Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/07

Applicability of URAA

Denniss recently speedily kept Commons:Deletion requests/File:1935 Reid Pictorial Map of Edinburgh and Leith, Scotland - Geographicus - Edinburgh-reid-1935.jpg citing the fact that URAA cannot be the sole criterion for deletion. I understand that, however I am wondering how this is a URAA case at all. URAA "restored copyrights in the U.S. on foreign works if that work was still copyrighted in the foreign source country on the URAA date." This is not the case, as far as I can tell, for that file, and I cannot figure out why it would ever have been PD in the US unless it was published in the US simultaneously as in the UK and not subsequently renewed. The Hirtle Chart seems to indicate that this is copyrighted for at least 95 years after publication. Denniss has not responded to my request for clarification, so I'm asking here. This potentially affects a number of the Geographicus images, so some community input would be appreciated. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember that not every user on Commons has a doctorate in copyright law with a specialization on the evolution of the US and UK legislations. If you want most users to understand a conclusion about the copyright status of a work, it helps a lot if you explain a least the broad lines of the rationale that leads to that conclusion. With some rewording to take into account the necessary implicit assumptions, one can see in your comment above essentially two conclusions:

1. You state that the work was not under copyright in the United Kingdom on January 1, 1996.

2. You state that the work was under copyright in the United States and remained so at all times from its creation until now.

Your conclusions may be right or wrong, I really don't know. But it would help if you explained the facts and the reasoning that lead you to them.

Just for the discussion, about the satement 1, I seem to vaguely remember that a reason why some works from that era were under copyright in the United Kingdom in 1996 is because they were still under copyright in 1995 in at least one country of the European Union (Spain?) and thus were caught by the copyright revival and extension provisions of The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations (en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom#Extension of copyright term). The missing element on that point is the explanation of why you conclude that this work eluded the British revival and extension of copyright. However, given the fact that, anyway, the work is certainly in the public domain in the United Kingdom today, that missing element is not really important for the purposes of Commons, here and now, unless the work is not under copyright in the United States for reasons other than the URAA.

Which brings us to your second satement, which is the important one to clarify. The question is double: how, if ever, did the work enter under copyright protection in the United States before 1996; and how did it retain that (pre-URAA) copyright protection in the United States until today? From my admittedly limited knowledge as an ordinary user, I can only guess potential explanations to a certain point, but you will need to fill the gaps. The reproduction that we can see shows that this copy of the work had a copyright notice in the form "Copyright of George A. Reid, Printer, 53 Elder St., Edinburgh". In 1935, it seems that this would have been a valid copyright notice to attract copyright protection in The United States for a map published in the United States, as it included both the word "copyright" and the name of the copyright owner and the U.S. Copyright Act did not require the mention of the date on certain types of works, including maps. But did a valid copyright notice protect in the U.S. works published outside of the U.S.? Apparently, it could have been the case under the Buenos Aires international copyright convention, of which the Unites States was a member, if we assume that the United Kingdom was also a member. If so, a tentative conclusion at this point is that this map may have been protected by copyright in the U.S. at least from 1935 until 1963. Is that right? If so, that's where my guesses stop and you will need to complete with the explanation of how this type of work retained its copyright protection in the U.S. after this point and until now, independently of the URAA. If it had lost it, then it was the URAA that restored it.

Also, remember that the Hirtle chart presents the real copyright situation, as it actually exists, which of course includes the URAA. But we cannot apply the actual reality, explained in the Hirtle chart, to the fantasy world of the current members of the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, who ask us to imagine what the artificial situation would be in theory if the URAA had not existed. We don't have the equivalent of a Hirtle chart for this fantasy world. By its suggestion to continue to delete copyvios in general while stopping to delete copyvios of works that acquired their protection following the URAA, the WMF Board members have dumped upon the users of Commons an incredible burden, because it's extremely complex, time-consuming, and an error-prone task, to artificially distinguish works on this ground. It requires finding notices, renewals, checking publications, looking into the evolution of the US Copyright Act and of past agreements with other countries, etc. I suspect that I'm not the only user who finds that immense added burden impossible to fulfill. I would much rather have them ask us to accept, for example, copyvios of all works published before 1989 without the highly complicated task of having to try to distinguish those that have a relation to the URAA from those that do not.

-- Asclepias (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Asclepias, thank you for your in-depth and thoughtful reply. I think, however, you may have misunderstood me or I was unclear. I disagree with point 1 that you say I imply: instead, the work was not PD in the UK as of the URAA date. However, that is irrelevant to our situation (as you describe it, in a fantasy land where URAA is irrelevant). Let's stipulate just for the purposes of argument that URAA never existed or is unenforceable (this is essentially what I believe the WMF position is), and that it's correct to speedy keep URAA cases. My question is still, why is this a URAA case? For rights to be "restored", they have to have been lost at some point, and I don't see why they would have been lost in this case. Sorry if I misunderstood your point, and thanks again for taking the time to reply. Please help me understand correctly if I misunderstood you or am otherwise missing some crucial point. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Struck. I misunderstood your point. Storkk (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies - my screen font is too small, and even though I read your reply twice, I missed a crucial part starting with your point about the Buenos Aires convention until the end of the paragraph. I'll reply again in a few minutes. Apologies, Storkk (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Asclepias, you have pointed me in the right direction, and I apologize again for the misunderstanding. It seems that the copyright law in effect at the time copyright would have inhered and also expired in the US was the Berne Convention (which the UK was party to in 1935) and/or 38 Stat. 2044 (which I can't immediately find the relevant vintage of), but which basically probably state that copyrights are granted to foreign works as if they were domestic works. Thus if not renewed in the US, US copyright on this would have expired the 28th year after publication (i.e. Jan 1 1963). Hence, stipulating the absence of URAA, this is PD-US, the deletion request was invalid, and Denniss was correct to speedy close. Please correct me if you think I have made a mistake. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if we suppose that, in the U.S., the work was not protected or was not protected anymore between 1963 and 1995, then the decision to keep the file is ok according to the current practice on Commons, although its copyright was restored by the URAA. Also, yes, I see now that I had misunderstood your first statement, because of the succession of the words "(...) if that work was still copyrighted in the foreign source country on the URAA date. This is not the case (...)". Now I see that the part "this is not the case" did not refer to the words immediately before it, but instead referred to the fact that if the work had been still under copyright in the U.S. independently of the URAA, then it would not have been affected by the URAA. There are users around here that are specialists of the subtleties of the US copyright legislation. Hopefully, they'll chime in and tell us if we make sense or not. :) -- Asclepias (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear in US law (damn w:Twin Books Corp. v. Walt Disney Co.), but outside that Circuit (and I've never seen a free content collector worry about that decision), works published outside the US started the clock at publication anywhere in the world. There are some fuzziness on copyright requirements caused by judges trying to be fair, but I don't see any on renewals; if it wasn't renewed 28 years after it was published, it went into the public domain, and thus the URAA would have renewed it. (Theoretically, it could have been renewed, in which case it would have been under copyright independent of the URAA.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that Denniss doesn't object, I'll reopen the deletion discussion, as it does sound at least plausible that the file is still copyrighted in the US (and not via the URAA). Kaldari (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through the renewals for 1962 and 1963 and didn't see it. One should probably check 1964 and 1965, but screw it; the renewals are here, and I didn't see any British maps or reason to think that maps of this type were renewed in the US at all. And either way, it's a farce; a copyright renewal, IMO, would reduce the chance it was copyrighted in the US because it would increase the chance that it was published in the US within 30 days and then somehow lost copyright, and they didn't know that or ignored it when filing a renewal. (There's also the factor that "copyright" is not really a platonic thing, it's really decided by judges in court cases and I don't really believe that any US judge is interested in stripping the presumed copyright from this in the US.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

TLDR (or too grumpy, didn't read) version: there's minimal chance that it's copyrighted in the US by any other force other then the URAA. If we aren't doing URAA deletions, then there's no US-law-based reason to delete this file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Following the close of Commons:Review of Precautionary principle, this change has been made to the policy; so if Kaldari, or anyone else for that matter, can demonstrate this map did is still in copyright in the US (even if that reason is the URAA) they should re-open the DR. LGA _talk^edits 21:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

So what does that change mean for cases where the copyright status in the U.S. is unknown? Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Better ask to MichaelMaggs and Odder. Jee 03:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Here, you're welcome to these" web page

I sometimes create a new article at en:Wikipedia about this or that photographer. Having done so, I often email the photographer, inviting corrections and comments. A frequent response is that I would be welcome to use this or that image file "for Wikipedia". Then I have to explain what we all know but much of the world hasn't yet cottoned on to; and as I drone on about Creative Commons, reuse elsewhere, OTRS, etc, the photographer usually loses interest (and I can't blame them). Even when I succeed, things can go wrong: files that I know were uploaded here by the photographer or their assistant, with full understanding of copyleft and explicit declaration of an OK variety of CC, have ended up deleted.

I recently thought of a better approach. The first attempt will be for the photographer/videomaker Daniel Meadows. I suggested that he should add a page to his own website, in which he explicitly says that the graphics in that one page (and not elsewhere) are CC copyleft.

Here (new today, I think) is the result.

I wish that the graphics were a little bigger, but that's a different topic. I already have one on-topic suggestion; that what's now

Each image file appearing on this web page is licensed. . . .

(at the top) could instead be

Each image file and its caption appearing on this web page is licensed. . . .

However, I'm no expert in copyright matters and some of you are. I'd welcome your informed comments.

I'm asking this not merely for two small graphics that are unlikely to appear in more than one WP article. Rather, I'd like to get this right so that I may also show it to other potential donors, who could then adopt it. (More illustration, fewer deletion requests, less work for the OTRS people.)

Of course, it could be that Daniel Meadows and I are reinventing the wheel here. If you can point me to an existing, better example, please do. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have examples of photos by notable photographers which were in use in an article on Wikipedia (you mean the English version, I presume), and that got deleted in spite of acceptable and confirmed licensing? That would be interesting. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not here complaining about any perceived injustice. What I'm asking about is the wording of, and any other weak points of, this web page. And I'm asking because I think that if this can be done right, it will be a way to bring in more good image files from elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"(ii) this license does not apply to larger versions of these files that may appear elsewhere on the web, to the same photographs as they appear in print, or to image files appearing on other pages of this website." is not an acceptable restriction for a CC license. See this FAQ. Jee 10:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the detail of that FAQ, but I do understand the gist. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, Jee. -- Hoary (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

EXIF data and copyright claims

I spotted what might be an unusual situation, so I thought that other opinions would be good. In Australia, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has released their works as CC-by-SA, per the statement here, which states "With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and where otherwise noted, all material presented on this website is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence." However, I noticed that in the EXIF data from some photos from DFAT, there's the statement "This image cannot be used without the express permission of DFAT". The seems like a more restrictive license, so I was wondering if that meant that those photos fall under the "where otherwise noted" category, or if they should just be assumed to be holding superseded copyright claims in the EXIF data, and that the more general CC license is the one that we should assume to be the case. - Bilby (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• "where otherwise noted" only mean if any content in that website having a different license mentioned nearby. Here, what we can expect is, the images are released with a different license (eg. ARR) earlier; later they changed it to CC BY 3.0 AU. There is no need to republish all the images with a change in EXIF. Jee 09:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "nearby" works, in the sense that you don't get much more "nearby" than in the EXIF data. I can certainly accept that the EXIF data may not have been updated to match the new licence, so I have no problems if that is the call, but I think the call needs to be made. - Bilby (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Link to related discussion. Jee 09:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no harm in writing to the website contact for DFAT and confirming with them. Even if they never reply, at least an email sent from a volunteer shows that the project made a good faith attempt to check copyright status. Having checks by email logged on OTRS, helps avoid future deletion discussions where there is potential for doubt. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll do that. I figure it will be absolutely fine, (not updating the EXIF data makes a lot of sense), but I tend to be overly cautious when it comes to copyright. Thanks for the suggestion. - Bilby (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Portrait Caliph Abdulmecid II.jpg

