Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Logos

We've got a new article on the German Wikipedia that consists almost solely of logos. Can you please check those for threshold of originality? Do they need permission by the graphic designer? Logo #1, Logo #2, Logo #3. Thanks, --87.150.6.73 20:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The third one is just text and certainly below ToO. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the green ball image contained in the first two logos could well be above the threshold. Felix QW (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: For the first two logos, the uploader's username does suggest they are the copyright holder. However, this should ideally go through VRT because anyone can claim to be anyone. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Graphic portraits - Permission request

My graphic portraits are asked for mass deletion for being derivative works. So I asked for permission from the authors of all the photos I was inspired by. I got an answer from one of them and it was positive. But then VRTS sent him a mail asking him to give a free licence to his photo so I could quote his work + my work.

As far as I understand, this shift to a free licence of the photo should be done by all the different photographers I was inspired by for just one single drawing representing the same person. If at least one of the photos gets a free licence, then, you will agreee that it's no more necessary to have a graphic portrait, because a photography will always be better to illustrate a Wikipedia article that any good graphic portrait. So does this derivative work permission rule make sense ?

In fact, there are two cases : if the permission is given by the photographer but the concerned photo has no free license, the drawing that you consider as derivative cannot be published on Commons because the source has no free licence. And if the photo gets a free licence, then, the drawing gets useless.

So you could perhaps explain more clearly the consequences of the permission request in order that people do not loose time with that. Do you have examples of succesfull licensed derivative works published on Commons ? I would be happy to look on them.

That said, what has been drawn can be redrawn and I would be happy to have at least 10 examples of correct graphic portraits that fulfilled the rules of Commons. This would allow me to draw acceptable portraits for Commons and illustrate biographies which do not have any portraits on the article. Thanks for these examples. Waltercolor (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the purpose of the email template on the VRT page is specifically to allow giving permission for the derivative drawing without giving a free license for the source photo. This is like in the case of freedom of panorama, where the photo can be licensed by the photographer however they please but this does not take away from the rights associated with the original architecture depicted. Felix QW (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. They can give a free license for their contribution to the derivative work without free-licensing their original work. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks @Felix QW and @Jmabel Waltercolor (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Waltercolor, Felix QW, and Jmabel: Our guideline COM:DW states that we need permission for source works, so only one of Waltercolor's graphic portraits has a chance at staying here (assuming we get valid permission from the photographer). Without specifics, I will not speculate on that one.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Mussklprozz as Agent concerning File:Claude Grison.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Jeff G., Waltercolor I don't see that this strict interpretation follows from COM:DW. It should be sufficient that the photographer agrees that the derivative work (in this case the drawing) be published under free license, wihout him needing to consent to put his original work under free license. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz Perhaps but then you should explain it clearly to all the VRT people who answer, in order that they do not ask for something that is not the rule. What the photographer got from VRT was a request for giving a free license to his work and then my work would be "co-licensed" as a sub-product (means : the original work is not quoted in the drawing, the drawing is double of the photo).

And in a certain way, this VRT was right. If you consider my work as a derivative work and not an independant one, so the first licence where it derives from becomes de facto the master license for the second one.

It's the heart of the discussion : a derivative work is not independant but a copy linked to a main work. It's considered as a subproduct and not an original one. So, for that, you're not asking for a permission but rather a declaration for a subproduct, which is absolutely not the same status.

For me the authorship of a work always remains to the author. So if there is a legal concern of copyright, it will concern me, the author of the drawing, and not the publisher who use free licensed works.

I you don't want to use it, it's ok, but asking to authors to mak an agrreement where the author of a photography has to refer to VRT directly is too much. Authors are independant.and the free licence is not Commons related and you should not interfer here.

If I concede my authorship to a so called "master" work (what you call a "permission") via a inner VRT process, I'll loose the originality of my work and it will be dependant from the work just because it's supposed to be derivative art, a decision take by people and other people could decide differently. There are no strict criteria about this as far as I saw.

For you, it's the same image with unsignificant changes, as you claim, so it's a subproduct of the photo and not an independant work. But other could judge differently.

I can fully understand that the image policy of Commons is not a benefit/risk policy but only a risk policy, with a copyright violation risk factor always at 100% and a benefit risk factor always at 0%,

But please, don't call a permission what is a sub-licence. Be transparent and clear and explain what it means for the author.

And again, nobody can give me any examples of successful graphic portraits on Commons. Am still waiting for it and really wondering how it looks (if it ever exists..)..

Waltercolor (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there is some misunderstanding regarding the nature of a "derivative" work.

Let me try to explain how I see it:

A derivative work definitely has its own copyright and authorship - you, as the painter, clearly and unambiguously have copyright over your drawing, even if it is "derived" from another work.

However, part of copyright protection is the right to control how other people use your work within their own works, in varying limits defined by copyright law.

