Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/05
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
.svg){kind=link}
Help requested....
I was after some help in facilitating a resolution around the issue Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Queen Pleads for the Men of Calais, 1914.JPG. My perspective is that we appear to have an anonymous image created in 1914, but with no evidence that the image was ever originally published with the consent of the creator; under US law, this makes the image still subject to copyright (anonymous, unpublished US images are protected under US law for 120 years after creation, although many publishers will take an element of risk about them!). One admin has closed the original deletion request; they argued strongly that they believed that the image was anonymous, but didn't give any reason why they believed the image to be free under US law or provide a US tag. The second deletion request has now been closed by a second admin, with no explanation of why they believe the image to be copyright free under US law either. The image still lacks any US copyright tag. Any help gratefully received. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Moved from COM:AN. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Stein. I'll admit from a UK legal perspective I also have serious concerns about what "reasonable enquiry" to identify the anonymous author (essential under UK copyright law) has meant here; we've now got a reference to the original site it was found on (which doesn't give an author/artist's name), an Amazon site (which has apparently copied the details either from the Commons or the original site), but no evidence of any further efforts to identify the author/artist - for example, consulting a book on art from the period, or even dropping an email to the sales site asking them, which would seem like a minimum level of "reasonable enquiry" from a UK legal perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Input on these points would indeed be welcome. The main thing which concerned me was the fact that you simply went on to delete the license tag after I explicitly stated that that was the license the file was just kept under after a deletion request, where discussion (where we are now) would be the way to go IMO. Another point which was raised was that (under UK law) there should be evidence of a publication over 70 years ago for the image to be in the public domain. Basvb (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fair one. I'll admit, I was a little grouchy that you hadn't responded to any of my points in the original deletion request and just stated that it was anonymous, so should be kept; you were dealing with about one file every 60 seconds during that afternoon, and to be honest I didn't think you'd likely had enough time in that minute to read through the discussion, check the wording of either US or UK law on this one, and carry out any reasonable level of enquiry into who the original author/creator was, let alone update the tags correctly afterwards. But you're right, I should have taken it to discussion, and to be fair, you were trying your best to keep on top of a long backlog of DRs, so pls accept my apologies. Further comment from others would definitely be welcomed. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, we often assume that such works were published not long after they were created. I don't think we require hard hard proof -- it would be rare to make an illustration like this and then not publish it. Photographs can be different (they are more often not published by the photographer, or were in newspaper archives), but assumptions (if they are by far the most likely, with no contradictory evidence) can be made. If it has been under control of the original artist all this time, then the author should be known -- typically the "unknown author" thing happens when items are published anonymously and the author is never mentioned. A specific date like 1914 also usually indicates publication -- again, knowing the date of creation but not the author for an unpublished work is rather unlikely. We assume good faith on normal uploads, without 100% proof that the uploader is the author, so if things seem overwhelmingly likely (such as the country of origin being the UK in this case, and a publication date around as given), then yes we often do assume those. If you can find some actual documentation or provenance or other indication that a work was not published, that is probably more the time to go to DR. Anyways, I see a version here with a caption at the bottom, which indicates the image was scanned from a publication. Searching for that caption on Google Books gives this link to a work published in 1915, which is a snippet view so I can't see the image, but the caption (typeface and spacing) looks to be a match, so I'd guess that is a source as well. It is listed under "colored illustrations". That could have been republished from a 1914 work for all I know, but it looks like it was published then at the latest. That is a US book edited by a Northwestern University professor (who did other books on British history), so it's unlikely that was the original source. As for UK law, if an artistic work like this is not published in the first 70 years after creation, then it also becomes PD at that point (though if published after that, the 25-year publication right can come into play). For the U.S., it only had to be published without a copyright notice anytime before 1989 to be PD, unless restored by the URAA. But I think both are moot. I would add PD-1923 to the image. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Carl,I'm happy on that basis to assume it has been published. However, UK law (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, 1988 c. 48 Part I Chapter III) requires that for that 70 year rule after creation rule to apply to anonymous works, "reasonable inquiry" still has to have been undertaken to identify the author / creator. There's some guidance here at to what this requires. Given that no-one has even emailed the website owners from which it was first taken, do you think that "reasonable inquiry" has actually taken place? The investigation so far falls well short of the guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- If Bridgeman doesn't know who the artist is, it's pretty unlikely anyone does. It appears it was published anonymously, certainly in the book linked above. The time limit to make the author known ran out in 1984. The guidance above is for applying for an orphan works license, which is a bit different -- that is for when the work is still under copyright, and the author cannot be located. Once something is published anonymously, then really the author needed to become public knowledge within 70 years. It would not matter if the publisher had the information and only divulged it now. (The EU directive even mandates that for countries with a work for hire provision, like the UK, that the 70 year from publication term is used unless the author is named on the initial publication -- naming them within 70 years should not change anything. Not sure the UK actually enacted that bit though.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Carl,I'm happy on that basis to assume it has been published. However, UK law (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, 1988 c. 48 Part I Chapter III) requires that for that 70 year rule after creation rule to apply to anonymous works, "reasonable inquiry" still has to have been undertaken to identify the author / creator. There's some guidance here at to what this requires. Given that no-one has even emailed the website owners from which it was first taken, do you think that "reasonable inquiry" has actually taken place? The investigation so far falls well short of the guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, we often assume that such works were published not long after they were created. I don't think we require hard hard proof -- it would be rare to make an illustration like this and then not publish it. Photographs can be different (they are more often not published by the photographer, or were in newspaper archives), but assumptions (if they are by far the most likely, with no contradictory evidence) can be made. If it has been under control of the original artist all this time, then the author should be known -- typically the "unknown author" thing happens when items are published anonymously and the author is never mentioned. A specific date like 1914 also usually indicates publication -- again, knowing the date of creation but not the author for an unpublished work is rather unlikely. We assume good faith on normal uploads, without 100% proof that the uploader is the author, so if things seem overwhelmingly likely (such as the country of origin being the UK in this case, and a publication date around as given), then yes we often do assume those. If you can find some actual documentation or provenance or other indication that a work was not published, that is probably more the time to go to DR. Anyways, I see a version here with a caption at the bottom, which indicates the image was scanned from a publication. Searching for that caption on Google Books gives this link to a work published in 1915, which is a snippet view so I can't see the image, but the caption (typeface and spacing) looks to be a match, so I'd guess that is a source as well. It is listed under "colored illustrations". That could have been republished from a 1914 work for all I know, but it looks like it was published then at the latest. That is a US book edited by a Northwestern University professor (who did other books on British history), so it's unlikely that was the original source. As for UK law, if an artistic work like this is not published in the first 70 years after creation, then it also becomes PD at that point (though if published after that, the 25-year publication right can come into play). For the U.S., it only had to be published without a copyright notice anytime before 1989 to be PD, unless restored by the URAA. But I think both are moot. I would add PD-1923 to the image. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fair one. I'll admit, I was a little grouchy that you hadn't responded to any of my points in the original deletion request and just stated that it was anonymous, so should be kept; you were dealing with about one file every 60 seconds during that afternoon, and to be honest I didn't think you'd likely had enough time in that minute to read through the discussion, check the wording of either US or UK law on this one, and carry out any reasonable level of enquiry into who the original author/creator was, let alone update the tags correctly afterwards. But you're right, I should have taken it to discussion, and to be fair, you were trying your best to keep on top of a long backlog of DRs, so pls accept my apologies. Further comment from others would definitely be welcomed. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Input on these points would indeed be welcome. The main thing which concerned me was the fact that you simply went on to delete the license tag after I explicitly stated that that was the license the file was just kept under after a deletion request, where discussion (where we are now) would be the way to go IMO. Another point which was raised was that (under UK law) there should be evidence of a publication over 70 years ago for the image to be in the public domain. Basvb (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Stein. I'll admit from a UK legal perspective I also have serious concerns about what "reasonable enquiry" to identify the anonymous author (essential under UK copyright law) has meant here; we've now got a reference to the original site it was found on (which doesn't give an author/artist's name), an Amazon site (which has apparently copied the details either from the Commons or the original site), but no evidence of any further efforts to identify the author/artist - for example, consulting a book on art from the period, or even dropping an email to the sales site asking them, which would seem like a minimum level of "reasonable enquiry" from a UK legal perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Is an image of my tattoo, drawn by me, but tattooed on me by someone else, considered my own work?