According to the Library of Congress, this is from 1923, after the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, but then, they also say it's Mehmed VI, not Abdülmecid II. What, exactly, is the copyright status here? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam, I think the LOC have made a mistake and it is Abdülmecid II in that photo, especially when you compare it to other photos of him such as File:Caliph Abdulmecid II of the Ottoman Empire.jpg which is from 1931 (according to the National Portrait Gallery). In comparison, Mehmed VI (died 1926), who was his cousin, can be seen in File:Sultan Mehmed VI of the Ottoman Empire.jpg. As for the date, the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate were two separate but closely linked concepts. Mehmed VI was both Emperor (Padishah in Turkish) (the secular title) and Caliph (the religious title). The Empire was abolished in November 1922 when Mehmed was deposed from both offices and Abdülmecid was then elected as Caliph but not Emperor, lasting until March 1924 when the Turkish Republic was formed. In the absense of other evidence to the contrary, it is entirely possible that the photo in question is from 1923. Green Giant (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Green Giant: But what does that mean for copyright status? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I would follow Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Ottoman_Empire, because the Empire did not recognise international copyright and never signed the Berne Convention. Although LOC have made a mistake about the name, I see no reason to doubt the year. The photo was most likely taken in 1923 and there is no reason to believe that it wasn't published because this was probably an official photo so it counts as a work of government even if they hired a private photographer. If we assume that Turkish law applied after 1923, the photo would become PD seventy years after publication i.e. 1 January 1994, well before any URAA applicability. I don't think there is a pressing need to delete this or similar images but they do need more details such as a more precise date and authorship. Green Giant (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the image is not better documented at the LoC. This is not the type of photograph about which the author would have kept his identity secret. This is a file for which the strict application of the Commons policy would require deletion for insufficient documentation about the author and about the publication history, but in practice it is a sort of file about which users may not really care to request a deletion. The problem with files that users don't care to delete, although the documentation is insufficient to tag them with valid templates, is that there is no suitable template to tell "this work has good chances of being in the public domain, but we don't have enough information, so we can't specify exactly why we keep it, but we're not motivated to delete it". If you assume that the year 1923 is correct and is the year of creation, then the photo can't have been published before 1923 and thus a PD-1923 template could not apply. Currently, the file has the unspecific PD-US template, which is not explained, and the PD-Ottoman template, itself pretty much a bogus template, whose function, apparently, is to serve as a type of PD-US template (not a country template), used to justify the keeping of works specifically from 1923 that do not meet the requirements of any other PD-US template, in particular those of the template PD-1923 or those of the template PD-1996. If you read the deletion discussion about this template, its supporters justify it by claiming that the Ottoman empire still existed, but that doesn't seem supported, as no institution of the empire seemed to subsist. The case of Abdülmecid II is a good illustration, as he was appointed caliph in 1920 by the new institutions of the proto-republic. In any case, even if the PD-Ottoman template was used for a PD-US template, the file needs a country tag. The documentation doesn't tell where the photograph was first published. In the absence of that information, if you assume that the photograph is related to Turkey more than to any other country, then the potential tag is PD-Turkey. Which brings you back to the necessity of documenting the informations about the author. Some users might be tempted to tag the file according to a plausible but unproven situation, with the templates PD-Turkey and PD-1996, assuming that the author either died long enough ago or that he was anonymous, and hoping that nobody will challenge that assumption. That's not really a satisfying solution, although at least it would be better than the present situation. You can open a deletion request and see what happens. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I largely agree with Asclepias. Although I think it is highly probable that this photo is in the public domain, given the lack of information about the photo it is possible to construct a scenario in which it isn't public domain that nonetheless is consistent with the known facts. I disagree with his opinion regarding {{PD-Ottoman Empire}}. It is not a type of PD-US template, it is a source country template. Disregarding whether or not it is accurately applied to this photo, {{PD-Ottoman Empire}} appears to be an accurate summary of the Ottoman Authors’ Rights Act of 1910 (Hakk-ı Telif Kanunu ) in that the act required copyright formalities (including notice (§ 4), registration (§§ 21-24) and deposit (§ 20)) and had a general term of 30 years p.m.a. (§ 6). —RP88 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• See also: en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#File:Portrait Caliph Abdulmecid II.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've sent a mail to the LoC to see if there's any other information available. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

How to allow screenshots of own programme to be published

I am the developer and copyright holder of a piece of software that is free to download and use without limitations but is not open source [1]. A screenshot I uploaded earlier got deleted because of copyright issues. Can I add a statement to the download page of the programme to allow anyone to use screenshots taken from the programme for documentation and publication? If so, is there a standard text I could use? Or is it better to go through the OTRS process?--Nico b. (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You should probably go through OTRS. Note that Commons requires that images uploaded here be open source; see COM:L. So for documentation and publication is not good enough; for any license that Commons would accept, a programmer could go through and copy elements shown or crop out icons or pictures and use them in his program, following the terms of the license you gave.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Derivative work of coat of arms?

Given the situation that there is a greater or lesser coat of arms of a sovereign entity as SVG image, another user downloads the code and extracts the shield only, is he now a new owner and holds the copyright when he uploads this fraction of already existing code? Is this a derivative work? Is he entitled to change the license as he likes? Is he obliged to quote the original code as source? -- Maxxl² - talk 16:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

1. "downloads the code and extracts the shield only, is he now a new owner and holds the copyright"?: Depends if the modification was creative. Someone owns a copyright on his original creation. Probably not, if the modification was not creative. This seems comparable, for example, to doing a crop of a photograph to remove a part and keep another part.

2. "Is this a derivative work?": Depends what is the context of reference. Not in the strict sense of "derivative work" per the Copyright Act, if the modification was not creative. Cf. 1. It is a modified work, which could be said derivative in a broader sense.

3. "Is he entitled to change the license as he likes?": Depends what the terms of the original license are.

4. "Is he obliged to quote the original code as source?": Not sure what "quote the code as source" would require, but it depends what the terms of the original license are.

-- Asclepias (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate for your judgement which I do appreciate. What I have liked to is a judgement by an experienced admin here to understand the specifics. -- Maxxl² - talk 17:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-unpublished

I was talking to User:J Milburn earlier, and he raised a good point related to this template: copyright tends to expire at the end of the year, and not the beginning of the year. Currently, the template uses the expression its author died before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 70 }};, which gives 1944, which (if we go by the end of the year, as we should) is actually equivalent to 69 years after the death of the creator. As such, shouldn't this be its author died before {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 71 }}; which would return the more accurate 1943? The other fields would need to be updated as well (i.e. not 120 but 121). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Died before current year-70 is correct. That's the idea in the word "before". If you wanted to use current year-71, you would have to write died not after current year-71, or died in current year-71 at the latest. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Fair point, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, currently in year 2014, the template should return "author died before 1944", and that's what it does. 1943 would be quite wrong.Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

CC license, no version specified

I'm wanting to upload some open-access journal articles which are labeled as "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited". So, what version number of CC-BY is that considered? 1.0? 3.0? I'm not clear on the difference in the license version numbers.--Brainy J (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

We could offer reasonable guesses, but certainly the safest answer is that it's their license, so you should ask the clarification from them, not from us. The copyright is owned by the authors of the article, but the license appears to have been chosen by the publisher and apply to all their publications. They have a contact form on their website. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a simple {{Cc-by}} template without explicit version number, but that delivers a warning message... AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Plain vanilla copyvios

I'm sure the answer to this utterly simple question is in the Help pages, but I couldn't find it so here goes. I keep coming across files in Commons, downloaded from websites, which were either copyrighted or had no copyright info, and the uploader claims it as "Own work". I assume this should be tagged as a copyvio, but it's not clear to me from the discussion on Commons:Deletion policy whether this type should be tagged for Regular or Speedy Deletion. Thanks for your help. --Chetvorno (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just give us the username or some of these filenames and we'll have a look. --Denniss (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Constant Escapement.png is an example. It appears on these copyrighted magazine pages: 1, 2 --Chetvorno (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Double-slit experiment results Tanamura 2.jpg This file says "Provided with kind permission of Dr. Tonomura". Commons requires an email release from Dr. Tonomura, doesn't it? So I should tag it "NPD", right? --Chetvorno (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Solvil&Titusadv.jpg This doesn't give a source but says it is from a 1940s advertising campaign in a magazine, but has a PD license. --Chetvorno (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:The Constant Escapement.png does not appear on either of the magazine pages you link to (although similar images do). It's probably not a copyvio but an original drawing. File:Double-slit experiment results Tanamura 2.jpg is old enough that it may pre-date the requirement for having a permission email on file with OTRS. File:Solvil&Titusadv.jpg is problematic: maybe it was first published in the US and copyright wasn't renewed, maybe it wasn't, but there's not enough information to decide one way or the other. --Carnildo (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're not sure, go with a normal DR. Speedy DRs are for obvious cases. Although "obvious" in that context may not be defined in detail, personally I'd say that a Speedy DR is proper when: 1. You have done some research about the image, and sometimes about the uploader's upload history and what it tells about his/her credibility, and 2. You provide relevant evidence in your request (link or links to the legitimate original image in its context, or to as close as possible to the original, or a link to an older and/or better version of the image, and/or explanations), and 3. that evidence leads almost certainly to the conclusion that the upload is a copyright violation. If there's a reasonable chance that the uploader is the legitimate author of the image, don't request a speedy. Getting used to the best practices of tagging is almost an art.

Your first example (File:The Constant Escapement.png) is not a candidate for a speedy DR (if it's a candidate for a DR at all). You have done research but the evidence provided is not adequate to support a conclusion of copyright violation. The image published in the magazines you linked is obviously not the same image. A search by image from the Commons file returns only newer and smaller versions. Ergo, the case is not obvious and needs to be discussed. We can note that the other files uploaded by the same user show photographs that are found on the company's website [2], which would normally hint at copyvio, but strangely the Commons user uploaded larger resolution versions. The user has contributed a small number of files on Commons and contributed really to only one article on Wikipédia, whichs doesn't tell us much. This is a type of situation where, IMHO, a good first step normally would be to contact the uploader on his talk page, ask him about the origin of the images and see what he has to say about it. But his last contribution was in July 2013, so that may not give a result. Another good option in this type of situation can be to bring the issue here on C:Vp/C for informal discussion and see what other users think about it. Or you can proceed with a normal DR.

Your third example (File:Solvil&Titusadv.jpg) can be tagged with Subst:NSD. The absence of source doesn't allow other users to check the relevant facts such as country and date of publication and the validity of the uploader's statements about the date and the unspecific PD-US claim. For more caution, you can do some research, which can hint either to a positive or negative conclusion. For example, this advertisement is offered on e-bay by someone who says it was from a 1965 magazine in Switzerland. So, you could go with a DR, but this case is a good candidate for the NSD tag. The other uploads by the same user should also be examined. Many don't have sources and/or provide insufficient evidence for checking the PD claims. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look closely enough at File:The Constant Escapement.png. It does seem to be more or less a tracing of the copyrighted image on the pages I gave, though. So it is not close enough to the original to make it a derivative work? --Chetvorno (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a derivative of the other image. Some artistic choices are different in the two images. You start from the multiple hypothesis that one image is derived from the other, that the magazine image is the original and that the Commons image is a copy, but that's not obvious. They could have been drawn independently by the company's illustrator(s) to illustrate the mechanism. Or both images could be independently derived from another drawing. Anyway, the whole situation of this user's uploads was quite puzzling and felt like the user could be someone from the company who might either have actually created the images himself, or who might be having access and be using the company's images legitimately. So, I did a little more research. It turns out that it is easy to find that someone with a real name resembling the uploader's pseudonym was in the employment of the watch company Girard-Perregaux in the communications department from February 2013 to July 2013 (coincidentally exactly the same time frame when the user contributed to the Wikimedia sites on that company's article). Almost certainly the same person, given all the context, although he did not disclose his relationship with the company. So, this type of contributions to Wikimedia where a user actually does underground promotional marketing work poses other types of problems, but not necessarily of copyright violation if the images were used with the consent of the company. I'm guessing that the images were probably not his own work, but the work of photographers and illustrators hired by the company. It's not certain if he had the permission to offer the free license. In this situation, a normal DR would seem in order. The files should probably be deleted in the absence of a clear license from the company through OTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As a related example, I uploaded File:Giovanni Di Dondi clock.png, a modern pen and ink tracing of a 1364 manuscript illustration shown here, because I believed it was a derivative of the PD original. Should this be deleted? --Chetvorno (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see that flickr link, so I can't say, but "derivative of the PD original" is not helpful; the classic example is a translation, where a new translation of Plato will get a new copyright. In the US, there's a court case that ruled that taking a public domain widescreen movie and making a pan-and-scan version where it fit an old 4:3 TV produced a copyrightable work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you suspect that a file may be in violation of Commons rules, but you are uncertain about exactly what the rules say, then it is much safer to start a deletion discussion than using a speedy deletion template. Deletion discussions are seen by more people, and there is a higher chance that the image will be saved, should your rationale be wrong. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  I recently came across a file that seemed an obvious copyright violation and I found it hard to figure out the right way to report it. I finally got to the part of our Commons:Deletion policy which says "The speedy deletion tag { {copyvio} } is for obvious copyright violations." I know what to do with that information, but someone who is new here, particularly someone who finds their work on Commons without permission, would find that complete gibberish. I think Commons need a clear help page on reporting possible copyright violations. (And if that already exists, it needs to be easier to find.)--agr (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Commons:Deletion policy also known as COM:D is the page you seek? Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. That policy is written for experienced editors and unlikely to help someone new.--agr (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If I go to a file information page without being logged in, then I see a toolbar to the left with several options: "Main page", "Welcome", "Community portal" et cetera. At the bottom, it says "Nominate for deletion". A new editor should click on "Nominate for deletion" and type in the deletion rationale. This will create a deletion discussion. If a user is a new user, the user is less likely to know COM:D, so a deletion discussion is in my opinion the best option. If the file meets a speedy deletion criterion, an administrator may of course speedily delete the file once the administrator discovers the deletion discussion.

