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.
The sort of thing where it is very hard to determine whether that underlying work is copyrighted. Strangely, this is one of the few cases where I can more imagine a court upholding a copyright claim related to a photo of the work than if someone were actually to replicate it. - Jmabel ! talk21:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone understand what is going on here? The archive tag suggests that it is in the public domain, but then there is also a CC-BY-SA license attached. It is indeed unlikely that the image is PD in Bulgaria, which has 70 years pma as a copyright term, since the subject ascended to the patriarchy only in May 1953 (unless the image was taken for that occasion, but I don't really see any evidence for that). The source link leads to a form which seems to describe a completely different set of images, and I cannot see any evidence for the claimed CC license there either. Is anyone familiar with this archive upload project and could help out? Felix QW (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PETScan reveals 146 images under a CC license from the Bulgarian State Archive. One of them is a photo from a Chicago photography studio and should be PD as {{PD-US-not-renewed}}, but the remainder are a mix of CC-BY-SA-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0 with no indication of that license at the source and no evidence of VRT correspondence. Pinging BASA Randona.bg as the most recently active uploader from this project: Do you perhaps know how these licenses came about? Felix QW (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'll check the case with the State Archives. We also have to check the Bulgarian Law of 2007 (last amended 2022) on the National Archives Fund and the Regulations for its application. --Randona.bg (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In practical terms, the restoration of The Immigrant involved the scanning at L'Immagine Ritrovata laboratory of a nitrate safety negative, with no indication of digital interpolation, and the "reconstruction" of intertitles similar to the original ones. The copyright is held by Blackhawk Films Inc. and covers the "new restoration and special contents". IMO it is ok to upload on Commons a copy stripped of the additional music, the introduction and the end credits. — Racconish💬05:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the Center for the Study of the Public domain puts it, "If a film has been restored or reconstructed, only original and creative additions are eligible for copyright; if a restoration faithfully mimics the preexisting film, it does not contain newly copyrightable material. (Putting skill, labor, and money into a project is not enough to qualify it for copyright. The Supreme Court has made clear that 'the sine qua non of copyright is originality.')
Generally I would say that restoring the image and sound quality won't involve enough creativity to pass the threshold of originality. Acts such as adding a soundtrack to a silent film, colorizing a film, or reassembling a "lost film" from raw footage probably do involve enough creativity.
On Commons, we also have to consider the country of origin. Those two restorations by an Italian organization presumably were first published in Italy, so would have to be public domain under Italian copyright law. The EU requires that a work must represent "the author's own intellectual creation" to qualify for copyright, which seems to lead to a similar conclusion as US law. Toohool (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There would not be a separate valid copyright in a new cleaned scan of the film. In order for there to be one, the new version would have to have more the modicum of creativity — enough for the new material to be a work of authorship in itself. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright of US Government's Potentially Unauthorized Translation
Translations are usually considered derivative works and have their own copyright protection separate from the underlying work. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time the translation was written, there were no copyright relations between the US and PRC. However, the underlying work probably later received a US copyright under the URAA. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone validate if this image, imported by Primium from a Crimean government site, is under a free CC license? The website notice indicates CC 4.0 license but does it extend to photographs posted om the government site? COM:Russia (Russia de facto controls Crimea so Russian laws apply, not Ukraine) does not indicate copyright-free licensing for Crimean government works. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)03:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have a question about the licensing for some of the images on the Margaret Maltby page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Eliza_Maltby
The 1892, 1908, and 1918 photographs were uploaded by a descendent of Margaret Maltby who inherited the photographs. They weren't published elsewhere before 2003. Is the licensing information that is currently used with the images appropriate? (It's under a free CC license.) And if not, how would I change it? Thank you! Physhist (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two earlier ones would have been considered published by contemporary American law as the commercial photographer handed over copies to their client. So they should really have a {{PD-US-expired}} tag. The latest one is a tad more difficult, as it looks like an informal family photograph, that arguably could have been remained with the photographer and never left their private sphere. In any case, its copyright would then rest with the photographer rather than the subject, so being a descendant of the subject doesn't really help. Felix QW (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We usually assume that old pictures were published near the time of creation, i.e. when leaving the custody of the photographer, unless proved otherwise. I fixed the license. Yann (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: evidence for professional staging: the son is wearing a uniform, likely home on break or about to leave for training. (the son never went to the front.) Also, it was highly unlikely to have been taken by a relative, both because Maltby was not that interested in photography as a hobby, but also there are only two cups of tea on the table, suggesting the person behind the camera was not there to take tea but instead to take pictures. Physhist (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been inconsistencies in the deletion requests concerning the said Greek bridge. Some resulted to deletions, citing lack of COM:FOP Greece. Others, resulted to being kept, on the grounds that bridges cannot be considered architecture and that there is no protection for bridges under the Greek law, similar to U.S. law's treatment on U.S. bridges.
