Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-automated

Template:PD-automated

Originally tagged for speedy deletion by User:Timeshifter because "This PD-ineligible license tag was never approved at Commons talk:Threshold of originality, nor anywhere else. I removed it from the list of PD-ineligible tags. See: diff. "What Links Here" shows it already being used on 3 images, and so it needs to be deleted before more damage is done. Also, see this discussion where it was not approved: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright status of images taken by automated cameras. (Traffic enforcement, speed, red light, etc)." Converting for discussion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep and modify to make clear that this applies only in the US and certain other countries. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete. It doesn't apply anywhere. See: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright status of images taken by automated cameras. (Traffic enforcement, speed, red light, etc). The fact that a camera is automated does not determine whether its subject is copyrighted or not. An automated camera can be pointed anywhere. Where it is pointing is what matters. Not the automation. And this template should not be kept according to totaling keep and delete votes. This template does not meet the policies and guidelines of the Commons. It would never be approved at Commons talk:Threshold of originality as it is now. So until it does, which would require its scope to be radically narrowed, this template should be deleted. Because it is already being used on images. For example these images which are not from automated traffic cameras:

File:Patty Hearst takes part in the April 1974 Hiberna bank raid with other SLA members.jpg

File:Patty Hearst- Hibernia bank robbery.jpg

File:Christopherneil.jpg

I noticed various Patty Hearst security camera files under different image licenses. Such as {{PD-USGov}} since the files were found on FBI pages. Other such security camera photos were under the PD-ineligible license ({{PD-ineligible}}) at some point (such as before the {{PD-automated}} license was added. I am not sure any of those licenses are correct. If the bank made no copyright claim, then I would think the photos were simply in the public domain regardless of where they eventually showed up. I don't know. It needs to be thoroughly discussed at Commons talk:Threshold of originality. That is where other PD-ineligible licenses were discussed.

Found a Wired article: Do People Caught on Ring Cameras Have Privacy Rights? from May 2022. It says: "The owner of the surveillance footage technically owns the copyright." --Timeshifter (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a non-legal source. It is absolutely true in the United States according to the U.S. Copyright Office: the work must be "created by a human being" (sec. 306) and not "produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author" (sec. 313.2). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem we'd run into is if the particular arrangement of a camera system to capture an intersection at a certain angle under certain circumstances would qualify as sufficiently creative input from a human author. If courts in the U.S. have ruled that this sort of stuff can be copyrighted we'd run into a possibly fatal problem with this template; as COM:TOO USA notes, [w]orks from other countries which are above the threshold of originality of the United States but below the threshold of originality of the source country are  Not OK to upload to Commons (COM:Licensing requires that works be free both in their source country and the United States, so we need the image to be below COM:TOO USA regardless of its country of origin).

Along those lines, I have a  Question: has this question previously been tested in U.S. court and, if so, what have the courts ruled? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

From that US Copyright Office link that Mdaniels5757 linked to is the following (with another link at the end):

The crucial question is “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, REPORT TO THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS BY THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 5 (1966).

I don't see anything about security cameras in anything discussed so far except in the Wired article. That magazine puts out quality stuff (for a long time now). So I believe they are probably right. A security camera can be put anywhere. Hell, anybody can put a camera on a tripod and a timer and take group photos with themselves in the photo too. Isn't that an "automated" timer camera. Just like many security cameras that take photos every few seconds, minutes, etc.. People can mount automated cameras anywhere. Like all the web cams worldwide taking photos and videos of wildlife, eagle nests, interesting sites, etc.. As I said previously, the fact that it operates by timer is irrelevant. What matters is what the photo or video is about.

I left a link to this discussion. At Commons talk:Threshold of originality. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If someone sets up an timer camera to take a picture, that's a human author with an assisting instrument (the timer). If someone installs a fixed security camera, there is no human authorship, because nothing copyrightable was conceived or executed by a human. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The assisting instrument is the fixed security camera whose direction, subject, etc. were all selected by a human. Same as the tripod camera which is also fixed by a human, and whose subject was chosen by a human. No difference. See the US Copyright Office quote higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Info
  Hi! I'm the person who made this, (Context here.) Feel free to revert or undo, but there's something to be said for a more specific {{PD-ineligible}} tag. I'm not nailed to the wording; the idea, I think, is that an image or work produced by an automated system that involved no human decision-making is ineligible. I'd support making the wording more narrow, e.g., maybe this only applies to works created in the United States, and it has to be clearly a system that did not have a human controller doing anything meaningful. grendel|khan 05:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Even traffic cams are copyrighted: Traffic Camera Terms of Use | IDrive Arkansas. Excerpt: "All camera images provided through the Traffic Camera feature on IDrive Arkansas are the property of and copyrighted by each camera owner. All rights are reserved." Traffic cams were in the title of your Village Pump discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