I want to upload an image of my first tattoo that I got a few months back. The design of the tattoo was drawn by me, and it's not a drawing of something that would normally be copyrighted, but I did have it tattooed on me by someone else. Is it still considered my own work, and therefore, okay for me to upload to Commons? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Technically I would say it is your on work, which the tatoo artist made a derivative of. However it also depends on if there is any differences at all between your drawing and the actuall tatoo, and which country it was drawn in. In some countries, such as the UK, a very slight difference might casue that the tattoo artist can claim copyright for those derivative versions. I hope that sheds some light on it, if not, someone else is more than happy to answer this as well. Josve05a (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are at the very least a co-author, and would have at least as much right to any copyright as the tattoo artist (if they have any at all). Any lawsuit over something like that would break new ground probably in copyright, as giving control to a tattoo artist over simple photographs of people wearing them would be pretty controversial to begin with (even if they were the sole author). As a co-author, you would have as much right to license the photograph as the tattoo artist would, so there should be no issue for upload. I certainly would vote to keep, most likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Depending on the country, a co.author may be able to restict commercial usage/damand shared revenue from the work, which might be a problem with Commons. Josve05a (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- In the US, the co-author only has a right to a portion the revenue, and not to restrict any non-exclusive license deals from being made. A fully free license might well be an exception, but I'm not sure that has been tried in court. If we were talking about a straight upload of the graphical design itself, there could be an issue, but if an artist OKs a particular photograph which happens to contain it, I think that's very different. Unless there is an actual precedent against such things, I don't think we should be deleting on the basis that the scope of copyright might in theory be extended by courts where it has not existed previously. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Based on these responses, I think it's very unlikely that the image of my tattoo could have any copyright-related issues, so I'm going to upload it. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if you're talking about File:Romans cross tattoo.jpg: That's so simple that it seems likely it doesn't pass the threshold of originality anyway, so you're probably safe. --El Grafo (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Based on these responses, I think it's very unlikely that the image of my tattoo could have any copyright-related issues, so I'm going to upload it. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- In the US, the co-author only has a right to a portion the revenue, and not to restrict any non-exclusive license deals from being made. A fully free license might well be an exception, but I'm not sure that has been tried in court. If we were talking about a straight upload of the graphical design itself, there could be an issue, but if an artist OKs a particular photograph which happens to contain it, I think that's very different. Unless there is an actual precedent against such things, I don't think we should be deleting on the basis that the scope of copyright might in theory be extended by courts where it has not existed previously. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Depending on the country, a co.author may be able to restict commercial usage/damand shared revenue from the work, which might be a problem with Commons. Josve05a (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are at the very least a co-author, and would have at least as much right to any copyright as the tattoo artist (if they have any at all). Any lawsuit over something like that would break new ground probably in copyright, as giving control to a tattoo artist over simple photographs of people wearing them would be pretty controversial to begin with (even if they were the sole author). As a co-author, you would have as much right to license the photograph as the tattoo artist would, so there should be no issue for upload. I certainly would vote to keep, most likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
user:Marta Malina Moraczewska Mass upload
user:Marta Malina Moraczewska uploaded a lot of modern art. Source is a website copyrighted with a free Commons license but despite this statement I think that every single artwork should be considered copyrighted, under the law, unless the site owner say to be the copyright proprietor of artworks too, by otrs. Ihmo of course --Pierpao.lo (listening) 22:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi! The site is run by Zachęta Gallery who own the copyright, and chooses to make content available on BY-SA licenses unless stated otherwise (some images on the site are NC-licensed, for example. "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Some rights are reserved for Zachęta or the authors of the content"). Wikimedia Polska also received a otrs permission from the Gallery for these images, so I will request the OTRS team to mark the files accordingly. --Marta Malina Moraczewska (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot--Pierpao.lo (listening) 22:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but why does the Zachęta Gallery own the copyright of the paintings? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Before someone moves an unwelcome file to Commons
en:File:Welcome to concrete.jpg is flagged for a move to Commons; I'm looking for opinions on whether the object photographed raises copyright problems. - Jmabel ! talk 02:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Unless there is some evidence that the carved structure is definitely in the public domain, we should not accept this file at Commons. Green Giant (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would consider this "de minimis" as the image is not focused on the carvings. Ruslik (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it is de minimis, but I doubt there is a copyright notice on this. How old is it? Yann (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not de minimis. The Wikipedia article it's used in says it's chainsaw carved, and looking at the history section of the chainsaw article, I'm guessing after WWII. Could be old, but if it was done since 1978, the erection wouldn't be publishing, and good luck establishing legit publication without copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's a modern artwork, there is a truck on the top, and ihmo it's not de minimis.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- What's modern mean, though? Neither the truck nor the plane nor the chainsaw date it well enough. If it was erected pre-1964, there's basically no chance it's copyrighted, given US registration and renewal requirements. 1989 and on would be automatically copyrighted for life+70, and we could probably take that assumption for 1978 and on. See s:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago for an example of a 1967 Picasso statue losing copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- The sign looks fairly new. Logs shrink and have surface cracks after a few years. The logs are definitely newer than 1964 and 1978, I would guess newer than 1989. Someone could contact city hall and ask about the sign.[1] -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just noticed the picture was taken in July 2009, two months after the towns Centennial Celebration. I would guess the sign was made for the centennial. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the sign was made in 2008. Sounds like we can't use it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- What's modern mean, though? Neither the truck nor the plane nor the chainsaw date it well enough. If it was erected pre-1964, there's basically no chance it's copyrighted, given US registration and renewal requirements. 1989 and on would be automatically copyrighted for life+70, and we could probably take that assumption for 1978 and on. See s:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago for an example of a 1967 Picasso statue losing copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's a modern artwork, there is a truck on the top, and ihmo it's not de minimis.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not de minimis. The Wikipedia article it's used in says it's chainsaw carved, and looking at the history section of the chainsaw article, I'm guessing after WWII. Could be old, but if it was done since 1978, the erection wouldn't be publishing, and good luck establishing legit publication without copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it is de minimis, but I doubt there is a copyright notice on this. How old is it? Yann (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would consider this "de minimis" as the image is not focused on the carvings. Ruslik (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Europeana Fashion Project
Just looking at this Tumblr for the Europeana Project, I am seeing a LOT of material offered under "free use" or "CC-by-SA/NC" licenses. Does this mean that such material, contributed by its holding institutions and released under these licenses, is okay to use on Commons? Mabalu (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- These images have been copied from various sources. You need to find the original source. Many of them are actually in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, I get that. I was just wondering about things like the Emilio Pucci material which the Pucci Archive (presumably the copyright holders) have released up as "free use" even though normally we would assume such material was still in copyright. Mabalu (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- It seems that these are tagged with "Free access", which is certainly not sufficient for Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- How so? It is a very explicit way of wording which, given that all the material on that blog is directly contributed by the institutions, many of whom specify copyright licenses or all rights reserved, seems pretty clear. Mabalu (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, found a fuller explanation on the website itself, which was far more helpful - thank you. Mabalu (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- As I said above, these conditions are not sufficient for Commons. This is only free for "personal purposes". For Commons, it must be free for any use, including modifications and commercial use. But this requires a permission from the copyright owner. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, found a fuller explanation on the website itself, which was far more helpful - thank you. Mabalu (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- How so? It is a very explicit way of wording which, given that all the material on that blog is directly contributed by the institutions, many of whom specify copyright licenses or all rights reserved, seems pretty clear. Mabalu (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- It seems that these are tagged with "Free access", which is certainly not sufficient for Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, I get that. I was just wondering about things like the Emilio Pucci material which the Pucci Archive (presumably the copyright holders) have released up as "free use" even though normally we would assume such material was still in copyright. Mabalu (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Supporting Adobe / wrong icon on pdf document links
The link icon image for PDF documents is the Adobe Reader registered trademark, I feel that it would be better if Wikipedia did not advertise for propriety software in this manner. No other adverts are allowed, this seems to have slipped through. Reminder that there are plenty of pdf readers that are not Adobe.
I did a quick google image search for 'icon pdf' and there were 16 x 16 pix icons that had the letters 'pdf' on and were legible, I'd propose similar icons be used on Wikipedia. --192.121.66.8 12:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Example page with lots of pdf links: w:Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election#Poll results
CC plus/NYS senate
some context: creativecommonswiki:CCPlus.
I think I already know the answer but I just wanted to triple check:
http://www.nysenate.gov/copyright-policy has sections for various types of media but essentially boils down to:
- a standard "CC-By-NC-ND" 3.0
- and then also a "waiver" of the BY-NC-ND parts (which I guess means essentially CC0?) if and only if it's not being used for polical fundraising. so I guess some political speech is permitted just not for fundraising.
So, pretty damn close but still falls short? Thanks. cc Pharos --Jeremyb (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Jeremyb: Right. The permission has to apply to anyone and for any purpose in order to be acceptable on Commons. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Forgot to sign. Notify Jeremyb. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Uploads by User:Feroze Ahmad 2
Hi! I need 2 or more hands to clean all uploads by Feroze Ahmad 2 (talk · contributions · Statistics) which (so far as I could see) were all grabbed from Internet. I think it is worthwhile to consider also a mass deletion (considering the increasing User talk:Feroze Ahmad 2, multiple exifs = +/- 20 different digicams in use etc.), but I am for now out office for some hours... Gunnex (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Right. I can't find any image among his uploads which is not copied from elsewhere. Deleting. Yann (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thx @Yann: . Gunnex (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Verify that copyright is OK
I just uploaded File:Assault conformation image.jpeg]. I located the image at Hathi Trust [2] and I want to be sure this file is OK for commons before I upload any more from this book. I ask because the rights on the page state "Rights: Public Domain, Google-digitized." but then the description of that is here: [3] and says, "Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes." I'd already uploaded the file when I found that and went "WTF?" So... I suspect you have run across this before and can answer my question. If it's OK to have at commons, great, and if not, mea culpa, do what you have to do. :-P Montanabw (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- And on the above note, I am presuming that if I could find a hardcopy of that same book and scan the photo myself, then THAT image would be OK for commons, yes? Montanabw (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Second question: How CAN one determine if copyright was not renewed? For example, the above book [[4] ] or, for a different example, Life Magazine, 1941 here - has images of another Triple-Crown-Winning horse (which can be found elsewhere on the net) as so falls into that 1923-1964 time slot, but I have no clue if Life is copyright renewed or not (ditto newspaper images). Is there anything like a database where I can look this stuff up? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Google does not have a copyright their scans (see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag). So, their request is just a request... it does not enter into the copyright determination. As for renewals, the Copyright Office published all of the renewals year-by-year (or twice per year) in book form, which are online. For books only, there is the Stanford book renewal search. I don't see that book there, so it would seem that the book and presumably the photo is PD-US-not_renewed. For periodicals, there is a rough guide at UPenn. They also have a general guide on renewals here, and links there go to the online renewal volumes. If the renewals happened 1978 or later, the www.copyright.gov online search should have them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
How to upload a photo on behalf of someone else (with permission) who wants to remain anonymous
I have some photographs that I'd like to upload. These photos were taken by someone else, who I know personally and who has given permission for me to upload them to Commons with the default licence. This person prefers to remain unnamed, but is OK with my name appearing as the uploader. I started uploading the files with the Upload Wizard and selected "not my own work", whereupon the form tells me that the Author is a mandatory field. It also asks why I'm sure I have the right to publish, and I'm not sure what to select. How should I do this upload?
- Can I put "anon" as the author?
- Should I select "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license", on behalf of the photographer? Or "another reason" being "photographer gives permission" - and include {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}?