I believe that you see the same links if you are logged in, unless you have enabled extra gadgets or created custom user javascript. When I am logged in, I see a couple of extra links there, because of settings that I have enabled. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That's is much better than COM:D, but I didn't notice it and nothing I encountered in my search mentioned it. The help portal links to COM:D. Also does anyone know what screen you get when you nominate a file for deletion in this way? Does it explain the process and give you a link the the discussion page? Does it tell you to save the link?--agr (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Help:Nominate for deletion? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Written for experienced editors, but at least a place to start editing. And it doesn't indicate what you see after you submit a nomination. Would someone who is nominating a file anyway be up for giving it a try?--agr (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Albert Einstein photo by Ferdinand Schmutzer

Etching 1921

Bottom line: does the 1921 publication of the etching suffice to establish publication within the terms of the Berne convention of the 1921 photo study it is based on?

The background is that the glass negative for the photo study was discovered in 2001 and purchased by the Austrian National Library (ANL). A query there confirms the photo study was never published previous to 2001. The Commons upload of a print from this negative has consequently been nominated for deletion here. I agree that the image is copyright to ANL until 2027 and thus not PD in Austria, but sharply disagree that it is not PD in the US (expert opinion appreciated).

Of course if the etching establishes publication then the whole issue is resolved. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Prosfilaes also said that ANL didn't buy copyrights in the work, they did not have the legal permission under US law to publish and therefore their publication doesn't count. Then this goes into the pile of unpublished until 2003 and thus PD in the US. That would a nice unexpected turn for us. Yann (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The copyright situation is plainly complex. I note that at least one gallery is offering prints of these negatives (for 6,000 euros each, serious money), which suggest to me either that the copyright is not vested in ANL or that the works are indeed treated as PD in Austria. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(Added). This web page fills in the background to the sale. It seems that the entire collection of 3,000 negatives held by the Schmutzer estate (thus not a 'discovery') were purchased by the ANL between 2001 and 2003. The first exhibition of the images was held by the Westlicht gallery (mentioned above in connection with the sale of prints) in 2001. It's likely I suppose that the Einstein print was amongst these, but it's not clear that it was. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happens with the photos, it was a good idea to upload the etching. If someone has the motivation, it might also be a good thing to upload the two other high resolution reproductions of etchings at the same source freud-museum.at while they're still accessible there, and the smaller reproductions of etchings that Commons doesn't already have from the 20 at ferdinand-schmutzer.com. (If the photos turn out to be free, reproductions of several photos that Commons doesn't already have could also be interesting from various sources, such as anzenbergergallery.com.) -- Asclepias (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, do plan to if someone doesn't get there first (but I believe the Freud estate disputes the copyright on one of these images - will check). I'll also add at Wikipedia:Ferdinand Schmutzer when I have a spare moment (all this copyright drama is very time wasting ). I doubt the Freud museum itslef will be very gripped by these images being upoloaded, providing there's a link driving traffic to their site. They provided a straight forward high resolution download and the PD status is not in doubt bar one possible image which I only have from memory. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Bugger the copydrama, does anyone recognise the equations on the blackboard behind Bertie? Presumably Schmutzer didn't provide those when he posed Einstein the few hours Einstein made his Vienna visit? Is 'K' perhaps his famed gravitation tensor (hard higher dimensional version of the matrices we learn at school)? Einstein couldn't in fact solve his own equations. It was Willem de Sitter Georges Lemaître (whoops, senior moment, the other Belgian, whomever, *sigh* I think I'll just go upload some in copyright files illegally ...), who first found a solution. It's amusing that Schmutzer changed that into some kind of perspective diagram in his etching - that at least I can cope with. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In the U.S. the Copyright Office says "The inclusion of an unpublished work in another work that is later published results in the publication of the first work to the extent that it is disclosed in the published work." (see §910.04 of Compendium II of Copyright Office Practices). They provide two examples, "Where a preexisting unpublished screenplay is embodied in a motion picture, those elements of the screenplay disclosed in the motion picture are considered to be published at the same time the motion picture is published" and "The publication of copies of a lithograph that reproduce a previously unpublished original oil painting, publishes the oil painting to the extent that it is disclosed in the lithograph." So if the derivative work (i.e the etching) is now public domain in the U.S., then any elements of the underlying work (i.e. the photo) "disclosed" by the etching are now also public domain in the U.S. By extension, if the undisclosed elements are de minimus, then then entire photo can be considered to be in public domain in the U.S. —RP88 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@RP88: Well that's really interesting RP88 (and I also appreciated your comments on the nomination page very much). I did wonder because in the past of course paintings were reproduced by engravings. Long story, but Mary Cassatt's involvement with Edgar Degas probably stems from meeting a mate of his at the Brussels Museum of Fine Arts, where she was studying Rubens and where he had been sent by the French government to copy his paintings. I've got behind here, but shall do the relevant study and emails of enquiry tomorrow. Very grateful. Thanks so much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding more licenses in upload forms

Hi,

1. While helping a newbie uploading a old book, I discovered that there is no option for a suitable license in the UploadWizard ({{PD-old-70-1923}}).
2. In the regular form, there is no option for "released into the public domain" and CC-0 by a third party (these options exist in the UploadWizard).

I think a bit more consistency is needed, and these options should be added. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree those licensing tags are often used but finding them in the maze is difficult for new users. Those tags and maybe some others should be added to the upload wizard imho. Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Added CC-0 to the regular form --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The {{PD-old-70-1923}} license is truly missing in UplaodWizard. @Odder, LX, Jmabel, and Jarekt: Do you agree? -- Rillke^(q?) 17:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I always assumed the limited number of options was by design. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've pretty much completely avoided the upload wizard, so I don't have a strong opinion, but if the sequence of questions has already established that the content is third party, then it might be reasonably to ask if it was first published in the U.S. and what year (possibly with "before 1923" as a single choice), then apply this license if the answer is yes. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that current upload wizard does pretty poor job at PD licenses. I even file bugzilla:67327 about it. However it is ward to add one typo of license without all others. At some other point I started cataloing some best-practices for each case and got quite a list, see Commons:Multi-license copyright tags. It would be good to add most of those and probably much more. --Jarekt (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Research needed to find status of photos

Can someone find the copyright status of these three images? They were tagged with a PD tag that was not applicable to them, but they may be PD for other reasons or they may be still under copyright. I prefer to leave them a chance by asking here instead of nominating them for deletion. They're U.S. photos, so it's likely a matter of knowing if they had a notice or registration and renewal. I'm unfamiliar with this type of research, so I'm asking here if anyone knows how to determine their status.

• File:Isaac.Asimov01.jpg - Photo by professional photographer Phillip Leonian, circa 1965 (or possibly earlier)1956. It could be assumed that he protected his copyright, but perhaps someone can find, for example, if the photo was used on old copies of books and confirm if it had a copyright notice or not?
• File:Rockefeller under construction.png - Photo by Hamilton M. Wright for Aerial Explorations, Inc., N.Y., 1932. Could require a check in the records of renewals?
• File:JosephNWelch.jpg - Photo from NBC Television Network, 1960.

-- Asclepias (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Was Phillip Leonian an employee of New York World Telegram & Sun? If so, it wasn't his copyright, and apparently (the page never comes out and says this) the copyrights and the photographs got dumped on the Library of Congress when the newspaper went belly-up: see http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/coll/130_nyw.html .--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If he wasn't an employee, then we should probably work from the assumption that as a post-1963 work, the photo is copyrighted to him. It's certainly non-trivial to show otherwise. Phillip Leonian is apparently still alive and in his 80s, which probably won't help us at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

He was not an employee of NYWT&S. I didn't want to stretch this section with the background and the previous steps already checked, so I went straight to the remaining questions, but maybe I should have been clearer about it. For our purposes, the items from various provenance in the NYWT&S collection can be broadly classified in three categories:

• 1. Photos by staff photographers of NYWT&S. The copyrights on those were owned by NYWT&S. They have been made free per the instrument of gift. Browsing the collection, we get used to recognize about fifteen names of staff photographers. The LoC makes it clear in the notice when it is a staff photo and offers it directly in large resolution on the website. We tag those photos with the template NYWT&S. Example 1.
• 2. Photos from press agencies. The LoC offers some of those photos in large versions with direct notices, Example 2, but sometimes it does not offer a large version and gives a notice that refers, for example, to this or this. Photos in that situation are generally kept on Commons on that basis, as either no notice or not renewed or with the generic PD-US to signify one or the other. Example 3. However, users sometimes put the tag NYWT&S by mistake and it needs to be changed for a suitable Pd-US tag. Also users often upload copies of those photos in larger versions from other sources. The LoC notices can then be useful for information, but those uploads sometimes get disputed, especially if the copy is cropped differently from the version in the LoC collection. Example 4.
• 3. Photos from other sources, which need more individual research. Uploader also sometimes tag those photos with the tag NYWT&S by mistake and it needs to be removed but it's more difficult to determine the status of those photos. The LoC does not offer copyright guidance but a cautious advice. Sometimes the LoC description has information about the source and "patrons are advised to check for copyright", sometimes it has almost no information and "patrons who wish to show that a reasonable effort was made to determine copyright status should perform a copyright search and retain a record of the search" [3].

The photos in the question at the beginning of this section are in the third category. The Leonian photo had almost no information at the LoC. The history of the Commons description page shows that a Commons user has identified the author from a publication on a book. To reuse your words, "it's non-trivial" to show if it's not copyrighted. Hence my question, in case someone can find more information. (The file went through a deletion request but the closing admin obviously didn't read carefully the LoC information about the statuses of the different categories of items in the collection, as his keep explanation is in direct contradiction with the explanations at the LoC page he linked.) I found a site today that says the photo is from 1956, which seems to make sense. I suppose that could make it easier. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently copytightless pictures

Several pictures have been uploaded to a site which doesn't appear to have any copyright on it. Am I allowed to upload it to Wikipedia? Site is here: [4] Matthewm192 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Matthewm192: All recent pictures have a copyright, even if it is not mentioned anywhere. In this case, a permission from the photographer is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Could someone take a look please

Note the three images at 2014 Eketahuna earthquake. I queried the editor who created the article here on his talk page. He said "the images were approved by Wikipedia" so I asked what he meant by that a couple of days ago. He was editing articles earlier today but has not answered me. Are these images acceptable? moriori (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

At least "File:Eketahuna earthquake man outside house.jpg" has exif data. It is image 7 in this report of the Malborough Express from August 2013 and there doesn't seem to be an indication that it is under the license claimed by the uploader to Commons. He didn't even credit the author. One could also ask why use that photo about a 2013 earthquake to illustrate a 2014 earthquake, but that's a question for Wikipedia. The user should be requested to provide links to support his statement that the photos are in the public domain, as well as better links to the sources. If no evidence is provided, you can nominate for deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi moriori, these images are clearly taken from the web. No evidence has been presented that these are available under the license claimed on the description page. I have therefore marked the images as missing permission. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Tks Asclepias and ChrisiPK. I have left a message on his Wikipedia talk page. moriori (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Teasmade-machines-at-the-Science-Museum-London-UK.jpg and lampshade elements

In the File:Teasmade-machines-at-the-Science-Museum-London-UK.jpg image, there is a lampshade atop one of the devices on display towards the left. The question is whether the top and bottom parts of the lamp shade could be considered artistic works (and therefore possibly copyright-restricted even though the photo was made available under a free license) as opposed to merely utilitarian. (As a side note, the photo was taken in the UK, but as far as UK FOP applying there would be the question (among other things) as to whether the museum display was meant to be permanent.) --Gazebo (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass manufactured objects put in a row does not have any special copyright beyond that for mass manufactured products (unless it were an art installation, and even that might be debatable). The lampshade has some brocade added at the top and bottom, this comes in standard rolls, so itself is mass produced product as well as the lampshade itself. The Science Museum is free and encourages photographs by visitors, from memory there is not even a free ticket system, you can just wander in. If the photographer has released the photograph, there seems nothing else here to cause concern even if this were a temporary display, pretty much as if it were a public window display without any significant unique creative design elements. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if it is, it's incidental -- the photo is not focusing on the (potentially) copyrightable aspects of the lightshade. It's probably unlikely they would get a copyright on that anyways. Even if they did though, it would be going way too far to give them full derivative right control over all photographs they happen to be in. Similar to how a photograph of a city skyline would be OK regardless if it happened to include copyrightable buildings in a non-FoP country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You would need to identify the source country of the lampshade as different countries have different interpretations of COM:UA. For example, while both the United States and Japan exempt utilitarian objects from copyright, the Japanese definition of "utilitarian" is wider than the U.S. one. For example, the Japanese definition of "utilitarian" includes toys, whereas the U.S. one does not. In other countries, there is no exception for utilitarian objects at all. For example, the Swedish copyright law only exempts semiconductor circuits from copyright, whereas courts frequently rule that other utilitarian objects, such as furniture and clothes, are subject to copyright. There was recently a case where the French supreme court fined Getty Images for posting pictures of rather simple chairs in violation of the copyright of the chairs. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WhatsApp screenshots

Hi. Can this two screenshots be licensed under a free license? I don't know much about software screenshots, but I guess that if it would be allowed, there were a lot of them and not only these. Thank you. Albertojuanse (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Klingon logos

We have a muddle of a situation that needs central discussion, as piecemeal DRs have reached different conclusions.