In the case of a drawing from a photo, for instance, the photographer has the right to take a fee for commercial use of a drawing made from their photo. In order for the drawing to be on Commons under a license that also allows for commercial use, the photographer has to state his agreement, which we style a "permission". In no way does the photographer need to waive any other rights regarding his work, but merely acquiesce to the use of his work in a painting whose authorship is clearly with the artist. Felix QW (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation @Felix QW but I clearly disagree about that. The author rights have nothing to do with the licence. An owner of a photograph can only take a fee for commercial use of his own work, not the supposed derivative art. Concerning the copyright issue, he can only sue me for counterfact if he wants, but it's to him to prove the counterfact not you. Plus : my authorship on this work is inalienable, I bear the responsability for it and it can be reused on any platform or support outside Commons. It's no "Commons related". So what you call falsely a " permission" should be given, if necessary (but I believe it's not necessary) exclusively to the owner of the authorship and not to any platform, be it Commons. It's me and not you who will claim my authorship for all uses.

I formally contest the principle of that "permission" that passes by VRT to a third person for my own work. You, as a platform, have no right to interfer in my author rights. I take the responsibility for them and will be suited anyway if there is a problem and not you.

Notice that, under the pressure of Commons, I already personnaly got from the photographer itself the famous "permission" you asked for. But that was not enough. You inteferred more and more in this copyright issue by not accepting this first correct proof and asked for a second one directly addressed to the third party by VRT. This is based on supposed bad faith from me (eventual forgery of a false permission) and is contrary to Wikimedia's principles.

I will check the legal aspect of the rules you apply here. One point is troubling : if a drawing is inspired by severakl photographs as I did for drawing Claude Grison"s portrait (I've put the list on the deletion request's page and have also asked for your famous "permission" to all these photographers), it should be testified by all these photographers that they give a "permission". This may be an abusive request for permission as the derivative aspect has not been proved or even approved by these photographers themselves (Thibaut Vergoz said "inspired" not "derivative" when giving the permission).

Waltercolor (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Jeff G.for the information.

Personally, I've found only one example on Wikipedia of a co-licensed graphic portrait, but the permission shows as a VRT ticket number on Wikipedia and cannot be opened by persons who don't have the VRT rights. I should have wanted to see the licence and the photo.

You can delete the "only one of Waltercolor's graphic portraits has a chance at staying here" (!) cause I myself asked to the concerned photographer that gave me by mail the permission not to answer to the request of VRI requesting to him to change his licence for a free licence and then to co-licence my work. I, as a professional illustrator and creator of my own work, do not want such kind of licences.

I participate since a certain time to illustrating campaigns on Wikipedia and I never got a correct info about this co-licencing, despite the fact that factual infos exist about it. So I'm happy to know now how it looks and cannot explain why this process is not communicated in a more transparent way.

I discussed with a fellow illustrator who is member of an Union. Thus there are nearly no legal cases for that kind of drawings and nearly all illustrators work with visual sources, he, as a professional, said he would never draw for Wikipedia cause it's too exposed. I believe he is right and will not do it anymore (also seeing if I can ask for deletion for all my graphic work that stays here).

For me, if a photo has switched to a free licence, then, it can illustrate the article as well and there is no need for a graphic portrait. I suggest that it's perhaps wiser to campaign to obtain free licenses for photographs instead of playing a cat & mouse game or distorting the face ident in a graphic portrait just for the sake to illustrate articles where everybody can have all visual information displayed on the results of their researches on Internet (in clear : people already see visual portraits of the concerned biography before consulting the Wikipedia article)..

Also, as far as I understand, the treshold of originality can never be reached in a graphic portrait or it would be an imaginary portrait, a portrait that is not sourced, or the portrait of anyone else, that is, it would not represent the concerned person, and not be encyclopedic enough but just a useless and confusing illustration.

Notice that original drawings done in a cartoon style are often refused by the editing community because they do not look like the person represented.

But just for my information, could you give me some examples of successfull graphic portraits that you accepted for illustrating biographies ? I just wonder if they exist and how they look, and see if I could do the same in the respect of the rules. I have asked for such examples to a lot of persons and never got an answer. Do they exist or not ?

Waltercolor (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

PD-NCGov-legislator photo

I cme across File:Representative Patsy Keever (2011-12 Session).jpg via a en:Wikipedia:Help Desk question and have a question about it's licensing. The file was uploaded under a Template:PD-NCGov-legislator photo, but it's not clear whether this license was ever vetted. The Harvard Univeristy's State Copyright Resource Center's website shows en:North Carolina being a "yellow" state with unclear copyright status for government works, and the individual state's page also doesn't clearly state things one way or another.

The "PD-NCGOV-legilator photo" license appears to be based on this disclaimer which states as follows: "Photos of House and Senate Members on the individual NCGA Website member webpages are not published on the NCGA Website until we receive copyright release from the photographer so these specific photos are considered in the public domain once they are published on the NCGA Website." That seems fine, but the meaning of "until we receive copyright release part" seems unclear.

Does this mean the original copyright holder's have released their works into the public domain? If that's the case, then why would a license for the NCGA be needed. Does it mean they've just given their consent for the photo to be used on NCGA website? If that's the case, then it seem the NGCA wouldn't be valid and the NGC would be doing some unintentional COM:LL. Does it mean they've transferred their copyright to the NGCA who then released them to be in the public domain? This is the only case which seems applicable to me with respect to this license.