Presumably the photographer could create their own account - not in their real name - and upload the files without disclosing a real name (but they don't have the time or technical inclination to do so), so the photographer's real name is obviously not required. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you could state the author is anonymous. If you do it with the {{Anonymous}} template, this will be translated to the user's language. When uploading non-own non-PD works, we usually require either public licensing (as in stating the licence on a web page) or a mail to OTRS. You could use the latter option. Usually you would need a mail from the copyright owner (which will be handled confidentially), but just stating you are mandated to upload the image under a certain licence – discuss the choice with the author – will probably do. If the upload wizard does not offer matching options, leave the licence field empty ("other"?) and edit the description after uploading. --LPfi (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Copyright - family photos
Can you help please? These are, I am afraid, very basic questions but I'm fairly new to this and can't find an unambiguous answer.
Three questions: 1. I want to use an old photo of one of my family for an article. The Photo dates from about 1900. The subject died in 1947. However, the photo comes from a family album and I have no way of knowing who took the photo or proving that I am the owner. (I am the surviving grandson). I suppose I am allowed to upload it to wiki commons, but if so, under what authorisation do I register it?
2. Should I upload in .jpeg or .png? It is an old photo ; 187 Ko in jpeg, 911 in .png.
3. I am also a bit lost as far as categories go. Would "Churchman" "Ecclesiastic" "Author" "Moderator" "Professor of Church History" be OK. If so, should I put them all in - or only some of them? Should I put in others?
Many thanks--Kpobi2 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- "What can I do with photos from old family albums?" questions are rather common; maybe we should add something to the frequently asked questions... In any case, without more information, we can't really say much more than "it depends"... it depends also on the country you are in (resp. where the photo comes from). Assuming an EU origin, if the photographer is really unknown and the photo was first published more than 70 years ago, you might be able to apply {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. But as it's a family photo, it's likely that you would be the first person to publish it - then, assuming it's otherwise already in the public domain, you would be able to claim a publication right in the EU, and so become the owner of rights on the picture for 25 years, which in turn you could release with an appropriate license, I guess (such as CC-BY-SA). However, maybe it's still not in the public domain at all - if it's a studio photo, the photographer might be documented elsewhere (studio archives, successors...), and could have died less than 70 years ago. If the photographer is known (even if not currently known to you) and died in 1945 or later (which is quite possible), the copyright is most likely in the hand of the photographer's heirs and you can't release the photo. However again, depending on the country, there are many more possibilities. - Regarding your second question: Although JPEG is appropriate for photographs and the most widely used format on Commons, PNG as a lossless format is in principle preferable, see JPEG versus other formats (it wouldn't make sense to convert an original JPEG into PNG, however). - It's hard to answer the third question, as you don't mention who the depicted person is. A category "Churchman" doesn't exist, maybe you should look for an appropriate subcategory in Category:Priests. For writers, there are many subcategories at Category:Writers, also Category:Church historians might be fitting. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- To Gestumblindi: Many thanks for the long, clear, helpful answer. I am digesting and exploring. I'll be back.--Kpobi2 (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- There probably are "People of [country]" categories for your country, e.g. "... by occupation", which could be used. You can put the person in all highly relevant categories (use your judgement). The level of detail of the hierarchy differs by country. --LPfi (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Uploading old national anthem of Persia
Hello, I want to upload two audio files of "national anthem of Persia" which were recorded in 1905 in Tehran and around 1910 in Constantinople (Istanbul). The first one was performed by "Persian royal orchestra" but the last one was performed by a Turkish band and unfortunately the exact name of this band wasn't mentioned on its label. Both of these pieces of music were recorded by "Gramophone Concert Record", and the composer of this anthem was Alfred Lemaire which he composed it by the order of Naser-al-Din shah. Regarding that there are more that 100 years passed from their performance and record, I want to know does it violate copyright laws or not, and if it doesn't violate copyright laws, which one of "file copyright tags" is appropriate for these files. Furthermore I want to know that it is allowed to publish their labels in wikimedia commons or not. Thank you for your attention. Shfarshid (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alfred Lemaire died in 1907, and since Iran’s copyright terms are 50 years from the author‘s death and 30 years from publication, the recordings and labels should have entered the public domain decades ago. I think you can tag them with {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-Iran}} to cover both the USA and the country of origin. I‘m not sure about the Turkish band; if Turkish law is applicable its terms are 70 years.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot Shfarshid (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Shfarshid: on reflection I think {{PD-old-auto-1996}} would be a better choice than {{PD-1923}}, as the latter may assume the work to have been published in the USA.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Shfarshid: For audio recordings of music or other compositions, it is worth noting that an audio recording can be copyrighted even when the underlying music is out of copyright and vice versa. For audio recordings where the audio was fixed prior to February 15, 1972, the copyright situation in the US is something of a special case as mentioned in this Wikilegal report. In short, such recordings may be copyrighted under US state laws, which do not always have the same formalities and limitations of normal US federal copyright. The current policy on Commons seems to be to treat such recordings as acceptable but to tag them with the {{PD-US-record}} template to indicate the situation. (Note that certain audio recordings of foreign origin are subject to federal copyright in the US by virtue of the URAA even if the audio was fixed prior to February 15, 1972. For these recordings, it would seem that {{PD-US-record}} is not applicable and that such recordings should not be uploaded unless released under a free content license by the copyright holder.)
- Audio recordings from Iran may be a special case because the US does not currently have any copyright relations with Iran. Peter Hirtle's copyright chart indicates that audio recordings from Iran are out of copyright in the US regardless of when they were first created. From what one understands, if an Iranian work is no longer under copyright in Iran, then the work will not become copyrighted in the US under the URAA in the event that the US and Iran were to enter copyright relations. For an audio recording of Iranian orign, {{PD-Iran}} could likely be used to indicate the Iranian copyright status, though there may not be a specific template for indicating the US copyright status. --Gazebo (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot Shfarshid (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This is nothing but a copy of a picture included in Gerhard Rohlfs's book Le Gascon (I personaly own the 1970 edition, I can easily show a photo if asked for), the only difference I can perceive is that isoglosses were colorized, whereas the original picture is in black and white. Rohlfs died in 1986. How may that file be GFDL compatible?
- That's obviously false because a 1970 book wouldn't have SVG in it. So it's more than just a copy. Anyway, Willtron ping? --Jeremyb (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't be silly. Know what a copy is?
- Yes it's maybe a copy. (I haven't seen the book so not sure) No, it's not "nothing but a copy". Also, have to investigate whether the book was the first publication or not. --Jeremyb (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I meant it was a single/obvious copy (sorry, I'm not native English speaker). The file's page says it's from the 1935 edition of the same book.
- Yes it's maybe a copy. (I haven't seen the book so not sure) No, it's not "nothing but a copy". Also, have to investigate whether the book was the first publication or not. --Jeremyb (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't be silly. Know what a copy is?
.svg){kind=link}
File:Isoglosses fonològiques al Matarranya (Rafel).svg gives a 1981 book as a refrence, File:Principals isoglosses del Pallarès (Coll).svg a 19991's book, is that legal?
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- Those maps are not copies - or at least, not obvious ones. You can draw a map taking information from any source just in the same way you can write a Wikipedia article taking information from references. You can't copy the creative choices of the author of the map in the same way you can't copy text, but you can copy facts. This would make the same isogloses to be in the same places, but this is not copy. Of course, an scan of the map is not OK, and copying things that are not just facts (as using the same framing, choosing the same colors and linetypes, showing exactly the same features in the background map, and so) is not OK.
- Furthermore, please notice that those two maps referenced in two different books have been drawn in the same style. Therefore, they are more likely to have been drawn from scratch by the same person than copied from two books of different authors.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Determining isoglosses is not considered as a creative thing? And neither is the choice of linguistic features one represents on a map and the way one regroups and presents those features on the map's legend ? The creative thing in drawing isoglosses is not the isoglosses themselves (which are nothing more than lines drawn on a map), but the way you would draw them, the colors you would use? I may make a similar work without giving any reference (does the GDFL and similar require the author indicates any reference? I don't think so) and that will be ok? Are you sure?
- References are not required by license. It's just a matter of verifiability - in fact, it's a matter of making the map useful. I think adding references doesn't make any major changes about copyright, although it sometimes makes easier to check for copyvios.
- About what is creative or not, any map suspected of copyvio should be checked against the suspected original to see if they just content the same information or creative choices have been copied.
- And about creativity of isogloses, the line in the map is a cartographic generalisation of a fact. Lines don't need to be exactly the same to convey the same information. In the same way as different maps of the same river or the same border don't have exactly the same lines when seen in detail.
- I suggest reading Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of Slovenia for a similar case with a long debate.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- "the line in the map is a cartographic generalisation of a fact" : what you call a fact is actually an interpretation of linguistic datas, which may combinate linguistics investigations and concrete knowledge of the language reality (moreover isoglosses are not absolutely fixed and may move with time). It's a hard and professional work, not something you can objectively and easily determinate with a glance as you pretend.
- Investigation doesn't matter. Hard and professional work doesn't matter. All these things are irrelevant in copyright law. You can not copyright facts, no matter how hard it was to determine them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- While the investigation and hard work does not matter... the facts would probably limited to the research data itself. If the lines on the map were the person's own interpretation of that data, where other interpretations are possible, then those lines might be copyrightable. I do see this case where Nielsen was given copyright over some of its marketing maps which were based on viewer data. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- And I guess the choice of exactly THE SAME eleven features on the map is also an obvious fact for you?... Astonishing...
- Investigation doesn't matter. Hard and professional work doesn't matter. All these things are irrelevant in copyright law. You can not copyright facts, no matter how hard it was to determine them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- "the line in the map is a cartographic generalisation of a fact" : what you call a fact is actually an interpretation of linguistic datas, which may combinate linguistics investigations and concrete knowledge of the language reality (moreover isoglosses are not absolutely fixed and may move with time). It's a hard and professional work, not something you can objectively and easily determinate with a glance as you pretend.
- Determining isoglosses is not considered as a creative thing? And neither is the choice of linguistic features one represents on a map and the way one regroups and presents those features on the map's legend ? The creative thing in drawing isoglosses is not the isoglosses themselves (which are nothing more than lines drawn on a map), but the way you would draw them, the colors you would use? I may make a similar work without giving any reference (does the GDFL and similar require the author indicates any reference? I don't think so) and that will be ok? Are you sure?
- As some colleages have said this map is not just a copy of the given source, but a re-interpretation with (almost) the same isoglosses. --Willtron (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Whether Black and White derivatives of copyrighted work are allowd on commons ?
