Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

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

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

Great shearwater and plastics pictures from paper[edit]

May the pictures of a great shearwater and plastics from Figures S1 and S2 [1] (CC-BY) be uploaded here? If so, may I ask someone to do so? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

File:Winnie-the-Pooh 19.png[edit]

Files such as this one have been uploaded here and more in Category:Winnie The Pooh. However, the version on en-WP says it will not be in the public domain in its home country until January 1, 2047. There was some discussion on Wikisource on whether the US should be considered (one of) the home country. What do we think? ––HTinC23 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC) (02:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC) edited)[reply]

Published simultaneously in the UK and US in October 1926, per the en-wiki article. PD in the US as of three days ago. The text's copyright will expire in the UK (and most of the rest of Europe) in 2027; the illustrations not until 2047. So, it comes down to what is the "country of origin". Per Berne, with simultaneous publication, the country of origin is the one with the shorter copyright term. Of course the US was not part of Berne at the time. But if you go with that definition, then the U.S. is the country of origin I think. If you would prefer to break the tie based on the nationality of the authors, it would be the UK. There are no definitive precedents for something like this, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, this is not a legal question, but a moral one. Legally, we are in the clear because it is PD in the US, so it's a question of whether we choose to host it or not despite being copyrighted in the UK. The determination of country of origin is something that we haven't really formalized in general. For COM:FOP, we take the more lenient of the following two: 1) the country the work is located in and 2) the country the work was photographed from. In most cases, a chain of COM:DW requires PD in all affected countries, but not for FoP when its placement in the target country is (or can be presumed to be) authorized by the original copyright holder. But for multiple competing countries at the outset, we don't really have a policy written down somewhere. -- King of ♥ 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure the book was the first publication of this illustration? Prior to the publication of the 1926 book (which may have been simultaneously published in 30 days in the US) Milne had published a series of stories about the bear in newspapers with illustrations by Shepard. Sources indicate that the stories and illustrations were reused in later books. Was this specific image one first published in the UK newspaper (so not simultaeneously published in the US) and reused or was it a new commission from the same artist that had worked with the author before? If it is the former, our tentative argument for retention here falls apart. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An update: these files are now nominated for deletion. HTinC23 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rules deal with U.S. copyright in the first instance, which makes sense because U.S. is the home of Commons. Under U.S. law, this is a U.S. work. Because the book (and thus the illustration) is in the public domain in the U.S., the book (and the images) can be hosted on Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is The "Teddy" Bear original of 1903 in the Smithsonian- [2]. That face looks familiar. Winnie-the-Pooh was published first in the U.S. book market, because of a huge population of potential buyers (and profits) compared to the U.K., especially with the continued popularity of this American stuffed bear. A book business after all. --Ooligan (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan: Thanks, but please use internal links like Category:1903 Teddy bear in Smithsonian Museum of American History.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Queen Hame of Assyria, Nimrud (side view).png[edit]

Hi all -- I'm working on a Good Article review of the Wikipedia article for an ancient Assyrian queen named Hama. The article is currently accompanied by three photos of treasures/artifacts found in the tomb of this queen (example: the golden seal linked in title of this post), but I'm not certain whether these photos have adequate licenses. The photos were all taken in 2003 by a member of the US Army as part of official duties (tagged accordingly) and published in an American academic journal, and I'm satisfied that they're public domain under US copyright laws, but according to the source these photos were originally taken in Bagdad, Iraq, and so I'm wondering: are they all right for use under Iraq copyright laws? Or is that totally unnecessary to worry about, as they were published in the US? Is it the place of creation or publication that matters here? Any advice would be appreciated. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the place of publication that matters. Ruslik (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ruslik! I'm very glad to hear it. Copyright should be okay then. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Provided the artefacts are PD, as the photos are derivative works of the artefacts. Were they published during the days of the queen? Otherwise I suppose they never have been published with the consent of the copyright owner (probably her descendants, if there are any left). :-) I suppose this is academic, but if I am right, then the copyright legislation is breached by a lot of governmental institutions. –LPfi (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi all. I’ve just uploaded four new images:

They were both nominated for deletion. Yet, in order not to be mistaken, I looked at an already existing file on Commons.
I found this:

I indicated the same license as this image: PD-Italy. My question is: what’s the difference between my images and "Luciano_Pavarotti_72.jpg"? --Sentruper (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should put specific copyright tags as in the above mentioned image. Ruslik (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just put the text "PD-Italy" in there; you need to put the license tag, which is the text {{PD-Italy}} (with the squiggly braces). That way, it will show up in the licensed categories. However, do note that PD-Italy is more for snapshot-type photos; studio portraits like File:Ebe Stignani.jpg and especially File:Stignani Carmen.jpg would not qualify, as those would be 70 years after the death of the photographer. If that type of photo is anonymous, i.e. the photographer's name was not provided on the original publications, they would need to be created before 1940 (thus expired before mid-1996 per the old rules of 50 years from creation, plus six years wartime extension) and published before 1952 (published more than 70 years ago) to be OK -- those would then be {{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{PD-1996}}. If not anonymous, then the author needs to have died before 1952, and the photo created before 1940. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's an additional problem. Even for those that are snapshot-type photos, the source for all four images was published in 1980. If that was the date of first publication, they would have been copyrighted in the United States as being first published after January 1, 1978, even without the URAA. TrueNeutral879 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should File:Emilio Pucci 1973.jpg be taken down?[edit]

When I found this photo on eBay without the copyright notice on the back, and (I thought) taken at an American hotel, I thought it met USA published without a copyright notice criteria. I have just now found the same image (flaws and all) up on Getty Images attributed to the Fairfax Media Archives, and a bit of poking around suggests the hotel might actually have been in Australia. I know that the rules only apply to photographs that were taken in the USA, so as someone's staked a claim on it, I guess I should request this file be deleted, right? Thank you so much for your advice. Mabalu (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getty images' photo is from that exact same copy (same wrinkles etc.) Did they just use the eBay scan? How did that copy end up on eBay after obviously being owned by the newspaper? Did Getty simply buy it? What were the details of the eBay auction... is it still available to see? On the other hand... the mentioned Wentworth Hotel is I think in Sydney, and Fairfax Media is an Australian company, and the Daily Sun mentioned on the back of the photo could well be the Australian newspaper of that name, so ... would seem to be an Australian photo. I'd probably remove it either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original version of the upload here includes a partial caption saying the image was intended for "Herald Look." Fairfax media's primary publication was the The Sydney Morning Herald (and sister paper, the Sun Herald). "Herald Look" was likely a section or supplement to one of their papers. This suggests first publication of the image in Australia in 1973. The caption also provides the surname of the photographer; establishing the identity of a Herald employee from 1973 based on a surname is not impossible. The current claim of unknown author is wrong and Australian copyright of author's life +70 years is almost certain to apply. At the moment we have no evidence of publication in the USA, so the current rationale is flawed. I also think that this should be deleted unless an alternative justification for retention can be crafted. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, it mentions the photo was used in the Sydney Morning Herald's Look section in mid-1973 (there are some Google hits on there being such a section in that newspaper). The photographer was probably Rick Stevens then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone. I've requested it be deleted, with a link to this discussion. It was uploaded in good faith, but now I understand I was mistaken. Mabalu (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reprints L'Esprit nouveau[edit]

Hi, Reprints of L'Esprit nouveau, a French magazine from 1920 to 1925, are available at Hathitrust in full view. Usually Hathitrust is quite rigorous in checking copyrights, so I wonder if they documents might be OK. Any idea? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do they use foreign rules or just U.S. rules when deciding on copyrights? They are mostly visible as full view to me (coming from U.S.), but some of the volumes are still search-only. Obviously, such works from 1925 only expired in the U.S. last year. The one I looked at has an article by Le Corbusier on Roman architecture... followed by an article by "De Fayet" which was apparently a Le Corbusier pseudonym. And articles by Amédée Ozenfant under his pseudonyms. I guess those two were the primary authors of that magazine? Can't see how that would be OK in France and therefore here, unless French copyright law on collective works limits the term to 70 years from publication, regardless of the lifetime of the authors? Does the copyright of the individual articles matter? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
w:Hathitrust has its repositories based in Michigan, USA, so are primarily concerned with US copyright law. They have a large body of work stored that is both in and out of copyright. In the past they have defended claims of fair use on copyrighted works in the US courts. They also deal with documents with more complex international copyrights and appear to apply access controls based on the jurisdiction of the IP address accessing their systems. Unlike Hathitrust, our policies of not accepting fair use rationales and on being open to all jurisdictions means we have more complex issues to consider. Commons policy of having suitable licensing or expiry of copyright in both country of origin and USA would suggest that a blanket authorisation of these works here would be inadvisable. Many of the magazines (or excerpts from the magazines) may be out of copyright in France but that will need to be established on a case-by-case basis. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: For France, rule is 70 years from publication only if the author is not mentioned, which is not the case here. And yes, documents which are not PD in France are usually not available in full view to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xsprintair logo w-5321edff.webp.pagespeed.ic.Sf2H1 MBFP.webp[edit]

