Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


Is this image public domain?[edit]

Moved from Commons:Help desk

Could the image of Bradley on page 68 of this USGS report be covered by Template:PD-USGov? BhamBoi (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BhamBoi: my take (though you might want to seek more expert opinion at COM:VP/C) is that it would probably come down to the status of The American Journal of Science Bradley Volume (1960). As a U.S. federal government document, the USGS report is presumably public-domain when handled as a unit, but if the image in question is copyrighted then its inclusion in the document is somewhere in fair use territory (and we can publish the document as a whole despite its containing copyrighted on something along the lines of a de minimis basis). The image as such doesn't become public domain just because it is included in a federal government document. Otherwise, the government could take away anyone's copyright by publishing their work in a federal document. - Jmabel ! talk 05:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By stating: "Photograph from the USGS Denver Library Photographic Collection, Portraits, in the “Last Name A–B” folder; published in The American Journal of Science Bradley Volume," I'm led to think that it was a USGS file, thus government PD, but later republished in the journal volume.
For reference, a link to the Bradley Volume is here, and the image appears in this article. BhamBoi (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
USGS having it in a collection doesn't mean it was taken by a U.S. government employee. Again, you might want to seek more expert opinion at COM:VP/C. - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will. Thanks! BhamBoi (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that anything that was published before 1964 and first published in the US and did not have a proper notice and renewal is in the public domain, though. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an update, I have not gotten a response from this board yet but would the image linked above be okay to upload to Commons? BhamBoi (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BhamBoi: I found no related copyright renewal records for "The American Journal of Science" or "The Bradley Volume" (the name of the book). So I think you can upload the photo under {{PD-US-not renewed}}. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 20:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does one go about uploading an image found in a PDF article? Screenshot?? BhamBoi (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BhamBoi: Please don't screenshot it, you'll lose a lot of the quality of the image. Instead, follow one of the techniques at s:Help:Image extraction § Extracting images from PDF files. Let me know if you need any help. Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - useless contributions} 10:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BhamBoi: @Matrix: , I have uploaded the photograph as File:Wilmot Hyde "Bill" Bradley, American Journal of Science.jpg. I extracted via IrfanView and saved as a jpg because it's a photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For some reason, I missed this message... But thanks a ton! I'll add this to his wiki article. BhamBoi (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright relinquishment statement[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g0j5oad2eo&t=110

he says "i've relinquished all copyright on it". is this a sufficient statement such that the video he was referring to can be uploaded to commons? RZuo (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC) (link corrected, sorry.--RZuo (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC))Reply[reply]

If he really said that, then that is a public domain dedication. However, note that this doesn't apply to any content integrated into the video from a copyrighted source (that is, the things which were not created by him). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright issue: incorrect source image[edit]

(This_image) suggests that (this_PD_image) is the source image.

However, the actual source appears to be: | this image on a third-party website.

In relation to that, the author, the copyright and license of the image might all be incorrect. What should be done about this situation? Is there some suggested tag or review process to invoke in this case? The uploader seems unresponsive (| see this).