Hi,
I came across this File:TeslaMotorsBlackLogo.jpg Black and White derivative of probably, this w:en:File:Tesla Motors logo.svg one. I am just curious whether such Blank and White derivatives of copyrighted work are allowd on commons? and whether copyright and trademark laws allow such usage of images ?
Thanks Mahitgar (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- [Moved from "Commons:Village pump".] No, a black-and-white version of a copyrighted work is still a breach of copyright (except possibly in the rare situation where the only distinctive part of the work is its colour). The file has been nominated for deletion. We can't give you legal advice on the copyright and trademark aspects of the reuse of a black-and-white version of a work, so if this is important to you you should seek proper legal advice. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- The only way it is OK is if that qualifies as PD-textlogo (i.e. only if the original isn't copyrightable either). That's actually a close call, as it is a stylized "T" and not just a graphic design. It's not really a "derivative work" since there is no additional expression added; it's really more of a copy of the original. So the copyright status of both is the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Need to verify copyright
I came across two files File:Mihanbuildingplan.jpg and File:Nagpurmallapnabazaar.jpg (check edit history for second page) uploading user states in comment ...and no explicit copyright policy was found on the source webpage . I doubt if it is a valid ground for PD.
You may do the needful
Rgds
Mahitgar (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Right. Tagged as "no permission". Regards, Yann (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Painting ownership
Hi. I want to upload this painting here
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Vf9cgYA4CxY/S5mlx6cJGaI/AAAAAAAAREA/lltBevDWhoM/s1600-h/Untitled-1.jpg
The question I have is, would there be any sort of copyright problems? You see the painting was done in 1960. The author Willis O'Brien died in 1962. He had no heirs. So who would own that painting? It was displayed at a gallery back in 1984 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGs07BleFeA&feature=related and was published in various books (without copyright credit) such as this http://www.amazon.com/Willis-OBrien-Special-McFarland-classics/dp/0786405732
If no one owns the painting would it be Ok to upload.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Copyright is independent of ownership of the physical work. If the rights exist, it's likely that someone owns them. I see something similar here where it says these were concept works done by O'Brien who was trying to sell movie ideas, so it sounds like they were private and unpublished for a while. I see a comment on this blog page which says they were published in a 1966 magazine (not sure if this one was there or not). So, it sounds like they were not published before 1964, which rules out any sort of PD-US-not_renewed possibility. Failing that, you would have to find a publication without copyright notice, otherwise they would still be under copyright, and that is quite likely. The rights could even exist until 2062, if that 1966 publication date is correct. He may have had no heirs, but his second wife lived until 1984, and presumably she would have either owned the rights or executed his estate. So it could depend on what her will said, or if she transferred copyright to others before she died. Usually rights do not just evaporate. So, I think we would need actual evidence of distribution of copies without a copyright notice, otherwise we would presume the work is still under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that all of his belongings ended up in the hands of private collectors. It wasn't just his paintings (all of which were sold at various auctions), but even a trunk containing various movie props were discovered decades ago and the contents went to the discoverers of the trunk. Do we even know if these things had a copyright to begin with? I'm just having trouble understanding who could lay claim to this work. I think the reason Steve Archer didn't cite any copyright on the photos (in his book I mentioned above) is because he couldn't find any copyright on them. For instance he cited copyright on other photos published in the book from movie stills and such. Is there anyway this picture could be uploaded whether here or on the regular wikipedia with proper tags if it technically isn't public domain? I mean if the creator is dead, and he has no heirs, and his work is all owned by private collectors, what would be the sticking point for not uploading this picture. Who could possible come forward and make a ownership claim?Giantdevilfish (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Copyright automatically exists, and lasts for a very long time. It was possible, if items were published (which has a tortured definition in a copyright context) without a copyright notice before 1989, then there is a chance the copyright was lost. That can be hard to prove though. Also, ownership of the physical items does not necessarily mean ownership of the copyright -- they are different, and in the 1978 law, that was made explicit (copyright does not transfer without a written agreement). Since 1989, it has not been required to put a copyright notice on stuff in the US, so anything published after that didn't need to worry. The book author might have just taken the risk (which we would not), or claimed fair use, or other reasons like that. But items had to be intentionally distributed or sold by the copyright holder for it to be legal publication. Sounds messy, but copyright ownership can take some twisted paths. If not lost due to lack of notice, then copyright (depending on when the publication happened) lasts either 95 years from publication, or the author's lifetime plus 70 more years. We normally are very careful with relatively recent works like that. From what I saw above, it sounds likely they were legally published in 1966 but probably with a copyright notice, and that would mean the copyright would last until 2062. Copyright can be sold and transferred separately from the actual items, so private collectors owning the items may not matter at all. He may have had no children, but that does not mean there were no heirs. The property likely would have gone to his wife, and (if there was no will) then usually state law determines what happens to stuff. It can go to various other relatives. While it's highly unlikely there would be anyone to sue, so in real life you're likely to get away with it, we don't host items using that rationale -- see COM:PRP. This is more of what is known as an "orphan work", where rights have not expired but a copyright owner is either unidentifiable or unlocatable. There is unfortunately no legal regime to deal with them... there have been some legislative proposals but they have not gone anywhere yet. As it stands if you use one illegally, and an owner turns up, you are just as guilty of copyright violation as using something by say Disney. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have that issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland and Forrey Ackerman (the publisher) mentioned O'Brien's wife Darlyene showed him the photos and he published them in the magazine. (Here is a scan from one of the pages. (http://www.forgottensilver.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/king-kong-vs-frankenstein3.jpg). I don't believe anyone knew those pictures existed up until that point. Is it possible that the picture could be uploaded and the book could be cited as a source for it? I've seen uploads (on the regular wikipedia) where the description is listed as "scanned from author's collection" or citing a online link where the picture was obtained from (like a comicbook cover and a link to the page on www.comics.org). Is it possible to go that route and simply list it as "Photo more than likely belongs to the copyright holder" or perhaps a Non-free promotional tag? I know that wont work on the Commons but I do see it quite frequently on the regular wikipedia.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Commons can only accept "free" works, which is where the copyright has expired, or has been licensed by the copyright owner. We can't even accept files with a fair use rationale, like Wikipedia can. So it is going to be unlikely. I assume that the magazine has a copyright notice on one of its pages somewhere? If so... they are probably all still under copyright. It's going to be very hard to prove authorized distributions of copies without a copyright notice otherwise.
- Say, isnt works published from 1922 through 1963 have a copyrighted term of 28 years from the date of publication? If the copyright was renewed during the 28th year, the copyright would be extended for an additional 67-year period. Since there is no way the copyright would have been renewed since O'Brien had died by 1988, wouldn't copyright expiration have occured here?That painting was done in 1960.Giantdevilfish (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- The clock starts from when it was published, not created, and works published in 1966 didn't have to be renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Eurovision Song Contest downloads
Hi. I took several pictures in Category:Maraaya from ESC site and marked them as Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. Local Community is not sure about licence and proposes only "attribution" licence. What do you think? brg. A.--ModriDirkac (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- @ModriDirkac: Creative Commons is not specifically mentioned, so {{Attribution}} would be more appropriate. However, I am not sure if these photos are free: There is no mention of being able to modify the photos, which is a necessary permission. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 00:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- So is "You can also use the Press Photos in your publications. Please credit EUROVISION/EBU and the photographer." free enough or not? --Sporti (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment I don't think these pictures are free. They are allowed to promote the Eurovision Song Contest. I don't think commercial use is allowed outside of that. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Official policy link is Commons:Problematic_sources#Promotional_photos... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
correct permission
I would like to upload an artwork image created by Daniel Del Nero and published on his website, danieledelnero.com. I wrote to him via email and he gave me permission. But as I look around the Wikimedia Commons site, it seems to me that just having his permission written in an email to me is not enough. Am I right on that? It looks like he has to give some kind of license on some kind of larger permission site? Thanks for your help. Greg Dahlen (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- See COM:OTRS... AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Patents in Public Domain in Germany?
During this DR discussion come up the question about the copyright status of patents in Germany. We do not have much information about it on Commons: Category:German patent drawings relies on PD-old licenses, Category:Patent templates does not have anything about Germany and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Patents talks only about US. However as User:Joefaust pointed out http://dpma.de/english/patent/faq/index.html#a27 claims that "Under Sec. 5(2) Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz), patent documents (published patent applications, patent specifications and utility model documents) are exempted from copyright protection from the time of their official publication.". Can someone familiar with German law and language verify this. If it is true than we could create {{PD-Germany-patent}}. --Jarekt (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- The FAQ entry on DPMA's page essentially says that §5 (2) UrhG can be applied. §5 (2) UrhG says that there's no copyright protection except those mentioned in §62 (1) and (2) and §63 (1) and (2). §62 (1) says that no modifications are allowed. §63 (2) says that translations are an exception of (1). §63 says that the author and source have to be named. So I'd say {{Nonderivative}}. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- The legal analysis by Nenntmichruhigip is correct, but we habitually ignore the restrictions of §5 (2) UrhG versus the basic norm of §5 (1) UrhG here on Commons as well as all parallel constructions at German copyright law. So according to our practice German patent files are compatible with Commons guidelines. --h-stt !? 09:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, so that would be comparable to Creative Commons "CC-BY-ND" license, which is not compatible with Commons policies. On the second read of http://dpma.de/english/patent/faq/index.html#a27 I can see that it explains it plainly. --Jarekt (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- See also German FoP laws which also place a non-derivative restriction on images of copyrighted works of art. We've always silently ignored that fact. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- One thing I realty do not like is to have a license template for which consensus changes and then we need to delete a lot of files that a lot of people spend a lot of time on. I think I would rather not have {{PD-Germany-patent}} than allow people to spend a lot of time uploading files which will be deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe it would be good to have a template similar to {{Cc-by-nd}}, so uploaders looking for a suitable template will become aware of the situation. Actually when writing my previous posting I used Template:Cc-by-nd to check whether nonderivative licenses are allowed here :-) --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- One thing I realty do not like is to have a license template for which consensus changes and then we need to delete a lot of files that a lot of people spend a lot of time on. I think I would rather not have {{PD-Germany-patent}} than allow people to spend a lot of time uploading files which will be deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- See also German FoP laws which also place a non-derivative restriction on images of copyrighted works of art. We've always silently ignored that fact. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, so that would be comparable to Creative Commons "CC-BY-ND" license, which is not compatible with Commons policies. On the second read of http://dpma.de/english/patent/faq/index.html#a27 I can see that it explains it plainly. --Jarekt (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- The legal analysis by Nenntmichruhigip is correct, but we habitually ignore the restrictions of §5 (2) UrhG versus the basic norm of §5 (1) UrhG here on Commons as well as all parallel constructions at German copyright law. So according to our practice German patent files are compatible with Commons guidelines. --h-stt !? 09:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, this is not comparable to any CC-license and particularely not to CC-by-nd. It is a PD-gov status. And if you are confused how it can be explcitly exempt from any copyright status but at the same time thate is a clause to limit derivatives to those usual already in the analogue aera (as cropping, change of contrast or background color always was considered legitimate), then you should pose that question to the legislators of Germany, not to me. I didn't write the law. I can only tell you, that there is no judicature on the issue, so we can only interpret the wording of the law. And that is perplex in itself. --h-stt !? 13:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
What shall I do
In 2010 I uploaded two images of a picture, one from the entrance hall of a public bath, the other one from a demonstration (of course in public areas). The artist consented. Now I got a message from the artist of that picture:
- ... Ich bin durch Zufall mal wieder auf die Seiten von Wikimedia gekommen und sehe da noch meine Wassergöttin vom Mineralbad Berg, es steht da auch das da was geändert wurde am 13. April 2015 ???. Es steht da auch was von Copyright, verstehe ich das richtig dass man da die Fotos runterladen, verteilen und vervielfältigen darf? Wenn ja muss das sofort raus weil das Urheberrecht bei mir ist, und ich keinerlei Weitergabe möchte...
