 4.0 tag with a custom free license which uses literally the exact wording of the paragraph quoted in italics above. After all, it is a free license. We can take it as it is. It never needed to be transformed into a CC BY-SA 4.0. The user at Rhizome worked much in function of Wikipedia and she may have been under the wrong impression that she had to upload the files to Commons with CC BY-SA 4.0 because it is the licence of Wikipedia, and she may not have realized that it was not necessary for Commons. For Commons, using exactly the paragraph of the form signed by the authors of the photos as being actually the custom free license issued directly by the authors seems a good solution that can make everything fine. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it looks like a custom free license. CC licenses have many specific conditions to which the author did not agree when they signed that form. Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed conclusion:
Considering the comments above, I would like to conclude this section with a clear idea of what to do. Can there be consensus that the files can be hosted on Commons without problem, with the following precisions made to their description pages: the author field will have the name of the person who took the self-portrait, the source field can have Productions Rhizome, and the license, granted by the authors by the text quoted above, can be expressed on Commons either with the template Copyrighted free use or with a specific template to be created. (Supplemental question: which of those two types of templates would be better?) There are 583 files. Any objections, suggestions, comments? -- Asclepias (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there are no objections, I will go ahead and make the simple changes. I think I will use the existing template Copyrighted free use. A specific template could always be added later if useful. Copying the names of the authors from each filename and pasting them to the author field can be more complex, maybe a bot could help with that part? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to come late with an objection, but we have some conflict now with a claim that we received at the support team per Ticket:2023081410007374. I was the agent who processed that ticket. Within the correspomdence therein, I expressed doubts that those photos are really selfies. And I still have those doubts. All those photos are made with the same professional camera (Canon EOS 6D), and it is very unlikely that the persons photographed have made the settings for focus, exposure, framing, etc. These settings have been made by someone who operated the camera, and the photographed persons have only assumed the position and pressed the shutter button. Hence the creative work is with the camera operator, and they own the copyright. – After I had written that to the client, we received a permission mail at VRT claiming that their director was in deed that camera operator, and that he granted permission per cc-by-sa-4.0. – Sorry for this confusion that comes from the fact that there were two different lines of communication. At VRT, we did not know about the discussion here. --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've noticed that many files on Commons are marked as copyrighted, typically under a CC or GNU license, despite containing little to no originality by the creator. Here are two examples:
Many files in Category:Musical_symbols are marked as copyrighted, like this one (). They are very simple and common symbols, or combinations thereof. Also compare with the metadata for this file.
Are the copyright notices for these legitimate, or are they actually in the public domain? If the painting photograph is copyrighted, would it still have been so without the frame or distortion, and would a derivative with those things removed be subject to the copyright?
— WeatherWonders (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photographs of 3D objects, like that frame, are not pure copies. To the extent it's reproducing the painting, it's not copyrightable in the US and under PD-Art.
SVG files are XML files, and can contain arbitrary text. This one contains only curve data, and was possibly automatically generated (says "Generator: Gravit.io" at the top of the SVG file), but SVG files are considerably more complicated to judge for copyright than PNG files.
Ultimately, ineligible copyright can be a complex rule, and can vary around the world, which doesn't matter for Commons under PD-Art, but may matter for reusers. So such licenses should be moved to {{Licensed-PD-Art}} instead of deleted altogether, and I'd say it's not something that a lot of people want to put time in, considering the possibility of making things worse and removing a valid license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The case in Germany is a bit tricky. For image like these, it might also that the work gains a protection of around 50 years. Pure technical reproductions like scans of book pages usually don't create new copyright, but photographs taken with a camera may gain a protection, depending on the creative influence --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tracings (or other representations) of structural artworks[edit]
Hey all,
I'm currently drafting a page regarding the "Arkville Maze", which is a rather unique modern stone maze built around 50 years ago (not technically a labyrinth, but in that design).
However, the maze is privately owned and most photos of it are either satellite / helicopter photography or photos taken by trespassers and people with (rather rare) permissions to tour the maze.
To my understanding screenshots from things like google satellite are not permitted, but would a tracing (by myself) of arial photography showing the maze be allowed? As in, I have traced over the maze and added small indications to the end points within it. I'd really like some type of visual representation in order to demonstrate the rough scale & design of the structure, and it would be a shame for an article on essentially an artwork to not have a photo, but I'm not sure if this is permissible either here or onto English Wikipedia directly.
Thank you! Let me know if I can clarify in any places.
For the record, this was originally asked at the Help desk. My take was "seems to me it's going to be a derivative work no matter what you do. Probably acceptable within the English-language Wikipedia as fair use if uploaded there for use in a specific article, but probably not acceptable for Commons. But it is a weird case..." and I suggested that the user take it here in case someone sees a way around this. - Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a reference, it may be interesting to check what are Google Maps and OSM doing with this mace, but I can't locate it in the maps.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For ages we have taken for granted that there is FOP in Spain, based in the article 35.2 of the Spanish copyright law. However, this article has been limited by article 40bis, which states that 35.2 (as all other articles of that chapter) only applies if it is not "unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer". Effectively, there are a number of sentences from Spanish courts against commercial use of works of art situated in public spaces, including Monumento a Los Raqueros and the Toro de Osborne. In both cases, the copyrighted element was extracted from its surroundings and commercialized, so it is very clear that FOP in Spain do not cover this kind of commercial use, and who attempts to do that may effectively be sued with success. This is the case as well with Portugal and Brazil, for instance: FOP is strictly limited to the cases where there is any panorama or scenery surrounding the copyrighted work.
However, this source which deals with it in "page 74 and following, in page 75 goes further and states: "After the introduction into our legal system of Article 40 bis of the LPI, the doctrine that has dealt with this issue has unanimously ruled against allowing, under the protection of Article 35.2 of the LPI, the use of works located in public places when there are profit-making purposes." (my emphasis) This source states a similar conclusion: "Authorization or permission required not for transforming or photographing the work, but for exploiting the results of the transformation."(my emphasis, pag. 44), that is, it's OK to represent the work, it's not ok to commercialize that representation or derivate work, even if it is situated in a public space.
At the very least, COM:FOP Spain should be clarified to state that it does not cover any file where the copyrighted work has been isolated from it's surrounding panorama. At worst, it should be entirely revoked. DarwinAhoy! 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Note that similar language appears in the FoP provision in several other countries, such as Mexico: "siempre que no se afecte la explotación normal de la obra" = "provided that the normal exploitation of the work is not adversely affected thereby". In COM:FOP Portugal, it is claimed that such a provision is required to comply with the Berne three-step test. So I think you're basically claiming that no country can have commercial FoP and remain Berne-compliant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts: as DarwIn states, the central issue isn't legislation (which seems to be very similar to a lot of other FoP adhering states), but the consolidated jurisprudence from Spanish courts. They seem to have a very strict interpretation of what constitutes "unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author" where any penny you extract from the work you created is a penny denied to the original author (i.e. no commercial use is allowed under FoP). Jurisprudence is an important part of a country's legal system and if that's the case then clearly FoP is effectively revoked. I don't know enough about Spanish jurisprudence to unambiguously affirm that this is the case (and I sincerely hope it's not). Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts You seem to ignore that the origin of every FOP provision - at least the ones I have seen, which are many - is that it is not fair that people can't freely register a panorama in a public place due to copyrighted artworks being in the way, most notably architecture works, but also everything else - here for more info on that. These provisions allow you to register a panorama, not to isolate the copyrighted artwork itself and sell copies of it, as it would quite obviously interfere with the legitimate interests of the author. Therefore, as a general case, you can not isolate the artwork from its surrounding panorama and use it in the terms of a free license without risking being successfully sued by the author. Portugal, Brazil, Spain, and eventually many other countries have clear jurisprudence covering that. In the case of Spain, however, what the sources say is that it apply to any commercial use of the representation or derivative work, not only to the isolated version of it. If you know otherwise, please present reliable sources stating that. DarwinAhoy! 20:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DarwIn: I am trying to understand what you are arguing. Let's consider these three cases:
A. Photographing a sculpture in isolation, such that the sculpture is the sole subject of the photo, and commercializing the photo.