In short: what should be done to clear up this situation? Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photo is in the public domain. The gradient pattern is ineligible for copyright. Even if it were, the source, File:RGB 24bits palette color test chart.png, is dedicated to the public domain. Putting this on a ZX Spectrum screen is not authorship of any kind. Dithering methods are not authorship. The notion that there is some copyright being infringed here is spurious, as Yann said on the other page you've linked to. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for partially clearing it up.
However, I've got two objections:
  1. The source is not File:RGB 24bits palette color test chart.png, as you claim. The gradients are similar, but not the same.
  2. "The gradient pattern is ineligible for copyright" - in which country / jurisdiction? Are you sure? Can you back up your claim?
Noone would be happier than me if your claims are correct. However, you haven't presented sufficient evidence. Why can't it be cleared up, why must there be doubt?
What's the process for clearing it up? Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You haven't supplied any evidence that it is copyrightable, either. What expression do you think is copyrightable here, aside from the parrot photo? I don't see any difference at all in the gradients, let alone anything that could qualify for a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. The gradients are the same in terms of what they are; the fact that they are rendered without a black border is irrelevant. Even if they were appreciably different in any way, this difference is not reflected in File:Zx spectrum 8x2 attributes.png.
  2. This gradient pattern is virtually certainly ineligible for copyright in any jurisdiction. It is simply a light-dark gradient of red, green, blue, the CMYK colors, the CMYK colors' halfway points, a rainbow and a rainbow crossed with a light-dark gradient. This is a paradigmatic example of something that is not a work of authorship. You cannot copyright a spectrum. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My original question is (still unanswered):
    • What should be done with images that have source image incorrectly specified, in a way that could affect their copyright status?
    Unrelated, about copyright eligibility: I thought that test images (monitor test image, image quality test, and similar images) are eligible for copyright. For example: | this test image Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is an attribution mistake, then fix it. The one you brought up however is not an example of such. There is no additional copyrightable expression in the image you linked compared to the source images named, both of which are far more relevant than the one you found (as they have the licensing documentation). The fact that someone else on the internet also combined two PD (or free images) in a similar way doesn't change that.
No work is automatically eligible for copyright based on its type -- there has to be an original amount of copyrightable expression in some aspect, be that drawing or textual or something similar. You can also have a "selection and arrangement" copyright, if you combine enough public domain elements together in an original way. Gradients are not copyrightable, and a basic stack is not a copyrightable arrangement. The selection of the RGB and CMYK colors is also not copyrightable. The test image you linked has a substantial amount of text, which is probably the only copyrightable thing there (though that is enough). Someone could copy the non-text elements and be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where do you see any text? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this image that was linked in the immediately preceding question (NOT the same image as originally discussed). That has a copyright claim in it (though a claim doesn't always mean it's copyrightable, either.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. Yes, that one has a copyright claim, although I doubt the copyrightability of this particular text in the US. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that sounds as a reasonable explanation. As I have said, I'm not an expert on copyright, so I might have been wrong. Thanks for the explanation.
Which implies that @4throck is not guilty, except for some minor issues. So, sorry @4throck for the trouble.
As I'm not guilty either, I'm counting this as another failure of Wikipedia. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No harm in asking questions, but speedy deletions should really only be when you're sure. That all said, looking at the main image in question, it should not have been an overwrite but rather a separate upload. That did violate the COM:OVERWRITE guideline. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I ask you for a small favor? Could you upload the source image to Wikimedia Commons, and set the proper licensing information? I can't do it, because I'm not an expert on copyright issues. The upload would clarify the entire situation. Then, I could easily do everything else. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what the point would be -- the image in question looks like it was showing how dithering worked on a particular device, using the parrot image and a color test image to show what they look like. We have the two original images on Commons already. That other image is the same or similar combination of the two images, but it's the same unoriginal combination (you can't get a selection and arrangement copyright by combining two things simply that way). It may or may not be the source for the dithered image, but it doesn't matter too much, since there is no copyrightable aspect embodied in it. Much like if we upload a PD-US-no_notice postcard -- doesn't much matter which site we found it at; if there was no copyright notice on the front or back (and those are uploaded) that's pretty much all we need. In this case, we need the copyright to the parrot image, and it's a good idea to credit the creator test pattern image too (it's possible in some countries there could be a copyright on it I guess, but even if not somebody put out the effort to create it). But there is nothing at all special about the combination of the two. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideas wanted to tackle Freedom of Panorama issue[edit]

Hello all! We are looking for ideas to tackle the problem of media deleted because of Freedom of Panorama-related issues, and we're looking especially for admins and people who are knowledgeable in this issue to intervene. If you are interested, please join the discussion. Thanks in advance! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking Guidance on Adding a Logo to Wikimedia Commons[edit]

I'm new to adding logos to articles on Wikimedia Commons and would appreciate guidance. I found a charity logo on their website that I'd like to include on its article page, but I'm unsure about its eligibility and the proper procedures to follow.

The logo is associated with the charity and appears to be copyrighted as their trademark, but I lack detailed information. While the design seems simple, I'm not an expert and seek help and guidance.

Any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated. Accuracy-searcher (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to actually link us to the logo, or else it's impossible for us to give an opinion. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AIDS Committee of Ottawa (ACO) website: http://aco-cso.ca/
Logo: http://aco-cso.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ACO_2005-copy.jpg Accuracy-searcher (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PD-textlogo in the US, for sure. Probably fine for Canada too. You can upload the logo. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should I be using Special:UploadWizard to upload the logo? Are there any specific instructions I should be aware of to ensure a smooth upload without errors? Accuracy-searcher (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or do I use this? Special:Upload Accuracy-searcher (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Description Logo for the AIDS Committee of Ottawa.
Date
Source http://aco-cso.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ACO_2005-copy.jpg
Author AIDS Committee of Ottawa
Permission
(Reusing this file)
Public domain
This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD § Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.
  • Just noticed: The 'Licensing' field under the summary section offers the option 'Logo with simple text (wordmark).' I believe I should use this instead of adding PD-textlogo to the 'Permission' field in the summary. Accuracy-searcher (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Accuracy-searcher: I don't see the file in your uploads. Are you saying you couldn't upload successfully? Special:Upload doesn't normally care how you fill out the form, it just uploads (though if you didn't use the separate licensing field I believe it does give sort of an "are you sure you know what you are doing" warning).
    Also: are you saying the logo specifically dates from exactly 1 January 2005? If not, please don't state a date with more precision than you actually know. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just uploaded it. I used the png file because the svg gave me an error, and I fixed the date. File:ACO logo 2005.png Accuracy-searcher (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jmabel: Does the logo comply with all rules and requirements? Is it suitable for inclusion in the article? I want to ensure I follow the correct procedures. Accuracy-searcher (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Accuracy-searcher: I don't have enough knowledge of Canadian copyright law to say whether it is over or under their threshold of originality. If your main purpose here is to use this in an article in the English-language Wikipedia, you may want to upload a copy there under their non-free content policy. But if you do that, make sure you are familiar with that policy and what you need to do. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed, my primary intention is to use the ACO logo in an article on the English-language Wikipedia. I will carefully review the non-free content policy on Wikipedia, as you suggested.
    If there's anyone within the Wikimedia community who has expertise in Canadian copyright law, I would greatly value any guidance or recommendations they might have. Please feel free to pass along my contact information to them.
    Thank you again for your time and valuable assistance. I appreciate your time : ) Accuracy-searcher (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hieratic glyphs reproduced by Georg Möller[edit]