She seems to be surprised about the PD copyright and does not wish the free use of the images. As far as I understood she can request the deletion of the first image which is a photograph of a two-dimensional work of art, exhibited an a public place? A license protecting it against download etc does not exist?. I am complete unsure about the second picture. She herself used kind of a copy of the said first picture and carried it on several Monday demos. I replaced it later by another better copy she gave me for upload, and changed the text upon her wishes. Are their different rules for the two image versions?
At one hand I liked to wilfare her wishes; on the other hand I think the first image is a worthful information about the Mineralbad Berg, as the second one belongs to the info about the demonstrations. At least the first version of the second image is my photograph from a public event, it can be seen better when I undo the cropping. What shall I do? sarang♥사랑 05:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- As a public work of art in Germany, you can take pictures of it and upload to Commons even without the artist's permission (see COM:FOP). Of course, the images can be deleted as a courtesy, but we are under no legal obligation to do so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama in Germany requires that a work is situated permanently in a public place. Anything used in a demonstration is not permanent, so that image is not okay, as it does not fall under FOP. The picture taken at the bath is more complicated, as it may or may not count as a public place. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany. --rimshottalk 13:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Portrait colored from processed photograph
So I made a vector painting of an artist in a concert, of which there are many photographs of her performing. I used one particular photograph as a rough basis but I drew the singer in a slightly different pose on paper and used my sketch as a framework for my vector painting. But I still used the photograph as a coloring source, albeit with some moderate processing on my end. Is this still considered a derivative work and not allowed on Commons?—♥ Kelvinsong talk 18:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- See en:Barack Obama "Hope" poster for one caution... AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is the image in question 1, vs 2. It clearly passes the overlay test but does the act of using the photograph as a reference in the process make it a derivative work? And beyond that, how valuable would such an image be on commons—♥ Kelvinsong talk 17:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- The simple act of using a photograph as a reference does not necessarily mean it's a derivative work. The question is if expression from the original is copied. That can be elements under the photographer's control, such as lighting, angle, timing, framing, and things like that. It can be a little hard to define well. While the photographer has no copyright in the object being pictured... and you've made some changes... I'd be concerned about that. The angle is very similar, the lighting on the clothes and face etc is very close. If that was a posed picture, definitely derivative, as a snapshot where the photographer has no control over the scene and pose... grayer, but still possible. On the other hand, if there was a photographer nearby that took a similar photograph, those would not be derivative, and if your image was changed enough so that it was impossible to distinguish which was the source photograph, in theory that should have changed enough. But if your image replicates the exact timing on the photograph, that might be enough for a judge to decide it's derivative. The Obama hope case is probably the closest case, and while it was not explicitly ruled derivative, the judge hinted very strongly that would be the outcome if the case was not settled, which it was (the judge did rule that it did not constitute fair use if it was derivative). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
GNU and pictures
It is the com:GNU Free Documentation Licence, version 1.2 applicable to a picture? thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 05:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- That image has what would be considered a semi-annoying license according to current Commons practices ("Note: The GFDL is not practical for photos and short texts" -- Commons:Licensing). -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Photograph of University of Mysore Crest sign
Since some anonymous user asked me, I wonder about the copyright status of a photo I took and uploaded of a neon sign depicting the crest of the University of Mysore (File:University_of_Mysore_crest.jpg). The sign is permanently located on top of Crawford Hall at the university. The University of Mysore was founded in 1916 under the former Mysore Kingdom and it seems the design of the crest goes back to around that date - (maybe much earlier since the University grew out of Maharaja's College, Mysore which goes back to 1833 and uses a crest of the same design) - anyway long before the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 came into force. - so I assumed this was OK. Christopher Fynn (talk)) 17:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- It sounds like the building was constructed in 1947. The crest design itself is probably older, although each depiction of a crest might have its own copyright (would depend on if the depiction was recreated or if they added additional expression to that version in particular), so that is the main concern. India has FOP although not for two-dimensional works... some elements of that sign are not 2-D, though there is a 2-D design underlying it (though most/all of that 2-D design is likely to be much older). Lastly, if anonymous, copyright has expired in India anyways. You'd have to go to some pretty far extremes to call your photo a derivative work, so I would not vote to delete it. The general prohibition on logos is under the assumption the logo itself is copyrighted (which not all are). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a question on this image. The "Gold Coast" in the title is the name of an actual hot dog place (note: I took mention of it out of the photo caption on this enwiki article for that reason), but the company logo is prominent in the photo. As the article is not about the company nor a specific product it makes (meaning I don't see an NFCC exemption for the logo), it seems to me that there may be an advertising, trademark, or copyright issue here because of the logo. Could someone a bit more knowledgeable in that area look into this? MSJapan (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- See COM:DM. The pupose of the picture is the food, not the logo. The picture should therefore be fine according to the standards of most or all countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- In reference to the policy, there are circumstances where de minimis wouldn't apply. Note that I pointed out that the place is referenced in the filename (as well as the caption in the enwiki article until I changed it). The logo is pretty significantly visible, even though the focus is the food, because it makes up the entirety of the background. That being said, it might made sense to change the background to avoid the problem entirely. MSJapan (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- If the logo is referenced in an image caption, then de minimis doesn't seem to apply for the page where that image caption is used. De minimis is very much about how you use an image. If the image caption on a page only mentions the food, then the use on that page should be fine. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- That the logo is nowhere shown complete also weighs in favour of DM. But in line with the above regarding captions, might it be advisable to rename the file as well, to ChicagoChardog or similar, to avoid any appearance of misrepresentation on the one hand, or promotion on the other?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Odd situation. Caption is accurate, each shop may have a different style of hot dog so it still makes sense. The logos were probably incidental, though they do add something to the photo. On the other hand, it's simply the fact that it's the logo of the company, and not any particular quality in the expression of the logo itself, which is probably more important. It's possibly a situation where fair use is so complete as to be fine for even commercial use (trademark aside). I really have a hard time thinking of a situation where the logo designer could realistically sue for copyright infringement on the photograph. Or, more probably it's a situation like Ets-Hokins -- that decision said a photograph would need to be focusing on a bottle's label in order to be derivative; simply being part of the photograph was not enough since the logo just happened to be there (i.e. was incidental) when the photograph was made of the bottle it was on. This is a little different as it is the background, and not necessarily intentionally included. Intentionally including an artistic work as a background to enhance the image probably would not be OK, as it would not be necessary to simply illustrate the primary object, though this one feels different (probably because the logo just happened to be there in the snapshot, and the main value is its status as the logo and not its artistic expression). I don't think it's really a problem, though blanking the background would put a bit more focus on the hot dog itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- If the logo is referenced in an image caption, then de minimis doesn't seem to apply for the page where that image caption is used. De minimis is very much about how you use an image. If the image caption on a page only mentions the food, then the use on that page should be fine. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- In reference to the policy, there are circumstances where de minimis wouldn't apply. Note that I pointed out that the place is referenced in the filename (as well as the caption in the enwiki article until I changed it). The logo is pretty significantly visible, even though the focus is the food, because it makes up the entirety of the background. That being said, it might made sense to change the background to avoid the problem entirely. MSJapan (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
T&E Soft logo - below the threshold of originality?
Would the blue "T&E SOFT" logo on this page be below the threshold of originality in the US, or, for that matter, below the threshold of originality in Japan (from what one understands, the logo is for a Japanese company)? --Gazebo (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Certainly {{PD-textlogo}} in the USA. Yann (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- If you mean this, then the file should be fine in Japan too. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. As of now, the logo has been uploaded here. To be sure, the logo is basically text though in a somewhat unusual font with some shading at the edges, so it seemed likely that the logo would be below the TOO (threshold of originality) in the US and in Japan, given the examples on the Commons TOO page. At the same time, it can be useful to get additional opinions from others. --Gazebo (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
current Exxxotica deletions requests
Hello. At Commons:Deletion requests/2015/05/12 there are currently some deletion requests for images of porn stars, photographs taken at some exhibiton/convention type event. All files share the problem that there are some posters or similar in the background that have to be considered as COM:DW, making the whole images COM:DM borderline cases with tendency in one or another direction, depending on the individual image.
First: I'm not interested in these individual images, and most of the current cases can be solved by applying an appropriate crop anyway. But I would like to discuss this more generally.