Anyway, from the "What links here" link on the license's page, it looks as if more than 300 files are currently using this license. If the license is fine, then great; if it's not, however, than many of those files might need to be reassessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

To me, the disclaimer clearly intends to state that the images are in the public domain. Both mechanisms for this are reasonable: Either the photographers released the images into the public domain or they transferred copyright to the NGCA which then released it into the public domain. For our purposes, I don't think we necessarily need to know as long as we believe that the NGCA did their due diligence in securing the copyright release they claimed to have secured. Felix QW (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed completely. The tag is named because the presence on that particular website is the evidence we have (and will apply to other ones in the future, given that is the website's process). Don't see any problem here at all, whatever the actual path to public domain status -- it got there in the end. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Felix QW and Clindberg for the input. Based upon what you both posted, my concerns have been addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Creating a new copyright tag

Hi, I want to make a specific copyright tag for the free-lisenced works of Government of West Bengal, a state of India. It state that its works can be redistributed if it is properly attributed. Can I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ku423winz1 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There is the common caveat that the permission

is subject to the material being reproduced accurately

which I seem to remember we take as excluding derivative works. In that case, this would sadly not meet the requirements of our licensing policy. Felix QW (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Felix QW: , actually it doesn't restrict derivative works, by saying accurately it means that it should not be use in misleading and disrespectful manner, which is mentioned just after that line. And also copyright tags having the same copyright string are there in commons, like Template: Indian Army, PIB and PMO India under Template: GODL-India and picture uploading with these tags are allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ku423winz1 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I image not being able to recreate an image in a misleading or disrespectful manner (however either of those things are legally determined) probably doesn't meet the requirements of our licensing policy either. Nor should we allow images with such a ridiculous copyright term to be hosted on here since IMO it's extremely antithetical to the goals of the project. Commons:Licensing clearly says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." I assume that last bit means anyone using an image in a misleading or disrespectful manner if they feel like it (Just to be clear my main contention here is the "disrespectful" part since it's way to obtuse and vague wording for anyone to reasonably follow. Although, not using an image in a "misleading" way isn't to great either. Regardless though, both clearly go against the goals of the project). --Adamant1 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I have given templates as examples in my last reply and those websites have the same copyright string, so if they can be used, then a new copyright tag can also be created for government of West Bengal.

Ku423winz1 (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Just because other templates exist that shouldn't have been created doesn't mean we should make similar ones. Also, at least for Template: Indian Army the template says "This image, which was originally posted to Indian Army, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid." So it's not really a good example of there being a valid precedent for similar tags to be created. Maybe after it's reviewed and confirmed to be correct though. Can't essentially anyone who has the user right create a copyright template anyway? I'm sure there's plenty of factually incorrect or otherwise wrong tags out there. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Canadian city flags

Category:SVG flags of cities of Canada many seem complicated enough to have copyright and not old enough to be pd. am i missing something else? RZuo (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There are lots of different flags in this category. So, anyone of them may be different. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Each specific drawing is a separate copyright -- see Commons:Coats of arms. Were they copied from somewhere, or self-drawn by Wikimedia contributors? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

British Birds stamps from 1966

I am exploring the possibility (guarantee not included) of uploading my own scans of the 1966 British Birds stamps, and maybe the folder that came with it (source). I wonder if someone can confirm whether the author credit "J[ohn] Norris Wood" on these stamps affect the public domain status that usually applies to stamps issued before the breakup of the GPO in 1969? --Minoa (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

According to his obituary in The Guardian the stamps were specifically designed for the Royal Mail (so not an earlier work that was relicensed for use on the stamps). I think it likely that they were works for hire and the Royal Mail would have the authority to licence the stamps under their normal terms. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

In 1966, the Royal Mail was a government department. If the works were commissioned by them, then I think they became Crown Copyright with that term. In 1969, it became a statutory corporation (and is today fully privatized). Unless the laws creating the corporations actually transferred copyright back out of Crown Copyright, then they should remain Crown Copyright (which would have expired in 2017, I think). The named author would mean that it's not anonymous, and the regular copyright would last 70 years past the author's lifetime (so would expire in 2086 I think in this case, as John Norris Wood died in 2015). But Crown Copyright would have applied in this case, unless the drawings/paintings had been previously published. Crown Copyright has its own term unrelated to the lifetime of the author. Unless there was a mechanism to transfer that back to Royal Mail somehow, it seems like they are fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't the images have to follow both Crown Copyright and United States copyright rules though? If so, that would mean the stamps would be PD in the United Kingdom due to the Crown Copyright expiring but not PD in the United States due to it not being 2086 yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Expiry of Crown Copyrights usually applies worldwide, but the situation in this case is complicated, in my opinion, by a named author on the stamps. --Minoa (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

While the US copyright does still exist in theory for many UK Crown Copyright works, the copyright holder (UK Government) has told us that their expiry of Crown Copyright applies worldwide. Even if a theoretical copyright does remain in some regions, the copyright holder has declared they will not enforce it beyond the timescale of the UK copyright. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If there was a special contract between the artist and the government at the time, that would be a problem. If that was the case though, the Royal Mail could not try to claim copyright today. At the time, Crown Copyright controlled any work made by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department, and also any work first published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department. It was more stringent than today, where (since 1989) Crown Copyright is mainly works performed by government employees as part of their duties. If Crown Copyright, the private copyright no longer existed (at least without some other stipulation in a contract). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed licensing