Hello, I do not know under what license this image may be licensed. This is a logo, maybe it is freely available or an image on which ordinary geometric shapes are applied (therefore the file is not subject to licensing, but is publicly available), please help--Marshal 10000 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SprintAir is based in Poland where the threshold of originality is really low. I.e. this logo seems not be free at all and should not have been uploaded here. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I upload derivative work from this photo?[edit]

Hello! I want to know if I can upload a derivative work of this photo,,_presidente_de_la_II_Rep%C3%BAblica_Espa%C3%B1ola.jpg#mw-jump-to-license and, if it's possible to upload it, who is the author, me or the photographer. Thanks! Fewasser ;-)Tell me!! 23:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fewasser: It depends on what changes you want to make to the image. What are they? – BMacZero (🗩) 01:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: Hi! Thanks for answering. I coloured the image, nothing more. Fewasser ;-)Tell me!! 01:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fewasser: In that case, you probably did add creatively to the image, so you've created a true derivative work where both you and the original author should be attributed (because both of your creative works are present). An author line like "Unknown author (colorized by Your Name Here)" would be appropriate, and you'll want to leave the original license tag and add a new one (like {{CC-BY-4.0}} or {{PD-Self}}) that applies to your edits. Your edit is probably in COM:SCOPE, so I think you can upload it (as a new file, don't COM:OVERWRITE the existing one). – BMacZero (🗩) 05:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should also add {{RetouchedPicture}} to your new file page. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fewasser: Hi, and welcome. Per this page, File:Niceto Alcalá Zamora, presidente de la II República Española.jpg was taken by Alfonso Sanchez Portela (N/A, 1902 - 1990), who holds copyright through 1990+80=2070. Please use internal links.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Jeff G.: @BMacZero: , i dont understand wery well the internal links concept. What I understand here is that this file cannot be used in Commons, so it need to be uploaded as a Fair Use photo. Am I right?. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Fewasser ;-)Tell me!! 15:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fewasser: Yes, but not here or on Spanish Wikipedia or Wikidata. See en:WP:F for upload on enwiki.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it appears that the file that you have coloured was itself a copyvio. This means, that although you still own the copyright of the additional work, the initial file is not free, and thus the combined work is not free either. Commons does not allow fair use/fair dealing images, and I doubt that any court would conclude that simply colouring a black and white photo transforms it into something completely different (in the USA there are 4 factors, and I believe that all 4 are against you on this one). So you can use your coloured image if the initial is allowed due to some other reason (for example for an educational purpose, research, etc), since the additional copyright you would be able to licence. However, this would be disallowed on Commons. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 16:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the people in the United States[edit]

I haven't seen anybody mention that here, but the US Copyright Office is currently open to comments on the possibility of issuing copyright registrations without any consideration regarding the status of the work. It could potentially allow people to register public domain works and claim copyright on them. The current idea is that the applicant needs to request the examination. If you live in the USA, perhaps you could send in your ideas, it has the potential to influence how this project is run. (P.S. I am not saying that the entire proposal is bad, please consider it, and send your comments to the Copyright Office if you think appropriate) ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? Registrations do not create any new copyright anyway. Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It only allows people to sue others for copyright infringement without having to prove damages. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 04:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They still must prove the validity of the copyright, though. This proposal doesn't seem to change much. TrueNeutral879 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and URAA[edit]

Really, I'm again curious on reasons that why Iranian works may be copyrighted in the United States.

Per COM:Iran, Iran did not participate the Berne Convention, WTO, Universal Copyright Convention or anything else about copyrights. But recently @Chubit: 's two edits lead me to image that if there may have other reasons that URAA may be applied to Iranian works.