If we assume (which is not necessarily proven here, but for the moment please let us assume it is) that:
- all those images have been created with permission of the host organization (either by press accreditation or general allowance to take photographs at the event), and
- the images are taken during an explicit photo posing of the models, and
- the background posters and magazines are intentionally placed that way, so that it is unavoidably to include them into the photographs,
is that enough reason so assume that this is technically DM in any case?
I'm not a lawyer, but my feeling is that it could be.
We have lots of photos of people in front at red carpet style photo events with sponsor walls backgrounds which sometimes include complex logos, and it sounds unreasonable to me if this could be a reason of not being able to use the photograph while all intention of the whole event was to shares images of the shown people and stuff.
Please advise. Thank you. --Krd 07:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment In a case like File:Kara Tai at Exxxotica Miami 2009 (1).jpg, the background images are without doubt de minimis, but the DVD cover she hold may not be. In other cases, the background posters can just be cropped. File:Kaylani Lei at Exxxotica Miami 2009 (8).jpg and, after the crop, File:Kaylani Lei at Exxxotica Miami 2009 (2).jpg, File:Jesse Jane Exxxotica Miami 2009 (7).jpg, File:Jesse Jane Exxxotica Miami 2009 (6).jpg are OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thx Yann, but as said, I know that most cases can be solved by cropping. This is trivial and not the question here. --Krd 08:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think the event organisers, movie companies and stars all want as much publicity and thus they allow the press/public to take photos. Obviously such photos are going to be published in newspapers, magazines and online at places like Facebook and Flickr. I'm not sure that this meets our re-use requirement, because we only allow them if they can be freely reused for any purpose. Taking the example of File:Kara Tai at Exxxotica Miami 2009 (1).jpg, is it possible for anyone to take that DVD cover and reuse it commercially? I suspect that a re-user could do so given that the file itself is 3.43 Mb. Clearly Kara is holding up the cover because she wants to promote the "movie" but is she or the production company giving permission for anyone to reuse the image in any way they wish, even commercially? I don't think that is the case here because she and the production company want people to buy the video. Unless there is some explicit (no pun intended) licensing, I think such a file could probably qualify as fair-use if it were reduced in size but I don't think it can stay on Commons. So I think the same would apply to any red-carpet scenario - the copyright holders are advertising their wares but they are not necessarily giving the rest of us permission to reuse such images. A curious example is File:"DJ Ashba" "Nicky Whelen" (5482655188).jpg, where you can see that there is a poster for a movie next to the two people but is it reusable, especially given that you couldn't really remove the happy couple without leaving a hole in the poster? Obviously it is of questionable copyright, being accredited to Eva Rinaldi's Flickr account, but the EXIF gives a different author, who maybe works for her? I might actually start a DR on that one but I'll wait till this discussion is concluded. Green Giant (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with you, but File:"DJ Ashba" "Nicky Whelen" (5482655188).jpg could be cropped to be sure that the poster is de minimis. The most problematic issue is the pictures with the DVD cover. May be some blurring could help? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think the event organisers, movie companies and stars all want as much publicity and thus they allow the press/public to take photos. Obviously such photos are going to be published in newspapers, magazines and online at places like Facebook and Flickr. I'm not sure that this meets our re-use requirement, because we only allow them if they can be freely reused for any purpose. Taking the example of File:Kara Tai at Exxxotica Miami 2009 (1).jpg, is it possible for anyone to take that DVD cover and reuse it commercially? I suspect that a re-user could do so given that the file itself is 3.43 Mb. Clearly Kara is holding up the cover because she wants to promote the "movie" but is she or the production company giving permission for anyone to reuse the image in any way they wish, even commercially? I don't think that is the case here because she and the production company want people to buy the video. Unless there is some explicit (no pun intended) licensing, I think such a file could probably qualify as fair-use if it were reduced in size but I don't think it can stay on Commons. So I think the same would apply to any red-carpet scenario - the copyright holders are advertising their wares but they are not necessarily giving the rest of us permission to reuse such images. A curious example is File:"DJ Ashba" "Nicky Whelen" (5482655188).jpg, where you can see that there is a poster for a movie next to the two people but is it reusable, especially given that you couldn't really remove the happy couple without leaving a hole in the poster? Obviously it is of questionable copyright, being accredited to Eva Rinaldi's Flickr account, but the EXIF gives a different author, who maybe works for her? I might actually start a DR on that one but I'll wait till this discussion is concluded. Green Giant (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thx Yann, but as said, I know that most cases can be solved by cropping. This is trivial and not the question here. --Krd 08:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
What is the copyright for presumably American, anonymous, unpublished photos from 1923?
If I am reading Commons:Hirtle chart correctly, Template:PD-US-unpublished is applicable, meaning that we cannot use them, as even a 1923 photo has a 120 years of protection, expiring only in 1943, yes? Two clarifying questions: a) what does it mean for a work to be "published" (particularly with regards to photographs), and b) what if there is no certainly about the author's nationality, ex. in the case of an individual traveling around the world? If, let's say, we know that that the photo was taken in 1923, but could have been taken either in US or in Italy/Poland (presumably under Template:Anonymous-EU), what copyright tags can we use? (If you reply here, please ping me back through Template:Ping, thank you). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: The easiest case of published is where copies were made with permission for general distribution and/or sale; in the case of photographs, most likely as postcards or in a book. Where photos were taken is generally irrelevant for copyright; what matters is where they were published. Under US law, and I believe the Berne Convention, nationality of the author of an unpublished work is irrelevant. When we use Anonymous-EU or PD-US-unpublished is a Commons thing; in the US only the second will matter, and presumably in the EU only the first, no matter where the author was from or where the picture was taken.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes: Ok, but... then is the photograph, unpublished, from 1923, PD or not? Author unknown. OK to upload to Commons or not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Only if its author died before 1945. If it's anonymous, then no. At the time, publication was undefined in the law so the courts came up with some rules. "Limited publication" was distribution to a preselected (i.e. limited) group of people with restrictions on further distribution, and that did not count as full publication. If either of those parts was not true (distributed to a large number of people, or no restrictions were made on what could be further done with those copies) then it was general publication and those copies needed a copyright notice. But unpublished works never lost copyright. There is unsurprisingly a fair amount of gray area so it can depend on the specific facts of the work. Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US has some further details though that is focusing on sculptural works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
If where photos were taken and nationality of the author of an unpublished work is irrelevant, then what defines what law to use? Could I export photos from USA and publish them freely in EU while they still are under copyright in USA (and get a first publisher's right under EU law)? --LPfi (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- If it's unpublished, the country of origin would be the nationality of the author. Once published, that would be the country of origin I guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- The law to use is always the law of the country that you're sitting in. You could export works from the USA and publish them freely in the EU if they're PD in the EU; publishers are always doing things like that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- If it is unpublished, then:
- United States law is simple. {{PD-US-unpublished}} is what should be used for all works, regardless of where the work comes from, regardless of whether the copyright has expired somewhere else in the world and regardless of whether a country has signed a copyright treaty with the United States or not.
- The source country is the country of citizenship or residence of the author. If the work later becomes published with the consent of the copyright holder, then the source country changes to the country of first publication.
- The application of the first publisher's right is explained here with respect to Swedish law. It seems that the requirement is that the person who publishes the work or makes it available to the public must be a citizen or resident of Sweden but that the work may come from any country and that it is irrelevant in which country the work is published or made available to the public. Here you can also see that citizens of the European Economic Area are treated in the same way as Swedish citizens (meaning that they can claim the first publisher's right), but it seems that other citizens which merely reside within the European Economic Area (but outside Sweden) can't claim this right. Under other copyright treaties, such as the Berne Convention, it explicitly says that this rule (44 a §) doesn't apply. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Stefan4, Prosfilaes, and Clindberg: Thank you for the explanations. But could you clarify the following:
- What is the country of citizenship or residence of the author is unknown (because the author is unknown)? Do I understand you correctly that than the publisher's country has jurisdiction? Ex. I have a photo of an unknown origin. I am a citizen of Fooland, I want to digitize and publish it on the Internet, in this case only Fooland law applies?
- What if the work was created (presumably in the US after 1895) and not published (ex. kept in family archives)? Do we have a chart for this by date of creation, like Hirtle chart? As in: which copyright tags to use for works of anonymous authors, presumably American, by date of creation?
- For a specific case, I am trying to advise an uploader of images to w:Rosa_Raisa article. They come from early 20th century (from 1914 to 1938), author unknown, some presumably American but some may be European, kept in the American family's archive and recently digitized. How would you tag them? Public Domain? Fair use? Copyvio? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- The author still has a country of citizenship and a country of residence even if the author is unknown. If you are sued by the heirs of the anonymous author, then the heirs will usually have information about the country of residence and citizenship of the anonymous author even if this information hasn't been disclosed publicly, and this information is then provided to the court and used by the court in the same way as the court uses information about authors with known identity. I guess that this is a situation in which you can never be completely certain and where there always is a risk that someone who claims to be the copyright holder might have more information than what you have access to.
- Under European law, the person who first publishes an unpublished work becomes the copyright holder to that work provided that the copyright already has expired. Under the Swedish implementation, the only requirement in order to claim this right is that the publisher must be a citizen of an EEA country or a resident of Sweden, whereas the source country of the work and the country of first publication are irrelevant. The citizenship and the country of residence of the author is sometimes relevant for establishing the public domain date in European countries, though. If this information is relevant and unknown in a specific situation, then I don't know whether the court would accept or deny the publisher's claims to the right of the copyright.
- What are you looking for about unpublished works which COM:HIRTLE doesn't reveal? The table already gives the full situation under United States law:
- Unpublished sound recording: There are currently no unpublished sound recordings which are in the public domain in the United States. The copyright expires at the earliest on 15 February 2067.
- Unpublished architecture: Only in the public domain if {{PD-US-architecture}} is satisfied. When other unpublished architecture becomes old enough (in 2061 or later), {{PD-US-unpublished}} can be used too.
- Other unpublished works: Only in the public domain in the United States if {{PD-US-unpublished}} is satisfied.