To complicate things further, there is a censored image of the bridge, used as a protest image by Greek users during the 2015 discourse on the FoP at the EU Parliament.
There should be a discussion to determine the finality of the community consensus for Greek bridges, before either (a) conducting more deletion requests on the bridge, or (b) requesting undeletion of the deleted images (as well as deleting the censored image because it is misleading, as the bridge is not protected by copyright).
Rio–Antirrio Bridge has a section saying Photography by both professional and amateur photographers or cinematographers is allowed and encouraged by the bridge management without the need for a permit...Yann (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann seems a good starting point for free shooting. But it doesn't address the issue if it can be a work of architecture falling under restrictive Greek copyright law (not allowing commercial uses) or just an ordinary structure that can be freely used even without bridge designer's permission. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)09:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If counted as architecture it needs to show somehing unique eligible as work of art to be protected. The bridge shows nothing apart from commonly known structures so nothing eligible for protection. The deleted files should be reviewed and possibly undeleted. --Denniss (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imho we should stay away from framing this bridge as not being a work of art or architecture. It surely is designed by a team of architects and structural designers. COM:Greece is not clear, that is the issue I think. Ellywa (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999 easier said than done with regards to French cases. The management of Millau Viaduct, in their website, asserts they guard Architect Norman Foster's exclusive rights over visual appearances of the bridge, and does not allow commercial uses of the bridge without prior authorization from them. This is on top of French-based ADAGP's continued opposition to Wikipedia and the FoP movement, unless Wikipedia finally chooses to accept using CC-BY-NC-ND licensing (ADAGP treats both Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a single community under the helm of WMF). The bridge management tolerates non-commercial/personal uses, as well as images that only show the viaduct in the background, thus not making it the intended focus of the images. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, old story. Obviously, they wont all promote this. Also, maybe Commons needs to do some changes for architectural photography. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which will end up in another, heated debate on FoP policy of Commons (perhaps you are aware of the discussions that I got involved early this year). The current policy is already stable enough. Not OK to mandate U.S. FoP-only policy on Commons, as several Wikimedia chapters, user groups, and affiliates outside Europe are trying their best to have FoP introduced in their countries (FoP that includes public sculptures too), like those of South Africa and the Philippines. FoP was discussed in the most recent forum held by East Asia-Southeast Asia-Pacific (ESEAP) Wikimedia region last month, in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, and ESEAP groups agreed to consider initiatives in FoP lobbying. Also, Wiki Commons shouldn't ignore the opposition from ADAGP, Cavada and other French anti-Wikipedia individuals and groups. ADAGP once sent a graffiti artist's cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia France to take down an image of an illegal graffito; for sure, upon learning that Commons shifted to only respect U.S. architectural FoP and not French laws, ADAGP and their fellow peers will certainly protest by persistently demanding take downs of undeleted images of Millau Viaduct, European Parliament building, Grande Arche et cetera. In a nutshell, the current FoP policy mainly anchored on the law of the work's country of physical origin must remain. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)08:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these issues all need to be combined. With the changes Commons needs to do, I was thinking of how architects could go about to authorize photography. Currently, this doesn't really seem obvious. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only inconsistency here in the Greek cases is that no one previously pointed out for the deleted images that we have no evidence from statute or case law that bridges are protected objects. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW of the 20 years-rule (peculiar of Italy) about the non-artistic photographs, I remember that discussing the compatibility of photos matching the rule under the URAA agreement had to be in PD in the US by 1996.