B. Photographing a garden which contains a sculpture, featuring the sculpture as an important (but not the only) element in the photo, and commercializing the photo.
C. Incidentally including a sculpture as a tiny, unimportant part of a photo of a garden (COM:DM), and commercializing the photo.
As I understand it, you are saying that in the UK (which has no such provisions in the law), A, B, and C are acceptable; in Portugal and Brazil, B and C are acceptable; in Spain, only C is acceptable. Is this an accurate summary of your position? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts No, that is not "my position" at all, that is what is stated in the mentioned sources, and a number of others referred in COM:FOP Spain, which you for some bizarre reason keep ignoring and attributing to me instead. Please stop misrepresenting what the sources say as if it was some sort of personal interpretation of myself. I don't know what you are trying to do with that, but anyone can check and verify by themselves what is there. DarwinAhoy! 21:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long-standing Commons practice is that A, B, and C are all OK in the UK, Portugal, Brazil, and Spain. So what you are proposing is definitely a major change to Commons policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts Long-standing Commons practice is that the law and jurisprudence of each country is to be respected, regarding copyright. Or do you know otherwise? DarwinAhoy! 21:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm simply considering the practical implications of adopting your position. We would need to file mass DRs of public art across dozens of countries if what you're saying is true. Let's wait for others to opine before taking such a drastic step. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts Again, this is not "my position". Please stop repeating that, it is intellectually dishonest. I've dedicated a considerable part of my free time today to research this topic and collect academic sources and jurisprudence about it in order to present a well sourced vision of the case, please have some respect and properly attribute the claims we are discussing here. As for mass-DRs, we are discussing Spain and Spain alone, do not bring other countries with different laws and different jurisprudence into this. DarwinAhoy! 22:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you should not hold so much confidence in your own research that you feel inclined to unilaterally override the collective wisdom of the Commons community accumulated over the last 10+ years. I've reverted your change to COM:FOP Spain; if your analysis is solid, then people will agree with you, and with sufficient consensus we can go ahead and make the change. Let's not put the cart before the horse here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts I'm not "overriding" anything, I've been quoting ipsis verbis from the court decisions and jurisprudence. I really fail to understand your point here, and why you recklessly removed a lot of fundamented information from COM:FOP Spain, in clear disrespect for this project policies, above them the precautionary principle. Please understand that it is not because you do not agree with court decisions and written jurisprudence that your dreams will become true, you are only subjecting whoever reuses that content from Commons to being successfully sued, as happened before in the cases described there. DarwinAhoy! 22:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am simply enforcing Commons norms around consensus. No matter how many times you repeat it, with the exception of WMF intervention (e.g. COM:DMCA), there is no such thing as "the law" here, only individuals' interpretation of the law, and consensus always overrides the individual unless the individual successfully argues for the consensus to be overturned. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One common misconception I see around COM:PCP is that it somehow implies that we should expedite the deletion of files whose freeness is unclear. If that were the case, then we would not have a DR process at all; we would just speedy-delete everything that could not be proven to be free. Instead, we have three tracks: 1) if a file is proven to be a copyvio, then it should be speedily deleted; 2) if a file is proven to be free, then it should be summarily kept; 3) if there is significant doubt about whether a file is free, then it should be sent to DR. Either the doubts are resolved, or the file is deleted at the end if there is insufficient evidence of either (this is where PCP kicks in). By analogy, there is no rush to make changes here. There has not been any major incident caused by the existing COM:FOP Spain interpretation in the last 10+ years, so it doesn't hurt to wait a few more days to gather everyone's input to refine our understanding of Spanish law. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts I must say it's kind of appalling seeing you state that because you have no personal knowledge of problems related to reuse of Commons photos in this situation, we can get away with ignoring the Spanish court sentences about it, and the extensive and very consistent written jurisprudence, juridical analysis and academic works on the subject by specialists, including some entirely dedicated to this specific point.
So, will we be able to get away with hosting these copyvios here? I'm kind of sceptic your approach will work, but I'm curious, let's see if the community approves. In any case, if we counter Spanish jurisprudence and tell people Spain has FOP, it's the reuser who suffers, not us 🤷🏽♂️. DarwinAhoy! 23:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts: why on Earth would Spanish jurisprudence, which is the cornerstone of the argument here, have any sort of impact elsewhere? Are you doing this on purpose? Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, we can focus on Spain here. But I think it is helpful to have some understanding of what "normal exploitation" means in general. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts: it is extremely helpful, no doubt, and I'd love to do that anywhere else. But unless one of us is a judge in Spain, and alas I'm not, our conclusion would amount to nothing in here. All that matters in this topic is whether DarwIn's well-founded perception that Spain's courts consistently rule against any kind of commercial use under FoP is true. All the rest is just chit-chat. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment We have hosted this kind of images for years. Copyright rules here have been under careful scrutiny by many people, so unless there is a recent change in law, I doubt a completely different interpretation of the law is valid. In short, I am with King of Hearts here. Yann (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the issue more about the usage of the photo (it's legit to shoot a panorama in Spain, regardless the artworks in the way) than (direct) a copyright issue. For instance, you cannot cut the Toro de Osborne from the background and sell is as keychain for instance.
Reading the RIPAC 10/2018, it appears that the concern is about the reuse of an original 3D artwork in a 3D environment (videogames, VR, etc.) or of material reproductions of the original artwork. There is the concept of "uso inocuo" that is central in this matter: if a reproduction of the artwork is sold in direct competition with the author (it's the "perjuicio injustificado a los intereses legítimos" o "detrimento de la explotación normal de las obras"). Other usages, like a commercial usage of a reproduction in a book or in a web service (e.g. Google Maps), is part of the FoP.
The conclusions clearly state that
the artworks fall under FoP if they are not in a private land;
it is possible to create derivative works of protected works via painting, drawing, photography and videos only;
the commercial usage is not allowed if it reasonably directly affects the author's rights (as said above).