In 2009, I created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klingon Empire Flag.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klingon-flag.svg, on the grounds that the Klingon logo was too complex to be uncopyrightable. Both requests were denied with a claim that the logo is too simple for copyright protection in the U.S.

Last month, I discovered that the International Space Station Expedition 40 mission patch was originally going to include an outline of the Klingon symbol like this one, but it had to be redesigned "due to copyright concerns". (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-060614a-klingon-star-trek-astronaut-patch.html) Since there were copyright concerns involved, and presumably a lawyer had raised those concerns (causing the design to be rejected), I thought that our Precautionary Principle would require us to also treat the logo as copyrightable.

Pursuant to that, I re-opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klingon-flag.svg. It was deleted per my reasoning, so I proceeded to another DR for the remaining items: Commons:Deletion requests/Klingon insignia. But this one was kept, inexplicably. The reasoning from one "Keep" proponent involved nothing but reference to the 2009 DR that resulted in a "keep", without taking into account my new evidence. The close explanation is "Apparently OK" which is both disingenuous (it's not "apparent" at all) and contrary to our policy (which requires us to delete when there's significant doubt).

If we can here come to a consensus that the copyright concerns that scuttled the mission patch are of no concern to us, then so be it. But we cannot dismiss those concerns lightly, and we should not do so haphazardly.

-- Powers (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• These insignia are arguably comparable to w:File:Prince logo.svg, for which the United States Copyright Office accepted a copyright registration (as VA0000832222). --Stefan4 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

These insignia are arguably comparable to D'ni letters and numbers, for which the United States Copyright Office specifically refused a copyright registration... AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Except that those were refused registration specifically as letters and numbers, because fonts aren't copyrightable, even if it's a fictional script. I don't think the cases are comparable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

General Electric silent light switch, photo copyright issues?

If a high-resolution photo of this General Electric light switch (from what one understands, the actual switch is a somewhat old "silent operation" mercury switch) was released under a free license, would there be copyright issues with the combination of notations on the top and bottom parts of the switch? --Gazebo (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

IANAL, but I don't see anything there that looks copyrightable. Way below COM:TOO, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. That text is too short to be copyrightable, and it contains no creative element. Powers (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. A high-resolution image is now uploaded. --Gazebo (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft accident : radio transmissions

In 1961 a Vickers Viscount aircraft (registered TVC) took off from Sydney, Australia with 15 people on board. It crashed less than 10 minutes after take-off with the loss of all on board. The accident was investigated in 1962 by a Board of Accident Inquiry, chaired by a judge. Another User and I have created an article on English Wikipedia about this accident. See Ansett-ANA Flight 325.

The radio transmissions between Air Traffic Control and several aircraft in the vicinity of Sydney at the time of the accident are notable. The only known source for these radio transmissions is the report of the Chairman of the Board of Accident Inquiry. The report is the property of the Commonwealth of Australia. There are two copies of the report in the National Library of Australia. The number of other copies is unknown but presumably very small.

User:Djbcjk has extracted the details of the radio transmissions and the times of these transmissions from the report, and consolidated them in a two-page .pdf file. Following is the sort of information in the file:

1929.26 ATC: TVC, TVC, this is Sydney tower.

1931.50 ATC: [declares Alert Phase of SAR]

2010.00 ATC: [declares Distress Phase of SAR]

User:Djbcjk has given me permission to upload the .pdf file to the Commons so it can be incorporated into the article on English Wikipedia. Is it possible to upload this file to the Commons? If so, what licensing and copyright permissions can be used? Dolphin51 (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dolphin51, I can't help you with the copyright issue, but here's a word of advice: Text-only files are usually considered "out of scope" at Commons and may get deleted quickly (see COM:SCOPE, especially this section). If I were you, I'd try to find out if there are alternatives to an upload at Commons. Wikisource might be an option, but after reading What is Wikisource? I'm not sure about that. Might be worth a try to ask for advice at wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. --El Grafo (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@El Grafo, Dolphin51: Most files for Wikisource are uploaded on Commons. So if it is used on Wikisource, it is in scope for Commons. I have no idea about the copyright, though. Yann (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: If it's available at in Wikitext-form at Wikisource, there wouldn't be any need to upload a self-created (!) pdf here (couldn't be used as a source anyway), so I dropped that part. But in general you are right, of course. However, the question is: would Wikisource accept something like this? --El Grafo (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@El Grafo: If the copyright side is OK, probably yes. IIRC, the English WS has transcripts of some US military documents during the war in Irak (the ones which were released by Wikileaks). The notability criteria is very low for Wikisource. Anything which has been published is usually OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: as far as I understand Dolphin51 this is not about the full published report but something like a time line extracted from it. I don't know how much original research (for the lack of a better term) went into that and how much of that Wikisource is willing to accept … --El Grafo (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Concerning copyright (IANAL, so no legal advice): Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Australia might actually help here. The report was created before 1 January 1964. So – as far as I get it – if you can make sure that it falls into the category commonwealth, state, or territory-owned copyright it should be in the public domain. Looking at your example again, I'm also wondering if there's anything copyrightable in it at all. --El Grafo (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@El Grafo, Yann: Thank you both very much! I believe text-only files are acceptable on the Commons. For example: File:2004-07-22 Public Statement by the Chair and Vice Chair Regarding the 9-11 Commission Report.pdf is text only. I agree that it is highly questionable whether the spoken word can be copyrighted. If that were possible, someone could grab the text of a major speech by the US President, slap it into his own publication and declare that he has copyright over the President's speech and forbid anyone else to report on the content of the speech. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Files of scanned books are fine. Born digital documents from official sources are okay. Wikimedians making text documents are not okay; they should go directly to the Wiki. A person can't grab someone else's work in any form and copyright it for themself without a contract between the two. Speeches can be copyrighted, by the author; e.g. w:en:Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.. In the case of the US President, US law does not give him or anyone else the right to claim copyright in work done as part of the federal government; the UK claims 50 years copyright in speeches of its Prime Minister, for a counter example.

In this case, extemporaneous speech is not considered copyrightable, at least in the US. So the records of black boxes and air traffic control tapes is not copyrightable, unless they start reciting poetry or something.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That is good advice. Thank you. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

IWM re-branding images?

The Imperial War Museum brands all of their images with their own copyright. However, a huge number of these, like almost everything from WWII or earlier, are Crown Copyright, and thus in the public domain - the IWM never owned copyright on any of these anyway. I have seen a number of images here that leave the IWM tags intact, should I simply remove these? They are clearly invalid. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Good practice for this project is to remove watermarks whenever this does not damage the image. My uploads from the IWM were from their website and though videos suffer with some ghastly massive IWM watermarks across the centre of the video, making even WWI public domain videos virtually unusable for the public, the photographs are not watermarked in any way. Perhaps you could provide an example? --Fæ (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

MorgueFile

So what is the exact consensus on http://www.morguefile.com/ ? The template had been deleted years ago, the last unclear discussion I've found was from 2006. It still remains in ru-wiki "Where to find free sources" (from where one asked me about the topic), it is still not at Commons:Bad_sources. So what's up currently? --NeoLexx (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is non-free, because it forbids the images from being redistributed on a "standalone" basis. ViperSnake151 (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

My reading of the (very odd) condition at http://www.morguefile.com/license/morguefile, is that they are attempting to avoid uncertain liability for the original photographer on reuse. A corollary is that if a derivative version of any images were uploaded to Commons, then a CC0 release would be suitable and meets all of the conditions. This could be a simple as uploading cropped versions.

As said, this is unusual and I would be interested to see some initial images uploaded and test out this legal logic with a more rounded discussion in a deletion request to set a case study. --Fæ (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

MorgueFile is hardly ever (if ever at all) used by ru-wiki. Yet as it is in our "Public domain image resources" manual and in en:Wikipedia:Public domain image resources, the issue should be clarified to a consensus. Either leave with some template and instructions at Commons or remove and add to Commons:Bad_sources.

I think I'll take a picture from there, make a series of modifications and upload files for testing here. So I can play the devil advocate (why it should stay), you are the prosecutor (why it should go away). Or vice versa, I don't care so much in this issue :-) --NeoLexx (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• OK, here it goes File:Pond under sunset.jpg with my thoughts how to describe it. Taken from this search page: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/#/?q=sunset Your move :-)

P.S. I am still not sure about all legal issues of the license itself, but its human-readable summary is very clear and built into the download interface together with the online cropping tool (you may check it out). --NeoLexx (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes an interesting case. Could you look at downloading the high resolution version (3000x2000) and cropping that for upload? I'll add it to my watchlist, but it would be nice if a DR does get created to have a note on my talk page (I have a lot on my watchlist). --Fæ (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

DR is a deletion request I assume, so put the file on {{Delete}}? And a high resolution as the 2nd separate file page with Delete or as a replacement for the current upload version? --NeoLexx (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, DR = Deletion request. There's no need to mark the file for deletion, leave it to others. Normally if an uploader marks a file for deletion shortly after upload, it will get deleted as a courtesy. As for the higher resolution image, I was imagining uploading it over the current file, the text would not have to change. --Fæ (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice your answer and already did File:Pond under sunset large.jpg (cross-linked with the first one). To get a full res 3008x2000 copy was trivial, no tech tools or special knowledge required: simply clicked at Download Image button at http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/773007 Everything looks plain and OK with the license status so far IMHO. --NeoLexx (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I would dare to speculate that this a bit unusual license is just because of a luck of Sui generis database right in the US. So it is a trivial protection from creating verbatim copies of the collection in the US. --NeoLexx (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is still a restriction on redistribution, and thus it is non-free. Please see this discussion. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is from 7 years ago, does not seem to have any "official" answers, just comments from users, and appears to be making incorrect assumptions compared to the actual wording of the release at http://www.morguefile.com/license/morguefile, which, for example, clearly allows for commercial reuse and puts no restriction on what a derivative work needs to be to meet the condition. Legally, as the statement with regard to "stand alone" is "You can not sell, license, sublicense, rent, transfer or distribute this image exactly as it is without alteration" then any alteration cannot be assessed as being distribution of the "image exactly as it is" and so a simple crop meets the condition.