They can claim all the copyright all they want; if there's no human input, there's no copyright. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Who do you think selects the targets of the traffic cams? Humans, not robots. And humans adjust the direction, focus, aperture, etc. of those traffic cams. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep The issues raised seem to me to confirm that such files should be tracked, not lost among other files by using less specific templates. The wording should make clear that the automation in itself may not make the file ineligible for copyright and point to a page discussing the issues. As our understanding increases, we can add parameters for specific circumstances, such as more specific PD rationales and notPD ("Although this image was captured in an automatic process, the human input was sufficient to create a copyright in some of the jurisdictions concerned") warning reusers to respect the separate licence and editors not removing it as redundant. –LPfi (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Info
  . From a US professional photographer and videographer. Who owns the copyright of a recorded webcam stream? "Jessica would likely be the copyright owner to a recording produced by her webcam,"

From a US legal site: Who owns the copyright to a screen-recording of a webcam performance that is NOT scripted, the performer or the screen-recorder? "A performer does have a copyright in his/her performance the minute it is performed and publicly shown. Each subsequent performance may be considered a derivative work or another unique performance. ... 4 lawyers agree".

UK security cam owners also have copyright. See diff. It is discussing this court case: Hyde Park Residence Ltd v. Yelland. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

A photographer/videographer is no legal authority. And Jessica would likely be the owner because the recording depicts something copyrightable she's doing. Performers can absolutely have copyright if they are performing. And UK security cam owners have copyright. But none of that means that this template should be deleted: recordings of non-copyrightable things depicted on CCTV are not copyrightable in the United States. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I have listed multiple sources more expert than you or me that say differently. But I agree we need more discussion with more legal authorities. That is why the template should be deleted until then so that it is not used until there is more certainty at Commons talk:Threshold of originality where more lawyers and experts hang out concerning PD-ineligible and threshold of originality stuff.

And you previously said that there is no human authorship. You are ignoring the quote I left from the US Copyright Office. "elements of selection, arrangement, etc.". There is no automated camera I know of that selects what it views, or arranges itself or its subjects. The fact that it is on a timer or motion detection is irrelevant. It could be a human counting the seconds between manually clicking the shutter, watching for motion. So automated cameras of all kinds are "basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument," says the US Copyright Office. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Info
  See: en:Threshold of originality#Originality in specific types of works (Link has been fixed). See subsection: "Pre-positioned recording devices". It says this question remains untested in the United States. Also in New Zealand. In the UK it has been tested in the previously mentioned security camera case. Concerning continental European countries there seems to be nothing but speculation.

So according to Red-tailed hawk's post none of these automated images and videos can be uploaded to the Commons because they are not free images in the US. Uncertainty does not make for a free image or video. If the person or organization that set up the automated camera decides to declare that some of the images or videos are free, then that is a different story. That overrides threshold of originality concerns in all countries.

The template needs to be deleted. Legal uncertainty does not make for a free image or video. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of the template does not affect the copyright issues of these types of files. If people believe the files are PD, they will still upload them and will use a more generic template, which won't have a warning and a link to our discussion on the issues. These files will then be lost to janitors among all genuinely PD files. –LPfi (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Since there is no certainty that there are any automated images that legally can be claimed as PD-ineligible in the US, then what difference does it make if they use another incorrect PD license. Either way the image will have to be deleted. We can put the warning and link on the generic {{PD-ineligible}} license. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus that no images can be PD because of them being automated, and thus somebody can conclude that a certain image is PD as automated. At least over here, a copyright requires creative input, such somebody else tasked with setting up the camera wouldn't get the same images. They need to reflect the authors personality. Isn't that true of copyright worldwide? I have a hard time imagining that setting up an automated camera would automatically count as such creative input. Some automated cameras are certainly set up in a creative way, say a wildlife photographer using one, but that doesn't make your run-of-the-mill surveillance camera would create copyrightable photos. –LPfi (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See the UK court case where simple security camera photos were found to be copyrighted. For the US and other countries see: en:Threshold of originality#Originality in specific types of works (Link has been fixed). See subsection: "Pre-positioned recording devices". See Red-tailed hawk's post higher up about how US law (or lack of it) determines what can be posted to the Commons. The fact is that there are no US court cases on the issue. So we don't know what is PD and what is not. We don't post stuff to the Commons if there is a question about whether they are free images or not. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I do think that from a garbage collection perspective, it would be better to have a unique tracking template for images taken in this manner (this isn't a defense of the validity of the template; it truly looks like an unclear situation to me, and we have COM:PRP for a reason). I would like to see if the WMF has a position on these sorts of copyrights, to clarify what to do in this sort of untested situation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I will separately note that there are cases of automated (or extremely long) cameras that would appear to me to have the requisite originality. Consider the following two scenarios, for example:

1. On the evening December 31, 2023, an employee of NBC New York positioned a camera in Jersey City pointing at New York City. The camera will remain in place, and is set on an automatic timer to take a video starting one hour before sunrise and ending one after sunrise each day; the team wants to capture a video of the sunrise over Manhattan every day for the entire year. After the initial configuration, the camera is fully automated; it starts recording on its own and stops recording on its own.
2. On the evening December 31, 2023, an employee of NBC New York positioned a camera in Jersey City pointing at New York City. The camera will remain in place and will capture a continuous video of New York City over the entire year beginning at 00:00 on January 1, 2024 and ending at 00:00 on January 1, 2025. After the initial configuration, the camera is fully automated; it starts recording on its own and stops recording on its own.