Georg Möller, who died in 1921, faithfully reproduced many glyphs of the hieratic script as they were written on various papyri thousands of years ago, in works which were published in Germany in 1909, 1927 and 1936. Each glyph is "only simple text [or] shapes". Am I correct to understand Commons:Licensing and Commons:Threshold of originality as meaning that it's fine to isolate and upload images of each hieratic glyph? (Each image I upload would be similar to File:HER BA.jpg: a black glyph on a white background. I see someone uploaded one of his tables as File:Hieratic Table from Möller.png.) What licence template is most appropriate, {{PD-ineligible}}?
And is there a way (in the main Commons upload tool, or by using another tool) to set "creation date" and licence info for every file in a group, at once? If I do this, I don't want to have to input the same creation date and licence over and over, one file at a time, for several thousand files... -sche (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. The glyphs are not copyrightable. Even if they were somehow copyrightable, they were ancient, not Möller's original work. There is also PD-text. Either way, it is fine.
  2. Möller's works are in the public domain in Germany (because he died in 1921). All works by anyone published in 1909 and 1927 are in the public domain in the US. But also note that Möller's entire 1936 book is in the public domain in the US unless it was published with a notice and had a US copyright renewal. This is because Möller died in 1921: his works were already in the public domain in Germany on January 1, 1996, and so are not subject to URAA restoration.
And yes, you can copy the metadata to all files using the Upload Wizard (or PattyPan).
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fantastic, I appreciate the confirmation that these are uploadable. How do I copy metadata (besides licence/copyright) to all the files? I see where I can set licensing info for all the files all at once, but it looks like I have to input a creation date for each one individually (with UploadWizard; I will try PattyPan next). It would also be helpful if I could put them all into one category at the same time, rather than having to input the same "hieratic glyphs" category for each one individually. As long as I'm asking questions (and getting helpful answers, which I appreciate) : what creation date should I input? A date very very vaguely corresponding to when the glyphs were written, thousands of years ago? The date Möller's work (reproducing them) was published? The date I isolated the glyph (removing surrounding text) just now? -sche (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@-sche: I suggest you use VFC to make the changes after upload, and specify all three dates using <br /> if you can.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Algorithm-specific template split from AI-related works[edit]

Maybe this is impossible to do at this point, but... I feel that we should have a separate template from {{PD-algorithm}} for non-GPT-related algorithms, such as QR codes or bar codes or other algorithmic products that just don't involve neural networks. The legal disclaimer we use right now really only applies to AI art, and doesn't apply to computer-generated codes and the like. Maybe this could be accomplished with a parameter to the PD-algorithm, like "disc=no"? SnowyCinema (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... or like "disclaimer=no" so people like me don't spend 20 seconds going "What does this have to do with a disc?" - Jmabel ! talk 07:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Absolutely not! Then it wouldn't be confusing enough.
Well, anyway, I was bold and put in the parameter functionality, which is pretty straightforward and an easy fix. Now, the disclaimer will not show up if someone says "disclaimer=no", but it'll show up on otherwise. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiel van der Randen (fotograaf 1897–1949)[edit]