Finally, I suppose that we can keep our photos, but we must add some text to the {{FoP-Spain}} template to clarify these exceptions. Ruthven(msg) 09:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we already have this kind of restrictions for other countries. It is not allowed to recreate the depicted artwork, but the pictures are still OK. For 3D art and architecture, there is no issue. For 2D art, the situation is less clear, as where is the limit between a depiction of the artwork and the reproduction of the artwork? Yann (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann In RIPAC 10/2018 it is explicitly stated that under the existing Spanish jurisprudence, these pictures are not OK, if the use is commercial: "Con respecto al uso comercial de las manifestaciones secundarias, es preciso avanzar que, de forma reiterada, los tribunales nacionales han excluido este uso de las excepciones a los derechos de explotación previstas en la LPI / Regarding the commercial use of secondary manifestations, it is necessary to point out that national courts have repeatedly excluded this use from the exceptions to the exploitation rights provided for in the Intellectual Property Law." (p. 29). This is stated as well in a number of other sources, which also explicitly mention photography. DarwinAhoy! 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven I have seen discussions around 1), though it was not my focus on the search I was doing. If I well recall, Germany has a similar disposition? If this is the case, it would exclude a vast number of architecture works from FoP, since what seems to mater is the location of the artwork in a public space and not that it can be seen from a public space.
As for 3), the current jurisprudence and Spanish juridical interpretations, and apparently all related court sentences since 1998 (when Article 40bis was introduced in the law) state that no commercial usage is allowed under the Spanish law, so I'm kind of wary to accept that Spain really has a FOP disposition, at least in practice. In any case, I believe that we should explicitly forbid all cases where the copyrighted work has been detached from the surrounding panorama, as these ones, from what we know, would most probably not survive if challenged on court. DarwinAhoy! 09:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven I'm not that sure even about File:El Toro Osborne 09 (7007916895).jpg, as the 2006 court sentence about it stated that the cultural value of the silhuete which allowed for it's reuse by the population in any circumstance would cover commercial use. DarwinAhoy! 14:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann The matter here is that no research has been done on the FOP situation of Spain before, or it was very superficial - it is not that a "different interpretation" was used for years. The Spanish court cases and juridical information on the mater is quite assertive that no commercial use is allowed under Article 35.2, and in fact I couldn't find any interpretation supporting a different point of view. Obviously, I will not foam from the mouth and melt like the Wicked Witch of the West if the jurisprudence of the Spanish courts and jurists continue to be ignored in Commons, but it comes to me as quite reckless, nevertheless. DarwinAhoy! 09:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simple and clear: if the aforementioned interpretation of the law was the correct, then Spanish courts would have requested "something" to us after almost 20 years of FoP-Spain pictures being hosted on Commons. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This subject has also been addressed hereB25es (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@B25es Thanks a lot for the heads up. Looks like muddy stuff, no? But at a minimum, I believe there is a consensus that:
Current state of FOP in Spain is unclear, as are the limits of that FOP, though there is not an obvious court case involving copyrighted works inserted in the surrounding panorama; we can allow them, here, with warnings about the uncertainty and the limits we know (some mentioned above by @Ruthven, and others that are known like the limitation to exterior places;
Images which consist only in depictions of a copyrighted work (and no panorama), even if placed in public spaces, should not be allowed in Commons, per the existing court jurisprudence.
Do you consider this an accurate summary of this discussion, and the one at wiki.es VP? DarwinAhoy! 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that stuff is muddy. Every time I realize that I live in a continent full of lawyers, I get scared.
It's been always clear that being in the street is not enough to be subject for Freedom of Panorama. The example is that you cannot take a copyrighted item, take it outdoors for a while, and take pictures to upload. That's never been in consideration by those who upload Spanish stuff to Commons. And I think that covers #2.
There are several court rulings as of what is protected. Sagrada Família and Toro de Osborne and the Cantabro Desconocido won. Others lost. Problem: opinions are like bellies, every judge and law expert has one. FOP is like most rules on most books: subject to interpretation.
Risk does allways exist. I know a fellow -I'm having coffee with his parents in 36 minutes- who after two years walking an exit corridor was said to leave by another exit: a 1944 artillery shell had been found near the first one. Yes. Risks do exist. I have to live with them, being druken drivers or opinion changing Law People.
I will take my wife and my car and go and take photos of stuff. As for Toros de Osborne, Sagrades Famílies and Cantabrian Esculptors ... ¡Qué les den! (For many years I called the Atomium "Monumento a la Visita de la Enriqueta". Reason: if you don't want your monument shown, who cares how it's named). Right now we've tens of thousands of stuff to photograph. I'm enterely sure that given time and lawyers, this picture will be subject to many rights and licenses and stuff. I could be sentenced to life in prison or worse. But I won't care because I have a life to live.
I understand your worries and if a note on FoP banner helps to ease them, so be it. But I'm pretty sure that more and more "interpretaciones de la Ley" will follow. B25es (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@B25es Thank you very much. Could you please review what is written at COM:FOP Spain, and complete and/or adapt according to what you think would be reasonable to protect reusers, and exclude obvious cases from upload? And also eventually more people from wiki.es, who are familiar to the subject? DarwinAhoy! 23:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mostly agree with @Ruthven at Revision #793885553. To avoid inserting a wall of text, I have created a subpage in my user space where I am trying to compile scholar opinions and court decisions about the issues discussed in this thread. —MarcoAurelio 22:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, I wanted to find out about copyright issues of older photographs in the UK. I've read this link about the 70 years thumb rule, but Commons only specifies this rule for the USA. What's the deal here? Tnx. Virum Mundi (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both. So is it safe to say that a photograph taken towards the end of the 19th century by a person who died in 1900, and which appears digitalised on the Royal Collection Trust's website, is ok to upload under {{Template:PD-old-70-expired}}, or should I look into other details? Also, what about the following cases:
A digitalised illustration drawn by an (anonymous as far as I can tell) artist in 1847.
An arial photo taken by a RAF pilot (unknown as far as I can tell) in 1930.
@Virum Mundi: Ay. I think the RCT may be one of the sites that attempt to claim a copyright falsely, so {{PD-Scan|PD-old-70-expired}}</code> or <code>{{PD-Scan|PD-UK-anon}} (as appropriate) may be slightly more appropriate. But only use PD-scan if they do claim a copyright on them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Picture of me and my name uploaded without my permission[edit]
Someone made a picture of me wearing a T-shirt with a message and with a text with my full name under the picture; and uploaded it to this Wikimedia Commons platform without my permission. I would like to remove that picture and all the text. I have had several problems during many years in interviews due to that picture and now I want you to help me remove it.