Now though I have a second thought. In a old discussion, it was said that "Any such photo created after 1976 is definitely still copyrighted;" (not " Any such photo created from 1976 onward is definitely still copyrighted;").
But yesterday I kept a file created in november 1976 and I was told that 1976 is already under protection in the USA. I have uploaded in bona fide 1976 some non artistic photographs of Italy, thus now I need to know whether I did good or not. -- Blackcat13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 20-year Italy protection would have expired at the end of the year of the 20th anniversary, so would have become public domain in Italy on January 1, 1997. That means it was still under copyright protection on January 1, 1996, so would have had its U.S. copyright restored (unless it was published in the United States within 30 days of publication in Italy). It would need to have been created during the calendar year 19951975 to have a chance. So "created from 1976 onward" is correct, or "on or after January 1, 1996". Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackcat: Correct. A photo produced on January 1, 1976 would have expired in Italy on January 1, 1997, so the URAA acted on it, and it got a term of 95 years from publication in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: the funny thing is that all these problems would be easily solved if the Commons farm moved, say, to Netherlands or Germany, where these files would be free. Only the US protects photographs which copyright in their respective country of origin has expired. -- Blackcat22:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there are many places which do not use the rule of the shorter term. Germany and the Netherlands do, but not for other EU countries -- these would be protected for 70pma in those two countries, which could be even longer than the US, and we can't use the 1976 cutoff. You just shift problems around, usually, and in most cases would be worse. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote an article about one Russian sculptor (died in 2023). His son (his name is also in the article) sent me an email with a link to a large number of photographs of his father’s work. The son is the owner of these photographs and the sculptural works that are depicted there. What power of attorney should he give me so that I can upload images to Wikicommons and receive a ticket for CC-BY-SA-4.0. Thank you. Wavepainter (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wavepainter: You don't need a power of attorney. You just need them to go through the COM:VRT process (have them cc you on the email, which can be a continuation of the thread you've already started), and make sure they indicate what license they are offering. If, for example, they offer a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, then you can upload with {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}}{{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. - Jmabel ! talk18:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the clarification. I understand that they should write a letter following the example on the VRT website. The problem is that I have now seen that the link they sent me is their own OneDrive Live online files storage where you can only log in with a password. So they are giving me permission to take files from their own site. What's the solution to this? Wavepainter (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wavepainter: Assuming the copyright-owner trusts you, they can write a rather open-ended permission letter to VRT: that you will be uploading on their behalf, with their permission, and that they authorize you to use some particular license (I recommend either CC-BY-SA 4.0 or CC-BY 4.0, and of course you will use the "heirs" version of the template) when doing so. I think that will work, but if you want details on what would be acceptable for VRT, that's really not a copyright issue, that's something for Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please send us a clear statement that your Commons account (or some other Commons account) is authorized to license your works, either any work or some set of works, e.g. "My images from event X, 2013-10-15". We will make a note of this for your future uploads.