I am proposing to license the scans of the stamps with the following description:

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
| description = Pictorial series stamps, ''British Birds''
| date        = 8 August 1966
| source      = Scan from my collection
| author      = John Norris Wood for the {{w|General Post Office}}
| permission  = Based on {{plnk|https://web.archive.org/web/20090317005703/http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/crown-a.pdf|this flowchart}}, the Crown Copyright expired on 31 December 2016, because:
* The stamp(s) were created and published before 31 July 1989
* There is no evidence that the artwork was previously published on a work not subject to Crown Copyright ({{plnk|https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/08/john-norris-wood|source}}, {{Wayback|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151125010354/https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/08/john-norris-wood}} on 25 November 2015)
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{PD-UKGov}}

Now, how do I set up the voting system? Hmm … anyway, please comment, thanks. --Minoa (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Flickrwashing?

Does anyone else think File:Ww5ne.jpg might be a case of Fickrwashing? It sure looks like a derivative work, at least it does to me. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a derivative work of File:Swra2.jpg, which comes from the same source. The whole Flickr stream looks more like a collection of television screenshots rather than a photographer's profile (compare File:Swra22.png and [1]). Smells fishy indeed. El Grafo (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Right: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Samer787‎. I added the Flckr account to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users. Yann (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Suspecting copyright violation in the Portuguese Periodic Table

todamateria.com.br had the original image ("Sc Y Lu Ac" in 2017 and the current "Sc Y * *" in 2018) [2] and the vector PDF image [3] before it was uploaded by user Rottoni.

Image in question: File:Tabela_Periódica_de_2019.webp

I wanted to do some changes to the image, so I searched for the vector image and I stumbled into this matter. I just sent an email to todamateria.com.br questioning about this, if Rottoni is one of them or works with them, and also questioned if we could use the vector image, but I don't know how long it will take to get their reply.

-- Arthurfragoso (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Good question. I would hesitate to assign an independent copyright to this though, to be honest. The text and its arrangement are not due to todamateria.com.br, neither are the general boundaries of colours. The colours themselves and the typeface could well be below the high Brasil threshold of originality. Felix QW (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Munich Security Conference

It seems that the Munich Security Conference has changed its license recently. The original CC license was revoked, and now it imposes a non-commercial use restriction, which is not accepted on Commons. The CC license version was last noted in January 2023. A1Cafel (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

De minimis review requested

File:Joe Biden in 2023 - P20230216CS-0130 01.jpg ----- I thought this was de minimis, but I want to get other opinions here to see if it can be kept or will need deletion. I would prefer to have the copyright material in the image pixilated or blocked out, instead of a full deletion, if possible.

I did upload this photo as being de minimis, because: 1. the President is in-focus, while the projected screen image is slightly blurred and farther away., 2. The President is larger in size than the projected screen image behind him, 3. the President is the "intended" primary subject of this photograph, unlike the other two photos that I did not upload below.

I did not upload two other recent photos at the same Black History Month event held recently at The White House. (See the two links below) I would appreciate advice if I can upload those as well, either as originals or pixilated/ blocked out versions.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/52695313569/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/52694531927/

Thanks in advance, -- Ooligan (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this is de minimis because the image is focusing on Biden speaking. The screen behind is secondary and seems to be blurry. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I would concur with Ooligan's judgement here. For the image currently on Commons, the video screen is not the main focus and should be de minimis, while the two other images on the Flickr stream focus on the film being shown on the screen and would therefore probably not pass the test. Felix QW (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The focus of the photograph is on Joe Biden, and the photograph would still be useful even if cropped. I think it would be de minimis. Abzeronow (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking to confirm suitability of photos from "Snapshots from the Vietnam War" and "USAF Police Alumni Association" websites

I recently found a blog called Snapshots from the Vietnam War concerning the photographic recollections of one Richard Udden who served with the US Army in Vietnam during 1970; as might be expected from the title, all photos in the blog appear to have been taken during Udden's time in Vietnam. I also found a "USAF Police Alumni Association" website with an extensive collection of photos (e.g. https://www.usafpolice.org/operation-desert-shieldstorm.html ). As much as I want to simply assume that both of these fall under PD-USGov-Military, something tells me I should get independent confirmation of this, with the USAF site in particular seeming like it might require special care. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the key requirement here for PD-USGov-Military is that it is taken or made as part of that person's official duties.

Someone's private images made while serving in Vietnam are absolutely that person's private copyright and would not fall under the PD-USGov clauses. Felix QW (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What Felix QW said. PD-USGov is basically like work for hire; if the photos were not taken as part of assigned duties that day, they are not PD-USGov but are normal private-copyright photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Opinion on 1970 AP image