The Wkimedia COmmons policy on photographing identifiable people is at COM:PEOPLE. It is probably best if you look at that page and clarify why the image should be remnoved. The coutnry where the photo was taken is important as that law applies as well as US law. Martinvl (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My country is Spain. In the picture I cannot be identified as the picture shows only the T-shirt but my name is under it and when you look for my name on Google search this page shows up. I would like to eliminate the picture or at least to delete my name from it as it is causing me professional issues. 212.104.185.128 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The use of OP's name is not a copyright issue, but can be reminded by editing and renaming the page; no deletion is required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 02:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria says use "{{PD-Algeria}} – for other works." However this template doesn't give any information about the situation described in the "Durations" section. Concerned file is File:Carte Etat Major Sidi Aich.png. I suppose that Algerian law is the relevant law for this map made by the French Army Cartography department before independence. Copyright status in USA is also uncertain. Yann (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann If the map was produced by France, the applicable French law would certainly apply. I can't see how Algeria would have anything to do with it, if it didn't even existed at the time of production. DarwinAhoy! 10:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann If it's from 1885 with minor improvements, PD-old-100 would apply, no? But only comparing both versions (1885 and 1955) to be sure. DarwinAhoy! 10:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The important is not where it was produced, but where it was published. Usually we assume that a document pertaining to somewhere is first published in that place, unless evidence to the opposite. But if it was first published in France, and if it is sufficiently different from the 1885 version, then it still under a copyright for us, and until 2026. Yann (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are PD maps of Algeria, but at a larger scale, here. Yann (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann From what I can read in Carte d'état-major, it was produced by France for publication and sale, with all certainty produced and published in Paris, France. But even if it was first published in Algeria, I don't see how there could exist any connection with the modern state of Algeria, which didn't even existed at the time the map was published, and AFAIK didn't inherited the jurisdiccion of the former colonial laws. this is part of a map from 1885 from the same producer. It looks very different from the 1955 map (lettering, drawing, sinalectic, etc), so I would assume that that Sidi Aich map is indeed a copyright violation both in France and the US. DarwinAhoy! 21:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann In the case of the former Portuguese empire, Portugal courts kept the jurisdiction over any situation occurred before independence of the new states. I've not checked the case of France, but it seems to me very probable that any case that happened before independence would be dealt with on French courts, not Algerian, as well. DarwinAhoy! 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've ran into similar issues with stamps myself a couple of times and at least how I look at it is if the artist was a French citizen, the stamps was published by the French postal service, and the successor country didn't exist at the time then there's reason it wouldn't have been copyrighted in France. There's no way that a country like Algeria could litigate such a claim even if they wanted to anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO it is more complicated than that. File:Stamp of Algeria - 1955 - Colnect 192594 - Patio of Bardo Museum.jpeg was only released in Algeria, so Algeria should count as place of first publication. So Algerian law is OK in this case. The other stamp I mentioned above is a derivative work of a French stamp, so French law should be used. It doesn't matter who designed the stamp, and where it was printed if it is in the public domain where it was first published. Yann (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, "sometimes" it's more complicated then that. I don't think it is in this specific case though. But we will have to agree to disagree. Except I will say it's not about the "place" of first publication, but the "country." To quote Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Berne Convention "the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work." At least IMO it's spurious to say the modern country of Algeria is the "country of origin" of the stamps or that they were created "in" Alegeria when didn't exist at the time. We will have to agree to disagree though. I don't think how to handle licenses of works created under former colonies is something that can or should be decided on by a few people in a random discussion anyway. There should really be an RfC about it involving participation by the wider community and people who actually know the legal area at some point. Since licensing in such cases seems to be inconsistent at best. This clearly isn't it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. It seems to me quite absurd that new countries would somehow inherit jurisdiction over situations that had absolutely nothing to do with them and their laws. And, indeed, all court cases about situations that happened before independence (I recall one of a bank worker who was not paid, for instance) are sent to Portuguese courts, as they own jurisdiction over these cases. In the case of Portugal maybe it's an easier situation, as in the 1930s or so the state declared ever former colony to be an effective province of Portugal (very much like French Guyana is now), and in the specific case of copyright, the law was the same. One would need to look at how French colonial court cases are dealt with. DarwinAhoy! 01:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not absurd. That's how it works by decisions of the legislation and the courts. For example, that's the case for the countries which were part of the Soviet Union. Yann (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's absurd at all. Each territory has its own legal history, even when it was a colony. For colonies, the parent country's law often did apply, or applied in part (and court appeals probably followed that path), but it's still legal history -- there is such thing as continuity of laws, or legal continuity.[2] Even with revolutions, or conquering countries, or whatever -- there can be some large legal changes, but usually the majority of other laws remain in place until actively changed. That can often include copyright law. The UK explicitly applied its copyright laws to their colonies, but sometimes taking effect at a later date than in the UK itself, or with small tweaks, and that sort of thing. India joined the Berne Convention in 1928, long before it became fully independent. And there are always degrees of independence; each situation could be a bit different. If something was published in say Czechoslovakia, which is now two countries, what is the country of origin today? You can't say that all authors from that era lost their copyright. Such works would probably be considered "simultaneously published" in both successor countries, and you would apply copyright in each country (and others) per whatever laws are today. After independence, the parent country would no longer be the highest court you could appeal to, but usually the courts in the newly independent country would rule based on the laws previously in place (until changed). Algeria existed as a separate legal territory before independence -- it was not part of France proper.
The Berne Convention rules on "country of origin" get a bit odd in the "simultaneous publication" situation, and I'm not aware of any court cases which really depended on questions surrounding it, so not sure we have much guidance. On its face though, it could be reasonable to accept any modern Berne country where the original work was actually distributed (within 30 days) within its territory at the time. A work first published in India in 1925 would continue to be an Indian work today, I'd think. That could lead to bizarre situations as countries join or leave the Convention -- can the U.S. be considered the "country of origin" for any of its works published before 1989? If so, then a country can inherit "country of origin" status when it joins, which may change the legal situation in other countries too. The "country of origin" for simultaneously published works is the country among those with the shortest duration (probably based on their current terms, not earlier non-Berne-conformant shorter terms, though that is also a gray area). That normally only really affects countries which use the rule of the shorter term when determining protection for a foreign work (nationals are generally protected by their own law in their own country regardless of where published), so this rarely if ever comes up in court, but per Commons' rules it could have larger impacts here. The URAA uses the term "source country" which is similar but does not have the 30-day window, and uses a more common sense "greatest contacts with the work" tiebreaker for works simultaneously published on the same day.
I tend to agree that the stamp primarily distributed in Algeria would have Algeria as the country of origin. One primarily used in France proper may continue to be only France -- but if also used in their colonies, it may get more difficult, since it could be simultaneously published in both. It would certainly still be under copyright protection in France, and Europe for that matter, due to nationality of author but non-Europe shorter-term countries get more interesting. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria is actually pretty lacking on historical information, which is important since their laws have generally been non-retroactive. en:Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights#endnote_tab_algeria gives a fuller account, which is that Algeria's 1973 law was 25pma, and anonymous works were 25 years from publication. They changed that in 1997, non-retroactively increasing to 50pma and 50 years from publication for anonymous works, then joined the Berne Convention in 1998 (so the URAA date for them is in 1998). But that means that any anonymous works published before 1972 would continue to be public domain inside Algeria. If Algeria is considered the URAA "source country", then there would be no URAA restoration for those. For the map... you could argue that something produced by the French army was intended for use across the French Union, so you could at least argue simultaneous publication status. The URAA is a closer question... seems more likely to me France would be the source country given the authorship, but given it's a map of Algeria it may not be entirely clear. Additionally, the "French Union" at the time meant they did consider all colonies part of France proper, so anything published in France might well be considered simultaneously published in all such territories on the same day by that de jure definition (though it did not match reality, especially in Algeria, and that outlook did change completely in 1956 when colonies were allowed autonomy again). You also get into questions of whether the 1955 updates qualified for copyright, but without the 1885 version to compare against we may not be able to rely on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there is such thing as continuity of laws, or legal continuity. Sure, I was actually going to mention that. But there isn't continuity of laws in all (if not most) cases and we shouldn't assume there is by default just because it's convenient. In this case I haven't seen any evidence there was legal continuity, and I doubt there is any since like you say the guideline for Algeria is lacking historical information. Although there could have been. We really don't know, but that's kind of the point, that it should be taken on a case by case basis depending on the countries, historical context, and what exactly is being discussed.