Those edits may result risks to several files, that they may be deleted unless uploaders or authors know why they're Public Domain in US (though for old uploads {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} may apply). I asked Chubit twice for clarification but no responds till now. Moreover, I saw some year-old discussions on the template talk page that for some reasons {{Copyright notes}} can't be added to PD-Iran template? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure about the exact nature of copyright protection in the United States for Iranian works (it sounds simple in the beginning, but the devil is always in the detail). However, the simpler thing is Commons' policy: «Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work.» So if the work is copyrighted in Iran, but is free in the United States, you are free to host it on a server in the United States, but it will not be in accordance to our current policy to keep it here. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 14:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is rather the opposite. Iran has a very short term copyright for pictures (compared to most Western countries at least), so many pictures are in the public domain in Iran due to age, but not yet in USA, which doesn't use the rule of shorter term. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there should be any URAA issues with works from Iran -- they don't have a URAA date, since they have not joined the Berne Convention. So, we typically just try to respect the terms that Iran has now (which, most likely, would not change if they join Berne, meaning we could likely keep any files that are in the Iranian PD at the time). The only issue might be unpublished works; those would be protected in the U.S. regardless (an Iranian author could in theory first publish in the U.S., or any other Berne country, to get worldwide copyright protection on their work). Otherwise, they are PD in the U.S. by virtue of being from a country with no U.S. copyright relations. Not sure why the PD-Iran tag insists on a U.S. tag, really -- it should likely be replaced with {{Copyright notes}} as you mention. Sounds like it was added in 2012, and then someone thought it was odd and wanted it removed in 2014, but again with no discussion. But that tag is the closest we have to a "PD-US-no-copyright-relations" tag, I think. Unless you want to use {{PD-1996|country=Iran}}, as you could consider that "correct", since the URAA date is in the future (if it will ever exist). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted Chubit's edits. I agree with what Gone Postal said. Let's not complicate things. Iranian works are not protected in the US and vice versa. I have no objections to adding {{Copyright notes}} to the PD-Iran template. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black and white photos in Category:Saline Valley[edit]

Many black-and-white photos in Category:Saline Valley are sourced to this site: [3]. They are certainly dated to before 1927; however it is unclear if they were published before then or not, and the source's main page has a notice "All items on this website have been catagorized [sic] as fair use and are being displayed strictly for non-commercial and nonprofit educational purposes." I expect this to be either PD-US-expired or PD-US-no notice, and uploader Netherzone has agreed, but would just like to make sure in case we missed something. eviolite (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they were published after 1927, they may not be in public domain. So, the date of publication is important. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina General Assembly map graphics[edit]

I wanted to upload a congressional district map here, which was linked to from here, since File:United States Congressional Districts in North Carolina, 2021 - 2023.tif, the previous congressional districts map has been uploaded. However, I saw in the disclaimer page that "Photographs and graphics on the North Carolina General Assembly Website may be under Copyright Protection"; I don't know if it applies to these maps as well. Also, a similar, smaller pdf is also at the "All About Redistricting" website here, linked to from here; the original pdf is from here. Twotwofourtysix (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Twotwofourtysix: This map likely does not meet the threshold of originality. The copyright notice does likely apply to the map, but that doesn’t matter, because this map doesn’t deserve copyright. The basic information of the map—the shape of North Carolina, the shape of the North Carolina’s counties, the shape of the various Congressional districts, and the shape of the precincts (in the inset maps)—are not copyrightable. The “original” elements of this map are thus the positioning of the main and inset maps, the selection of the inset maps, and the choice of color for the districts; and these fall below the standard set forth in Darden v. Peters. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

French threshold of originality[edit]

Hello, there is something clearly wrong stated in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France#Threshold_of_originality, for more explanation see the corresponding talk page. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collective works without searching: suitable templates?[edit]

For Collective works that are uploaded without a reasonable search, using a cut-off date of 150 years, what are the right template/s to use? {{PD-newspaper-assumed}} is for when the reasonable search is done, which comes with a 120 year cut-off. Inductiveload (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-old-assumed}}. I assume. Borysk5 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Borysk5 That also specifies a 120 year cut-off (in fact, it's just a more general case of {{PD-newspaper-assumed}}). While I suppose it's "technically" true, because 150 is greater than 120, it doesn't seem to capture the complete situation.
Or should old-assumed learn a parameter to say "this hasn't been subject to a reasonably diligent search, so it's 150 years"? Inductiveload (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And is 150 actually a "thing" at all, or is it always 120 after the discussion over {{PD-old-assumed}}? Inductiveload (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reichstag Dome and German FOP[edit]