Before 1978, you could omit the year if it was anything other than a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work. You could still omit it in some situations from 1978 to 1989, though less often, and not sure this qualifies. Unsure if judges would give more leeway given the rules which had been in place for decades before that. The other problem though, is that copies without notice (or defective notice) had to be distributed. If this was a photo that USA Today took, but this particular copy remained private and was not actually distributed outside the company until after 1989, there is no loss of copyright. So photos from old archives becoming available today would not change anything, copyright-wise. You would need to prove that more than a relative few copies of this photo were actually distributed without notice before 1989, if it came to a court case. For this one, we would probably need more info on the provenance. If this copy was kept private internally at USA Today until at least 1989, then the question on the notice is moot and copyright would likely still exist. As for the last question, it was always possible to register copyright for individual photos. But, a copyright notice on the entire newspaper (a collective work) also covers all contained works which do not have a separate copyright notice. Registration itself was furthermore never required. Renewal was after 28 years, but that is only for works published before 1964. Anything published after that, renewals are automatic. And copyright exists, even if not registered (that only affects the possible penalties). Publication without notice is the only way for works published between 1964 and 1989 to be public domain today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response! Yeah, I'll hold off on uploading this to Commons until we get clearer confirmation if this picture was released and/or distributed publicly in any capacity. Hyperba21 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there information somewhere, or a previous discussion, about the license history on Flickr for licenses changed before mid-2008? (This is in the context of observations in this DR.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Please remove the statement "When using this template, please provide information of where the image was first published and who created it." Publication date is not relevant to Australian images." - Hawkeye7
As a template editor but not a license expert, I wanted to run this proposal by VPC before considering completing the request. It appears at odds with other information I see on that template about publication date, and frankly odd that publication date could really be irrelevant to determining PD status. Any ideas? Josh (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In countries using p.m.a. + 70 publication date is irrelevant if there is a known author. Is it really irrelevant in Australia if there is not a known author? - Jmabel ! talk23:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replied there. Yes, it's still very relevant for anonymous works. It's still relevant in edge conditions sometimes even when the author is known. It also can be relevant for users in other countries even if not important for the Australian term, so it's always good info to provide if known. But it is true that it will be used less often going forward in Australia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to upload this ship portrait, clearly signed by Everhardus Koster (1817-1892), of the clipper "Grecian". But at the foot of that page is a note "Use of this Item is not restricted by copyright and/or related rights, but the holding organization is contractually obligated to limit use. For more information, please contact the contributing organization. However, watermarked Maine Memory Network images may be used for educational purposes." The MHS Catalogue has a large-size watermark, while the others have a nano-version top centre. Although I don't comprehend what the "contractual obligations" are, I supposed that the image is off-limits, even for the watermarked image due to the educational purposes limitation.
The artist Everhardus Koster died in 1892 so its PD. This is a bit dark, and you would have to crop off the frame. I have a clean full copy, but its only 47.5kb big. The dark one comes in at 27kb. Their just useable. There might be something here here, but I dont have access. Broichmore (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you are confirming that the unexplained "contractual obligations" can be ignored, then I'll upload the 217kb frameless version that I extracted, which should look OK. - Davidships (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They could be something like donor restrictions. Nobody else is limited by those agreements, just the entity which signed the contract. If we do something which gets the institution in trouble, that could make it less likely for people to donate and/or the library to make things available. But, they don't really give any indication of what the restrictions really are. Either way, if they make something available, then it should be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue at the file's talk page on en:wiki 4 months ago, but there was no input, so I'm copying said talk entry of mine here, in hopes that someone could offer some guidance:
This image [mentioned in the header] was published in the "Japanese pictorial magazine about the Sino-Japanese War Asahi-ban Shina-jihen Gaho published on Jan. 27, 1938." according to the information provided in the information box. The page w:en:Talk:Nanjing Massacre denial/Disputed material has further images from that source and those other images have been uploaded to Wiki Commons. So, I'm a bit surprised to see the current license warning for this image. Is the source information for this image incorrect? Is it ok to transfer it to Commons? Or were the other images from this source uploaded to Wiki Commons despite not being in the public domain?
