Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/01

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

Anne Frank's Diary

Hi, I uploaded Anne Frank's Diary, but it seems there is an issue. Opinions from copyright experts welcome here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Het-Achterhuis-Anne-Frank.pdf‎. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Threshold of originality for film

I'm trying to figure out how the threshold of originality applies to minimalist films. Specifically, I'm looking at Arnulf Rainer ([1], [2]) and The Flicker ([3], [4]). The individual frames are solid black or solid white, which wouldn't be creative works eligible for copyright. Would a faithful reproduction of 6 frames be similarly ineligible, or would the film stock itself be under copyright? Also, what's the threshold for originality for handwritten text like a title card for Arnulf Rainer? hinnk (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am personally of an opinion that these films are {{Pd-ineligible}} and the text is {{Pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Sinar7.jpg and File:Sinar8b.jpg whose author, Carl Koch, was not mentionned !

Happy New Year ! I have just added the name of the author of these pictures (omitted by the uploader !) from "GRAND FORMAT cours de photographie", Carl Koch, Paul Montel, 1976, page 31 (ISBN 2707500577)". What about the copyright ? Regards. --Cquoi (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Carl Koch, the inventor of the Sinar system cameras, was Swiss, so their copyright applies and lasts for 70 years pma, so these images are clearly copyright violations and should be deleted. Besides which the technical adjustments shown by the pair of images are possible to recreate, so they cannot even be used in an wiki that allows non-free images. Ww2censor (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
DRed. Yann (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. --Cquoi (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sinar4.jpg, Sinar5.jpg and Sinar6.jpg come from Carl Koch's book, 1976

Sinar4.jpg, Sinar5.jpg and Sinar6.jpg are drawings copied from "GRAND FORMAT cours de photographie", Carl Koch, Paul Montel, 1976,(ISBN 2707500577.) Fig. 48, 49 and 50 page 78. --Cquoi (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Sociedad Ballenera de Magallanes.jpg... where belongs?

I found this file in Category:License review needed and I found the author and source. But, I found several issues that should be considered:

  • The photographer Edward Binnie (1884-1956), Falkland Islander/British
  • The photo has been taken in 1908 at Deception Island, Antartica, territory disputed between Argentina, Chile and the UK
  • These photos contained in the PDF are now owned by the Archivo Fotográfico CEHA. Instituto de la Patagonia, Universidad de Magallanes (Chile).

Provisiolally, I added {{PD-Argentina}}, {{PD-Chile}}, {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-US-1923}}, making Argentina the shortest term (20 years after first publication and 25 years after creation), and Chile the longest (70 years after the death of his surviving spouse, or unmarried, widows or married daughters with incapacitated for all job class), so,

  • What is the actual licensing of this picture?

Seems to be complicated... --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As a Falklander, Binnie's works are subject to UK jurisdiction. But per British copyright law, a work made before 1957 can only qualify for copyright by its country of first publication. Do we know when (really PD-1923?) and where this was first published? {{PD-old-70}} is certainly correct and {{PD-Argentina}} is not applicable in my opinion. PD-Chile would also apply even if the image was really first published in this 2011 article. So I think the only problem here is the copyright status in the US depending on first publication and/or registration for copyright. De728631 (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Where a photo was taken is generally irrelevant; what matters is where it was published, and in some cases the nationality of its author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Italian copyright

An Italian article on the Caproni Ca.95 has these images, which would be very helpful in an English article on the same subject. Does anyone know if it is OK to upload them to Commons and if so, under what CC? My Italian is non-existent. Thanks,TSRL (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

They are already marked for transfer to the Commons. Since they are not artistic, their copyright expired in Italy 20 years after their creation. They are probably in public domain in USA as well. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Uploaded.TSRL (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Huge amount of non-free images from Princeton Uni Art Museum uploaded

I was looking for images of Greek art, and came across hundreds of images from the w:Princeton University Art Museum, such as File:Greek, Attic, Princeton Painter, Black-figure amphora of Panathenaic shape, ca. 540 B.C.jpg, listed as reproductions of two-dimensional art objects (which they aren't!) and therefore in the public domain. The uploader has already had at least one of their uploads deleted (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lachaise, Gaston, Floating Figure, 1927.jpg) due to lack of valid copyright clearance/permissions given on the PUAM website. I randomly looked at several objects in various categories, and found nothing to indicate that the files were available to use freely on Commoms, just as the deletion request described. This potentially affects a massive number of uploads of the Museum's own modern photographs of three-dimensional works of art. There are plenty of faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art that are fine - drawings, paintings, etc - but all the 3D objects are problematic. Incidentally would a mosaic pavement count as 2-dimensional enough?