There are instances, like the United States occupation of the Philippines or Japanese occupation of Malaysia, where the stamps are licensed in the occupier countries regardless of them being published in the Philippines or Malaysia. So it really should be judged on a case by case basis depending on the evidence. I don't really see what the difference between those instances and a stamp published in a former colony is though. It's at least inconsistent if nothing else. Like I said already, there should really be an RfC about it or at least people should put effort into finding out what exactly the legal situation is for each country that use to be a former colony. Otherwise I don't see why we wouldn't just assume the copyright didn't transfer over and is still be held by the actual country of origin at the time. Since that's the country's legal system the work was created under. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is continuity of law in virtually all cases. Otherwise, it would be complete anarchy. You may be able to find some cases, but they are exceedingly rare. In Algeria's case, they likely moved to replace almost the entire legal code as quickly as possible, as I'm sure it was viewed negatively by most by that point. But it goes through a process of repeal and replacement nonetheless. If you searched, you should find the evidence that you haven't seen (such as here -- they worked to replace the entire civil code within 2-3 years of independence). Of course they had legal continuity. Are you suggesting that murder is not punishable until new laws are passed? It's possible the copyright law was completely repealed until 1973, or de facto ignored. I'm not sure I see an explicit repeal provision in that 1973 law, but they have had de jure copyright at least since then, which applied to existing works. The way that law was worded, any earlier copyright did not have any further relevance, as far as I can tell -- they preserved nothing (which is fine, of course). If you have any particular references to show, please do.
As for your other examples, those would be examples of simultaneous publication. If they were printed and distributed in the occupier country, then yes they were published there. If they were also distributed in the occupied country at the same time (within 30 days) -- a pretty easy assumption -- then they were also published there. Whichever country has the shorter term would be the country of origin. The copyright owner doesn't change (in this case still the French government), as there is never a "transfer" when countries change, but the question is its treatment in other countries. We use "country of origin" because expiry there means it will expire in shorter-term countries (not nearly all of them). The definition can lead to some odd results, but authors can always publish in other countries and there may be unanticipated consequences of doing so (not in France, but elsewhere). If a French author simultaneously published in the US in the 1950s, that meant they lost any URAA rights they had in 1996. In Algeria's case, per French Algeria, France considered Algeria as part of France (much like French Guiana now) from 1848 to 1962. So I guess in that case, French laws were considered to apply directly. In that case, anything published in France was also technically simultaneously published in Algeria too, until the countries split apart. Algeria could not qualify as the Berne country of origin until 1998 (they were UCC members from 1973, not Berne), but it can now. For URAA restoration, a work would have to have some specific contacts with Algeria for it to be the "source country", though. A 1955 map of Algeria might qualify there, as it may be a reasonable assumption that copies were distributed inside Algeria for use there. Obviously nothing is certain, as the "country of origin" definition hasn't really been tested in courts for a number of these oddball edge cases, as it rarely comes into practical play (and even courts can disagree). The facts of each case, as you say, could change the treatment, and it may come down to some community consensus for a particular situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is continuity of law in virtually all cases. Otherwise, it would be complete anarchy. If you say so. Wouldn't it depend on the circumstances and laws though? Even if I grant you that's the case just because there's continuity of "law" doesn't mean there's "continuity" of every law, or more specifically copyright law. Regardless, it's totally ridiculous hyperbole to suggest there would be anarchy if there wasn't continuity of copyright laws. In most cases transferring it over is more of a legal formality then anything. It's not like there's a run on of court houses by artists the second former colonies become independent countries lol. But hey, who needs evidence that copyright laws were transferred over when we can just act like they must of have been because there would be chaos in the streets otherwise.
If you searched, you should find the evidence that you haven't seen. I actually did search for some evidence, I just didn't find any. That doesn't mean I didn't look though. Maybe assume some good faith instead of treating me like I just pulled what I said out of thin air for no reason. What I said about how it should be based on the the country, historical context, and what exactly is being discussed stands regardless of the circumstances in Alegria anyway.
As for your other examples, those would be examples of simultaneous publication. No they aren't. At least with the Philippines stamps published there during US Administration weren't also published in America at the time, or really ever. They were just published in the Philippines. Of course there are some exceptions from the beginning where stamps of the United States were overprinted with "Philippines", but stamps like the one on this cover were solely published in the Philippines yet are still licensed as PD-USGov. Like I've said twice now, the whole thing is inconsistent at best. If not totally subjective. And I still don't generally see what the difference is between a stamp published in the Philippines under US occupation and one published in a former colony. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True about copyright law specifically. But if you inherit a legal system, and copyright comes along with it, then what would make that special? It's entirely true that copyright law could be completely ignored in practice, or could be completely repealed. Certainly before the 20th century, the situation was different. If there was really no copyright tradition in a territory, I guess it could happen -- some Pacific islands probably come under that. Algeria may be a special case, if there were no laws specifically in place for it, but rather just the French legal code in general. If there was a specific legal code for that colony though, it would normally continue. Former British colonies almost always continued the copyright law, for example. It is true that new countries' membership in copyright treaties is ambiguous until explicitly addressed (joining Berne can be detrimental to developing countries).
If something was only published in the Philippines, then yes, that is the country of origin. PD-USGov however is more of a PD-author situation, where the country of origin does not really matter. The same license applies anywhere. Given that Philippine copyright law at the time was almost entirely based on US law though, and had the same non-copyright stipulation for their government works, it would pretty much be the same situation. Not sure we have a specific tag for the colonial-era government there. Their current law has much the same, but with a weird Marcos-era addition which muddies things, so our tag {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} is more for the current situation, with PD-USGov being an easy stand-in for the colonial era. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg One thing is continuity of law, another is continuity of jurisdiction. In the case I know best, the former Portuguese Empire, there was continuity of law in all cases I know, but the jurisdiction of court cases which took place before independence has been retained by Portugal, even when Portugal generally failed to secure these rights. From this 2018 Portuguese court sentence: "The succession of States does not affect rights that have been acquired under the originally applicable legal system, that is, the established law of the originating or predecessor State. It does not have the capacity to extinguish the rights established within the legal sphere of citizens or the respective obligations assumed by the State." (...) "Therefore, in view of the specific factual circumstances established in the case [case took place in Portuguese Moçambique], it is considered unnecessary to frame the dispute in light of the rules of international law arising from the succession of States or the creation of a new sovereign state." "But even if it were not so, considering the principle that the rights of citizens cannot be harmed, affected, compressed, or taken away by the phenomenon of State succession, and considering that the citizen in question, now the Respondent, is a national and resident of the originating State, having acquired the claimed subjective right under the legal system of the originating State and that after the phenomenon of State succession, they ceased to reside in the territory of the successor State or the newly created State, returning to reside in the territory of the originating State, without having the citizenship of the successor State and without ever having lost the citizenship of the originating State, it must be affirmed that the responsibility lies with the originating State for safeguarding and protecting the right established in the legal sphere of one of its national citizens."