If you feel that a legal and literal reading of the wording is insufficient, and some other basis has to be used beyond following the conditions exactly as stated, then please raise a DR and we can reach a community consensus on what ought to be done with these images for them to handled as the equivalent of CC0. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you read the full licence, it's only granting permission to MorgueFile to sublicence the photos, and only with the "limitation prohibiting Subscribers from publishing any Photos on a standalone basis." Doesn't this imply that users can only get a licence from MorgueFile, and not from a 3rd party like Commons? --ghouston (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the licence. The word "sublicence" is used once in the term "standalone" and does not apply if you make a derivative (in terms of IP law, the word looks like a hangover from physical property terminology, it seems hard to read in this context). As for "standalone", this itself has no meaning other than the one they give it, which is that you need to make a derivative to reuse freely; which is what has happened here. --Fæ (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Check licenses

Please, check the licenses for File:Boston grand piano - blue.jpg. The picture is derived from File:Szuyu Su Steinway.jpg. I don't know what "License migration redundant" means. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. Except there's no use for a "cc" parameter in the GFDL template. You can just remove it. "Licence migration redundant" means that a file was uploaded before August, 2009, that it was eligible for relicensing under CC-by-sa 3.0 during the relicensing time in 2009, but that it already had that CC license independently. The parameter "migration=redundant" includes the file in the corresponding category. Not really the case for files uploaded in 2013 or 2014. Technically, it should probably have the parameter "migration=not eligible". But that's probably not an important issue in this case, as that file has that CC license anyway. For details, see there. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you your answer. Will you please make the changes so we are sure that it is all correct? I'm not sure I know completely what should be done. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Only minor cleanup, really. Possibly nobody would have noticed if you had not requested a check. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

When can an organisation hold the intellectual property rights?

Hi there, I recently had a few photo's deleted. The issue mainly arose because I had uploaded the images based on permission from an organisation that provided me with the pictures. Of course, as was pointed out, an organisation can't take pictures. However the individual photographer was a member of the organisation, the photo was taken back in the 60's and no one knows who the individual was anymore - but the images are 'in house', so it is by a member of this spiritual group (here is the deletion request) I have been given a book where the organisation has used the same photo that was deleted as a book cover (cropped version), and the only copyright is to the organisation i.e. there is evidence the organisation have asserted intellectual property rights over photo with no acknowledgement to any original photographer. In these circumstances, would the organisation be allowed to license the photo to be allowed on Wikimedia commons? Thanks heaps for your input. Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If an individual allows an organization to use his/her work for their purposes without attribution, that doesn't necessarily mean that the organization has the right to allow other people to do the same. On the other hand: If the organization declares that they actually are the sole (!) owner of the copyrights and sends a permission via COM:OTRS, that might be enough for our admins to restore the file. --El Grafo (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi El Grafo. Thank you for that. It's more that the individual undertook their work as an agent for the organisation, rather than in a 'personal capacity' and so now the organisation continues to freely use and distribute that work as they wish and have done since the 1960's. Copies are given out at their ashram in India etc. I will try your suggestion for possible resurrection a try - thank you. Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You might want to check and see if the organization has ever registered the copyright with their national copyright office. They may very well have if the image was published as part of a book. If so, then a copy of that registration can be used as evidence of ownership. --Nowa (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Frederick Schultz Smith

Hello. I just uploaded about 80 images to Category:Frederick Schultz Smith (and was going to add more categories when uploaded).

Unfortunately I seem to have made some sort of error when selecting the copyright notice. - used the standard upload tool

Half have RED TEXT eg File:St Mark's Street Bridge over the Foredyke Street from the Sutton Southcoates and Drypool Gasworks, c.1888.jpg, whilst another half have got a "publisher in the US before 1923" notice (my mistake I think) eg File:Corporation Field with St Stephen's Church , 1889.jpg - I don't think these images were published in the US at all.

I think the correct licensing is as that used on File:St. George's Road Board School , c.1883.jpg

ie {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1925|country=GB}} {{PD-US-unpublished}}

UK author died in 1925.

I've become uncertain as to whether this is correct. Can someone check please. Also is there someway to apply the correct license to all the members of Category:Frederick Schultz Smith (or can I just put a notice in the category?)

Thanks.Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

• The description of File:St Mark's Street Bridge over the Foredyke Street from the Sutton Southcoates and Drypool Gasworks, c.1888.jpg shows a red warning because you used a template (PD-Art) that requires the insertion of a parameter but you forgot to insert a parameter.
• The status tags you used in File:Corporation Field with St Stephen's Church , 1889.jpg (PD-old and PD-1923) are fine. Your question hints that you may have misread the template PD-1923 (which you inserted through one of the two parameters of the template PD-Art-two). That template says that the work was published before 1923. It does not speak of a publisher in the US.
• One of the two templates you used in File:St. George's Road Board School , c.1883.jpg (PD-US-unpublished) says that the work was never published before 2003. But it seems that the drawings were published a long time ago. The website of hullcc mentions that some were even used in books and newspapers.
• Status tags are specific to files. They are not for categories. You can write a short note at the top of the category if you believe that it can be useful, but it cannot replace the status tags that must be present on each file description page.

-- Asclepias (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the pictures were published outside the UK (ie in the US) - as they are only of local interest. If they pictures were published in the UK but not in the US then is "PD-US-unpublished" ok ?

To be honest I just don't know if or when the pictures were published in the US. They are public domain the the country of origin but I can't find/don't know a template to use for the US, and the page says I must add one.

Is {{PD-Art|1=PD-old-auto-1996|deathyear=1925|country=GB}} ok for these files ?Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• The template "PD-US-unpublished" is for use only with works that were never published before 2003. The drawings by Smith seem to have been published before 2003.
• Absent any evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to assume that those works were not first published or registered in the US. To indicate their copyright status in the US, various templates are available. For example, you can use the template "PD-1923" when you can reasonably determine that the work was first published before 1923, or the template "PD-1996" when you can determine that that the work was first published between 1923 and 1989.
• "PD-old-auto-1996" is a possible alternative in the second case mentioned in the previous paragraph, i.e. when the work was first published between 1923 and 1989. It combines the templates "PD-old-auto" and "PD-1996". Technically, the wording of the template seems to allow its use also for works first published before 1923, and it may not be a mistake to use it that way, but I'm not sure if the template was really meant to be used in that situation.
• In some cases, users can choose between several templates that are available and valid for a given situation. In those situations, different users have different preferences when it comes to choosing the templates they prefer. Feel free to develop your own preferences from the available possibilities, as long as the chosen possibility describes accurately the status of the work. For what it's worth, I would probably use something like {{PD-Art-two|1=PD-old-auto|2=PD-1923|deathyear=1925}} for the works published before 1923.

-- Asclepias (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Does ShareAlike 3.0 expire if a work is deleted?

I have a question about licensing. If a work is uploaded to Commons under ShareAlike 3.0, but then the work is deleted by the community, does the original ShareAlike license made by the copyright owner still apply? Would a subsequent derivative work made by the copyright owner still have to be released under the ShareAlike license?--Nowa (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The copyright owner can do whatever pleases him with his own work. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A license is irrevocable. This community has no role in revoking any license. A work deleted from here only means we don't want to host it here.

But as Asclepias said above, a copyright holder can apply as many licences as he wishes. For example, my works are CC BY-SA 4.0 here; but CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 in Flickr. So in effect, they hold both licenses. Jee 03:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"#Asbestos cloth fuse guards" photo and Flickr stream ownership

The photo #Asbestos cloth fuse guards would likely have educational and informational value and it appears to be licensed under CC-BY 2.0 on Flickr. Veritas Consulting Safety Services Ltd has a page mentioning their Flickr stream where the previously-mentioned photo was included. At the same time, the profile page for the Veritas Consulting Flickr stream has the description "A collection of our projects (old and new) and the very popular Health and Safety (Hall of Shame) Photos sent to us by our followers" (on another note, how does the "Male and Taken" status apply to a company?) which implies that the Flickr stream includes photos from third parties. Not all the photos in the stream are licensed as CC-BY 2.0 and some of the photos seem to be from different cameras. For example, in the "Asbestos Photos" album, only one of the five photos is licensed as CC-BY 2.0, two of the five photos were taken with an Apple iPhone, and the other three photos were taken with a Canon Digital IXUS 430. It would seem that it is permissible for a Flickr stream owner to distribute photos that third parties have licensed to them (assuming that Flickr permits this), though attaching a CC license to a photo that lacks such a license would require permission from the copyright holder. All in all, would it be useful in this case to have Veritas Consulting provide confirmation (i.e. OTRS) as to whether any photos of theirs can be reused under CC licensing terms? --Gazebo (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, files from that account should certainly not be uploaded here without further clarification. Whether or not a confirmation is useful would depend on its contents and credibility. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Rvg 2014 uploads

If a kind admin would take a look at the uploads of Rvg 2014, all were grabbed from the Orbital Sciences website. The only good files are File:Cygnus approaching ISS.JPG and File:Landsat8 artist rendition.jpg (and have now been attributed properly), and while File:OCO-2-render artist.jpg is almost certainly NASA in origin, it is effectively the same as existing files on Commons. Everything else appears to be Orbital Sciences imagery and should be nuked. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

19th century photos licenced by Getty images?

I found these images from the 19th century in a Vox publication and wondered if I can upload them to the commons, even though they are tagged as licensed by Getty images?. Ineuw (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You have to check the background of each photograph and compare with Copyright rules by territory. The main image is of Mabel Love with a bicycle, probably first published in the UK, so the 70 years after the photographer's death rule applies. Were it published in the USA before 1923, it would be public domain. Unfortunately Getty Images make no effort to change incorrect licences for public domain images they host (even when we write and complain about even extremely famous public domain photographs), so many customers probably pay to use them when they have no legal need to pay anything. --Fæ (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply FæIneuw (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominations of files with copyright by ArcSoft in the EXIF

Signed permission is not needed if person not identifiable. Verbal permission is between the person taking the image and the person in the image. The College of Physicians and Surgeons deal with issues if they arise. Wikipedia need not get involved.

Images are not of great quality. I will take a better one when I have the chance. James Heilman, MD (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

How old does a photo need to be before it can be assumed to be out of copyright?

Photograph of the inclined plane on the West Somerset Mineral Railway. Taken by Herbert H Hole who died in 1900

How old does a photo need to be before it can be assumed to be out of copyright? There are several photographs over 100 years old which I would like to use to illustrate the wikipedia article of the West Somerset Mineral Railway. Thos showing the line in operation must be pre 1910 and most likely pre 1898 but although I've found them via Google images licenced for reuse I can't identify the photographer or the year they were taken. The images are at:

• Three acres country house
• John Speller's Pages
• West Somerset Mineral Line Association
• West Somerset mineral line railway
• Watchet Market House Museum
• West Somerset Mineral Railway

I'd particular like one of the inclined plane (eg this one dated 1907) but I'm unsure what it is OK to reuse. Any help or advice appreciated.Rodw (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on works lasts for life+70 in the UK. If you don't know anything about the photos, you can't really say they're anonymous, and thus you have to figure for the worst.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks what I thought, however I've now got from another book that many of the pics were taken by Herbert Hole who died in 1900, while the other main photographer of the railway, James Date, died in 1895 (age 88), so I am encouraged to look more deeply.Rodw (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

While in UK anonymous works get a 70-year copyright, in USA, it is more complex. If published before 1923, then it is in the public domain, but unpublished works get 120 years from date of creation. So if we can't any information about the author or the publication, only pictures older than 1894 are OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've uploaded one (shown on the right), from Flickr where it says "all rights reserved" but the same photo is in a book which credits it to Herbert Hole (died 1900). Could someone take a look and see if the copyright information etc is OK/sufficient?Rodw (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If the photo was scanned by a third party and the image may have been retouched in a noncreative manner, using the {{PD-scan}} tag along with a licensing tag may be useful; the When to use the PD-scan tag guideline has more info. Note that for works of UK origin, information needs to be provided as to why the work is out of copyright both in the UK and the US. If a UK work was published before 1923 in the US or outside the US in compliance with US formalities (see this chart) and is also out of copyright in the UK because the author died in 1900, it might be possible to use a tag like {{PD-scan|PD/1923|deathyear=1900}} for clarification. --Gazebo (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think in this case {{PD-old-100}} is appropriate. I also upload the high resolution version. As download is "disable" for this picture, trick has to been used. :( Regards, Yann (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on new audio recording

This idea of mine is still in the earliest stages, but I can't find the answer to me question in the archives:

I know someone (not very well) who owns a professional sound studio. I know several people who speak non-English languages natively. My idea is to get them together to make some good audio recordings of how to pronounce common words or simple phrases, in the hope that it would be useful for Wiktionary or Wikivoyage.

Here's my current question: Who would own the copyright?

We're not going to be allowed to use the equipment ourselves. There would be a sound tech involved. The sound tech's job would mostly be turning on and off the equipment when he's told to and handing over a copy of the file at the end (presumably for editing/splitting up later), which—although time-consuming work—doesn't sound like "creativity" to me. The "script" is going to be so boring as to be uncopyrightable ("Count to ten"). The "voice actor" would be choosing pace, tone, and rhythm, which sounds probably copyrightable to me.

So my thinking is that the "voice actor" would hold the copyright—except that with photos, we assume that the copyright holder is the person who pushed the button to take the picture, even if that person was exercising no more control than an automatic timer (e.g., because someone else choose lighting, subject, settings, etc.), and if that's the right standard, then it's the sound tech, or maybe both of them.