L.s. I downloaded high res photo's from Wiel van der randen from https://beeldbank.spaarnestadphoto.com/ and want to upload them on commons on the already existing Category:Photographs by Wiel van der Randen The pictures are somewhat protected in high res but still downloadable. Although they are trying to sell them they are published on their own website and since copyright is expired, is it ok to upload them on commons? Thanks, Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Timmietovenaar: Hi Timmie, since you have done a lot of work for Het Nationaal Archief, could you share your insides as well? Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds painful. And messy. Maybe Timmie could share their insights, instead? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny 😃 Missed that error. Thanks for correcting me. 👍🏻 Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photos have to be in the public domain in country of origin and in the USA. Netherlands is {{PD-old-70}}, but for the USA part it's a bit of a puzzle. The pre-1929 ones are probably covered by {{PD-US-expired}}, the later ones are probably still in copyright because of URAA. Multichill (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pre-1929 should be easy. U.S. law says anything published anywhere before 1929 is now PD; no need to show U.S. publication. But, yes, anything later is going to have to wait for 95 years from publication. If you like you can upload them and then promptly start a DR to have them deleted now and undeleted on the proper date. If you do that, mark them with the correct Dutch PD tag (presumably {{PD-old-70}}). It would be easiest if you would start DRs in batches by year of publication so each DR need only one "Undelete in" category from Category:Undeletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the info.
However i still have a related question. The reason why i am confused is multiple files uploaded by either co-workers of Spaarnestadphoto and/or Nationaal Archief with multiple licences. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kabinet_1948_-_SFA006001812.jpg.
Regards, Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the example you gave, it would seem to be PD in the Netherlands, but still under copyright in the US (post-1928 photo restored by the URAA to 95 years from publication). But it seems the Nationaal Archief owns that copyright, so they were able to make a free license on that remaining copyright, which is why we can keep it. The PD-old-70 tag applies in much of the world, so valid to add that too, but we need the CC license for the U.S. (which can also help in a couple other countries too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ken&Den picture a Flickrvio?[edit]

Ken&Den photograph

We have this famous historical photograph here, licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0, transferred from Flickr, where it was uploaded by “Peter Hamer” and marked as freely licensed. The image has since been deleted on the source Flickr page (but we have a Wayback Machine snapshot thanks to {{Flickrreview}} via the File Upload Bot). Now: Do we have any reason to think “Peter Hamer” was the real author (or copyright holder) of the photograph? All photographs on his Flickr seem to be normal family photos, nothing which would indicate any relation to Ken&Den, PDP-11, etc., AFAICT. (Disclaimer: I claim severe ignorance of computer history, it is completely possible “Peter Hamer” is the name of a well-known IT personality of that time, and I just never heard the name.)

Unfortunately, the claim that “Peter Hamer” is the author of the photograph (and the photograph is CC-BY-SA 2.0) is now everywhere on the web, so trying to find its real provenance is difficult, other than

  1. this is “a publicity photo from about 1972” [1],
  2. it appeared in Scientific American March 1999 p. 48 (so the author might be named there?) [2],
  3. Computer History Museum lists it as “early 1970's. (Property of Lucent Technologies)”, and “Credit: Courtesy of Gwen Bell”. [3]

I discovered the problematic image via a Law Stack Exchange post Finding the license for a widely-used photograph, which has already been noted at the file talk page (by User:EvergreenStereo).

I’d be inclined to delete the file as a Flickrvio, but… maybe I’m mistaken? Mormegil (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is probably not by Peter Hamer. However, if it was published before March 1989 without a copyright notice (which includes publicity pictures which were distributed to papers without one, which is usually the case), then the photo is in the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've spoken to a local library to find a copy of Scientific American from March 1999. Have to wait a day or two since they did not have it on site. Will update if anything comes of it. PascalHD (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better would be to find a copy of the photo as published in the 1970s or 1980s, which could demonstrate that it is in the public domain via publication without notice. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also located a copy of the photo online from 1999, which claims Copyright to Lucent https://web.archive.org/web/19991130154207/http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/pdp-11/real_programmers.html PascalHD (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here I found a digital copy of this issue of the journal. The photo note on page 49 reads "COURTESY OF BELL LABORATORIES, LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES; PRENTICE-HALL". Therefore it is certain that the photo is owned by Lucent. 0x0a (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great find. All photo credits seem to belong to Lucent or Bell Labs - the company itself. PascalHD (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Info I see that the license tag was changed to {{PD-US-no notice}} "based on discussion". However, we have no proof it was published without a notice. All examples we have are from the 1990s and onward, in the Scientific American & online. I have opened a Deletion Request to further discuss it there. PascalHD (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O.K. I will reach out to Bell Labs regarding the copyright of this photo. 0x0a (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supreme Court conference photos: public domain?[edit]

Per {{PD-USGov-Judiciary}}, "work[s] of a United States federal court, taken or made as part of that person's official duties" are public domain. Is it safe to say that photos posted on the Supreme Court's website about a conference (photos show up in the archived copy, there seem to be some display issues with the live site) are as well? Trying to replace this image of Judge Dan Polster that's so low-quality it's practically pixel art. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you can't use this image. If it were produced by the Supreme Court of the United States, or any other federal court, it would be fine. You've linked to the site of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and since this is not a federal court, the work is not PD-USGov. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ack, of course. Saw "Supreme Court" and didn't even notice the "of Ohio" part. Thanks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ojai Tennis Tournament[edit]

