Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

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)
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.


University at Buffalo Digital Collections[edit]

The University at Buffalo has a Digital Collections page which contains "thousands of historical photographs, print materials, audio and video recordings, artworks, and other unique materials." A lot of these works were created before 1928 which, by law, should put them in the public domain in the US. However, under the "Rights" section on these photos, it says that "Researchers must contact University Archives to obtain reproductions of images and to request permission to use any image" (e.g.). When I submitted an inquiry to the University Archives to clarify, I got this response from a "Visiting Assistant Librarian."

because th[ese] item[s are] located in our Digital Collections, the University Archives is the steward over the preservation and use of th[ese] photo[s]. Researchers must obtain our permission in order to use our materials, regardless of copyright. For example, if an item was located in our collection, but the copyright was owned by the creator, we would require our researchers to obtain permission from both the creator and ourselves in order to proceed with use.

We are currently operating under a fee schedule, as directed to us by the University, at which photos for publication use is $30.00 per image, to the paid by credit card. We would consider use of this photo on a website like Wikipedia to be publication.

I concentrated in intellectual property in law school and this doesn't seem to make sense to me. If a photo was published before 1928, it's in the public domain in the U.S. You can't just say "regardless of copyright," we're the photo's "steward" and we're not going to let you use it without paying. It doesn't matter that the work was commissioned by the school, the school's copyright expires and it enters the public domain after 95 years, right? Am I crazy? Denniscabrams (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Denniscabrams You are correct. The museum has no right based in copyright to prevent copying of public-domain works they've posted on the internet (but may have a non-copyright restriction in their terms of use or contract elsewhere, which is not a concern of Commons but may be a concern to the uploader), and no copyright on anything that is an exact copy of the original (Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#United States / USA). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Denniscabrams: What the university is doing is no different from what companies and organizations like en:Getty Images and en:National Portrait Gallery, London have been doing for years: they're trying to monetize the digitalization of images in their collection. As pointed out above, Commons doesn't acknowledge such copyright claims and some intellectual property rights experts in the real world refer to them collectively as en:copyfraud. Of course, I doubt it's the intent of anyone at the museum to commit fraud, but that doesn't mean the museum is also not inclined to go after low-hanging fruit (individuals such as you yourself) if it thinks it can get people to pay for what it considers its images (see en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute for an example of this). There are many types of COM:NCR that Commons doesn't really worry about, but they could affect you depending on whether you're required to enter into an agreement with the university to access their images. That's probably what you need to be careful with the most because that would have nothing to do with image copyright and would just be between you and the museum. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a small addendum regarding the National Portrait Gallery case: This is slightly complicated by the fact that the NPG is located in the UK, where the threshold of originality is lower, and there can absolutely be British copyright on a faithful reproduction if done with sufficient care.
In this instance, the University is clearly located in the US and so the copyright situation is rather unambiguous in that there is no copyrightable expression in a mere reproduction under American law. Felix QW (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gandhi - Young India, v. 5, 1923.pdf[edit]

Hi, This journal was published by M. K. Gandhi (who died in 1948), so it is in the public domain in India. However, this volume has a different editor, C. Rajagopalachari, who died in 1972. So it is not necessarily out of copyright in India applying a 60 pma term. Is the copyright from the date of publication as a collective work, or not? It is in the public domain in USA, so it could be moved to Wikisource if necessary. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually the editor is not the author of articles published in any journal. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just sampled the first issue contained therein, and C. Rajagopalachar is indeed credited as author of several, if not most, of its contributions.
So these should certainly still be in copyright in India until 2033, if the term there is 60 pma. Felix QW (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request and question[edit]

I had to upload new versions from two files with their copyrighted material removed/censored: Os Negros (1921).pdf (illustrations) and Meu amor! adoro-te!.pdf. Any admin could occult the early versions? There's any way to program a bot to "revert" it after some time? The illustrations from the first file shall only enter PD in 2055, while the preface from the second file shall only enter PD in 2046 in their home country (Brazil).

I also have a question about the Category:Jéca Tatuzinho: the illustrator, Kurt Wiese, was a German-born illustrator who died in 1974. According to Britannica, in around 1927 he became an US citizen. In this case, which copyright law takes precedence for his early 1927 works? Germany, Brazil (where the work was published - both cases Life +70) or the United States (where he became a citizen and died)?

Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have hidden the first version of the 2 files mentioned above, and added them in the relevant categories.
Copyright depends on the place of publication, not on the nationality of the author. So works published before 1928 are in the public domain in USA whether the author is a US citizen or not. Works first published in Germany will use German law, whoever is the author. Yann (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: thanks! So in this specific case is the Brazilian law which takes precedence? In this case, going by this discussion in the Portuguese Wikisource, it seems that it would be PD since he didn't have any heirs. Erick Soares3 (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it is possible for someone "not to have any heirs" in this sense, since there will always be someone taking on the inheritance, even if it is a government body as heir of last resort. I would be very surprised if copyright would not have been transferred to some entity. Felix QW (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides, the NYT obituary states that he has been survived by both a widow and a sister. Felix QW (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bookseller's copy of a public domain book[edit]

Is it possible to upload the image of that copy of an antique book, which is offered by a bookseller on his website (or on AbeBooks) with no free license? --Frognall (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Frognall: If the image is basically of something two-dimensional (e.g. a title page reproduced), then yes, because it is an uncreative reproduction, and there is nothing there to copyright. However, if it is (for example) a picture that clearly shows the book as an object, then no, because that photo would itself be a copyrightable work. - Jmabel ! talk 07:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I'm confused. Is it possible to upload a (more or less cropped or retouched) image of a closed copy of the old book (like this one), with details and defects which make it a unique piece? And can the source (the bookseller's website) be cited, even if copyrighted? --Frognall (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. The court case was about a photo which basically served as a copy of an old painting, so it was a straight-on photo cropped to the painting's borders. Such photos take skill, but not creativity, so they were ruled as below the threshold of originality, since several of the creative aspects which goes into the copyright of a photograph (the angle chosen, and the cropping) are basically decided for the photographer. However even a photo of a coin may still have enough of those elements to still support a copyright, so we keep pretty closely to the court decision and delete such photos if not actually taken by the uploader. In the photo you mention, it has a copyright, as a photo of the entire book as an object. If it's a straight-on to the cover though, you could crop the photo to just the cover art, especially if you retouch away some of the wrinkles/tears specific to that photo. At that point, if the result is just a copy of the cover art, it would be the same copyright as that cover art. As a U.S. book published before 1928, the cropped/retouched result should be {{PD-Art|PD-US-expired}}. The artist of that cover was William E. Hill who died in 1962, which should be noted since any 70pma country which has a reciprocal copyright agreement with the U.S. (many in Europe do) cannot use it yet because the cover art is still copyrighted there, despite the fact it can be uploaded to Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would the wrinkles and tears need to be removed? They are not specific to that photo, but to that book, and created without original human decisions (if I understand the words correctly). Or do you mean that the photographer chose to take the photo from an angle where some of them were pronounced and others not? –LPfi (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They wouldn't necessarily, but it'd be safer probably. You might be able to argue that the photographer was intentionally including them for effect, or using a particular lighting to create shadows using them, or stuff like that to distinguish this particular photo as a copyrightable work, from other plain photos of the cover. They may not be winning arguments, but anything you can do to get the cropped copy to be closer to just the original artwork, the better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here the image must be cropped to keep only the cover, and remove the shade affect of the picture. Yann (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you all. Please, @Clindberg: can/should I cite the bookseller's website as a source? --Frognall (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be appropriate, since they are certainly the source of the image. Felix QW (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos of a metro card[edit]

Hello, I'm new to the Commons village pump, so if I get anything wrong, please correct me. I have taken a photo of the back side of a Christchurch metro card for use on Wikipedia. The photo contains mostly text and shapes, but I still want to check in here to make sure that this photo doesn't violate copyright. As well as the proper tags/template, I should use: File:Christchurch_Metrocard_back_side_2023.jpg

Also, here are some older photos that I would also like to hear people's copyright analyses of, but they weren't taken by me: File:CHCH_Metrocard.JPG File:CHCH_Mobile_Phone_Metrocard.JPG CoderThomasB (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Yes, these are too simple to get a copyright. You can add a mention "Object: {{PD-ineligible}}" under your own license. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am less sure of that, since Christchurch lies in New Zealand and COM:New Zealand suggests that the NZ ToO is very low, with little regard to originality of expression.
So the arrangement of the coloured panels may already push it over the edge, I think. Felix QW (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK graduation photo, circa 1930[edit]

I have a British graduation photo taken around 1930 (photographer unknown). Reading through Help:Public domain, I am not sure about its copyright status in terms of USA vs UK vs the URAA. Any suggestions? Muzilon (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

URAA applies since the UK was 70 PMA in 1996 (1925 was the cutoff year, but 1926 and 1927 works would be public domain in the U.S. now). As to the UK copyright, has a reasonable inquiry been made as to the identity of the photographer? (knowing more about the provenance of the photograph might tell us if the photographer could be found) Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

City flag[edit]

Is this flag a copyright violation? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthropological life casts[edit]

I have photographed several 19th-century life casts at Musée de l'Homme, an anthropological museum in Paris. These life casts are a bit like death masks, except the subject is still alive. They are made in plaster, painted in a realistic way, so they look like busts of people with their eyes closed (because of the cast-making process). Many of them were made by naturalist and phrenologist fr:Pierre Marie Alexandre Dumoutier (1797-1871), but the museum cartels do not always mention this information. Are we to consider these casts as sculptures or are they PD-ineligible? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Presumably they'd be sculptures, but they would long since have entered the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Longstanding edit request to Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto - admin needed[edit]