Thought I should flag this up, as there are literally hundreds if not thousands of pictures that are NOT faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, nor can be considered permissible per freedom of panorama as they were photographed in the Museum's studio. Even some of the two-dimensional works of art are problematic - File:I Saw Three Cities (Sage).jpg is uploaded with a claim that the artist's estate released her work into the public domain, but I see nothing to support this claim on the Museum's page for the painting.

I wanted to ask, what's the best way to handle something like this? Just list all the possible violations in an AFD then add a note to each and every file? Mabalu (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

VisualFileChange can be used to nominate many files at once, from a particular category or user. --ghouston (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, --ghouston, I'm just about to look into that. Really useful to know about this tool. Mabalu (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Bridgeman Images + Out of copyright

Good morning. User:HistoryofIran has brought up a case of an image whose description page says nothing about copyright except for a link to "buy license" and a note that there is a higher resolution version which they are not providing. However, in the search box for the site, one can find the image when specifying "out of copyright." I cannot tell if this is a clerical oversight or intentional. What are all your thoughts on this?

Initially I deleted the files as copyvios but I am amenable to change if it is wise: File:Shapur II bust cropped.jpg, File:Bust of a Sasanian king, most likely Shapur II.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The way I look at them, it looks like these images that come up when searching for "out of copyright" are old art where any copyrights have expired. Any existing copyright would be on the photography, except that if memory serves such faithful reproductions don't create new copyrights, at least in the US.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This only applies to 2D, which is not the case here. So not OK on Commons without a permission from the photographer. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Straight-on photographs of 2D objects are basically considered reproductions which do not add any originality. A photograph of a 3-D object is a different situation -- there is usually originality in the photograph itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

File:The Allied Reoccupation of the Andaman Islands, 1945 SE5226.jpg

Is uploading of this photograph legitimate? This photograph was downloaded from Imperial War Musium under the IWM Non Commercial Licence. Current licensing description {{PD-Scan}} seems incorrect.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? The licensing seems entirely clear; it was a work by a soldier on active duty, thus under Crown copyright that expired 50 years after creation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

File:David Solansl.jpg is not free

The picture File:David Solansl.jpg is not free, belongs to Los 40 Principales and must be deleted, because their legal warning don't say anything about free license, and the user uploaded as it was his photo. Thank you.--Sorenike (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear whether it is owned by Los 40 Principales. Ruslik (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Convenience link: File:David Solansl.jpg - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Uploader is User:David Solans and this is his sole contribution, so either it really came from David Solans or the account name is a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

File:WIKI.jpg - non free file in previous version of kept image

I don't know how to deal correctly with this problem: User WinningrunMusic did upload a file of the depicted person which had been deleted twice. Therefore he tried another way uploading a different image of that person as a new version of a harmlessly looking file. This overwritten image is in use now on en:wp as well as on wikidata. For that's been five years ago there seems to be no chance to find a link to that image older than February 2011 using Google Images. --Achim (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I just noticed that he's blocked indef on en:wp, sorry, should have looked up before. --Achim (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What is your question? Ruslik (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It think what Achim55 is trying to say Ruslik0 is that File:Jung-Hack Seo.jpg uploaded by WinningrunMusic and previously deleted twice from Commons because it lacked proper permission (the last time in December 2009 by Killiondude) was uploaded as a "new" version of [[::File:WIKI.jpg]] in February 2011 by the same uploader (perhaps as a way of adding the image to Commons in a way that would not be noticed) and can still be seen in the file's history. So, it sounds like Achim55 is basically asking "What should be done in such a case?". -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I also do not know. What should be done in such a case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It is possible to delete this specific file revision. Ruslik (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

OS X Chess application

I came across the detailed artwork and screenshots of this application and saw that they are apparently licensed under the GPL. However, I find no such information in the source code (see e.g. here). Instead, I found a licence document (see e.g. here) and within it is a custom licence ("Apple Sample Code License") for everything except the engine (which is licensed under the GPL), specifically mentioning "graphical frontend". How does Commons deal with such custom licences, should this not be mentioned verbatim as specified by the licence itself? Would this apply to the screenshots too?--Totie (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

When someone uses a custom license, I think the idea is to check if it's compatible with the Commons:Licensing policy. If it is, we'll probably make a license template mentioning the license terms for the media in question.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I believe that the licence is permissive, but the only condition is that the notice is reproduced. Is there a basic template for this or a guideline?–Totie (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I made the template {{ASCL}} for this purpose, modelled after {{APSL}}.Totie (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Totie (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Jewish House Nerchinsk Russia.jpg