Hi - am I correct in my understanding that this image credited to Associated Press of Cambodian leader en:Lon Nol is in the public domain under {{PD-US-no notice}} as I can find no citation of the image in the Library of Congress copyright registrations for 1970. Searches of the AP archive do not show the image. Thoughts? Thank you and regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Unlikely. Renewals were not required, so there may be nothing at the Copyright Office. Renewals were required for works published before 1964, but the initial registration could be done at any time, including when filing the renewal 27 to 28 years later. After 1964, works only needed a copyright notice when published; they keep their copyright even if never registered. In a newspaper or magazine, a single copyright notice can cover every work in the newspaper. For PD-US-no_notice, you would need to find a copy actually distributed (on its own) without a notice, at the time. I'm not even sure printing out a wire photo would count -- would need to be a copy actually distributed by AP, at the time. And preferably, showing no notice on the back side, or on anything it was distributed with, that sort of thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Clindberg - thanks. What about this image from UPI, from the same event in 1970? The EBAY item shows the front and back as distributed. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That is much closer. I do worry about wire photos -- for example, if that was just a copy printed at a newspaper, and never actually distributed but kept in their archives, then only sold many years later, not sure the lack of copyright notice means anything since that physical copy was not actually made and distributed by the wire agency itself. That one has the name of a California TV station on the front though, and was in the archives of a Philadelphia newspaper, and obviously existed in 1970. And there was the ability to put a copyright notice in the caption that they pasted on, and there is none, though of course you never know if that part just wasn't clipped. I'm borderline on that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Clindberg - many thanks for your responses. One final question - the same 1970 UPI photo of Lon Nol appears as redistributed on 3 December 1972 without copyright notice - does that shift things in your opinion? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

How was it distributed? With wire photos, newspapers (or other clients) had a machine on their end to print out a copy sent over phone lines. Thus, the physical copy could stay private to the newspaper. That particular copy was only much later sold out of the Philadelphia Inquirer archives, so it was likely not distributed at the time. Sending the photos over the phone lines is a form of distribution, but I'm not sure what kind of copyright notice requirements would come with that. If they sent over credits and a caption, you'd think there would be a place for the notice. Whether it existed and wasn't on the caption pasted to the printout, or whether it didn't exist at all, hard to say. It's far more clear when the physical copies were actually distributed by the copyright owner (like publicity photos). Wire photos have all sorts of untested gray areas. I'm sure UPI would argue limited publication (which did not require notice) over the wire, but not sure that would hold up. On the other hand there may be contractual stuff which controlled such operations, which may then speak to the "limited publication" vs "general publication" question. Courts did often try to find arguments to avoid loss of copyright. I'm not sure this particular situation was ever litigated, frankly, so I could see things going either way. I'm not sure there is a clear answer. It would come down to whether the transmission over the wire was considered "general publication", and if so was there a reasonable way to include a copyright notice which was not present. The physical copy in this case doesn't help much, since that was in the private possession of the newspaper. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

UK OGL-3 photo within a UK OGL-3 report from another agency

File:BA 38 aerial view with ground scars.png I took this photo from an air accident investigation report by the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch. That report has Crown copyright all over it, and it came from the AAIB's website, so it's OGL. However, the image I uploaded is noted in the report as "courtesy of" the Metropolitan Police, another public agency entirely, yet still covered by OGL 3.0. I think I did the attributions correctly, crediting the Met as the author and using their status as a local government or other public agency for OGL 3.0 licensing. Was that correct? Or would it have transferred to the AAIB when it became evidence in their case? Does "courtesy of" mean they donated it along with its rights to the AAIB? "Photo courtesy of" isn't exactly the same as saying "Photo copyright held by," is it?

I enjoy editing air crash articles, and photos in the crash reports come from a variety of sources. I can't use a lot of them, but I'm sure this one's ok to use. I'm really interested in whether I attributed it correctly, and of course whether "courtesy of" has any actual meaning for our purposes. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The attribution appears to be fine. However, the document was published in February 2010 under Crown Copyright with no reference to the Open Government Licence. OGL 1.0 was not released until September 2010 and 3.0 didn't arrive until 2014. Do you have some evidence that the report was re-released under OGL 3.0 at a later date? UK Crown Copyright works are not automatically released under OGL, so there needs to be a clear declaration of release for each document (either in the document itself or in an accompanying letter/web page). From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh my - I've been using AAIB reports for some time under OGL. I wasn't aware that the license only applied to documents published after September 2010.

There is a permission granted under the Crown copyright statement on page ii of the report, saying "Extracts may be published without specific permission providing that the source is duly acknowledged." That describes our use. If that's not covered under the OGL license, it does appear to be explicit permission from the publisher to use properly-attributed content, which would be free, not fair use. But then my other question becomes more important - does that permission extend to the image provided "courtesy of" another government or public agency? Did the copyright of that image transfer to the Crown? Is there a system for determining the copyright owner of an image? Dcs002 (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore Ok, the website from which the report is downloaded says, "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated." Nowhere on that web page, in the AAIB report, nor specifically concerning the photo, is it otherwise stated - that the content is not covered by OGL 3.0. That seems to be a clear declaration of release on the accompanying website, as you described. I think that makes it clear that this is all OGL 3.0 content. Do you agree? (I hope! This could affect a lot of images I've uploaded, all of which were part of the report, and not attributed to another person or agency.)

Added note: I have checked the AAIB download pages for all other reports from which I've taken images for use here, and all download pages contain the same statement, that all content is OGL 3.0 unless otherwise stated, and it isn't stated pertaining to the images I've used.