@GerritR: Gibt es denn irgendwelche Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass diese Zeichnung kein eigenes Werk des Benutzers User:Mattatja ist? Ist die Zeichnung, bevor sie als Datei hier hochgeladen wurde, schon anderswo gedruckt oder im Internet veröffentlicht worden? --Rosenzweigτ14:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nein, nicht dass ich wüsste. Trotzdem habe ich Zweifel, ob Zeichner und Hochlader die gleiche Person sind. Das Bild könnte zum Beispiel in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt sein.--GerritR (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Der Hochlader User:Mattatja hat übrigens auch historische Fotos, die eindeutig nicht von ihm sein können, als "eigenes Werk´" hochgeladen. Dies spricht nicht gerade für urheberrechtliche Sorgfalt bei der Zeichnung.--GerritR (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GerritR Wer würde denn bei einem vermeintlichen Werk aus dem Jahre 1856 das Copyright haben? Laut Wappenrecht scheint es beim Heraldiker zu liegen, der das Wappen entworfen hat, aber dieser ist bei einem Wappen aus dem Jahre 1856 doch sicherlich schon lange tot, wodurch das Wappen wohl gemeinfrei wäre. Nakonana (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Da wäre zum einen COM:Assume good faith zu nennen. Es gibt keinen Grund, anzunehmen, dass dieses Wappen keine eigenhändige Zeichnung ist. Das Wappen hat keine sonderlich schwierigen Elemente, besteht zum Teil aus geometrischen (Teil-)Figuren und man braucht entsprechend kein großes künstlerisches Talent, um es selbst nachzuzeichnen. Es gibt also zahlreiche Leute, die so eine Nachzeichnung, wie man sie hier sieht, problemlos anfertigen könnten. Wenn du annimmst, dass das Bild in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt wird, so bedeutet dies, dass Mattatja scheinbar Zugang zu besagten Archiven hat oder besagtes Mitglied sein müsste; denn anders käme man an keine Kopie des Bildes. Du könntest die Verbindung also bei Bedarf kontaktieren und auf diese potentielle Urheberrechtsverletzung aufmerksam machen. Aber, wenn du mich fragst, ist das Wappen wirklich nicht schwierig nachzuzeichnen, also sehe ich da keinen Grund zur Annahme einer Urheberrechtsverletzung, es sei denn, es gibt konkrete Hinweise dafür. Nakonana (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich sehe mich keineswegs in der Pflicht, hier irgendwelche Nachforschungen zu betreiben. Hab ich etwa die Beweislast? Was die Annahme, die Zeichnung sei eigenhändig, absolut nicht stützt, ist die Hochladehistorie des Benutzers. Dem unterstelle ich übrigens keinen schlechten Willen (COM:Assume good faith), sondern nur Unachtsamkeit bzw. Bedenkenlosigkeit beim Copyright. Und hier gilt nach wie vor com:pcp.--GerritR (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich würde das Copyright bei der Zeichnung aber in diesem Fall trotzdem nicht anzweifeln, weil dieses Wappen wirklich nicht schwer ist nachzuzeichnen. Ich habe es mal mit dem Kugelschreiber (also ohne Möglichkeit Fehler auszuradieren) ausprobiert und habe in knapp 5 Minuten folgendes Ergebnis zustande bekommen: File:Wappen Wirttembergia 1856 by Nakonana on 20240623 191803.jpg. Mein allererstes eigenhändig gezeichnetes Wappen. Wenn du also Zweifel an dem anderen hast, können wir stattdessen meine Kreation verwenden, die, denke ich, eindeutig und zweifelsfrei als mein Werk identifizierbar ist :) Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Du argumentierst nicht zum Thema "einenes Werk", sondern zum Thema Com:too. Eine Handzeichnung eines Werks ohne eigene Schöpfungshöhe ist aber wie das Foto eines Grashalms: Irgendjemand muss es machen.--GerritR (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Und selbst wenn es jemand macht, wenn es unter COM:TOO fällt, wäre die Urheberrechtsfrage unbedeutend, weil es bei dem Werk gemäß COM:TOO nichts urheberrechtlich zu schützen gäbe.
Es gibt bei dem Wappen einfach keinen Grund, die Eigenständigkeit des Werkes anzuzweifeln, weil es selbst einem ungeübten Menschen mit Leichtigkeit gelingt, eine passable Nachzeichnung anzufertigen. Nakonana (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bloss weil es vermutlich recht simpel ist, das Wappen nachzumalen, heißt das noch lange nicht, dass der Hochlader sich auch tatsächlich selbst die Mühe gemacht hat. und was die sonstigen Beiträge des Hochladers anbelangt, siehe oben. GerritR (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The job of the administrator to determine consensus is to review the evidence provided. You provided the shortest of context and no evidence. No indications of anything else. On the basis of the evidence provided there was not a consensus to delete. PCP says "significant doubt" and the case presented did not reach that standard. Quick Google Lens and TinEye searches presented nothing. It was "in use" so personal artwork isn't ours to determine, and there are so many COA on site, and this is one with an old date. Kept. — billinghurstsDrewth22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked in a previous thread if the version of "Manos: The Hands of Fate" that Ben Solovey restored is also PD, I ended up doing some digging about this topic and I found such an interesting set of details about "Manos" and its Copyright.