Please see Template talk:PD-Japan-oldphoto#Publication date requirement. In short, several years ago I flagged that a publication date requirement was mistakenly added to this copyright template, but no one has taken action. Removing it would bring the template back into harmony with Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan#Old photographs. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

Is the Nottingham Forest F.C. logo basic enough to be licensed under public domain? An unofficial logo (without the two stars at the top) does exist on commons and it doesn't seem to breaking any copyright rules. Thanks and have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty unlikely in my opinion as it would be difficult to describe the tree in terms of simple geometric shapes. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just tagged the one on Commons as a copyright violation, as it is well above COM:TOO UK. It's above COM:TOO US too, but less so. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The file has been Symbol speedy delete.svg speedy deleted as a non-free logo. It might be fine to change the licensing to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} on EnWiki, but that is a decision for the community to make at EnWiki's Files for discussion page, not on Commons. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright record for a New York license plate[edit]

In going through some copyright registrations, I found RE0000717453, which is a renewal registration for a 1968 New York license plate. The files we have on Commons for those sorts of plates are really simple, such as File:NEW YORK 1968 LICENSE PLATE - Flickr - woody1778a.jpg, so I'm a bit skeptical that the registration refers to the blue-and-yellow design that would otherwise appear to be well below COM:TOO USA. If this is about the blue-and-yellow design, we'd need to radically re-evaluate how we handle the threshold of originality for vehicle registration plates in the United States, since that New York design is about as simple as can be.

Is there a way to request a copy of the copyright filing from 1968 (and/or the subsequent renewal) that would get a copy of the design that was submitted to the copyright office? I have my doubts that this is indeed about the blue-and-yellow design, but I would like to make sure I'm correct in doubting this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There could be a copyright on license plates which include a complex design, such as File:New York license plate, 1986.png. Anything before 1978 would be {{PD-US-no notice}} anyway. Yann (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Searching for the author's name, I found the original registration from the 1968 copyright catalog. He registered license plate designs for all 50 states, all described as "Silhouette of state in shield shape, scenes on border". So these registrations couldn't be for the official state license plates; perhaps these were souvenir plates like you might buy in a gift shop. Toohool (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading Kodeeshwaran Season 4[edit]

For some reason, the videos (example) are licensed under CC-BY, which means that they are technically eligible to be on Commons (unless the videos themselves are out-of-scope). Can someone confirm whether this is possible? For instance, it is not clear to me on the logos, given that's usually not free-use. Thanks in advance, and please ping me in an answer. Leaderboard (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Leaderboard: For start, is uploader actually having rights to this material? Sometimes people upload materials without having rights to them, see COM:Flickrwashing for a similar case. Is it this TV station/producer or random person uploading copyright violations? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The TV station in question is fully owned by Disney. - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mateusz Konieczny: "is uploader actually having rights to this material"? I would say so - it's Asianet's official YouTube channel after all (and that's the channel where this TV show was hosted, from Season 1 - 4). Asianet does have a connection with Disney India. Leaderboard (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leaderboard: Maybe logos may be COM:de minimis in this case Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos from US Military Ships Voyage Books[edit]

I possess one of such books. I assume that photos from it fall under PD-USGov-Military-Navy and thus are fair game for Commons. Any opinions to the contrary? -- Wesha (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am skeptical of a blanket PD-USGov-Military-Navy. I believe the cruise books are made by the crew, but that does not mean the cruise books are part of the crew's official duties. I could see a machinist mate submitting some text about what he did on the cruise. The cruise books may also include photographs made by ordinary crew members rather than the ship's photographer mate.
Patrol reports are prepared as part of the officer's duties, so they would fall under PD-USGov-Military-Navy, but there would be exceptions. For example, a USS Trigger war patrol report included a drawing of Bugs Bunny sitting on an island. Warner Bros. holds the copyright on Bugs Bunny, and the derivative work was probably done outside of normal duties. Glrx (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copernicus.eu images[edit]

copernicus.eu has an image of the day from their Sentinel satellites and I've looked, but I'm unsure of the copyright status of these images. Would like some help determining that. Thanks PalauanLibertarian (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PalauanLibertarian: Please notice that the link you provided doesn't work.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting keep-light-green.svg Fixed PalauanLibertarian (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PalauanLibertarian: So long as the image in question is actually from one of the Copernicus Programme satellites (and that one is from Sentinel-2, so it's fine), you can use {{Attribution-Copernicus}} as the license template. Just read its instructions, which are very simple. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thx PalauanLibertarian (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD book cover art[edit]