As for Algeria, in this 2003 case the Appeal Court of Toulouse decides over the local law which was in place in Blida, Algeria, back in 1954, and not the current Algerian law or the French law of the time. Note that the decision, respecting Algeria before Independence, was taken by a French court - that is, France continues recognizing its juridiscion over what took place in colonial Algeria.
From what I could understand, and the sources I've found, I don't think that nor the question of the succession of States (and the question of continuity of law) nor the current law of Algeria has anything to do with this case, and to find out what law would apply to the copyright of anything published in French Argelia it would be necessary to find out which law was in place there at the time of the publication, if any at all. DarwinAhoy! 17:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DarwIn: As Carl mentioned above, these documents should be considered as simultaneous published in France and Algeria, and that trumps every other consideration. As per the Berne Convention, the country of origin is the country with the shorter term, so Algerian law should be used to determine the duration of copyright. Yann (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann On the contrary, cases like this provide evidence that the current laws of Algeria do not apply on these situations, and evidence that the current law of Algeria do apply to events that took place before the country came into existence in 1962 has not been provided until now. DarwinAhoy! 19:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DarwIn: Sure, the copyright ownership doesn't change. The author will get whatever rights a country's laws give him in that country. The protection could differ in particular ways, depending on the facts and the country involved. A country will give copyright protection to its own nationals regardless of the country of publication, and often gives protection to works first published in that country regardless of the nationality of the author. Those can be expanded -- France may well continue to protect Algerian works for the full French term, or give them all the rights as nationals, even if the term is shorter in Algeria. Or Portugal, for its former colonies. The EU in general will protect works from other EU nationals, regardless of where published, and will only use the rule of the shorter term for non-EU countries. For Commons though, the question is not those, but rather how an unrelated country, say Honduras or Albania, would protect this work -- for them it is irrelevant what rights the author have or had in another country. Both of those use the rule of the shorter term, i.e. the term in the country of origin (i.e. first publication) if less than their own term. So, this is strictly the definition of "country of origin" in the Berne Convention. For works which are published in multiple (Berne) countries within 30 days, they are considered "simultaneously published", in which case the "country of origin" is the country among those with the shortest term. When it comes to countries subsequently splitting apart, or becoming independent, it's not always clear how the wording of the Berne Convention should be interpreted, but "simultaneous publication" in all successor nations is a reasonable way to interpret it. From that perspective, what would Albania say is the country of origin, i.e. how long are they obligated to protect the work per the treaty? That is the place the Commons rules place ourselves in, not what the legal rights are in the parent country of a former colony. The wording of that treaty could end up with some weird results, but it's still the result. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg According to what you wrote, and looking at the Algerian copyright laws, the applicable law would be not the current one, but the first Algerian copyright law, published in 1973, the (Ordonnance no 73-14 du 3 avril 1973 relative au droit d'auteur). This law rules anything published until 1997 and which would have entered the public domain until 2003. From what I can understand, it limits the copyright protection to works published by the citizens of the Republic of Algeria, and those who are morally relevant (?) to the state. This apparently excludes anything published by anyone or anything who had not acquired Algerian citizenship after independence, which would be the case of the French Etat-Major. In any case, the duration of that protection, even if it existed, would be 25 years, expiring in 1980. I would expect French courts to protect anything published by French citizens in Algeria before independence, and still don't find the most obvious thing that this would not matter, but I understand the rationale you explained above, about that copyright status as seen from an unrelated country, as the US. In that case, if the map was published simultaneously in France and Algeria, I understand it is in the public domain since 1966, as no protection was ever bestowed upon him. Do you find this interpretation correct? DarwinAhoy! 23:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DarwIn: Pretty much. I would agree the map is still under copyright in France, and therefore probably all of the EU, though it would likely expire in 2026. The EU would protect anything done by their nationals regardless of where published. I assume it was unambiguously under French copyright when originally published, but as of 1962 it could have been considered simultaneously published when Algeria split off (though could not be the country of origin until 1998 when they joined Berne). Whether or not Algeria protected it initially (or had a valid copyright law), they joined the UCC in 1973 and would have had international copyright relations from then, so likely would protect it either way. I would also agree that it would have expired in Algeria under that old law in 1981 or thereabouts, and has not been restored there despite the terms since becoming longer to conform with Berne. You are supposed to retroactively restore at least foreign works to Berne minimums when you join Berne, but most countries get away without doing that (the U.S. did not, thus the URAA). I don't use the U.S. as the example country here, because they don't use the rule of the shorter term thus "country of origin" is not relevant. It's just how Common rules are structured. The URAA tiebreaker on "simultaneously published" is quite different than Berne and can be more common sense, though it's still a close call here and I would not want to delete purely on URAA grounds (if Algeria, it was PD on the URAA date). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Carl for your detailed explanation. I think I am going to withdraw my deletion nominations, as I didn't think about simultaneous publication of France and Algeria. Yann (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Translation table of places in a computer game[edit]
Hi folks!
I want to create a translation table for Commons. This table contains all official place names in a video game with all official translations.
Can a collection of all these names create a copyright violation, or is this okay, as these single names are too short ("uncreative") to be protected and the collection of these names is not creative enough?
There are 1700 unique places with names like Lurelin Village Well, Ancient Underground Fortress, Eldin Great Skeleton, Necluda Sky Archipelago and more.
The list is likely copyrightable. But apart from that aspect, why do you want to host a text table on Commons? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought about an overview translation table for Wikipedia articles in different languages :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the copyright notice of a Jack the Giantkiller ad?[edit]
I can't imagine that being ruled invalid. "Cinematronics Incorporated" seems to be explicitly named. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a Commons template, Template:Attribution-Copernicus, that refers to "data from a satellite". Most images using the template are satellite images, but my concern is that data does not have the same copyright protection as expressions of data (that is, charts like the one at right).
Before we go headlong into using (any and all?) Copernicus images, does anyone have authoritative proof we're safe to use them on Wikimedia projects? Are there limitations on the type of image (satellite images versus charted data) we can use? —RCraig09 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
21 apr 2023: The 2022 European State of the Climate Report.jpg
I agree, Copernicus has some excellent graphics. Same questions apply to other charts, uploaded earlier by OptimusPrimeBot:
The Mediterranean file shows more than raw satellite data such as city names and country borders. The temperature anomalies require comparison against a standard value. The 3 small charts at the bottom are charted data. Uwappa (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, w:Warming stripes from their inventor (Ed Hawkins) are offered with CC licenses, and even from Copernicus are simple displays of data, so I'm not worried about them. However, the Mediterranean temperatures graphic may be more problematic. RCraig09 (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need more than one admin's statement that something "seems OK" and links to a file that has a Wikimedia licensing template. The issue is the scope of Copernicus' legal notice, and whether Wikimedia's licensing template is compatible with what liberty Copernicus in fact grants. RCraig09 (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the Copernicus version as it shows the long term trend, using red-white-blue colour coding for years Uwappa (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"One of the benefits of the Copernicus programme is that the data and information produced in the framework of Copernicus are made available free-of-charge [3] to all its users and the public, thus allowing downstream services to be developed."