First of all I watched three versions of the movie to determine if the changes made in the restoration were "Substantial and creative" to gain new Copyright, the one in Commons, the Restoration and the MST3K version and basically the only differences I could find aside from the improved quality of Audio and Video of the Restoration, is that both MST3K and the Restored version has two additional minutes in the Intro that the Commons version doesn't have, the only other thing that I notice is a bit of small (but not too substantial) editing fixes, such as the removal the frame that had the Clapperboard in the kissing scene (around the 6 minute mark in Commons, 7 in Restored and 29 in MST3K).
Also at the end of Restored it shows that Solovey didn't put a Copyright to the film itself, but only the additional contents. (SPECIAL CONTENTS OF THIS EDITION COPYRIGHT 2013, MOTH INC.) The blu-ray cover also doesn't assign copyright to the film itself (Copyrights of the "Program Content" and the Cover) See here
Solovey himself in 2017 in a Kickstarter post would declare he's championing for the movie to keep it's PD status. ("Joe Warren has attempted, without success,...incorrectly claiming “copyright infringement” on this public domain work"). So I find it weird that inexplicably the Playboy article from 2015 mentions that Solovey "was successful in copyrighting the restoration" it could be just a legal threat to Warren state or misinterpretation by the article's writer mixing the words "Copyright" and "Trademark".
I also found this blog post that details more than the Playboy article did but also does a really great job explaining the Copyright legalities not only of this film but other examples such as "Raging Bull". It's a long read and it concludes that the original screenplay written by Warren under the title "Fingers of Fate" is definitely under Copyright, but it also concludes that the PD status of the film itself is safe and since neither the Warren Trust or Solovey has taken this into court matter or set a precedent "Manos" the film is still PD.
TLDR: Since the thread above has stated that a Restored film wouldn't gain new Copyright if the changes are not substantial, the Warren state hasn't seeked legal action since 2015, the Manos Trademark has been abandoned in 2018 and it's safe to assume Solovey would be happy to see the PD film distributed everywhere clearly showing that he didn't put any Copyright notice on the restoration. While the only thing that couldn't be uploaded is the original screenplay "Fingers of Fate", which again we wouldn't obtain since the Warren state doesn't want to release it publicly. I think it's safe to upload the restored version of "Manos" into Commons.
I'm not a lawyer but based on Commons:Hirtle chart, if the artist died in 1853 and the work was not published before 2003, then it passed into the public domain on January 1, 2003 on the basis that the author had been dead over 70 years. (This change in status was due to a change in U.S. copyright law effective on that date.) There is no way that copyright could be regained; faithful reproduction of the work does not create a new copyright; it is almost impossible to imagine what intellectual property right Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc. is claiming, or how they think they came by that right. Perhaps they are over two decades out of date in their knowledge of copyright law; perhaps they are just bluffing. Your guess is as good a mine. - Jmabel ! talk06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, How is it possible that FlickreviewR reviews a file with a bogus license? If FlickreviewR is not reliable, we have a serious problem. Yann (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg/220px-Rio_Antirrio_-_panoramio_(27).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png){kind=small}
Comment The job of the administrator to determine consensus is to review the evidence provided. You provided the shortest of context and no evidence. No indications of anything else. On the basis of the evidence provided there was not a consensus to delete. PCP says "significant doubt" and the case presented did not reach that standard. Quick Google Lens and TinEye searches presented nothing. It was "in use" so personal artwork isn't ours to determine, and there are so many COA on site, and this is one with an old date. Kept. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