- The United States rules for unpublished works are much simpler than the rules for other unpublished works since the source country is irrelevant for the copyright status in the United States. If you have unpublished photographs from the 20th century, this United States rule means that the correct copyright tag is {{Copyvio}} unless you obtain permission from the photographer, and this regardless of the source country. If you wish to use 'fair use', carefully check the exemption doctrine policy of the project you wish to upload them to, for example w:WP:NFCC#4 on English Wikipedia.
- The copyright term in Europe is determined by the w:Copyright Duration Directive, which sets the term to 70 years after creation if the author is unknown or to 70 years after the death of the author if the author is known (and the rule of the shorter term is also used for foreign works). Also note Article 10 of the directive which says that the directive doesn't have the effect that the copyright term for any pre-existing works is shortened, which affects the copyright expiration date for unpublished works in a number of countries. Under Swedish law, this means that the copyright term for unpublished anonymous works is extended to 50 years from the death of the anonymous author if this is longer than 70 years from creation, or to 50 years from publication if the work is first published more than 70 years after creation but before the death of the anonymous author (an uncommon situation I suppose: most authors die within 70 years from creation of the work). Under German law, this means that the copyright term for unpublished anonymous artworks is extended to 70 years from the death of the anonymous author, while unpublished literary works and unknown works by known authors seem to get the flat EU term. Under British law, many works get a minimum copyright term of 50 years from publication, which means that many unpublished works simply can't enter the public domain unless they first become published, or unless you wait until 2040 when this rule is supposed to be repealed. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Stefan4, Prosfilaes, and Clindberg: Thank you for the explanations. But could you clarify the following:
- In terms of jurisdiction, that is always the law in the country of your intended use, country of origin or not. The country of origin is for the most part just used by countries who define the length of copyright protection by the "rule of the shorter term" or the "rule of the longer term", which requires a particular country to compare copyright terms with. There is not much legal effect other than that. The actual law in the country of origin only applies within that country's borders (just like any other country). Because it has an effect on the term in more countries than just its own however, it is a useful tool for Commons to use to determine when they can host a work, so we look at their laws in particular. Publishing "on the internet" usually means you are publishing on a particular website, and that website is hosted in a particular country, so those would probably be the laws you would most need to follow, as well as the ones where you actually are. That type of global publication is relatively new and I'm not sure the courts have really caught up with it; there have not been many cases and there are some widely varying results. But if you do an act which is considered copyright infringement where you actually are, then you can be sued in that country. Of course, if no copyright owner ever surfaces to sue, then you would never have any real issue. As for Wikipedia or Wikimedia, you'd have to follow the terms of use. Orphan works, where the author's identity has been lost or if known cannot be located, are an ugly situation -- there is no real way to obtain a license, but a license is required. If the family owns copyright, they may have inherited it and could license it. If the photos were published in the U.S., then of course there is a good chance they are PD. Not knowing if they were published is different than knowing they were not published, but we might need a good reason to assume they were. So the question might be how did the picture source come by owning the pictures? Sometimes even that amount of distribution might be publication, depending on the facts. But if they are truly orphan works, where the copyright still exists, that is a problem with no real solution for Wikimedia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Government Work in Cyprus
Does anybody know the copyright status of works created by the Cypriot Government? Specifically, I'd like to upload this logo of the Limassol municipality. Fern 24 (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Cropping out authors' logos from CC BY 2.0-licensed Flickr photos
Are there any problems with uploading a photo from Flickr I don't own which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic licence (meaning derivatives are permitted) and cropping out parts of the picture that contain the photographer's logo and website? I would most likely do this by uploading the original image in its entirety initially and then replacing the file with the cropped version so the original could be seen in the file history. Obviously, the usual required attribution would be included under the file's summary. Thanks. CrookedAsterisk (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- If the logo is copyright-related, you should not remove it; for details see Commons:Watermarks#Legal_issues_with_the_removal_of_watermarks. --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I knew the topic should have been covered somewhere but just couldn't find it. CrookedAsterisk (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Photos von KZ-Haeftlingen
Moin! Welche Lizenz kann Commons fuer Bilder von KZ-Haeftlingen nutzen? Z.B.: File:BONNAMY Raoul.jpg. Mehr hier: Category:Victims of Nazi concentration camps. Zur Zeit wird einfach alles reingeworfen, PD-Polish, PD-old, PD-wasauchimmer. Soweit ich es gesehen habe, wird in allen Faellen (?) kein Photograph genannt. Ideen? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wenn es sich bei den Fotos um Lichtbildwerke handelt, dann sind sie mindestens bis zum 1.1.2016 geschützt, wenn der Fotograf das Kriegsende erlebt hat. Daß nach dem Krieg vieles konfisziert und zu US-Eigentum ernannt wurde, ist dabei unerheblich. Commons verlangt ja auch Freiheit in Deutschland, nicht nur USA. Daß der Fotograf ein Verbrecher war, spielt dabei keine Rolle. --Ralf Roleček 06:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Bei der KZ-Aufnahmefotos dürfte es sich kaum um Lichtbildwerke handeln. Und meist ist der Fotograf ja garnicht bekannt und das Foto vermutlich auch nicht von Urheberseite veröffentlicht worden, wie z.B. in der oben verlinkten Löschdiskussion; dort erfolgte die vermutete Erstveröffentlichung von polnischer Seite. --Túrelio (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wenn der Fotograf und seine Lebensdaten nicht angegeben sind, ist {{PD-old}} sicherlich nicht anwendbar. Wenn die Fotografen tatsächlich anonym sind, gelten afaik 70 Jahre nach Veröffentlichung ({{Anonymous-EU}}). Ich würde jetzt mal nicht annehmen, dass der interne "Dienstgebrauch" innerhalb eines KZ als Veröffentlichung zählt? Dann würd's davon abhängen, wann jemand das entsprechende Archiv ausgegraben und veröffentlicht hat … Gleichermaßen ist {{PD-Polish}} nur anwendbar wenn auch das Datum der Veröffentlichung bekannt ist und nachgewiesen ist dass die Erstveröffentlichung in Polen stattgefunden hat (oder der Fotograf Pole war). --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that {{PD-Polish}} also requires that the publication in Poland must have been with permission from the photographer, who was probably unknown when the picture was first published. If the photographer was unknown at the time when the photograph was published, it can't have been possible to obtain permission from the photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Mmmh, the english language version of the template doesn't explicitely say so, but it does make sense of course. --El Grafo (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Stefan4: you are wrong. Polish pre-1994 copyright law made photograps to be ineligible for copyright unless photographer made a clear copyright restriction. It was due to the photographer to made the restriction. If he failed to made such a restriction, the photo was PD. It doea not matter whether the photographer was anonymous or not. The post-1994 law did not extend copyright to photos that were published without restriction. However, you are right, that this applies only to published photos. Anonymous unpublished photos are PD in Poland 70 years after creation. But US copyright is more restrictive here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 2015-05-22T08:31:39 (UTC)
- But if the publication was without permission from the photographer, then there is as far as I know no country which treats this as 'publication', meaning that the photo is to be treated as an unpublished photograph. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note that permission might have not been required when the photo was published as most photographs were ineligible to copyright then. So everybody who owned a copy was authorized to publish it, unless the copy was marked with clear copyright notice (but then, the photographer was obviously known). Copyright status of such (published) photos did not change later. And {{PD-Polish}} is about this. Ankry (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- But if the publication was without permission from the photographer, then there is as far as I know no country which treats this as 'publication', meaning that the photo is to be treated as an unpublished photograph. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that {{PD-Polish}} also requires that the publication in Poland must have been with permission from the photographer, who was probably unknown when the picture was first published. If the photographer was unknown at the time when the photograph was published, it can't have been possible to obtain permission from the photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wenn der Fotograf und seine Lebensdaten nicht angegeben sind, ist {{PD-old}} sicherlich nicht anwendbar. Wenn die Fotografen tatsächlich anonym sind, gelten afaik 70 Jahre nach Veröffentlichung ({{Anonymous-EU}}). Ich würde jetzt mal nicht annehmen, dass der interne "Dienstgebrauch" innerhalb eines KZ als Veröffentlichung zählt? Dann würd's davon abhängen, wann jemand das entsprechende Archiv ausgegraben und veröffentlicht hat … Gleichermaßen ist {{PD-Polish}} nur anwendbar wenn auch das Datum der Veröffentlichung bekannt ist und nachgewiesen ist dass die Erstveröffentlichung in Polen stattgefunden hat (oder der Fotograf Pole war). --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Bei der KZ-Aufnahmefotos dürfte es sich kaum um Lichtbildwerke handeln. Und meist ist der Fotograf ja garnicht bekannt und das Foto vermutlich auch nicht von Urheberseite veröffentlicht worden, wie z.B. in der oben verlinkten Löschdiskussion; dort erfolgte die vermutete Erstveröffentlichung von polnischer Seite. --Túrelio (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nein, Commons verlangt Freiheit im Ursprungsland. --WolfD59 (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also DR und am 1.1.2016 UDR? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Auschwitz war 1942 deutsch und es gibt keinerlei Anhaltspunkt, daß das Bild in Polen erstveröffentlicht wurde. Kennen wir den Fotografen nicht, müssen wir davon ausgehen, daß es noch lange geschützt ist. PD-old und PD-polnisch sind jedenfalls definitiv falsch. --Ralf Roleček 16:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also DR und am 1.1.2016 UDR? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
High Resolution photo for printing
Dear Wikimedia Commons Need this photo for high resolution for printing, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hybrid_operating_theatre_gemelli_rome.jpg# Possible to advise the owner of this photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamnzh (talk • contribs)
- Hi Adamnzh,
- you might try to contact the uploader at his home-wiki [5]. However, he/she hasn't been active since November 2014. So, he/she might not read it. --Túrelio (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
License of a "logo" (on UR)?
I only would point out and request an possible comment on COM:UR #File:Blender.svg. Is this ok here? Thanks in advance ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 10:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Replica statue
What would be the correct licensing of File:Grave of Wild Bill Hickok.jpg? According to this news article, it is a 2002 replica, in bronze, of an earlier 1891 sandstone sculpture. Kelly (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- The image is being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grave of Wild Bill Hickok.jpg and by now the key issue is whether the bronze replica is in the public domain, as the sandstone original was.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
File:Sassoon_hospital.jpg
Hi,
Please do refer metadata info File:Sassoon_hospital.jpg and get confirmed that the licencing is correct enough.