A Wikipedia article's sentence is not authoritative, and the sentence merely says the Copernicus "data and information" is "available free of charge". It doesn't say anything about Creative Commons licensing. The link is to a 65-page document whose page L122/48, paragraph 36, doesn't say anything further. Please focus on the issue of licensing. RCraig09 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good, this sounds like we are on the right track. As I understand it, a Creative Commons license is the most used license. Other "granted permissions" are possible. The license used at File:Record_Temperatures_in_the_Mediterranean_Sea_in_July.jpg#Licensing is such an other "granted permission". That license also links to
Wikimedia's goal is to provide a source of freely usable content, which has been decided to be covered by Creative Commons licenses—which limitations are very simple. However, Copernicus imposes many conditions, even beyond those that are acknowledged in the "Attribution-Copernicus" template. The first issue is whether the template at Template:Attribution-Copernicus validly fulfills all the limitations at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1159#d1e413-1-1 and/or https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1159#d1e460-1-1 and maybe others, or whether the template (which does not even recite all conditions) therefore wrongly expands the scope of what Copernicus actually grants. A secondary issue is whether the mere presence of a template validates, on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, a permission to use Copernicus' intellectual property. RCraig09 (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the goal of freely usable content. When uploading an image, a Creative Commons license is one of the options, see choices of 3rd upload step, Release rights:
This file is my own work.
The copyright holder published this work with the right Creative Commons license
The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license
The copyright has definitely expired in the USA
This work was made by the United States government
Another reason not mentioned above. The license is described by the following wikitext (must contain a valid copyright tag): ...
The template clearly states "Relevant excerpts" and links to the full texts.
Please explain, what is your problem with the template? Which limitations does it fail to fulfill?
What failed limitation do you see regarding article 7?
How can the template fail article 8? How could an unchanged image, with logo's indicating its source, fail art 8?
Which improvements would you suggest to solve the template problems that you see?
Please check your last sentence "A secondary issue... intellectual property". Does it miss a 2nd verb? As far as I can see the template fulfills a Wikimedia requirement, not a Copernicus one.
Suggestions:
Please realize: Copernicus data are public goods, to be shared with the public. Please read "Open data policy" at https://copernicus.odoo.com/faq-s
Free use isn't just a goal; it's a requirement, and a hefty one. I'll simplify my sentence that you said had no verb: "A secondary issue is whether the mere presence of a template validates, on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, a permission to use Copernicus' intellectual property." The fact that Template:Attribution-Copernicus can be used during the upload process, doesn't confer validity to it; I'm talking about the validity/adequacy of the template itself. As mentioned muuuuch earlier, there is a distinction among: (a) satellite images, (b) data, and (c) expressions of the data in Copernicus-created charts. It's the last item that copyright protects (copyright doesn't protect ideas, but it does protect original expressions of ideas). Wikimedia's Copernicus Category seems to be filled with satellite images, the Copernicus links seem to refer to data, and Wikimedia's template refers to "data from a satellite"—but it's the creative expression of the data (in those compelling charts that we love) that is my concern. I don't see a history or Talk Page discussion underlying the template's creation or justifying its validity beyond mere data or satellite images. (In a limited number of attempts, I've found that most outside agencies simply ignore inquiries from Wikipedia editors.) I was hoping someone in this forum could shed light on the history or justification re the created charts we'd like to add. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your concern. And I do appreciate your efforts to get to the bottom of this.
Yes, there are many satellite images in Wikimedia's Copernicus category, but also a few charts, see charts mentioned above at 18:54, 11 August 2023.
The template's "This image contains data from a satellite" could also cover sea surface temperatures.
I agree with your earlier "focus on the issue of licensing" so let us do so, focus on articles.
Art 7 does not contain a limitation to satellite images. The original text mentions 'GMES dedicated data' and 'GMES service information'.
"(b) ‘GMES service information’ means information and its metadata produced by GMES services;
(c) ‘GMES dedicated data’ means data collected through the GMES dedicated infrastructure and their metadata;"
Again, nothing that would limit usage to satellite data.
It looks like Copernicus is eager to share information. Sharing information with public seems part of their DNA, a raison d'être. They make it easy to share charts with download functions and logo's on the charts. It's all ready to roll. My expectation is that they will be happy to answer your questions and see their charts shared with public on Wikipedia. So I'd say: Go for it! Uwappa (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The presence of a few charts using a Wikimedia template, or included in a Wikimedia category that's invoked by the template, do not validate the template or its application to original creative content (like the awesome charts). We can't rely on a perception that they're "eager to share information" (note you said "information" and not creative expressions of that information). And it's faulty reasoning to say Copernicus does not contain a limitation to satellite images; what's relevant is whether it does contain a provision authorizing use of original, creative content. I'm busy, but plan to try to figure out how to contact Copernicus on this issue. You may want to do the same, but even an oral or email OK from a person in Copernicus wouldn't carry the weight of a specific concrete specification on their website, so that may be a futile exercise. 20:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
@RCraig09: Did you see that there is a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license at the bottom of [3]? That's where most images in the category you mention come from. Yann (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, the statement begins with "The text of this website...". And it's not clear whether "this website" is limited to emergency.copernicus.eu or to all of copernicus.eu. RCraig09 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright status of File:Perplexity AI logo.svg[edit]
Hi! I'm pretty unfamiliar with contributing to Commons so please tell me if I make any mistakes here.
Recently I uploaded File:Perplexity AI logo.svg to Commons, intending to use it for a Wikipedia article draft I'm working on (w:Draft:Perplexity AI). I vectorised it from a screenshot of the logo on perplexity.ai. (Though, it seems that since then they have changed the logo, so I might soon upload their new logo if I get all this copyright stuff sorted out.)
I honestly have no clue about copyright law, but I (maybe foolishly) thought this file would be treated similar to File:ChatGPT logo.svg, which seems to be an acceptable upload despite its trademark status, due to its simple geometric nature. I didn't really know what to put on the "release rights" step of the Upload Wizard, so I clicked "I found it on the Internet — I'm not sure".
A few days ago User:Jonteemil has reminded me that I still don't have copyright information for the file and it may soon be deleted. So what I want to ask is how can I get the proper copyright info that I should put on the file, if it belongs on Commons at all? Should I upload it as a non-free image to Wikipedia instead?
Thanks in advance to all who help! :) Alisperic (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest the following: At source, enter the URL, from where you got the raster graphics file and then add "Vectorized file: {{own}}". At the segment author you can enter: "Logo by: Perplexity AI", "Vectorized by: your name". After this, you can object to the speedy deletion on the page :). I would say the logo is below COM:TOO. The license and trademark templates are added, so they are properly filled in, and this makes the deletion questionable. Greetings! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alisperic: I fixed the template order. Please add categories. Yann (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to both of you who have replied. I have adjusted some things based on PantheraLeo1359531's suggestions. @Yann Just to confirm, I suppose that means that everything is fine copyright-wise now? I will go ahead and categorise it. Alisperic (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alisperic: Vulcan just added a category for the Perplexity AI logo. All looks good now. Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it correct that all modern UK police mugshots fall under the OGL2 licence? Belbury (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
British Police documents are not Crown Copyright and are not subject to automatic release as either {{PD-UKGov}} or {{OGL2}}. You need to check the copyright terms set by the individual police force. For example, police forces in England are subject to English law and the Scottish police are subject to Scottish law. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Haoreima: Hi! Would you please add an English translation to your text? This makes it easier for us to understand. Thank you :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PantheraLeo1359531 😺 GTed:- “I'm not sure if this (https://www.flickr.com/photos/57280869@N03/6198051827/) can be uploaded for "commons" or not. Can anyone tell me if this is allowed or not? Please upload it for me if possible. Because I don't know about the proper licensing, as it has a watermark/labeling at the bottom. Can it be included? If not, can it be cropped?” --Haoreima (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Haoreima: Assuming we believe the owner of the Flickr account is legitimately the photographer, then the license seems fine.