Hi, This was in the category "Undelete in 2016". However there is currently no license, and it is not clear if this is OK or not: [5]. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The rights page says that the author is retaining copyright for 15 years after the *donation* to the Library of Congress. Per the description pages, it sounds like works were donated in different installments between 1999 and 2004. It loos like this photo was *taken* in 2000, so perhaps someone added 15 years to that and came up with "undelete in 2016". I'm not sure how to tell when it was actually donated... there is a MARC record entry which looks suspiciously like 2004, but it'd be good to find other examples with different values in that field (spot checking a couple others ended up with 2004 for both), so who knows if it was some other processing in 2004 (or if that value is even a date). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Carl, per [6] field # 005 of a MARC record is "Date and time of latest transaction", but what is meant by transaction? --Achim (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Achim55: Ah, thanks. Per here, it really does seem to mean database transaction (i.e. it is updated on every change to the record). But that link also mentions the first six digits of the 008 field are the date entered, so for that file it looks like it was entered on April 26, 2002. I guess it could have been donated a bit earlier than that, but I'd say this file should be "undelete in 2018". Or, May 2017. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite of PD-RU-exempt

There is a proposal of a rewrite of PD-RU-exempt at Template_talk:PD-RU-exempt/en#More_compact_template. If anybody is familiar with Russian law, please check it. --Jarekt (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Pennsylvania Hall (Philadelphia).jpg and File:Pennsylvania Hall after fire.jpg

These images both give as the image source http://www.pfj-maritime.com/web/TheTeam/StephenPayne.aspx That links to a ship building and maritime engineering consultancy partnership located in England. The specific page links to a naval architect who designs contemporary cruise ships. This link cannot possibly be the source of the Pennsylvania Hall images. Blue Riband (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious they were published before 1923 regardless of their true source, so it's not a matter of deletion or copyright concerns. And they do mention the original authors (or at least publishers) and date, so that is the true source. It's nice to credit the direct source as well, just to give credit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Large Amount of Photos were found to have copyright vio

Hello, I am not too familiar with the process of deletion etc, but I have found a large amount of images which have been subject to copyright.

These are some images found from the source which have been uploaded in Wikimedia Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Nayerm%C3%A4dchen_Malabar.%22_%22Nayer_girl_in_Malabar.%22_%22%E0%B4%AE%E0%B4%B2%E0%B4%AC%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%B1%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%B2%E0%B5%86_%E0%B4%A8%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%BC_%E0%B4%AA%E0%B5%86%E0%B5%BA%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%81%E0%B4%9F%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%9F%E0%B4%BF%22.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nair_woman.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nair_Women_(1914).jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nair_Women_during_Thalappoli_(1914).jpg


This is the original source for all of them : http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/search/field/geogra/searchterm/Najer

This source ( Mathrubhumi Photos )took the pictures from the above source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabt man (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC) If you go to the commons file, click the USC source, it will lead you to the individual page from which the commons file copied the original file from USC. It turns out that the file in the USC repository is taken as a grant from the copyright holder. This applies to all the images, and if you look through them all to the source, you will find this: "All the images (photographic and non-photographic) made available in this collection are the property of the Basel Mission and are managed by mission 21. mission 21 / Basel Mission claim copyright on the images in their possession and require those publishing any of the images -- both individuals and organisations -- to pay a user's/copyright fee."

http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll123/id/22750/rec/2 Scroll down to the table, and it is in one of the columns of the table.

I am not too sure how to delete, and any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Rabt man (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Photo collectors do not own copyright. Looking at the sources, all four are from photographic studios in Madras; that would then be the country of publication and they have long been out of copyright there. Looking at the original source page, there are some postcards there too. In India, it would seem that copyright has expired on those (and remained expired in 1996). The only reason to delete is if they can prove the Mission employed the photographer and that the photographs have never been published until recently (which would mean the U.S. copyright is still valid even if the Indian copyright is not). But for photos from external sources, it would appear to be a completely bogus copyright claim (despite the great historical value they have, and the effort they have gone to digitize them). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Rabt man, Carl, see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nair woman.jpg. --Achim (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like that was kept. Per here, the photographers were from a studio in Madras, and the Babel Mission (and person named in their records) were simply photo collectors. I do see some postcards in the list of photos attributed to that person as well in the Babel Mission archives, so it seems doubtful they were a photographer (though possible for some of them). The physical items are described as prints, not negatives. The copyright in India lapsed a long time ago... not sure how the Babel Mission could claim copyright unless there was a contract with the studio to that affect -- though if that did happen, and the works remained unpublished all these years, the U.S. copyright could be valid I guess. But, there are some postcards in there as well, where that situation is clearly not true. The only other thing is if they are just claiming copyright on the digitizations, which would not be valid either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell photo