Could File:Depiction of woman's reproductive organs from the Early Modern period in England.jpg possibly be PD if the image on the front cover is PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably yes, but it's a UK publisher, so who really knows with the UK's notoriously low threshold of originality. They'd probably declare the logo in the lower right corner to be original enough for protection. I'd rather upload the original 1671 illustration ([1], [2]) and use that. --Rosenzweig τ 06:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The artist is probably Johann Reinhold Schildknecht, his name is on the title page engraving. Better source here. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good find Rosenzweig, your find of this avoids any non-free issues with the book cover, especially as it is a UK publication. Ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mary Marjory Macdonald.jpg[edit]

File:Mary Marjory Macdonald.jpg is almost certainly incorrectly licensed, but the question is whether it can be converted to another license and kept. en:Mary Marjory MacDonald died in 1926 at age 41 or 42, and this photo probably was taken not too long before than. Even though there's no indication as to whether it might've been first published prior to 1928, I'm wondering if this can be relicensed as PD. Since the UK seems to be the likely country of origin/first publication, maybe this can be converted to PD for some reason per COM:UK or COM:AW#UK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks like a police photo (or similar), which checks out considering she was a jewel thief. If it is the work of some UK police force, {{PD-UKGov}} (for a photograph created before June 1, 1957) should apply. --Rosenzweig τ 07:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UK police forces are not part of the United Kingdom Government. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{PD-UK-unknown}} should work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are they not? London's Metropolitan Police says “Work produced by police staff is copyright of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC). Work produced by Police Officers is the copyright of the Crown.” So they apparently distinguish between work by staff and work by officers. Interesting. --Rosenzweig τ 09:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to everyone for looking at this. {{PD-UK-unknown}} seems appropriate unless there's an objection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licence for a derived work[edit]

I wish to upload a file to Wikimedia which is based on things provided by more than one UK government body under the Open Government Licence 3.0. I'm not acting on behalf of the governmnet, so plan to use the CC-BY 4.0 licence for my file, and specify the authors of the original works.

How should I upload a file to Wikimedia in a way which shows this?

I had a look at the upload wizard, but I couldn't tell if any combination of options would include the correct details with the file. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Aoeuidhtns: you probably can't deal with all of this in the Wizard. You'll need to edit after uploading. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jmabel Thanks. Is there a way I can prevent other people from accessing a file until it has a valid licence? Aoeuidhtns (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you do it promptly, it is unlikely any person will get to it before you. A bot might, but just fix the issue and it should be fine. Happens all the time. - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-upload?[edit]

Can someone please check if this image is another re-upload of this one which already has been deleted several times, or if the licensing is o.k. this time?

This basically affects all uploads by users BalintGoldenstein and Jan-Hendrik Pelz: It seems that many or most of their files are re-uploads of previously deleted files.

Jan-Hendrik Pelz is the name of the artist himself, so if that is him, he owns the Urheberrecht to the artwork. However, his user name is not verified on the German WP at least. Neither is the user name Balint Goldenstein which apparently is his assistant. (What he writes in that discussion about the copyright having been transferred to him is nonsense; the Urheberrecht is non-transferrable by German law except by inheriting it after someone's death.) --2003:C0:8F28:D600:D5F5:BED2:9BE1:79EF 08:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. There is a weird deletion request here: Do these young artists know what they are doing? They produce political art that is obviously meant to be provocative and highly controversial, they publish it under a CC license for everyone to use and distribute freely, and then they are surprised at getting exactly the reactions they bargained for? --2003:C0:8F28:D600:D5F5:BED2:9BE1:79EF 09:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the same two people, but in a different place and time. In the other one, they were in front of some bushes and holding a sickle and a flag (or similar). --Rosenzweig τ 10:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New case law about freedom of panorama in Germany[edit]

Per [3] and [4], the Oberlandesgericht Hamm has decided that freedom of panorama in Germany does not apply to drone shots of protected works of art, affirming case law by Germany's highest (regular) court, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH). This contradicts an earlier (outlier IMO) decision by the Landgericht Frankfurt which some people took as a justification to keep or undelete such drone shots. The OLG Hamm is one rung up the legal ladder from the LG Frankfurt, so I'd be even more critical of that LG Frankfurt decision now. The decision of the OLG Hamm has been appealed to the BGH, so there will probably be a new BGH decision about German freedom of panorama in the next couple of years or so. --Rosenzweig τ 09:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The OLG Hamm was itself the appellate court in this case btw and confirmed a decision by the trial court (court of first instance), the Landgericht (LG) Bochum. Which is on the same level as the LG Frankfurt. --Rosenzweig τ 10:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today Records logo and label[edit]

The Today Records logo contains a peace symbol, and its vinyl labels contain the same symbol in large size (45cat). It's okay for this project to use, right? George Ho (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=767435238"