Always a bit tricky to decide whether to crop out watermarks on images like this. Technically under that license it should be possible; however, some people believe that it interferes with proper attribution. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lack of freedom of opinion and undermining the status of photography.[edit]
Unfortunately, after the actions of some, I get the impression that copyright does not matter. If the user NearEMPTiness(talk·contributions·Move log·block log·uploads·Abuse filter log) block user massively copies photos from websites and online auctions and it bothers no one, then why do we reported? I reported a dozen photos of the user and then as a last resort I received a block for 2 hours. This is how copyright is enforced. In addition, one of the users @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): stated that my rationales are fake [4], despite the fact that I clearly indicated that the only proof of publication is posting on the website or listing on an auction site. Also in many cases it adds fake dates of creation of the photo. In a few cases, I removed the fake one before reporting it, like there [5] so that no one would be fooled that the photo was actually taken. My objections to the added dates are valid. [6] Here he stated that it is a postcard, even though there is no mention on the website that it is actually a postcard. So how do we know when it was published? Since it cannot be reported, how to enforce the legality of photos with an unknown date of creation and no information about the previous publication of the photo. Otherwise, we will grant involuntary immunity to users such as @NearEMPTiness: copying photos from online auctions, even if they are someone's private collection. Since we don't require a publication date, why do we still use templates relating to the publication period? Are we seriously going to accept all old pictures of a steam locomotive? Many locomotives had been in service for a long time. Not every photo of a locomotive built 100 years ago has to be the same old. 5.173.103.105 18:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle: The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. You only present fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) rather than concrete information that can be used to determine an image's status. All your anonymous entries are geared toward a single uploader, using cut and paste FUD, which gives the appearance of giving a punitive audit. You are also hiding behind multiple anonymous IP addresses, further reinforcing that this is targeted harassment. Three of your first set of nominations were found to be from an archive under a CC license, showing that you actually haven't done any research, again showing this is harassment. --RAN (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lack of a given date of taking and publication of the photo is not a serious doubt? I understand that all photos from the online auction can be freely copied and posted here, even if they come from private collections? Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle - Some examples sound similar to the arguments of users who claim in discussions under each photo that they were definitely published. Only no one has ever been able to provide evidence. This is not harassment. Only this one user massively adds photos from internet portals and each time he adds a template referring to a publication over 70 years ago. In many cases I have verified that the given dates of taking photos are false. 5.173.103.105 19:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Almost every image on Commons, taken prior to gps and date stamping exif data, is dated using contextual clues in the image. We generally rely on Occam's Razor, we accept the simplest explanation and we don't delete on hypothetical speculation. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt could be used to denigrate any image. For instance: Who took the picture? It must be the named photographer, right? What if the photographer was in the bathroom, and an assistant pressed the shutter release. What if the photographer's spouse pressed the shutter release while the photographer adjusted a light. What if a monkey entered the photo studio while the photographer, their spouse, and the photographer's assistant, were inattentive and the monkey pressed the shutter release. What if the camera was on a random timer, and no one was responsible for pressing the shutter release. --RAN (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're trying to make it absurd. Understand, if someone sells a photo on an online portal without a date, how can you tell when the photo was taken or published? Following your childish logic - heaven can wait, let's add all the old photos from online auctions and services and consider that they were published over 70 years ago and are in the public domain. Thanks to this, we will make a hell out of this place and start anarchy, without any rules. 5.173.103.105 19:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We usually assume that old pictures were published at the time they were taken, unless evidence to the opposite. Copyright law about publication was quite different at that time, and transfer of a picture from a professional photographer to a client usually means publication. Yann (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence - In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence 5.173.103.105 19:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't try to lecture me. Your insistence for unreasonable criteria against long established practice is not helpful. Stop it. Yann (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do also note that the user placed such template (which explicitly says the files are released under CC-BY-SA) to files that they uploaded as public domain. LuciferianThomas 06:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a side issue, it appears that Wpcpey (talk·contribs) is using subpages under Cpey (talk·contribs). However, the second account doesn't exist. Do we have rules around claiming userspace unrelated to your account? Should the relevant pages be moved? From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see some of the users also can use these templates, but why they can, but I can't? It is not fair to me.--Wpcpey (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Classic case of whataboutism. Others doing so doesn't mean it's right, it's just that others have yet to notice. As long as the CC requirements (attribution and share-alike) are reasonably fulfilled, the media content can be reproduced. WMF's CC BY-SA legal note page explicitly says No, it does not violate the CC license [to upload third-party material to social media]. Also, you added a template claiming CC BY-SA on various files that you released under other licenses or even the public domain, which is also conflicting and not something anyone should do. LuciferianThomas 16:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Under Creative Commons 3.0 (which is mentioned in the template), it is an unenforceable stipulation so it should be treated as a strongly-worded request. Abzeronow (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But now, we've migrated to CC BY-SA 4.0, are these "incompatible" still existing? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just want to make sure I'm not missing the mark here, but as this appears to be a physical scale model, is there some way this wouldn't fall under COM:TOY? A photo of the craft wouldn't have derivation issues, because obviously the craft itself is meant for purely utilitarian purposes. But I don't know a model you can hold in your hand is meaningfully different than a model airplane. GMGtalk 11:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. Is this only for display, or has it any useful purpose for testing, etc.? A prototype wouldn't get a copyright, while a model would. Yann (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's only for display (an engineering model is quite different) ... and it's not a toy. --Pline (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can this "fair use" logo be below TOO and hence moved to our Commons?[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. --Rosenzweigτ 17:36, 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. --Rosenzweigτ 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]
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. --Rosenzweigτ 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. --Rosenzweigτ 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. --Rosenzweigτ 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. --Rosenzweigτ 16:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
). They are very simple and common symbols, or combinations thereof. Also compare with the metadata for this file.
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Note that similar language appears in the FoP provision in several other countries, such as Mexico: "siempre que no se afecte la explotación normal de la obra" = "provided that the normal exploitation of the work is not adversely affected thereby". In COM:FOP Portugal, it is claimed that such a provision is required to comply with the Berne three-step test. So I think you're basically claiming that no country can have commercial FoP and remain Berne-compliant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_de_Murcia_fb.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ALe_petit_pont_de_la_Tramway_de_Royan_situ%C3%A9_entre_Royan_%28Paradou%29_et_St_Georges_de_Didonne-ville_02.jpg&diff=794613504&oldid=769177388){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freshly_painted_Decauville_locomotive_on_an_old_postcard.jpg){kind=link}
You are invited to join the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Murals by Gregory Ackers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