Another added note: The AAIB web page from which this report was downloaded itself contains the notice, "Published 10 December 2014." That might be the derivation of OGL 3.0 specifically. Dcs002 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002: Unfortunately that tag line on the website is standard text that appears on all gov.uk web pages, including many with documents not released under OGL. The 2010 report document predates OGL, so the absence of a note telling us that OGL doesn't apply is not really an indicator of consent. The report also gives us alternative conditions for release which are "Extracts may be published without specific permission providing that the source is duly acknowledged." That statement is silent on whether derivative works are allowed, which means we are missing one of the key permissions for hosting files on Commons. Also, the report includes a mixture of public and private copyright material (such as Google Maps aerial photography) so we need to be careful in determining whether the Crown has the ability to licence the content (for later works, the OGL makes explicit note that some content in Crown Copyright works is not subject to the OGL if the copyright is held by a third party). Finally, I have tried to identify where the Metropolitan Police fall within the rules of UK government copyright; they are not listed as a Crown Body (the ones that produce Crown Copyright works) and their own copyright page makes no reference to Crown Copyright or similar provisions. Other editors may take a different view but I don't think the Metropolitan Police's photograph is subject to Crown Copyright and can't have been released under OGL, even if that licence did apply to this report. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The document was not originally released under OGL, but it was re-released in digital format in 2014, on an official govt web page that says, however broadly, that all content is OGL 3.0. I have spent several hours now looking around UK govt websites and the UK Natl Archives, and I haven't found anything that says OGL applies only to documents released after OGL itself was implemented. All I see are references to public sector information (PSI), not PSI released after 2010. Everything I read about it suggests it should be applied as broadly as possible.

I did, however, see that, while OGL is mandatory for Crown documents, it is only recommended for other public sector documents, so the police photo is certainly in question, but for additional reasons. I see Stemoc's post below, which makes that photo's use seem almost dead (does "courtesy of" have any legal meaning? I think it could just as easily mean "thanks for the donation"), but I'm still working on it. That policy refers to materials on the Met website. I've sent an inquiry to the UK National Archives, asking for clarification and for the authority governing material pre-dating 2010. (An open government law that doesn't apply to anything the government's done doesn't make sense to me.) I have found that PSI covered by the Click-Use license automatically transferred to OGL, but the database listing agencies that used Click-Use licensing has been removed from the Internet. Did the AAIB use that license? Click-Use was not acceptable by itself for our purposes, but the transfer of Click-Use documents to OGL would make them available.

"The absence of a note telling us that OGL doesn't apply is not really an indicator of consent."

We have more than an absence of that note. We have an official statement, a newer statement, which should in law preclude anything prior, that says the document is covered by OGL 3.0. If they give that statement, they have to be bound by it. The intention of OGL is to make every government document public except those documents for which there is a reason to keep them protected, so of course that OGL statement is on every govt page. I don't think that negates its effect. I think that validates its effect.

I know we'll probably lose the police photo, but I think it's worth pushing this a bit more in order to keep the AAIB reports. They're invaluable in our articles - the diagrams, charts, and photos. Thanks for your comments, even if they're not what I wanted to hear. Dcs002 (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Additional - newer AAIB reports look the same as the BA 38 report. They are not marked with OGL on the report itself (example), only on the download page (example). The reports say Crown copyright, and the download page says the content is OGL. I think that's just how they do it. Why would an accident report (which concerns public safety) not be OGL? Why would they maintain the archive and the public website, label them as OGL on the download page, but not actually be OGL? Dcs002 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Additional, again - I just sent an inquiry to the UK Department for Transport with this question, asking not just for an opinion, but something official that we can all verify. They have a 20-day response time. The UK National Archives has a 10-day response time. Dcs002 (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

speaking as someone who has dealt with OGL images, i concur with FHTS, this image is definitely crown copyright but it doesn't fall under OGL, infact the wording used in that document was "courtesy of" which actually kinda makes it not free, had they used the term "Released by" instead then it would imply rights to that image has been waved and if you look at Met Pol's website, they are very strong on copyright protection and the wording does make their site more 'non-commercial and non-derivative" which as you already know isn't allowed on wikimedia... Stemoc 01:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore, @Ste, I've received a response from the Copyright Team at The National Archives of the United Kingdom. It has a "Public sector information enquiry - Ref" number attached, and it verifies the AAIB report is covered under OGL, with specific references and a justification. It also addresses the Metropolitan Police, naming them as a Crown body, but one that is specifically exempt from releasing their information under the OGL. Their content can be released under a license, but I doubt that license, if granted, would be suitable for our use. The response specifically said the image in question from the AAIB report was held under copyright by the Met, and not covered under OGL. I would be happy to forward that email (with all headers intact) to anyone in an official capacity here for reference, but it contains my name and personal email address, which I would need to redact if I were to upload a copy that would be available to the public.