For each scenario, I find myself thinking about the following questions:

• Does this sort of videography have copyright protection in the United States and, if so, do stills taken from the videos also have some form of copyright protection?
• To what extent is this scenario comparable to automated security cameras, and to what extent does it differ?

If we have answers to those questions, I think we have answers to questions related to other sorts of automated videography (and stills derived therefrom). My gut feeling here is that we're going to need to apply a case-by-case approach to the sort of automated camera setup and the extent to which a human was creatively involved in setting the photo up. That probably leaves some form of a {{PD-automated}} template in place for U.S. works, but I would advocate for some sort of warning/disclaimer to be added to the template to expressly state that this template does not apply to videos where humans had substantial creative input in setting up the automated camera. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk. Thanks for the NBC automated video examples, and for linking to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (COM:PRP). If those NBC videos have enough originality to pass the threshold of originality, and thus be copyrightable, then they would not be using any type of {{PD-ineligible}} license template.

We would have to go to NBC to find out what kind of copyright they are using, and if the copyright was a free one like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Then we could use it on the Commons.

But who is going to make these decisions on originality? We could continue to guess as we are doing now, but I would think then that COM:PRP might apply, and we shouldn't post the images to the Commons.

We could maybe set up a committee to anticipate future US court rulings, and set up threshold of originality rules based on that. But then that would skirt COM:PRP rules. I agree that this needs to go to the highest levels of arbitration and even to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Info
  It looks like I've poked a hornet's nest of unclear rulings. From what I can tell (see en:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices), the copyright status of the product of pre-positioned or automated cameras in the United States is unclear. Such claims are valid in England, invalid in Russia, and unclear just about everywhere else. At the same time, we have a lot of security camera footage under {{PD-ineligible}}. This decision is above my pay grade; is there a way to get an official ruling from Wikimedia's legal staff one way or the other? The issue is, I think, less the existence of this template and more the unclear copyright status of a whole heap of media currently in the "ineligible" bucket. grendel|khan 20:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Legal generally does not make "rulings" or serve as an arbitrator for policy decisions on WMF projects. They do issue reports on topics at meta:Wikilegal, and there's a Commons page where suggestions can be made for topics of interest. These reports generally will summarize the legal issues and existing case law, and will probably not reach a black-and-white conclusion. The Commons community can use that as input in making policy decisions. Toohool (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if we get legal advice or clear court cases, we have to apply sound judgement on to what extent the cases are similar to ours – "guess", as Timeshifter puts it. We will never get an absolute line, just guidance on where the line in the water lies. This is the same problem as with de minimis, textlogo, derived work, whatever. The precautionary principle doesn't say we cannot use our sound judgement, to the extent it says anything about copyrightability (which one can argue it doesn't), it says that we shouldn't go too far into the grey zone. Our understanding on where the line goes will probably increase as cases get into court or the law is clarified, and thus a tracking template is valuable. Unless we believe that none or all media by automated cameras are copyrighted, by virtue of being automated, we need a template. Even in the latter case we can retain it, as a speedy template, but I don't believe we will get consensus on that. –LPfi (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

So, is the next step to to open a COM:RFC and propose some possible choices? grendel|khan 16:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I dislike the RFC venue, as the proposals are mostly not mature enough for meaningful voting, and voting starts regardless. My impression is that there simply isn't enough understanding of the issues to make informed decisions on new policy. Better keep track of files in the grey zone and delineate it by individual deletion requests. –LPfi (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That is a proposal, isn't it? Move all automated-camera images into this tag and figure out policy later? grendel|khan 00:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

:-)

Seems so. I am not certain about "move" or "all", but otherwise yes. It seems we need tracking and a warning for at least some of these files, and a PD-template seems to fit the bill, given suitable wording. Before applying it to many files, we should make sure that what it says will not change in ways that confuse what the person who added the template believed they were saying by doing so. If we need to say something different later, that can be handled with parameters, but a careful original (default) wording is still essential. –LPfi (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We need something that tells editors that it is questionable whether the automated image or video is in the public domain. Maybe {{PD-automated-questionable}}. Then when a decision is made that it is likely that a court will determine a specific subcategory is in the public domain then we can move the image to that subcategory. For example: {{PD-automated-questionable-traffic}} to {{PD-automated-traffic}}. If that is what some authoritative decision making process here determines. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. There's currently a {{PD-RU-exempt-autocam}} that's specific to these sorts of works that are in the Russian Federation, so it might make sense to have the documentation of one of those replacements specifically refer to the Russian autocam template. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Excerpt from that template says: "The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ... the mentioned Session Resolution applies to any photowork or videowork made by automatic camera for administrative violation record." Is that referring to things like traffic cams? And will we require court rulings? --Timeshifter (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - Hasn't this been discussed several times already? Most countries require human authorship to create a copyright. The United States definitely requires human authorship and that's the most important jurisdiction for Commons. Sure the UK allows such images to be copyrighted, but the UK allows almost anything to be copyrighted (including AI generated images). A warning about re-use in the UK can be added to the template. Nosferattus (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)