The Ojai Tennis Tournament, often shortened to The Ojai, is an annual tennis tournament in Ventura County, California, headquartered at Libbey Park in downtown Ojai, about 80 miles (130 km) north of Los Angeles. The tournament is one of North America’s largest amateur tennis tournaments, with 1,500 tennis players, up from the 12 players in the initial tournament in 1896 and 500 entrants in 1949. Several winners had a professional career afterwards; some careers were notable enough to earn the tennis player an article on Wikipedia. The site of the Ojai features image galleries with pictures of the finalists. Several of them got a Wikipedia article without an image of the tennis player. Because of this, I reached out to the site owner, and I asked if I could use the images. I wrote

“Good morning, I am a user at Wikimedia Commons. At your site, I see a lot of images of notable tennis players; players who do not have a picture of themselves in their Wikipedia-articles (see for example the articles on Tim Pawsat, Eric Amend and Trey Lewis). Could I please be granted permission to use the photographs from your site to make these articles more complete? See also here'' Kind regards, Jeff”

As a reply, I got this message:

“Hi Jeff, thanks for your email. Yes, you can have access. But only as long as the caption on the picture links back to the Ojai or can be credited as the source. For instance, the image usual has a caption that says “Mike Bryan at The Ojai Tennis Tournament” with a link that takes people to the Ojai Wikipedia page.” Steve”

Now, what is the correct path to follow?

A) Upload the usable pictures on Commons, credit them to The Ojai Tennis Tournament, categorize these as “19XX Ojai Tennis Tournament”, make a separate category for cropped pictures, use these at the appropriate Wikipedia-article, and credit these again over there in the way Steve asked me.

B) Crop the appropriate picture for the appropriate English-language Wikipedia-article, upload the cropped picture, use them at the appropriate Wikipedia-article, and credit them again over there in the way Steve asked me.

Personally, I would prefer the first option, but I am not sure if I would violate some copyrights by doing so. What do the experts say on this? Kind regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's unfortunate that - obviously with the best of intentions - you wrote to them in those terms. Because we don't want "permission to use the photographs ... to make these articles more complete"; we want permission to host the images on Wikimedia Commons, under a licence that allows anyone to reuse them, even commercially. Please follow the process at Com:VRT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ːːGiven the Ojai’s answer I assume the organization wouldn’t have liked it if it wouldn’t know where and how their images would be reused. So I think I should go for option B? Kind regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeff5102 if you haven't already done so, you might want to read Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses and maybe COM:VRT so that if you try to do something similar in the future you know the right questions to ask the outside party. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel @Andy Mabbett I would sayː if you want to host the images on Wikimedia Commons, under a licence that allows anyone to reuse them, even commerciallyː the Ojai can be contacted here. I will leave contacting potential image sources like this one to the experts in the future.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this image of Sam Sutter in the public domain?[edit]

Hi everyone! I'm wondering if this image of Sutter is in the public domain, since I was planning on adding it to the Wikipedia article about him. Thanks in advance! Morbidbike (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that is most unlikely because it is a reasonably recent image and there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Also the person in question is probably still alive and the photographer is certainly not dead over 70 years. Ww2censor (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking confirmation that this would fall under PD-scan[edit]

I'm looking to replace the current version of File:Ratcliffe Highway Murders Reward poster.jpg with a far more legible version found here. While the site asserts that the image is "© Copyright The Open University and Metropolitan Police Authority 2009", it is clearly a mere scan of a document from approx. 200 years beforehand and so I am fairly confident that it would be eligible for upload under PD-scan. Nevertheless, I would like to have confirmation that this is indeed the case.

Apologies in advance if anyone reading and/or responding to this feels like this is a bit of a time-waster. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can ignore that Copyright notice. Yes, the work itself is in the Public Domain and no new copyright can be gained by a mere scan. PascalHD (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! - Dvaderv2 (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyrightable software screenshot[edit]

Hi! While improving a Wikipedia draft about an animation software, I noticed this screenshot used in the page. It has a questionable "self work" claim, since it is a screenshot of a popular software (which I strongly believe is non-free, see its ToS). I'm not completely sure whether the layout would be simple enough for {{PD-ineligible}} and whether the pencil icon at the left would be {{De minimis}}, but I have more doubts about the canvas appearing to have a default background with a barely visible crumpled paper-like texture. Would this background be eligible for copyright protection? If so, would it be fine to replace it with a completely blank background and upload it? ObserveOwl (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Background is barely visible. Initially I even did not notice it. So, I think it is {{De minimis}} and as the whole image is {{PD-ineligible}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is any element that is an issue, we could put a Gaussian blur over that element and keep the redacted version. - Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both. I've placed the correct copyright tags. ObserveOwl (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanish Ministry website images: do we need a template?[edit]