So... AAIB report, yes, Met Photo, no. Dcs002 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I nominated the photo file for deletion, then tagged it for speedy deletion as soon as I learned how to do that. I also deleted it from the Wikipedia pages I'd used it on (article and talk). As far as I know, there is no other content of concern that I'm involved with concerning AAIB reports. This was the only item I'd ever uploaded with 3rd party attribution because I was convinced the Met was also covered by OGL, one way or another. I think I've done what I can to clean up my error. Lesson learned. Dcs002 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Image from EPA website is credited to someone else

File:Graniteville derailment, aerial view closeup.jpg is sourced to an EPA website, [4] which would mean it is a U.S. government work released to the public domain. But while searching the web for a higher resolution version of this photo, I found several websites that attribute it to a Todd Sumlin. [5] According to his LinkedIn profile, [6] Sumlin is photojournalist and was never an EPA employee. Anyone have an idea what's going on here? Is this photo still kosher, copyright-wise? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Mizu-logo.png

File:Mizu-logo.png was uploaded as "own work" which it most likely isn't per this, but it might be OK to relicense as {{PD-logo}}. It would seem to be PD per COM:TOO US, but COM:TOO Turkey isn't as clear. Any opinions of whether this would be PD under Turkish copyright law? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

"The Turkish copyright laws depend on that the work bears the characteristics of creator while deciding whether the work is original ... ", which is a relatively high bar. So, it is likely to be Ok. Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Taking a fee for commercial use of a drawing made from their photo

I recently started a discussion about the problem of the so called "permission" asked to a photographer for a so called "derivative work".

One of the answer was "In the case of a drawing from a photo, for instance, the photographer has the right to take a fee for commercial use of a drawing made from their photo. In order for the drawing to be on Commons under a license that also allows for commercial use, the photographer has to state his agreement, which we style a "permission". In no way does the photographer need to waive any other rights regarding his work, but merely acquiesce to the use of his work in a painting whose authorship is clearly with the artist. Felix QW (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)"

Can someone explain me what kind ot fees could the photgrapher ask for for the drawing that you estimate being a derivative art work and how would these fees be calculated (which proportion and how these proportions could be calculated ?)

Thanks

Waltercolor (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The existence of a fee and the amount is entirely the choice of the creator and the person wanting to create the derivative work. The two parties negotiate until either they reach agreement or the original copyright holder refuses their permission.

Creator: "I want £10,000 before I give you the right to create a derivative work."

Reuser: "I am only prepared to pay £100."

Creator: "No deal."

Some creators may be willing to allow reuse without a fee but the power is held entirely by the creator. The reuser can try to get a better deal or they can back out, they can't force the creator to accept. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

If a work is a derivative of another copyrighted work, then the copyright owner of the original controls whether you are allowed to distribute the derivative work. If you do that without permission, it's a copyright violation. The copyright owner has all the control; they are not obligated to give a license at all. In the real world of course, the copyright owner usually will try to get as much money as they can -- either one big license to one party (they will pay for it to be an "exclusive" license, such that nobody else can license it separately, which is tantamount to actually buying at least part of the copyright), or many small licenses to many parties. It's entirely up to the copyright owner, if they want their work used in this particular way, and it doesn't have to be based on money -- whatever gets them to agree to a license. In the case of a free license, of course you have to offer that to everyone, so not sure a small fee would make much sense, though in this case it would just apply to your drawing. But, this situation is exactly why we are so careful about such things here -- you could be exposing re-users to the copyright owner of an underlying work, if courts deem it derivative, and we don't have a license. So drawings which are dancing on the line of derivative or not, can be troubling. If it's not derivative, or you only copied a de minimus amount of expression, then we don't need to worry about the underlying copyright. Such things are inherently subjective, and courts could rule different ways, so it's best not to be close to that line if you can't agree on a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Waltercolor: You may be interested in the pending U.S. Supreme Court case Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith which deals with this issue specifically. A decision is expected by the end of June. Nosferattus (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the question of the transformative nature of fair use under U.S. copyright law, but as you know, Commons does not allow fair use arguments : "Fair use arguments are not allowed on Commons". Waltercolor (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't normally accept fair use because there is no use associated with our hosting it in the database. If the fair use is embodied in the work itself as a derivative, it's a harder question which I don't think we have fully fleshed out. I think we have allowed parody works, which is a type of fair use (though is generally a complete defense even for commercial use). If it's possible to use the derivative itself in a commercial context without being copyright infringement, there is an argument there. The counter argument is that U.S. style fair use is only in the laws of a few countries, and it may not be "fair dealing" or the equivalent elsewhere, if it's close to the U.S. borderline. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg Derivative works concern rather photos of artworks not photos of living persons. For photos in general as the Copyright Law states, only the artistic part in the photo, not the utilitarian one (identity of the person for example) can be the object of a copyright. Waltercolor (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Derivative works concern any copyrightable photos. Note, for example, the Obama Hope poster that was ruled a derivative work of a photo of Obama.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

If there is copyrightable expression in a photograph (i.e. the photograph is copyrightable), it's generally possible to copy that expression in a drawing. In terms of copyright law, "based on" means "copied expression from". In a drawing, the expression is the actual lines that you draw. In a photograph, the expression is usually defined as the specific angle chosen, the framing, possibly the timing, and that sort of thing -- creative choices available to the photographer. If in a setting where the photographer can create the scene, pose a person, or evoke a particular expression, then those too become part of the copyrightable expression. It's definitely possible to create a drawing which is not derivative, by using photos as a reference for what a person looks like, but then creating a new angle etc. But they can copy, as well. One example was the Barack Obama "Hope" poster; it was clear which single photograph was used as the basis. The judge ruled it to not be fair use (it was not really transformative), and made it pretty clear the artist was going to lose, so the parties settled out of court. Another example was Rogers v. Koons, where a sculptor saw a photo of a couple holding many puppies, and created a sculpture of the scene. Since the photographer had worked for a while on the posing, the pose itself was deemed to be copyrightable expression, and the sculpture was derivative (and not fair use). When it's obvious that one particular photo was used as a basis for a drawing, it can be right in that risky area. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about my grandfather's photos