What do you think? If (a pretty big 'if') I can talk them into this, I could presumably get them to sign off on anything, but doing the least paperwork is best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the sound-recording technician is automatically granted copyright to sound recordings, under U.S. law at least... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding determining who is the copyright holder for photos, this entry from Wikilegal may be of interest; from what they say, under US law, whether someone is the copyright holder for a photo is primarily determined by how much control they had over the aspects of originality (lighting, angle, poses) for the photo. In the audio recording case you describe, that would suggest that the voice actor would be more of a copyright holder than the sound tech-it might be worth considering if technical actions by studio personnel such as determining the recording volume or sensitivity settings for microphones or the quality level for digital audio storage could cause persons other than the voice actor to have copyright interests. The Commons Licensing policy describes (as an example) the copyright holders for a musical recording and separately lists the performers and the technical personnel or recording company. At the same time, the example clarifies that the details may vary by country and that the situation is unclear. --Gazebo (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I doubt that I'll be able to talk to everyone until after the summer vacation season is over, but this is helpful advice for me when I ask them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Upgrading to {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} license for my uploads

Now that I've noticed that Commons has enabled the {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} license as a rather conspicuous option in UploadWizard, I think it might be time to start using this license for my own uploads. In an attempt to standardize and future-proof my licensing, I implemented a custom license template a couple of years ago that licenses all of my photographs under the {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} and {{GFDL}} licenses. My question is (when I update) if I can replace the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license in the template with the 4.0 license, or whether I should add the 4.0 as a third license alongside the 3.0 and GFDL. I understand that the CC licenses are irrevocable, and obviously I wouldn't stop anyone from using any of my photos under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, now or at any point in the future. However, I'm not quite so clear on the issue of stopping the release of photos under one license and starting licensing under another (very similar) one. To make a long story short, I'm curious if I can simply replace the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license in my custom license template with the CC-BY-SA-4.0, or if I need to retain the 3.0 alongside the 4.0. I would appreciate any clarification or advice on this issue. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A similar point is that Template:Cc-by-sa-all now redirects to Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0. Should it now include 4.0? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Michael Barera: Although CC themselves replaced CC BY 3.0 with CC BY 4.0 as the default license for their web pages, it is not an advisable practice here. So the best practice is to add CC BY-SA 4.0 as an additional license. As you are using a custom tag, you can easily implement it this way. See how I did it too.

@AnonMoos: See this edit. Template:Cc-by-sa-all is a bad name and it is better no to alter it. We've no guarantee that people use it with proper awareness. Most CC BY-SA licenses are compatible will future revisions, and adapters are free to use a new version for their release; but it doesn't mean we can apply CC BY-SA 4.0 to the original works with an old license without authors permission. Jee 03:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Jee. I really do appreciate it! Michael Barera (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Jkadavoor -- images with existing Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 license presumably shouldn't be relicensed, but perhaps Template:Cc-by-sa-all should now redirect to Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0... AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

May be OK if all existing usage are moved to Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 (as did earlier). Jee 09:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

French stamp help wanted

I tagged quite a few stamps from Category: Stamps of France because I think about half in the category are still in copyright based on the designers' death dates. Most, maybe all, of the suspect stamps were uploaded by Xavierdelavilledeparis and appear to come from this website but they don't seem to have had their status fully checked though several were already deleted back in February soon after they were uploaded. An incomplete list of PD and non-PD French stamp designers is listed at Commons:Stamps/Public domain#France and I have added some of those missing names with details. Each stamps must be induividually checked, so a mass deletion is not appropriate. Can some other editors please assist in reviewing the stamps and/or adding missing designer details? Many French stamps have the designer's name within the stamp design. This website also has a designer's list with biographical information that may be useful in determining death dates. Ww2censor (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

de:Datei:Super_RTL_logo_2013.svg

Hello everyone,

is it possible to transfer this File to Commons?

--Dasas (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dasas: In my opinion: yes. In transferred it to File:Super RTL logo 2013.svg. — ireas (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello ireas, thanks for the help. --Dasas (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

How old does a photo need to be before it can be assumed to be out of copyright?

Photograph of the inclined plane on the West Somerset Mineral Railway. Taken by Herbert H Hole who died in 1900

How old does a photo need to be before it can be assumed to be out of copyright? There are several photographs over 100 years old which I would like to use to illustrate the wikipedia article of the West Somerset Mineral Railway. Thos showing the line in operation must be pre 1910 and most likely pre 1898 but although I've found them via Google images licenced for reuse I can't identify the photographer or the year they were taken. The images are at:

• Three acres country house
• John Speller's Pages
• West Somerset Mineral Line Association
• West Somerset mineral line railway
• Watchet Market House Museum
• West Somerset Mineral Railway

I'd particular like one of the inclined plane (eg this one dated 1907) but I'm unsure what it is OK to reuse. Any help or advice appreciated.Rodw (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on works lasts for life+70 in the UK. If you don't know anything about the photos, you can't really say they're anonymous, and thus you have to figure for the worst.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks what I thought, however I've now got from another book that many of the pics were taken by Herbert Hole who died in 1900, while the other main photographer of the railway, James Date, died in 1895 (age 88), so I am encouraged to look more deeply.Rodw (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

While in UK anonymous works get a 70-year copyright, in USA, it is more complex. If published before 1923, then it is in the public domain, but unpublished works get 120 years from date of creation. So if we can't any information about the author or the publication, only pictures older than 1894 are OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've uploaded one (shown on the right), from Flickr where it says "all rights reserved" but the same photo is in a book which credits it to Herbert Hole (died 1900). Could someone take a look and see if the copyright information etc is OK/sufficient?Rodw (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If the photo was scanned by a third party and the image may have been retouched in a noncreative manner, using the {{PD-scan}} tag along with a licensing tag may be useful; the When to use the PD-scan tag guideline has more info. Note that for works of UK origin, information needs to be provided as to why the work is out of copyright both in the UK and the US. If a UK work was published before 1923 in the US or outside the US in compliance with US formalities (see this chart) and is also out of copyright in the UK because the author died in 1900, it might be possible to use a tag like {{PD-scan|PD/1923|deathyear=1900}} for clarification. --Gazebo (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think in this case {{PD-old-100}} is appropriate. I also upload the high resolution version. As download is "disable" for this picture, trick has to been used. :( Regards, Yann (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on new audio recording

This idea of mine is still in the earliest stages, but I can't find the answer to me question in the archives:

I know someone (not very well) who owns a professional sound studio. I know several people who speak non-English languages natively. My idea is to get them together to make some good audio recordings of how to pronounce common words or simple phrases, in the hope that it would be useful for Wiktionary or Wikivoyage.

Here's my current question: Who would own the copyright?

We're not going to be allowed to use the equipment ourselves. There would be a sound tech involved. The sound tech's job would mostly be turning on and off the equipment when he's told to and handing over a copy of the file at the end (presumably for editing/splitting up later), which—although time-consuming work—doesn't sound like "creativity" to me. The "script" is going to be so boring as to be uncopyrightable ("Count to ten"). The "voice actor" would be choosing pace, tone, and rhythm, which sounds probably copyrightable to me.

So my thinking is that the "voice actor" would hold the copyright—except that with photos, we assume that the copyright holder is the person who pushed the button to take the picture, even if that person was exercising no more control than an automatic timer (e.g., because someone else choose lighting, subject, settings, etc.), and if that's the right standard, then it's the sound tech, or maybe both of them.

What do you think? If (a pretty big 'if') I can talk them into this, I could presumably get them to sign off on anything, but doing the least paperwork is best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the sound-recording technician is automatically granted copyright to sound recordings, under U.S. law at least... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding determining who is the copyright holder for photos, this entry from Wikilegal may be of interest; from what they say, under US law, whether someone is the copyright holder for a photo is primarily determined by how much control they had over the aspects of originality (lighting, angle, poses) for the photo. In the audio recording case you describe, that would suggest that the voice actor would be more of a copyright holder than the sound tech-it might be worth considering if technical actions by studio personnel such as determining the recording volume or sensitivity settings for microphones or the quality level for digital audio storage could cause persons other than the voice actor to have copyright interests. The Commons Licensing policy describes (as an example) the copyright holders for a musical recording and separately lists the performers and the technical personnel or recording company. At the same time, the example clarifies that the details may vary by country and that the situation is unclear. --Gazebo (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I doubt that I'll be able to talk to everyone until after the summer vacation season is over, but this is helpful advice for me when I ask them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Upgrading to {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} license for my uploads

Now that I've noticed that Commons has enabled the {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} license as a rather conspicuous option in UploadWizard, I think it might be time to start using this license for my own uploads. In an attempt to standardize and future-proof my licensing, I implemented a custom license template a couple of years ago that licenses all of my photographs under the {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} and {{GFDL}} licenses. My question is (when I update) if I can replace the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license in the template with the 4.0 license, or whether I should add the 4.0 as a third license alongside the 3.0 and GFDL. I understand that the CC licenses are irrevocable, and obviously I wouldn't stop anyone from using any of my photos under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, now or at any point in the future. However, I'm not quite so clear on the issue of stopping the release of photos under one license and starting licensing under another (very similar) one. To make a long story short, I'm curious if I can simply replace the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license in my custom license template with the CC-BY-SA-4.0, or if I need to retain the 3.0 alongside the 4.0. I would appreciate any clarification or advice on this issue. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A similar point is that Template:Cc-by-sa-all now redirects to Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0. Should it now include 4.0? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Michael Barera: Although CC themselves replaced CC BY 3.0 with CC BY 4.0 as the default license for their web pages, it is not an advisable practice here. So the best practice is to add CC BY-SA 4.0 as an additional license. As you are using a custom tag, you can easily implement it this way. See how I did it too.

@AnonMoos: See this edit. Template:Cc-by-sa-all is a bad name and it is better no to alter it. We've no guarantee that people use it with proper awareness. Most CC BY-SA licenses are compatible will future revisions, and adapters are free to use a new version for their release; but it doesn't mean we can apply CC BY-SA 4.0 to the original works with an old license without authors permission. Jee 03:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Jee. I really do appreciate it! Michael Barera (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Jkadavoor -- images with existing Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 license presumably shouldn't be relicensed, but perhaps Template:Cc-by-sa-all should now redirect to Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0... AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

May be OK if all existing usage are moved to Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 (as did earlier). Jee 09:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

French stamp help wanted

I tagged quite a few stamps from Category: Stamps of France because I think about half in the category are still in copyright based on the designers' death dates. Most, maybe all, of the suspect stamps were uploaded by Xavierdelavilledeparis and appear to come from this website but they don't seem to have had their status fully checked though several were already deleted back in February soon after they were uploaded. An incomplete list of PD and non-PD French stamp designers is listed at Commons:Stamps/Public domain#France and I have added some of those missing names with details. Each stamps must be induividually checked, so a mass deletion is not appropriate. Can some other editors please assist in reviewing the stamps and/or adding missing designer details? Many French stamps have the designer's name within the stamp design. This website also has a designer's list with biographical information that may be useful in determining death dates. Ww2censor (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:King Abdullah of Jordan (6436574483).jpg

The watermark at the bottom of the image reads "Yousef Allan". Since he seems to be a professional photographer, and that watermark is not present on other images in the same Flickr channel, is it safe to crop the picture? --Ricordisamoa 15:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Frankly, we don't know: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geoffbrigham#Legality_of_cropping_out_copyright_bylines.2Fwatermarks Practice in the past was to remove watermarks. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Some questions about copyrights.

I want to upload some images from this page Yeobombom 140629 서든어택 미니콘서트 에이핑크 직찍, but I don't know what is licence it using.