Rgds
Mahitgar (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've added {{PD-India}} to the licence. This clearly an old photo, and in India, "photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation." De728631 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
File:Rowlandson-Bluestockings.jpg and misleading EXIF permission requirement
The photo from subject contains an EXIF info in the image subject that the image is property of NYPL and cannot be used without their permission, WMF legal team suggests in OTRS that this is "an incorrect notice from the New York Public Library". I think we should do something with this. But what can we do?
- add a warning concerning this (invisible on the description page) info
- remove the incorrect EXIF information
Any hints? Ankry (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest a warning. Yes the data is probably incorrect but it is not clear that NYPL knows that. They may actually believe that it is correct and perhaps they are willing to enforce that. This is not a reason for us to delete the file but a warning as a courtesy to our reusers seems decent. Natuur12 (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why do we need a warning beyond {{PD-Art}}, which is already on the page?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Because the NYPL message is hidden. I think we should add a comment to exactly this message, not a general one. The hidden message is:
This image is the property of The New York Public Library. For each use, you must contact: The New York Public Library, Photographic Services & Permissions, Room 103, 476 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10018; 212-930-0091, fax: 212-930-0533, email: permissions@nypl.org. Using an image from The New York Public Library for publication without payment of use fees and official written permission is strictly prohibited.
There's no warning required, covered by the PD-Art template and the information available there. Many museums try to claim copyright on out-of-copyright 2D-items. --Denniss (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Denniss: I would agree with you that the information in {{PD-Art}} is enough if the above message (or at least its evidence) was available in the image description page. Otherwise a potential reuser when finding this hidden into (or when sb points it to them) may feel tricked. I think the best solution is to make this info either visible or not present. Or a message like: "This image contains a hidden NYPL ownership claim that we(?) (WMF?) consider void as the image is in public domain" Ankry (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hidden warnings like this one may also be problematic in another way: some warnings will be copyrighted as works of literature. This one might be below the threshold of originality, but some EXIF was taken down in wmf:DMCA Cranach Digital Archive. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Book excerpt
For his orthography of Swiss German dialects (book published in 1938), Eugen Dieth (1893 - 1956) used a special character not included in Unicode. Is it allowed to upload an excerpt of this book (scan of about two lines)? If this were not possible, can I use the character in handwriting and upload a handwritten sample text? --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- A scan of the character itself is safe. You could try posting the two lines, and seeing if it gets deleted; it's hard to tell in abstract.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Not sure about the rights situation; although typography is not copyrightable in some jurisdictions, I‘m not sure where scientific & craft-related notations fall. But I‘m intrigued: is the character composed of or derived from conventional glyphs, in similar fashion to the IPA symbols? Is there an example that‘s viewable online? If so, I could draw it up in suitable form to be used with type in high-quality specimen texts.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's an orthography; it's just like any other writing, say File:D'ni Letters Vs Numerals.png.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help! I've now uploaded a scan of a word beginning with the letter concerned. I hope it's okay and that the licence tag I've added (PD-text) is correct. (@Odysseus1479: It's a variant of the capital letter of esh ʃ not included in Unicode.) --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- This looks good as this appears to below the threshold of originality required according to Swiss law. See this article for a discussion of typography and Swiss copyright law. Of interest are pp. 29 to 30. One a side note, however, I would suggest to add a page number to the source information. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help! I've now uploaded a scan of a word beginning with the letter concerned. I hope it's okay and that the licence tag I've added (PD-text) is correct. (@Odysseus1479: It's a variant of the capital letter of esh ʃ not included in Unicode.) --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Lizenz angeben - wie genau?
Guten Abend! Vorab - ich bin absoluter Neuling in Sachen Uploads von Medien auf WikiCommons, verzeiht mir also bitte meine unwissenheit. Ich habe einen komplett neuen Artikel über einen US-Amerikanischen Musiker angelegt, und möchte diesen mit einem Bild von der offiziellen Webpräsenz versehen. Ich nehme jedoch an, dass dieses Bild nicht gemeinfrei ist. Mit dem Musiker selbst stehe ich in Kontakt, er hat mir auch erlaubt das Bild zu nutzen. Brauche ich hierfür nun irgendeine offizielle Genehmigung á la "Hiermit erlaube ich, XY, dieses Bild auf der Seite YZ zu nutzen."? Es handelt sich um das erste Bild auf folgender Seite: http://bryanmcpherson.com/epk-1/
-- Ginomorion 18:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hallo @Ginomorion: wir brauchen vom Copyright-Inhaber (üblicherweise der Fotograf, evtl. auch der Musiker oder dessen Plattenfirma, so er/sie dieses erworben hat) eine Genehmigung, das Bild unter einer Freien Lizenz zu verwenden (Details zu Lizenzen unter COM:Lizenzen oder englisch COM:Licensing). Und zwar nicht nur für Seite YZ, sondern für Jedermann zu jedem Zweck inklusive kommerzieller Nutzung und mit dem Recht das Bild beliebig zu verändern. Diese Genehmigung muss von einer offiziellen E-mail-adresse an unser support-team geschickt werden. Näheres zur Vorgehensweise findest du unter COM:OTRS (Sprachauswahl oben auf der Seite). Bei Folgefragen bitte gerne wieder hier melden. Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Requests for comment:Customised Version of Form I & Affidavit per (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules
This is a Request for comment at meta to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for reliqushment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.
Rgds.
Mahitgar (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Please remove my Wendigo image which is not a Public Domain creation
The image of a Wendigo you have posted on the page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wendigo1.jpg is not Public Domain - it was created by me. Kindly remove it from your site. Thanks. Peter Johnston. www.deviantart.com/monkey-paw . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.201.24 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Done, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wendigo1.jpg for more details. Green Giant (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Copyright status of paintings by artist Don Troiani
I'm concerned about the copyright status of this painting, which was completed in 2011. The artist is selling reproductions here. The artist also donated the original painting to a gallery here. Yet, this painting states that the artist is a US government employee, which would make his art public domain. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Only his paintings done in the course of his duties as a government employee would be public domain. Anything he does on his own time, or after leaving government service, are his own copyright. It sounds like he has been a private artist for quite some time, so anything recent probably needs to be licensed. I do see a couple mid-1970s images on nps.gov which seem to indicate he was an employee then (sounds possible; it was shortly after he graduated from school, but I have not seen confirmation). I do wonder if his images here require an OTRS confirmation of the account used to upload them. Seems fairly likely it was him, but it's hard to say for sure. He did only upload medium-resolution versions, so that may be the limit of what he licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
FoP for theme parks like Disneyland in the USA?
Hi! I plan to go to Disneyland Anaheim and I am wondering if FoP applies also for theme parks like Disneyland in the USA. On Commons there are a lot of photos of the Sleeping Beauty Castle for instance. Are these photos problematic from a copyright perspective? The park is publicly accessible in principal but you have to pay a fee to go in. Disneyland Resort Park Rules say that photography for commercial purposes is not allowed. Photos on Commons are usually not created for commercial purposes but can be potentially used for such purposes due to the appropriate CC license. --178.4.33.170 08:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- In the US, FoP only applies to architectural works which are "located in or ordinarily visible from a public place" (according to the wording of US copyright law) and does not apply to sculptures or other artistic works even when they are permanently located in public locations. Whether an admission fee for a public venue means that FoP does not apply to photos taken inside that venue seems unclear; COM:FOP mentions that German FoP law does not extend to private property with admission control, but it is not clear as to what the situation would be under US law.
- A venue may have rules restricting photography (such as specifically disallowing commercial photography or only allowing photography for personal use) but photos of uncopyrighted subjects taken in such a venue are acceptable on Commons because the venue rules do not change the copyright status of the photo. If a user uploads a photo of an uncopyrighted subject that they took in a venue that allows only personal photography (for example), then there is the possibility (though not likely) that the user could get into difficulty with the venue if a third party was to reuse the photo. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Museum_and_interior_photography. Wikimedia Commons and parties other than the photographer would not be affected.
- For the photos of the Sleeping Beauty Castle at Disneyland, I do not know the extent (if any) to which the structure constitutes copyrightable artwork, but it can happen on Commons where images that have copyright concerns go unnoticed for a very long time before someone opens a deletion nomination or otherwise takes action. --Gazebo (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think a park like that is usually considered a "public place". It's not specifically defined in copyright law, though a couple of related times "in public" is defined as where a number of people outside of family and friends are gathered, so it has been assumed that sites like that are public. That would also be a work of architecture (it is designed for people to enter), so yes, FoP would seem to apply. I'm pretty sure that building is visible from outside the property anyways, which is all that clause of U.S. law requires (not to mention that since it was completed before 1990, the building itself would not have copyright protection anyways). Photos of sculptures there would be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- The distinction between public and non-public places is only relevant for buildings constructed on 1 December 1990 or later. Category:Sleeping Beauty Castle at Disneyland appears to contain pictures of a building from 1955 (see w:Sleeping Beauty Castle), so we don't need to know whether the place is public or not.
- Places with admission control (such as amusement parks) seem to be 'public' in the United Kingdom but not in Germany (see the respective sections at COM:FOP). No idea how it is defined in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I did mention the 1990 thing in regards to the building mentioned, but the question seemed more general to me, so I answered that way. In this context, I think such parks would be "public". Also note that the U.S. provision merely says that the building must be *visible from a public place*; it says nothing about the location of the photographer, so that is irrelevant. I think the clause is more meant to protect more-or-less "unpublished" buildings, architectural works which are completely private and have not been constructed for public consumption, from being "published" via photograph in this way. Maybe unconstructed models and that sort of thing. I think almost any normal building would be covered by the FoP provision in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think a park like that is usually considered a "public place". It's not specifically defined in copyright law, though a couple of related times "in public" is defined as where a number of people outside of family and friends are gathered, so it has been assumed that sites like that are public. That would also be a work of architecture (it is designed for people to enter), so yes, FoP would seem to apply. I'm pretty sure that building is visible from outside the property anyways, which is all that clause of U.S. law requires (not to mention that since it was completed before 1990, the building itself would not have copyright protection anyways). Photos of sculptures there would be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)