Hello everyone. Before I get to my question, I'd like to give some background. My grandfather, who was born in 1917, served in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in South Korea from 1946 to 1947. While there he took a lot of photos (in 1946 and 1947), either of his camp where he lived, local Koreans, his friends, and other items of interest (like temples and shrines). He died in April 2005 and his photos fell into my possession at that time. After reading COM:L, COM:FAQ, and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Northern America#United States of America, I am under the impression that I could scan in, and upload, these photos, especially those of his camp, the local Korean people, temples, shrines, and more (not necessarily his friends, as some are probably still alive, or even photos of himself), on here. Is this impression correct? Can I upload those photos on here? I'd like some comments about this before proceeding. If this is the wrong place to post, let me know, as I can post this there instead. Thanks and hope you all have a good day. Genealogymanextraordinaire (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Genealogymanextraordinaire: Two separate rights issues here: copyright and personality rights.

Copyright: if you are the heir to his intellectual property rights, then you can do this. You'd use an "heirs" license template, like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. If his will was unclear about the intellectual property rights, then they would go to whoever has the residuum of the estate, and if that's not you then you'd need that person to go through the COM:VRT process. They could do it just once, a blanket statement about you being allowed to upload your grandfather's works. If there is no will, then I'd guess it is reasonable to assume that inheritance of the photos includes inheritance of the rights, but someone else here might know better.

Personality rights:

• For the pictures in Korea, Korean law puts pretty strict limits on photos of identifiable people: https://klawguru.com/2014/02/21/personality-rights-under-korean-law/.
• In the U.S., if photo is taken in a public place, then there should be no problem; if it's in private, you'd have to clear rights from the subject of the photo.

Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Jmabel, thanks for your comment. That's very helpful. I'm pretty sure my grandfather didn't have a will, as he died pretty suddenly (I mean, people weren't expecting it and weren't as aware of his health problems), but I'd be fine with going through the COM:VRT process. Good to know about the pictures in Korea. I mean, only a smattering of them are of people, as most are of landscapes and other monuments, shrines, etc. Genealogymanextraordinaire (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Licensing for country of origin AND the USA in one formula

I am currently adding licenses to my uploads of paintings like this: PD-art|PD-old-auto|self|deathyear=1642 (I remove the {{}} as I do not know how to present the formula otherwise). I'd also like to include a tag for the USA, similar as this: PD-old-70-1923, but like an all-in-one formula so I only need to adjust the death year for each artist. Could anyone help? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In this particular case, you can use {{PD-old-auto-expired}} instead of PD-old-auto, which is a combination tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg Thank you, I then also found this: PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1920. Is that one also an applicable license for US copyrights for paintings created before 1928? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Technically, it's published before 1928. If there is documentation that a painter kept a painting, and it ended up in their estate such that it may not have been published right away, that might be a problematic difference. Usually though we assume they were published around when they were created. So in most cases, yes that should work. The "deathyear" argument is passed through that tag, correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Image licensing by User:Arne Müseler

The user is using a license teplate located in their userspace and he "silently" changed the licensing of his images from CC-BY-SA-2.0-de to CC-BY-SA-3.0-de in 2011. I think, it is not allowed: both licenses should be present in the image descriptions. They are also changing credits requirements the same way (I assume both credits variants should be OK then). I am also unsure if such userspace-based license templates should be allowed as they complicate retrieving of the image description history changes for reusers. Ankry (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ankry, I wasn't aware that there was a problem - thanks for pointing that out. what is the best way to solve this? I would now specify both licenses, right?--Arne (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Arne Müseler: I do not know. That is why I am starting this discussion. Ankry (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Heads up: very first copyright law of Timor-Leste

East Timor: Approved the first Code of Copyright and Related Rights by Investa.com: according to the article, "on November 29[, 2022], the Parliament of East Timor approved the country's first Code of Copyright and Related Rights.... This law, which will come into force 180 days after its publication,..."

So far, I cannot find a copy of this first copyright law of Timor-Leste at WIPO Lex. Perhaps it might have not yet been published as of this writing, or although published the elapsed days have not yet reached 180 days. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

So far, what needs to change on COM:East Timor? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: without a copy of the law, we cannot change it for the meantime. Also, the article does not indicate the date of publication. The law becomes effective 180 days after its publication. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

On Argentine buildings whose architects died more than 70 years ago (or were built 120 years ago)

Given that the Argentine copyright law in its first five articles establishes a general term of 70 years p.m.a. for copyrightable works (among them buildings), and then explains the exceptions (buildings being not mentioned), is it okay to use the {{PD-old-auto-expired}} (for architects who died in 1952 and earlier) or {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} (for 120 years-old buildings) templates for Argentine buildings? Lugamo94 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lugamo94: I suggest you use {{PD-old-architecture}} for Argentine architectural works that are likely in public domain. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)