I found on that page some information:

• At the bottom of last image, there're 3 copyright icons: "Attribution:Yes", "Non-profit:No", "Prevent changes:No" (in bold is original Korean characters).
• In source code of the page, rdf file content:

<!--
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/" 
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" 
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<Work rdf:about="">
<license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/" />
</Work>
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/">
<permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction"/>
<permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution"/>
<requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice"/>
<requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution"/>
<prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/CommercialUse"/>
</License>
</rdf:RDF>
-->

Please tell me, may I upload some images from that page? If the answer is yes, what licence of them? May I have rights to crop them? If I can upload them, how can I get them to be reviewed? I'm waiting for answers. Keaclamviectot (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It is CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR licensed; so not acceptable here due to the NC (commercial use not permitted) and ND (derivation/adaptation not permitted) clauses. We only accept CC BY and CC BY-SA licenses. Jee 08:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Film Daily

Hi,

Would this magazine quality under {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}? IA, File:1932 DeLuxe Purchase Film Daily Article.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Well, it can't be tagged with "no notice", given that there's a notice on page 2 that reads "copyright (1932) by Wid's Films and Film Folk, Inc.". To know if it can be tagged "not renewed", you will have to look into the renewal records until you can safely conclude it's not there. It's not in this issue or this issue, but it might be somewhere else. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not renewed. I checked periodicals for renewals in 1959 and 1960 and there's no listing for the magazine. We hope (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I added {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Questionable uploaded images from PHLCP14

Can someone please take at look at the images uploaded by PHLCP14? The copyright claims seems to be questionable in the handful of images I've examined e.g., this image was marked as being public domain since it's from the U.S. federal government but the image clearly indicates it's from the city of Philadelphia, this image that is identical to the one in this news article. ElKevbo (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Chinese music

I'm interested in uploading some old recordings of popular and classical Chinese music, but reading the copyright page I'm somewhat confused about the copyright status. Would I be right in thinking that songs released over 50 years ago are permissible to be uploaded, or would that be 50 years after the death of the songwriter? For example, one song I want to upload is a song from 1927, "The Drizzle" ("毛毛雨"), widely considered to be the first Chinese pop song. The songwriter Li Jinhui died in 1967, so can I upload now or do I have to wait until 2017? There are many recordings from the 1930s and 1940s I am interesting in uploading but I have no idea about their copyright status.

Another recording I want to upload is a piece of Confucian ritual music (yayue) recorded c. 1925, but I have no idea when it was first published. I found it in a CD included in a book published in 2007 by Oxford University Press which claimed copyright to the recordings on the CD. What would the situation be with this recording? Axb3 (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Can no one help? Or even to make a suggestion? Should I just upload "The Drizzle" and see if it gets deleted? Axb3 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright issues are not always simple (to say the least) but here goes. For a recording of music, it is necessary to consider the copyright of the specific recording and also the copyright of the music which is incorporated into the recording. A recording may be copyrighted even if it is a recording of only uncopyrighted music and vice versa. (As a side note, from what one understands, publication of a sound recording does not constitute publication of any underlying musical work for US copyright purposes unless the publication of the recording was in 1978 or later; publication of music before then would have to have involved public distribution of sheet music, for example.)

Given the information at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#China and Peter Hirtle's copyright chart, among other sources, it would seem that musical works of Chinese origin would be out of copyright in China and the US (a requirement for Commons) if they were (1) published before July 1909 or (2) published with a copyright notice between July 1909 and December 31, 1922 or (3) published in noncompliance with US formalities (i.e. copyright renewal after 28 years) prior to 1946 with the copyright holder being a legal entity or (4) the author died before 1946 and the work was published in noncompliance with US formalities. From what one can tell, copyright terms in China are generally the author's lifespan plus 50 years, or, if the copyright holder was a legal entity, 50 years from first publication. If a Chinese work was published in noncompliance with US formalities but was still under copyright in China when the URAA law in the US went into effect (for most cases, the URAA date is January 1, 1996) then the Chinese work would likely have become copyrighted in the US under the URAA (1996 - 50 = 1946.)

For musical works of US origin (including works simultaneously published in the US and China), such a work would have to have been (1) published prior to 1923 or (2) published after 1923 but before March 1989 and in noncompliance with US copyright formalities.

For sound recordings, the copyright situation in the US is a special case of sorts and the simple answer is that very few recordings are definitively out of copyright in the US. Of particular interest is Peter Hirtle's chart (see "Sound Recordings") and the {{PD-US-record}} talk page.

Perhaps someone else can look at this answer as well. --Gazebo (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would assume that the work was published in noncompliance with US formalities, but then, I can't be sure (is there any way to find out?). All I can say is that it is most likely the 1927 original recording (it was sung by the songwriter's daughter and done in a singing style that went out of fashion by the early 1930s), but not knowing more about it, I would assume it's best not to upload it? Apart from the Chinese ones, I have many European and American recordings from the 19th century and early 20th century, I would assume those are OK for uploading. I also have some old recordings from around the world from the Berliner Phonogramm-Archiv that I'm thinking of uploading, but I'm not sure about their copyright status. Axb3 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Photographs by Stuart Sevastos

Hello, I'm fairly unfamiliar with Commons, so I don't know if I'm posting this in the right place. I noticed that Flickr user Stuart Sevastos has changed the licensing of his photos from Some Rights Reserved to All Rights Reserved. There are 1,248 photos by him on here, at Category:Photographs by Stuart Sevastos. Thought I'd let you know. Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Free licenses are irrevocable, and we have a review process to insure that the license was OK at the time of uploading. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Irrevocable? Wow, that's good to know. That user has a lot of great photos. Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright nature of flags/other political body works that derive from Coat of Arms

At en.wiki an issue of whether a flag that consists of a very simple background (Solid color) and the country's coat of arms, presently tagged non-free, can be replaced with a free equivalent, based on the same concept that a coat of arms that derives from a blazon text description can always be remade as a free version.

The specific case is this, and we have verified that the "eagle with tower crown" idea is the blazon for the region. Clearly the seal should be a free image, but the issue becomes this flag. The way that I see it, the blazon/coat of arms freeness aspect stops there. For the flag, the region has chosen what I call its "preferred embodiment" of the blazon into a specific graphical version of the coat of arms to be used on the flag, and as such, as that coat of arms has the copyright protection of the designer/artist, the flag retains that copyright protection. We cannot, for example, recreate the flag as a free image by taking a freely made version of the coat of arms and slapping that on the blue background.

We have noticed there's a few images on commons that would appear to counter this last sentence (eg File:Flag_of_Tuscany.svg is a freely made version based on the free coat of arms image), so we'd like to get clarification from those that know about how this would work - are flags considered part of the heraldic info like coat of arms? --Masem (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominations of files with copyright by ArcSoft in the EXIF

Administrators: please read the entry this thread before taking any action over the files used in ArcSoft products by end users)

I noticed than various Deletion requests were opened indicating copyvio as reason, because these uploads have copyright by ArcSoft Inc. in the EXIF, placed automatically by the ArcSoft USB Webcam (and possibly other products from this vendor). ArcSoft Inc. is a imaging and multimedia hardware and software manufacturer and vendor (like Nikon or Adobe).

Obviously, ArcSoft (and any multimedia hardware or software vendor) can't take the copyright of the files used with their products by end users, regardless the copyright claimed in the EXIF metadata (the same case if Photoshop puts copyright by Adobe in the EXIF of a picture edited by an end user); the actual copyright belongs to the end user or original author, not the hardware or software vendor!. This is a huge and serious copyright issue that affects the end users of ArcSoft and the whole industry. That than also is serious, many admins are failing to do a deep research before deleting files.

Some of the files (most of them NSFW):

• File:ArcSoft_Image105.jpg
• File:ArcSoft_Image100.jpg (deleted by user:Steinsplitter without further research.
• File:ArcSoft_Image106.jpg
• File:ArcSoft_Image102.jpg
• File:ArcSoft_Image104.jpg
• File:ArcSoft_Image101.jpg
• File:Suprapubic_Catheter_Image_03.jpg
• File:Suprapubic_Catheter_Image_01.jpg
• File:ArcSoft Image344.jpg and File:Image196_finanzas.jpg, that is pictures of a girl and a man respectivelly, not related with the above pictures. (them deleted due to COM:SCOPE, but a good example of this discussion).

And many more (add more files if you found).

Please discuss about them. I insist, the vendors of imaging hardware or software can't take copyright of the files used in their products by the end users, this is ridiculous. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It'd be nice of you to mention not safe for work. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not safe for work is completely outside the discussion; Commons is not censored. This is a copyright-related discusssion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitie 10g (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 July 2014‎ (UTC)

The fact that Commons is uncensored does not mean that it's a good idea to surprise people with bloody penises. I really shouldn't have to explain this, but it's common courtesy, especially when asking people for help, to them an idea of what to expect when you ask them to look at a bunch of files such as these with mostly meaningless names. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is a Copyright discussion focussed specifically in the EXIF metadata claiming for copyright added automatically by some software or hardware, in order to clarify the copyright status of these files and ArcSoft (and the multimedia industry in general). Please keep inside the topic of this discussion and use the correspondient Deletion requests or open another thread in the Village Pump to discuss anything else. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, if people want to look at examples of the same problem on non medical and more ordinary images, they can look at File:ArcSoft Image344.jpg and File:Image196 finanzas.jpg. (Admins: although those two images seem to be unused personal images, please try not to delete them while they can be useful in this discussion.) -- Asclepias (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I rather agree that if anyone can be considered the author and copyright owner of a picture that a user takes with his webcam, it is that user, who is positioning the webcam and the subjects and who controls the surroundings, the lighting, etc., more than the company who manufactured the software. In that sense, the deletion rationale of Commons:Deletion requests/File:ArcSoft Image100.jpg is surprising. It could have been better explained. I can think of other possible reasons for deletion, perhaps the absence of evidence of permission from the medical patient. But to attribute the copyright to the software manufacturing company instead of to the creator of the image seems strange. Are there previous deletion requests where this was more explained? -- Asclepias (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I need to emphatyse your phase his webcam, because the owner of the webcam is, obviously, the user that purshased the hardware, not the manufactured. Neither hardware or software vendor have a license agreement indicating than they can take the copyright of these works (and this violates consumer-protection laws in almost all countries, specially with hardware). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking trying to find the text of the contract that ArcSoft proposes to the users of the software ArcSoft WebCam Companion, to see if it includes a section to the effect that the users of the software agree to give their copyrights to ArcSoft on every image they create, and in connection to which a use of the software may have been involved one way or the other. I haven't found an available copy of the contract. The websites I looked required initiating the download process of the software before allowing to read the contract. If someone finds an accessible copy of the contract, please mention the link. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Although Commons is not censored, it is fair to add NSF warnings while posting in a high traffic thread. This is a general practice here.

I agree with Asclepias; it seems Amitie 10g failed to present his/her arguments properly in that DR. He should have mentioned "he forgot to change the EXIF settings" or something similar.

I don't know the importance of subject permission in this case; hope Jmh649 can give a better advice. Jee 03:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, NSFW waring placed above. Amitie 10g (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the file File:ArcSoft_Image100.jpg were deleted, I've forced to request their restoration in the Administrator's Notice board.

Also, I'm creating a template explaining than ArcSoft si not the copyright holder. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The camera manufacturer is certainly not the copyright holder, but I nominated Commons:Deletion requests/File:Image196 finanzas.jpg‎ for deletion as "Out of scope". Regards, Yann (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since there is an open UnDR on one of these files, that is the only appropriate place for discussion of this problem. Opening multiple out of process threads here and at ANB is not helpful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I provided a very biref explanation in the UnDR and linking to this thread. No more files were deleted (except for the two last due to COM:SCOPE). This is the right place for general discussion about this problem, not limited to ArcSoft products, but the other multimedia companies. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Signed permission is not needed if person not identifiable. Verbal permission is between the person taking the image and the person in the image. The College of Physicians and Surgeons deal with issues if they arise. Wikipedia need not get involved.

Images are not of great quality. I will take a better one when I have the chance. James Heilman, MD (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominations of files with copyright by ArcSoft Inc. in the EXIF (general discussion)

Me

Note than this thred is for general discussion about this issue, not for requesting an UnDR for the files already deleted (by right and correct reasons), including the unused selfies. See the above first thread and the previous UnDR to get more information about this discussion. This problem affects not only ArcSoft Inc. end users, but almost for all multimedia companies.

Please read the entry this thread before taking further action over future uploads affected by this issue.

Once again, I need to discuss this huge problem with ArcSoft Inc. and their end users (consumers, including me).

And therefore, I finally done that the neither other user or admin done: Use an ArcSoft product to research if this problem is really true. Then, I just downloaded the ArcSoft Webcam Companion software (available in their official website). This program can capture from any Webcam, applies filters and do some funny things on them.

But, them has a serious drawback: The Trial version places automatically "ArcSoft Inc." in the Copyright field in the EXIF metadata (that I tried to explain several times before). This can be easily modified or removed, but most of the end users will not do them (see the ArcSoft answer bellow).

Then, I just toke my own selfie with a print in my hands, indicating than the copyright of them belongs to me, not to ArcSoft Inc. (see the picture and the EXIF metadata at the bottom of the page). Simple and marvelous.