Hi! I'd like to bring here a question I made at the Spanish Café :P. In short: i was wondering if it would be possible to upload the picture located in this press release (she's the former chairwoman of Adif, the Spanish railway infrastructure manager). The legal notice associated to all resources in this ministry website is located here, and i think is pretty similar to Template:Attribution-La Moncloa, but there's no template that fits exactly this Ministry. Any suggestions? Thanks a lot! Yonseca (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you can use items from that site. You can use Template:Attribution-mitma. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, thank you!! :) Yonseca (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright issue: Gamma-ray burst map[edit]

URL source of the picture: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/12/aa24829-14/F4.html

Source paper: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2015/12/aa24829-14/aa24829-14.html

Relevant article (here in Wiki): Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall

Reasons:

I think this image is under copyright by the authors, and so is discouraged to be uploaded. But I believe this would be fair use because:

  • The resolution is the lowest possible (1200 × 1225) given the nature of the map, and just enough to give some sense of the subject.
  • No artistic value and only presents a graphical illustration of raw scientific data.
  • Purpose is clear and used to give an illustration of the subject
  • Falls under academic fair use, with no other comparable image in the public domain.

This is an appeal because the article has been using for too long a picture that is misleading and does not consider the relevant scientific information, uploaded by an author who has been the subject of an administrative review and mass deletion of uploaded works.

This is an important topic for science that deserves a factual illustration of its own, at the very least. Regards. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SkyFlubbler: Fair use cannot be uploaded to Commons. If you believe you can make a strong and clear case for fair use, then upload it locally to en.wiki with the appropriate statements. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Thank you for the response. Do you also know any relevant tags to use/what to do on the file description when uploading these types of pictures? SkyFlubbler (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SkyFlubbler: the requirements for a “fair use rationale” and the use of an appropriate template are described at en:WP:FUR. Note that a bot reduces non-free raster images to a size that would degrade these maps, because its maximum pixel count is considerably less than what you say above is minimal: I recommend converting them to SVG to maintain quality regardless of nominal size. OTOH you could avoid the copyright issue entirely by creating your own plots of the data provided in the appendix.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Skyflubbler: While Commons does not accept non-free material, these graphs are uncopyrightable (Template:PD-chart). Copyright does not protect facts. There is no authorial expression in these graphs themselves. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the University of Michigan website which gives further examples of graphs and charts that are uncopyrightable. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since both of these graphs are uncopyrightable, here they are.
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US copyright law DOES protect the work of American Samoans[edit]

Every file in Category:PD-American Samoa must be deleted immediately. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/American Samoa is incredibly misleading.

  • Even though federal statutory copyright law may not apply in American Samoa, the result is that American Samoa (by default) must follow common law copyright (which is what happens whenever federal copyright does not preempt the common law).
  • American Samoa arguably incorporates federal copyright law by reference, but let's put that aside.
  • American Samoans are US nationals. The very documents cited on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/American Samoa explicitly state that works by American Samoans are copyrighted in (the rest of) the United States.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"American Samoans are US nationals" - wrong. They are not. They con become very easy US nationals. But they are not by birth. I know personally some American Samoans. And the rest of your statement is very likey as false as yout last point. So nothing "must be deleted immediately". So far you're just making a claim that you're backing up with nothing but conjecture. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
American Samoans are 100% US non-citizen nationals by birth. See en:US National. US federal copyright law defines the works of US nationals, wherever they may be made or published, as US works subject to federal statutory copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright for uploading family photos on family member biography[edit]

I am attempting to upload a biography of my late uncle and father but am unable to upload their photos which are sourced from our family albums.

What copyright do I need to upload these images that were taken by family members years ago? Lakang (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lakang: are you, personally, the heir to the intellectual property rights of the photographers in question? If not, do you know who is? - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Also, what country?) - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you took the pictures, then you are the copyright holder and you can write {{own}}.
If you are the heir to the person who took the pictures, and the person is deceased, then you can upload it as the copyright holder. Otherwise, you can upload it on behalf of the family member(s) who took the photos or their heir(s) if they grant permission for you to do so for them.
Any such photo can be released under any of the acceptable licenses or dedicated to the public domain.
Also, of course, the photos must be within the project's scope (so it's OK if your father/uncle have Wikipedia biographies — though you shouldn't create any for them yourself). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years[edit]

Apparently this is one the license templates which are too complicated for many uploaders. Looking at the hodgepdoge of files in Category:PD Switzerland (Individuality 50 years) which is populated by the template, I think the vast majority of the files, probably all of them, don't qualify for the template, which is for photographs of three-dimensional objects where the photographic depiction was created at least 50 years ago and the reproduction has no individual character, to paraphrase the template text. Most are either showing people (or animals), landscapes, street scenes or railway cars and locomotives out in the wild. The few which might actually be non-individual photographs of 3D objects appear to be less than 50 years old.

