What rules apply for digitalized versions of book covers, especially by defunct publishers? How does their copyright status change depending on whether the creator of the cover design is or is not known? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello All. Please see these two advertisement. Can I upload these advertisements on Commons, since they are no any artistic work. I want to use it in Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gazal world: Please ask your question at Commons, where it will get more attention. c:COM:VPC is probably the right venue. Wikiacc (¶) 00:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. I have posted this on Commons. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

https://collections.louvre.fr/en/page/cgu says:

"The downloading and re-use of medium-format photographs published on the collections website representing works that are not protected by copyright..."

I couldn't tell for sure from reading the terms of use, but to me it looks like none of the images at https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ have a compatible license that would allow free use on Wikipedia, even if the works themselves are public domain. Am I right? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon, that's a question to ask at Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about c:Template:PD-TXGov over at c:COM:VPC#PD-TXGov and input from editors familiar with US state copyright laws would be really appreciated. If it turns out that this license is OK for Commons, WP:PD#US government works might need to be updated. It might also mean that some non-free files uploaded locally to Wikipedia could be converted to PD and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the policy stated here for artworks (which presumably applies mutatis mutandis to photographs) is more restrictive than Commons' policy. If the concern is only with artworks hosted on en-wiki, then that is no problem, but if there is a concern with en-wiki using artworks hosted on Commons and which may not meet en-wiki's tighter standard, that could be quite a problem. This has recently been discussed on Commons at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Old artworks and"publication"; (permalink, since that will eventually be archived). A few examples of where policy would differ:

1. Consider an artwork executed in 1885 by an artist who died in 1919, where our source is a book published in 1998. The current project page states that is that it is mandatory to have proof that the work was published before 1978, and that exhibition does not count as publication. Commons does generally consider pre-1978 exhibition to constitute publication, so for a picture that was hanging in a museum most of those years, Commons would not require any further proof. A strict reading of the current policy page would suggest that image should not be used on en-wiki without such proof.
2. Another case: most of the works in commons:Category:Black and white group portrait photographs at the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition by Frank H. Nowell. There is a possibility that they were first posted to the Internet before 2003. For each, en-wiki requires proof that either it was not posted to the Internet before that date or, conversely, it was published pre-1978. Commons presumes that, given that these were photos taken by a professional photographer whose routine practice was to make money from these photos by selling copies to the individuals depicted, we don't need separate evidence, let alone absolute proof, that this happened for each individual photo in this category. Again, a strict reading of the current policy page would suggest that these images should not be used on en-wiki without such proof.
3. Not mentioned in the Commons discussion linked above, but a distinct case: the images in commons:Category:Images from the H. Ambrose Kiehl Photograph Collection. Again, we don't know when these were first posted to the Internet, and it could be before 2003. Probably few, if any, of these had prior publication. University of Washington Libraries Special Collections, which inherited the collection and published these on the Internet, makes no claim to own a copyright on them. (I personally am in regular contact with UW Libraries, and I've verified that they make no such claim, although there is nothing stated either way on their website, which just says to contact them for further information about reproducing these; also, UW Libraries don't seem to have a record of exactly when they first posted these, so it could be before or after 2003). Commons considers that "good enough", given that they are pre-1928 and the photographer died in 1942. Again, a strict reading of the current policy page would suggest that these images should not be used on en-wiki unless we had proof of pre-1978 publication of the particular image.
4. Similar considerations probably apply to the bulk of Commons images tagged with commons:Template:PD-old-assumed.

I suspect that, in fact, this requirement by en-wiki is rarely, if ever, enforced with reference to such images hosted on Commons. I personally have no problem with that, but there probably should be some discussion of this. Offhand, I see a few possibilities:

1. Accept the status quo, and consider it a fine example of IAR.
2. Bring this page in line with Commons' practice.
   • Variant: make explicit exactly the specific decision to defer to Commons where Commons has decided to accept a given image. Leave the current requirement for hosting images on en-wiki.
3. Keep policy as it is, overtly recognize that this is a discrepancy between en-wiki and Commons, and do one of the following:
   1. No particular action at this time, but be more aware of the issue moving forward.
   2. Start a major undertaking to go through en-wiki looking for images used from Commons that may violate this policy.
   3. Work with Commons to start "tagging" images that are acceptable to Commons but should not be used on en-wiki; this could be combined with the prior choice.
   4. (As a Commons admin, I would strongly oppose the following, but am noting it for completeness): try to convince Commons to adopt en-wiki's policy.
      • The main reason I would oppose this is that literally hundreds of other wikis rely on Commons and, as far as I can tell, literally none of then state any comparable requirement, presumably at least in part because (even though most or perhaps all are physically hosted in the U.S.) they are less specifically focused on U.S. copyright law. Many of them, of course, host no images at all and completely rely on Commons for decisions like this.

If someone wants my attention in particular on this, please ping; I'll check in on this talk page the next few days, but I don't routinely maintain a watchlist on en-wiki. - Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I.e. which country's copyright rules determine what can and cannot be put on Wikipedia? E.g. Winston Churchill's The River War was published in 1899 and has long since fallen out of copyright in the US. However, as Churchill has been dead for less than 70 years, it is still in copyright in the UK and the EU. On the other hand, George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four was published in 1949 and is still (assuming that renewal took place) in copyright in the USA. However, as Orwell has been dead for more than 70 years, it is out of copyright in the UK and the EU. Can material from either or both be put into a Wikipedia article? If the rule were 'anything which is in copyright anywhere in the world cannot appear in a Wikipedia article, then that would cover the entire Sherlock Holmes canon back to 'A Study in Scarlet' (1887). As Conan Doyle died in 1930, and Mexican copyright lasts for 100 years for authors who died on or after 23 July 1928. Alekksandr (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Alekksandr: as is stated on the project page, we have to follow U.S. law, because that is where our servers are hosted, and also choose to follow the law of the country of first publication (presumably that's only germane if there wasn't simultaneous publication in the U.S., since then we can consider the U.S. as the country of first publication; also, as far as I know, courts have been pretty consistent about considering any authorized publication within 30 days as "simultaneous"). - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Alekksandr (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)