Need more evidences? In any case of doubt, I need to record with an external video camera, the procedure that I' ve done, and upload to Youtube. Is this necessary? --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't modify the copyright field in this example, but I don't know if that's part of the experiment or not. Did you find if that field can be modified by the user? -- Asclepias (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Any experienced user can edit the EXIF metadata with specialiced software. But I'm assuming good faith indicating than I don't modified the picture in any way before uploading to Commons. Why lie to the community? --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That was not the question. And what are you talking about lying to the community? I'm not asking out of context if anybody can tamper with the EXIF of any image with unrelated specialized software. I'm following-up in the context of the previous comments about this software we're talking about, where it was suggested that maybe the users had merely forgotten to customize the settings of the software. I was under the impression that was part of the idea of doing the experiment. Was it not? I'm asking if you could confirm or not that the software is customizable in that manner, that the mention of ArcSoft is merely a sort of placeholder and it is expected that even the unexperienced user will easily customize the settings. If the software provides preferences where the user is expected to input his information, then that makes it rather obvious that ArcSoft did not mean to claim a copyright on the images. If the mention is not modifiable unless by an experienced user editing the EXIF with unrelated specialized software, that is more a problem. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Most major editors can change the EXIF, but most end users don't know how (that you know), but I don't found an option to change them in the ArcSoft WebCam Companion that I downloaded. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

 Question Did anyone ever ask Arcsoft support? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I will contact to ArcSoft, but I think than is better than an administrator or an WMF employee contacts the vendor. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I just sended a message to ArcSoft, and I will recibe an asnwer at leats 48 hours. This tread should be considered as active until I recive the answer from ArcSoft Inc. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Answer from ArcSoft Inc.

Well, as I mentioned above, I sended a support message to the mentioned vendor:

---

My message

7/26/2014 17:56:06

Subject: Copyright status in the EXIF metadata in the output images

Question:

ArcSoft Inc. I' ve downloaded the ArcSoft Webcam Companion. A nice product, but when export the pictures taken by the Webcam, the software adds ArcSoft Inc. in the copyright field in the EXIF metadata.

Does the software a way to remove ArcSoft Inc. and put my own copyright notice? And a stupid question, Is ArcSoft Inc. the copyright holder of the files used on your products? This may causes som issues when I upload the files to some sites as Flickr or Wikimedia Commons. Thanks in advance for an answer.

ArcSoft answer

7/28/2014 00:24:26

Support Answer:

Hello David,

Thanks for contacting ArcSoft. I am Earl from ArcSoft Support Team. I am here to help.

Judged from the information you provided, it seems that you are using the trial version, which show copyright filed in EXIF metadata when you export the file. When you purchase the program, and then download or activate the program as a full version, the copyright notice will be removed.

If there is anything else that we can do for you please let us know.

Best Regards,

ArcSoft Support Team

---

• The ticket is also publicly available in their support platform
• Also, a verbatim copy of the latest ArcSoft Webcam Companion EULA is publicly available in Pastebin. (too hard to find?)

Conclusions: ArcSoft Inc. don't and will not actually take the copyright of our works used in their products (the actual copyright still belong to us).

As I appreciated (not assuming bad faith), this demonstrates than many administrators are failing to do the correspondient research before deleting or nominating files for deletion. These kind of questionable deletion requests (specially that started by Jim (talk · contribs)) shouldn't be started again, and the affected files should be deleted only with valid reasons (see bellow). Almost all the files affected in this case were deleted due to be Outside the Project Scope (that is correct), but the DRs were opened with the questionable arguments as ArcSoft as the actual copyright holder. No more doubts.

Sorry James, You already lost my trust as you as Commons administrator. All of us are humans and we can commit mistakes. But, I done all the research that you SHOULD be done as administrator, in order to clarify YOUR doubts.

Administrators and users in general, please ensure than this cases (not only limited to ArcSoft Inc.) will not be repeated again. Therefore, the fact than ArcSoft Inc. is the copyright holder of a file made by end users is not longer a valid reason for deletion. (no lawyers or copyright experts needed to affirm this, only some common sense). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Amitie, I understand you feel aggrieved by this whole issue but unfortunately the job of providing such evidence falls to the uploader or the person who supports keeping the file, per project scope. Thus it isn't the DR nominators responsibility to search for this evidence. The one thing that does not appear to have been mentioned until now is that you appear to have created files using the trial version of the software. My non-lawyer/non-admin understanding of the ArcSoft response is that they believe they own the copyright on files created using the trial version but that they will surrender such rights if you buy the full version of the software. This does not necessarily mean that they do own the copyright but I can see their point of view. I think the best way to resolve this question might be to see whether this situation occurs on trial versions of other software. If it does happen on other trial versions, then perhaps we need to reach a communal decision about whether such copyright assertions are correct. Additionally I note that the EULA appears to have only been posted at Pastebin on 27 July 2014. Is it possible to view a copy of the EULA at ArcSoft's own website without installing the software? My tuppence worth o'opinion. Green Giant (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't found the EULA in the ArcSoft official Website, but is available in the ArcSoft Webcam Companion installer (the EULA in Pastebin is a verbatim copy of the EULA in the installer). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

24 bottle&can display

De minimis?

Can the copyrighted elements on this photo be considered de minimis? Each of them is only one in 24, but the whole photo is barely showing anything else than these 24 assorted bottles and cans. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really look de minimis to me as the bottles and cans are the focus of the photograph and some of the non-free illustrations are quite obvious, even though they are small. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I post images (taken during WWII) from negatives inherited from my father?

I have several hundred negatives made during WWII aboard my father's ship. The images were not made as part of "the duties" of the crew. These negatives have been in my fathers possession since 1945. He is deceased and I am the owner of the negatives.

I am writing an article about his ship and want to use several of the images of the ship and crew. I have been told at the Wikipedia Teahouse they may not be used as possession of the negatives does not necessarily constitute a transfer of the copyright. These images were freely shared by the crew members during and after the war. There are some great images and it would be a shame to keep them "under wraps". Since they are now over 70 years old, is there any chance they are in the public domain, no longer subject to copyright and able to be uploaded to the Commons?

Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

Emerdog (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the answer is not a clear one, when you were told that "possession of the negatives does not necessarily constitute a transfer of the copyright" that is indeed correct, copyright in each image most likely rests in the person who pressed the shutter on the camera. Question : were any of the images taken by your father and if so can you show that they were (for example due to the nature or format of the negatives) ? if the answer is yes to both of them it may be possible to use those images, if for example you can show they were left to you in your father's will or all those who were beneficiaries in the will agree to their release. LGA _talk^edits 05:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to release the images as a heir under a CC 3.0 license, you can use this template: Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs Please don't forget the categories when uploading. :) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments and suggestions. Unfortunately, my father did not take these images and never held the "copyright". I don't think the crew would have thought much about such things during the war as they took and shared images. I recollect that most of the images were said to have been taken by one crewman who, last I knew, was living in California. If he can acknowledge taking the photographs and is willing to allow their upload, would that suffice?

If so, what evidence of this permission would be needed? Thanks again for your assistance.

Emerdog (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Normally, an e-mail to OTRS in which the photographer asserts ownership of the rights and agrees to release them under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA. Once they are satisfied of the author’s identity (any personal or contact info remains private) and acceptability of the terms, they will issue a “ticket” certifying the same and which is added to the description pages of the files it covers.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly if you can get the photographer to give us a free license, that is by far best. There is another possibility, although it is a stretch. You say, "These images were freely shared by the crew members" -- by how many crew members? How many prints do you think were made? It is possible that the distribution was wide enough so that it would constitute "publication" as that term is used under the old copyright act. Since there was almost certainly no copyright notice attached, if they were published, then they are PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This is my opinion, based on many discussions around WWII photography and copyright—being in UK active service during WWII, it is irrelevant whether '"the duties" of the crew' were to take the photographs or not. All photographs taken were automatically the property of the Ministry of Information (the MoI had very wide powers to automatically claim property during war time, especially anything with possible military intelligence). The photographs are considered to be public domain as Crown Copyright has since expired (after the MoI was disestablished it assets were retained by the Crown). Further, as Crown Copyright applies to the date of creation rather than publication, whether they were ever published or not is not relevant to their copyright status. If photographs were taken by civilians or foreign military, then other considerations apply. --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your thoughtful comments. I will reach out and see if I can find any surviving crew member (they are all in their late 80's) who can claim ownership of one or more of the images. There is a chance this is still possible. More to your last point, James, I can say that every surviving crew member I have contacted (around 8-10) has had most of these images in their possession, depending on when they arrived on the ship and when they left. I know the only image of the ship that may exist was in possession of all the crew members I contacted. I will also ask what the crew's policy was with regards to pictures taken on board ship. I believe copies would have been made available to any interested party. The crew was around 70 men. What is the magic number and who decides this?

Fæ, unfortunately this ship was a United States Naval Vessel. I am not sure if UK policy would apply.

Emerdog (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c01B.html is a summary of the court cases around the issue of publication. To quote from one of them, White v. Kimmel, "a limited publication which communicates the contents of a manuscript to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose, and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale, is considered a "limited publication," which does not result in loss of the author's common-law right to his manuscript; but that the circulation must be restricted both as to persons and purpose, or it can not be called a private or limited publication." There's no numbers, but if they really were distributed to any interested party and that many copies were made, I'd be willing to go with it being a general publication. There's just no case that's really close, because these things rarely get adjudicated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Bone Clones

I want to upload images to a wikipedia page but my images keep being deleted. I read through the copyright agreement but still am very confused about it. The images I want to add are from Bone Clones: http://www.boneclones.com/

An example of one of the images I would like to add is http://www.boneclones.com/BCH-808.htm

I did not find an author for this image, so I would guess listing "http://www.boneclones.com/" as the author would be sufficent?

I did find copyright info here http://www.boneclones.com/boneclone_copyright.htm

Would this be enough to upload images? Thanks for any help, I am still learning the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtabencki (talk • contribs)

I think it is clear enough: "The material on this site is copyrighted and is protected by world wide copyright laws and treaty provisions. It may not be copied, reproduced, modified, published, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, without the prior written permission of Bone Clones, Inc."

So you need a permission from Bone Clones to release images under a free license. I don't expect you to get one, but you are free to ask. Just in case you succeed, the procedure for sending the permission is here: COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on 19th-century copies of PD-art

Hi, I asked a question here about a file that has recently been deleted. Could I get an answer pls? Thx Jane023 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally, if it is art, even very simple, there is a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes maybe for mere mortals, but in the case of artists I don't think you can call their student assignments art, and in fact it is somewhat insulting to their art to imply that it is by claiming copyright. Or am I thinking in the wrong way about the concept of what art is? Jane023 (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably. ;oD See Category:Gene Davis and Category:Marcel Duchamp's fontaine. This is considered art by many... Yann (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The law avoids such questions. Even simple sketches are going to attract copyright, because of their originality, and courts really don't want to argue about what is art.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks for the answers! I think I get the idea of art as opposed to art in law, but I am still unclear about why this particular sketch was deleted, because it was actually made on location in Haarlem (the Netherlands) while on a study trip, I don't think you can say it falls under Belgian law. Dutch law should hold, and here it is considered a public domain piece. Jane023 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What is important is where it was published for the first time. Or it is unpublished, which falls under a different copyright rule. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oy! I thought that artworks that are considered art are published when made!!!??? I have been uploading hundreds of 17th-century paintings that have been documented (sometimes as an engraving, but mostly just text), but these works have not been "published" as photography did not exist until well into the 19th-century. Do I need to prove they have been published in the US? Jane023 (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright laws have changed over time, and countries have different requirements. For USA, any unpublished work created more than 120 years ago is in the public domain, so 17th-century documents are in the public domain. Many countries in Europe give a short (ex. 25 years in France) new copyright to the publisher for an unpublished work. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok let me get this straight: Paintings, sketches, engravings etc created before 1894 are in the public domain for the "Wikimedia Commons definition (read US law because that's where the servers are)"? I can remember this. I guess the sticky part is that they must be dated either in the piece or by some authority? Can you confirm that this is correct? Or is there still something else I am missing? Thx Jane023 (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

For US works, yes. For European works, in addition the author must be dead for more than 70 years. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

But I thought for European works where the (European) author was dead 70 years then dated works were OK up to 1923, not 1894? What use is the 1894 cut-off date then? I don't think I need to remember that one, do I? Jane023 (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

1894 is specially important for US unpublished works, but I also use that date for European works when the author is not really anonymous, but not actually known to us. Anonymous works from Europe are in the public domain 70 years after publication, so December 31st, 1943 is the important date in that case (until next year). Regards, Yann (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks for taking the time to answer - I didn't know that about the anonymous/unknown works, so I learned something new. Jane023 (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)