Do you agree with this assessment? And what should be done with the files? Delete the lot? --Rosenzweig τ 16:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template might indeed be too complicated, and I might have misunderstood it. Reading up on the official explanation for the 2019/2020 change in the Swiss copyright law, it appears they actually meant to include humans etc. as "3D objects". Are there any newer Swiss court cases about when a photograph has an individual character or not? --Rosenzweig τ 00:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ben Schnall - the original Sad Sack.jpg[edit]

This file has the wrong license. It should not be a CC0 and the date is wrong. The photo is what is being licensed, but the underlying image is undetermined as copyright. I would classify it as an unpublished work by likely George Baker, who died in 1975. As such we should delete it until 2046. Thoughts? SDudley (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tagged it as speedy copyvio. It's a photo of a character from a copyrighted comic book series. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@D. Benjamin Miller: I corrected your tag. Pinging @Bonsaiman as uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, whoops! D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! @D. Benjamin Miller@Jeff G. SDudley (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo taken from a copyrighted book[edit]

Photo in question is from a book published in 2011. It is used in one article and was recently added. The uploader put this file under CC0. I think he was not the author of the photo. Should he use a lower quality image of it? The Yennefer (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Yennefer: No, absent further info, it should be deleted and the uploader at least warned. Please link the photo here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Booth Pictures" and U. S. Threshold of Originality.[edit]

I just closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg as delete because it was not a FBI-created photograph per license on the template. User:Yann raised a point that I hadn't heard before, that "booth photos" (like those created by a photo booth or passport/driver license photos) are below the ToO in the US. I have heard that in some European countries, simple photographs have a much more limited term of copyright protection that artistic ones (Italy comes to mind, which is 20 years from creation for simple photographs, and PMA 70 for artistic ones). So I figured I'd ask about whether "booth photos" should be considered {{PD-ineligible}} in the U. S. @Clindberg: @Jmabel: @Fourthords: @Feoffer: @Jeff G.: Abzeronow (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, a few points.
  • I don't know of any US court decision which specifically deals with ID photos; however, there is some pretty strong precedent which indicates that it may be possible for such photos to be uncopyrightable (see below).
  • If the photo was taken by a machine without human intervention, it may have no human author.
    • You might be familiar with the machines in use at airports in certain countries which automatically take a picture of the subject. Such photos have no human author and are ineligible for copyright. However, passport pictures are not taken purely automatically.
  • Some photos are taken in photo booths or using similar static setups, with plain white backgrounds.
    • I recall that for my (Hungarian) passport, I had my picture taken in such a booth — I think I pressed the button myself.
  • Some photos are taken by a photographer holding a camera manually, but the content of these photographs is still determined almost entirely by the specified requirements for a passport photo.
  • In any case, if a human still determines the timing of the photograph by pressing a button to take it at a particular time (which is normally the case for passport photos), then the minimal creativity requirement might be satisfied.
  • Still, the act of authorship, as defined in Feist, seems to require some modicum of choice. The taker of a passport photo has very little ability to make choices about the content of the picture, unlike the taker of a photo in any other context.
However:
  • Examine Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony. This is actually one of the earliest cases involving (as it would turn out) photography and the threshold of originality. This is also still good law (and is cited by Feist in the discussion of why there is a threshold of originality based on a "modicum of creativity"). Burrow-Giles leaves open the possibility that certain photographs may not be copyrightable (for lacking creative content). To quote the decision:

But it is said that an engraving, a painting, a print, does embody the intellectual conception of its author, in which there is novelty, invention, originality, and therefore comes within the purpose of the Constitution in securing its exclusive use or sale to its author, while a photograph is the mere mechanical reproduction of the physical features or outlines of some object, animate or inanimate, and involves no originality of thought or any novelty in the intellectual operation connected with its visible reproduction in shape of a picture. That while the effect of light on the prepared plate may have been a discovery in the production of these pictures, and patents could properly be obtained for the combination of the chemicals, for their application to the paper or other surface, for all the machinery by which the light reflected from the object was thrown on the prepared plate, and for all the improvements in this machinery, and in the materials, the remainder of the process is merely mechanical, with no place for novelty, invention, or originality. It is simply the manual operation, by the use of these instruments and preparations, of transferring to the plate the visible representation of some existing object, the accuracy of this representation being its highest merit. This may be true in regard to the ordinary production of a photograph, and that in such case, a copyright is no protection. On the question as thus stated we decide nothing.

