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]
I am wondering if there is a permission level which would allow me to upload a cover scan from the program of the 1957 USAC Trenton 500 stock car race. The program appears to have been published by the track, the Trenton International Speedway, which is no longer in existence (it was closed circa 1980). The program has no publication or copyright information in it, and contains non-credited images of racing drivers. RegalZ8790 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
cIf you have the whole document and are sure it has no copyright notice, then under the "old" U.S. copyright law this would be {{PD-US-no notice}}. See the Hirtle chart. - Jmabel ! talk 03:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I own a copy of the document in question. Can you check on my file? This is my first time uploading anything.
{{PD-US-no notice}} Looks mostly fine. Author would be "Trenton International Speedway" in the absence of more specific knowledge. Also, you need to add categories. - Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Content from Moj News no longer freely licensed[edit]
At some point in July 2023 Moj News (http://mojnews.com) updated the footer of the website and ceased publishing content under CC-BY-4.0. The {{Moj}} template needs to be updated, but I don't know how to do this. Recent uploads may also need to be checked. Streamline8988 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is at least a Template:Moj/fa, but I don't read, write, or understand Farsi. And there might be template translations in other languages. - Jmabel ! talk 23:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright right status of an image with a scratched out copyright symbol[edit]
I have a copy of this postcard that I want to upload. If you look at the image to the right of "PAT" and kind of down the embankment there's a copyright symbol that's either scratched out or an imprint from the postcard paper that the photograph was printed over. I can't really tell. It at least doesn't seem to be a part of the normal text of the title. So I'm wondering if it would be OK to upload the image as "PD-US-No notice" or not. I've uploaded some postcards from this photographer already and none of them have been copyrighted. Although there are a few out there that are. So I don't know if it was intentional or a printing error. It looks like a printing error, but I wanted to know what other people thought before I uploaded it. Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For works published in 1935, the copyright notice had to include the copyright symbol, the name of the copyright proprietor, and the year of publication. The notice also had to be obvious enough to give a reasonable person notice that the work was copyrighted. Because of the missing information and the barely visible copyright symbol, there was no effective copyright notice and the work entered the public domain upon publication. Either error would be sufficient to cause PD status. So PD-US-No notice is the right tag. Streamline8988 (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. Thanks for the information. I'm sure if that was the exact year of publication but it was definitely around then and it sounds like I will be good anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The year was not required for this type of work (originally, just needed for printed literary, musical, or dramatic works). You could also use initials, monogram, mark, and/or symbol of the proprietor, though the actual name should appear somewhere else on or near the item. The notice did need to be legible of course. The question here is was it once legible but faded (which would be OK), or was it an accident of the printing process and not really intended as a notice. Of course, anything with notice in this era also needed to be renewed. If you know the name of the copyright owner, you could do a search in the renewal volumes for 1962 and 1963 (for a 1935 work), probably both in photographs and commercial prints sections. Odds are rather high for this type of work it was not renewed, but you should do some sort of search to claim PD-US-not_renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like there's also faded out numbers and letters next to the copyright symbol that don't correspond to the postcard. So odds good are its probably an error. I was mainly wondering if someone could claim copyright on it regardless, but it seems as though they can't. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:00, 13 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]
Is it okay to upload this image of Richard Brathwaite? Because it was made in 1630, but the website says CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. -Artanisen (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Artanisen: absolutely. This is a claim made under the UK "sweat of the brow" doctrine (basically, that the claim that the non-creative work involved in creating a copy of a PD work can create something that is copyrighted), which Commons has decided to reject/ignore. Be aware that if you are in the UK, you are running a (probably very small) risk of being accused of infringement under that doctrine. - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 15 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]
Thanks again for your prompt response. Cheers, -- Ooligan (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possible licensing, attribution & consent issues[edit]
File:Barbara Parker.jpg is a photograph of a political candidate that appears to have been uploaded by a COI user (probably a staffer, see edit summary). It is marked as "own work" under a CC-SA 4.0 license, but considering it is the same photo used on the candidate's website, it's quite possible the uploader isn't the original photographer or can't actually license it this way. Furthermore, this picture is unlike other photos we have of the individual, which are taken in a public setting, and so raises issues of consent. How to trigger a verification process, short of requesting deletion? — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:ACCA:9BE:7071:C8C2 01:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi IP 2406:3003:2077:1E60:ACCA:9BE:7071:C8C2. You could post pretty much the same thing you posted above on the uploader's user talk page and try to explain why COM:CONSENT is needed in the particular case. You could also provide links to COM:Own work and COM:VRT to give them more information. On the other hand, you could also tag the file with {{No permission since}} which essentially does the same thing, but gives the uploader seven days to try and sort things out. Some sort of formal verification of copyright holder consent is likely going to be needed given the fact the photo was published online prior to it being uploaded to Commons. Even if you try the first approach, the second may eventually become necessary if the uploader fails to respond within a reasonable amount of time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the photo is on the candidate's website, then there is no doubt that the candidate consented to have her photo taken. And it's not a "conflict of interest" on Commons to upload a photo that is within scope, regardless of your connection to the subject of the photo. But if this same account is editing about the candidate elsewhere, then COI issues arise, and of course the copyright issue is a legitimate question on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 03:00, 16 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]
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]
I have a request regarding license templates for German public organizations. There is already the "PD-Coa-Germany". It refers to the "Corporation of public law" (German: "Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts") - For example: "Deutschlandradio", "Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung" or "Industrie- und Handelskammer".
But there is another very similar form of public organization in Germany: The "Institution of public law" (German: "Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts") - For example: "Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder", "Technisches Hilfswerk" or "Deutsche Nationalbibliothek".
The only differences are, that the Corporation of public law has members and the Institution of public law has users. Legally, both are basically very similar because both serve a public purpose.
I could therefore imagine that it would make sense if there were also a related template for the Institution of public law (German: Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts) What do you think? Bildersindtoll (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that makes any sense.
{{PD-Coa-Germany}} is just for coats of arms (German: Wappen) of states, cities, districts and similar, not for everything created by a Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts.
There is § 5 UrhG for amtliche Werke (official works), but only Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen (statutes, ordinances, official decrees and judgments) as mentioned in § 5 (1) are free enough for Wikimedia Commons, there is {{PD-GermanGov}} for that. Other official works as mentioned in § 5 (2) are not free enough for Commons because you are not allowed to change them. I suppose anything put out by the Anstalten would be either other official works or no official works at all. Some of the biggest Anstalten are the public broadcasters btw (like ZDF, WDR, NDR and so on). --Rosenzweigτ 20:31, 16 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]
). They are very simple and common symbols, or combinations thereof. Also compare with the metadata for this file.
.jpg){kind=link}
Done. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
.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){kind=link}