An image at enwiki, w:en:File:Germany berlin reichstag-1.jpg, caught my attention lately as it is tagged as not compatible for Commons. This, despite there is FOP for building exteriors found in public spaces in Germany (ref. COM:FOP Germany), which means this should be OK here. Unless, the entire space is considered a private space and virtually all images found at Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome may need to be "thrown into a wastebasket". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The depends on whether the roof of Reichstag (from where the photo was made) is a public place or not. Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the public can access the roof for free, but it requires registration. See here. TrueNeutral879 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
at least in the past those were thrown in theweastebasket, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dome of the Reichstag (building) or Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Reichstag (dome) - Exterior --Isderion (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try to ping those involved in both DR's: @Lophotrochozoa, ThePlaz, Fry1989, Danny S., BrokenSphere, Dodoïste, Blackcat, A.Savin, Wuselig, AndreasPraefcke, Quedel, FA2010, and Fastily: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, because the public access to the dome is limited, photos like this probably cannot pass the public place requirement of COM:FOP Germany; while some other photos from Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome, in particular remote or aerial views, are OK. --A.Savin 02:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing much has changed from my previous arguments and if A.Savin prevailed than, he should prevail now. You could argue that this is an outside view. But FOP does not apply, if you leave ground level. And climbing the roof of the Reichstag would definetly mean, you left ground level. Wuselig (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the public can access the roof for free, what's the issue? Deleting these files seem against (at least) the spirit of the law. Yann (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it's not as easy regarding the Reichstag; unlike for a museum or so, you cannot just "come, buy a ticket and enter". You have to book your admission permit well in advance, and it is valid for the chosen timepoint only. But in COM:FOP Germany#Public you can read that even museums probably do not qualify. That said, IANAL but for me it's unlikely that a court in Germany would see the Reichstag dome as a public place. --A.Savin 13:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't always the case. I remember that you could go there without having an appointment (why do I feel old now :( )
After reading through de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium_„öffentlich““ I am leaning to finding it ok, I mean the building has written "Dem deutschen Volke" (to/for the German people) on it.
However it is an edge case --Isderion (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it's probably not ok. You can access that place for free, but not freely. It is not a public space. Doesn't look like German FoP is applicable, then. Images of the Reichstag building taken from afar, from real public space, are fine, of course. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican copyright question[edit]

I admit that I've raised my question before. That discussion is closed. But I do not know if that means it can be reopened.

I am raising my question again because I am enquiring about a possible solution, based on what has been accepted on a similar site in the same country, Mexico.

The article in question is

I have major issues with limitations on the usage of images. A reviewer asked that all my images be reviewed, suggesting that I did not have the right to use them because the artist has not been dead for 100 years.


The images I have used are, I believe parallel to those in Wiki Commons related to the art of Diego Rivers.

Here is the text from Wiki Commons that precedes the Diego Rivera site.

"These works or works by this artist may not be in the public domain, because the artist is still living or has not been dead for at least 100 years. Please do not upload photographs or scans of works by this artist, unless they meet one of the following exceptions: The work was first published in the United States and one of the United States public domain tags applies; The work is permitted by a legal exception such as freedom of panorama or de minimis; The work was released by the author or their heirs via E-mail confirmed authorization; The work was released by the author under an open license on their website, or an official account with a site such as Flickr; The work is known to be in the public domain for some other clear reason. Works of this artist first published before 1927 can be uploaded to English Wikipedia (see en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad). For more information, see Commons:Licensing and Commons:Derivative works."

There was a discussion in Wiki Commons about my images and some were removed. I do not know how to find that discussion now. I did notice one day that someone set up a page where my images should be placed. It is at

I am in touch with Rina Lazo, who I think is the only surviving heir (daughter) of Arturo Garcia Bustos, the artist who painted the images in Mexico that I wish to use. She is delighted that I set up a Wikipedia page but when I informed her that it has been deemed that I cannot use the images she did not reply to my question as to whether she had ever been involved in copyright issues associated with her father's work. I could phone her. But I would like to know what is feasible before I do that.

Am I right? If I uploaded the images with the Diego Rivera proviso from above and if Rina Lazo sent me emails saying I could use the images, would I then be able to use them on Wikipedia? Is there a format for such a letter that you can direct me to, preferably in Spanish?

There is also the freedom of panorama provisions that I think are generous in Mexico. But this is new stuff to me and maybe Wikipedia is an American entity and the rules of the USA apply, not Mexico. We are talking about a mural in a public building that has been declared to be a museum.

ANY HELP WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANKS ArbyBB (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a mural visible from a public place, then I assume Mexican FoP would apply. Also, assuming Rina Lazo is really the heir, she would have ability to release the work under a suitable license for Commons. Zoozaz1 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]