The third finding of facts says, in regard to the photograph in question, that it is a "useful, new, harmonious, characteristic, and graceful picture, and that plaintiff made the same . . . entirely from his own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit." These findings, we think, show this photograph to be an original work of art, the product of plaintiff's intellectual invention, of which plaintiff is the author, and of a class of inventions for which the Constitution intended that Congress should secure to him the exclusive right to use, publish, and sell, as it has done by section 4952 of the Revised Statutes.

and, citing some persuasive British authorities of the time:

Brett, M.R., said in regard to who was the author: "The nearest I can come to is that it is the person who effectively is as near as he can be the cause of the picture which is produced -- that is, the person who has superintended the arrangement, who has actually formed the picture by putting the persons in position, and arranging the place where the people are to be -- the man who is the effective cause of that." Lord Justice Cotton said: "In my opinion, 'author' involves originating, making, producing, as the inventive or mastermind, the thing which is to be protected, whether it be a drawing, or a painting, or a photograph," and Lord Justice Bowen says that photography is to be treated for the purposes of the act as an art, and the author is the man who really represents, creates, or gives effect to the idea, fancy, or imagination.

  • A later case Aalmuhammed v. Lee has to do with what we might call contributions which fall below the level of authorship. Aalmuhammed made what might be copyrightable contributions in themselves, but, because he was not the mastermind of the work (with the ability to make the ultimate choices), he has no authorship.
  • We could conclude from Burrow-Giles that the person who takes a passport photo acts solely according to the uncopyrightable and precise instructions for how to compose and light the photo. They are, in this sense, not an author with the ability to make creative choices, but more akin to an amanuensis taking dictation, or a someone following the instructions of a director. The person who presses the button in such circumstances does not superintend the work, does not have the ability to make a creative choice and does not engage in an act of authorship. The photographer has no artistic control over the photograph, despite pressing the button, because the photographer must follow the instructions exactly. (However, this particular line of reasoning would only apply for photos taken in accordance with ID photo instructions — because there is no act of authorship. Another photo that is sort of like an ID photo but where the photographer has the creative latitude to determine whether or not the photo should be like that is different.)
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would like to also point out that in Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel's case the photo was taken from here, the FBI Multimedia database, and as the footnote at the main page states, "These images are for your use in publicizing the FBI and may be used without cost or permission. Please credit the FBI or the appropriate individual/organization listed in the description field.". So since FBI confirmed this photo is free to use and it's a booth photo and there is no appropriate individual/organization listed in the description, therefore we can treat it as official confirmation that booth photos are PD-ineligible. --Czarnybog (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The FBI will get any good photo they can. It was probably a passport photo. It would be fair use if used for the purpose of apprehending a fugitive. Use in other situations, not as clear. But, the FBI would not own the copyright (if it exists) so can't license it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In France that may be true -- they may not have any copyright for "simple" photos. There are Switzerland rulings along those lines. In other places, not as sure. If it's a true photo booth, where everything is under control of the person being photographed (posing themselves etc.) not sure it's much different than a selfie. Unless there were contracts signed, I would imagine the people pictured would own the copyright. For a perfunctory ID photo, where there is a fixed camera and the subject is just positioned to be in the frame, it's quite arguable there is no creativity -- there isn't much framing, and the angle is straight on, there is no posing of the subject, etc. But, I'm not sure there is a court case or Copyright Office guidance which could help us. User:D. Benjamin Miller gave one of the foundational decisions on what constitutes "copyrightable expression" in a photograph -- angle, framing, lighting, posing the subject, etc. When all of those elements aren't there, or maybe most of them, it can be ineligible for copyright (such as the photographic reproductions of paintings). It does get down to some very technical on if we can identify any authorship in such photos. Of course, it's virtually certain that such photographers would never sue for copyright, so it's unlikely we'll get a court case on them. It may be a difficult rule for us, if we don't know the circumstances of how the photo was taken -- a selfie cropped to conform to passport or other ID standards may well be copyrightable, but a perfunctory photo taken by someone else may not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I think conclusion of Burrow-Giles is that a photograph produced according to a specifically delineated uncopyrightable procedure would not be eligible for copyright. Much like in Bridgeman, there is no opportunity for creativity. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I had to guess I'd say you're right. I do think an actual photo booth, where the subjects pose themselves, may actually have some copyright. If the arrangement of the subject is part of the photographer's expression in a studio portrait (which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, [...]) then I don't see why folks can't have the same copyright in posing themselves. It's basically a selfie. But dry ID photos taken by someone else, sure. Maybe booking photos too. Knowing the difference could be a bit difficult in some situations. Without a precedent, we are just guessing though -- we have no decision or guidance from a government authority to stand on. Whether that passes the "significant doubt" threshold is the harder question, and may be up for debate. I would not vote to delete such photos (though I may not upload them, either). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree that there can be a copyright in photos taken in a photo booth, just as you say — in instances where there is creativity exercised by a human author who determines the content of the image. So I think that "booth photo" is a poor choice of phraseology to refer to the kind of photo that can't be copyrighted. The key element is not the tool that is used to express the creativity (that is, whether or ont a physical photo booth is involved). It's just whether or not there is an act of human authorship. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=849116126"