Can anybody verify if this photo File:Tomas sowell profile picture.jpg copied from the site http://www.tsowell.com/ is actually CC-BY-SA...? --CiaPan (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the uploader's (User:Beaucouplusneutre) job to show that it has that license. This can be done by adding license information to the source page or sending evidence to OTRS. The same goes for File:Aurélien Véron.jpg, File:Molinari Logo.gif, File:Wew2010.jpeg. --rimshottalk 11:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Mickey Rooney image

Is this image of him in 1922 OK? I assume it was published after 1923, but it's an original and still lacks a notice. Typical promo. --Light show (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There's also this one from 1925, which the newspaper caption says was an AP file. --Light show (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Their copyright status depends on when they were first published. Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Which license tags apply to File:AnneFrankSchoolPhoto.jpg and File:AnneFrankSchoolPhoto cropped.jpg?

For File:AnneFrankSchoolPhoto.jpg and File:AnneFrankSchoolPhoto cropped.jpg, the original photo may well be out of copyright but it is not clear that the license tag {{PD-old-70}} is correct, given that the photographer is supposedly unknown. There are the license tags {{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, but I do not know for sure whether either of these tags would apply. In addition, there is the question of US copyright-would {{PD-1996}} apply? --Gazebo (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

When was the photo first disclosed? Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not personally know as to when the photo was first disclosed or first published. The file page references an OTRS ticket and the ticket supposedly confirms that the photographer was unknown, but it is not clear that the ticket says anything about when the photo was first disclosed or published. Would it be useful for an OTRS volunteer to check this? The description of the photo has the explanation "unknown photographer & pre-1943 so >70 years after first disclosure" and a reference to Article 38 of Netherlands copyright law. However, it is not clear that the year 1943 has any special significance in copyright in the Netherlands. In this translation, Article 38 talks about a work's copyright expiring 70 years after the work was disclosed if the work's author was never identified. There may also be an issue with US copyright because if the photo was first disclosed in 1940 (to be optimistic), then under "disclosure + 70 years", it would seem that the copyright would have expired around 2011, which is after the URAA date of January 1, 1996. According to the en-wiki PD guidelines, there was a European Union directive in 1995 that had the effect of extending EU copyrights to a minimum of 70 pma throughout the EU, and supposedly this included restoring copyrights on works that were out of copyright due to shorter preexisting terms. --Gazebo (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Files from Morguefile

In discussion of one DR, it was found out that the text in COM:Bad sources#Morguefile.com is incorrect due to being based on wrong understanding of license of this website. Also, it was cleared out that this license allows commercial use of modified files, but says nothing about non-commercial. Due to this lack of clarity, the files were deleted. I wrote to administrator of Morguefile and got an answer that non-commercial use is allowed too (I think, anybody interested has a possibility to repeat it himself). For details, the administrator pointed me to http://www.morguefile.com/about . So, Morguefile should be excluded from COM:Bad sources, and the images should be restored. Stas (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

They still do not permit using unmodified images. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I mean modified ones. Stas (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

1948 and 1950 United States hamster advertisements

Raise hamsters
Read The Hamster Manual

Please see the two images at this blog.

There are images from advertisements in Popular Science magazine in 1948 and 1950. At Commons:Hirtle chart it says that content published in the United States in year without a copyright notice may be in the public domain.

Could someone please remind me of the usual copyright status of advertisements in the United States from this area? I expect that the magazine, Popular Science, does have copyright renewal. However, I do not expect that the magazine held the advertisers' copyrights. I care about both the copyright of the image and text.

I am wondering if either images or text here could be used to illustrate en:Gulf Hamstery. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Advertisements needed a separate copyright notice. It's best to see the original page to ensure no notice has been cropped out. First one looks pretty complete; second one... probably OK but a little less sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Clindberg Thanks. I have original paper copies of these ads and there is no copyright notice on that page or in the front cover. I uploaded copies. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Are binoculars under copyright?

I've added some of this (really good) photographer's other images (clothing shots and a cocktail pic, which I know are OK to upload) and was wondering about this shot of some binoculars. It's also an excellent image with the correct clearances, but I'm not sure whether the object itself wouldn't be copyright-protected. The Alpen logo, which might be protected, is not clearly visible. Can't tell from the Alpen website whether their binoculars are the work of a specific designer. Any thoughts? Mabalu (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mabalu: IANAL, but according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Utility_objects, that's probably unproblematic. --El Grafo (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. That's more or less what I had concluded, but I decided I should seek a second opinion. Mabalu (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Review of NLSI license

I would like an review of an licence. The licence text is at this link. This licence is being used by the "National Survey of Iceland" and I would like to know if files from them under this licence would be eligible to be uploaded on commons. The licence itself is based on the Open Government Licence, which is allowed here, but there are amendments to it.--Snaevar (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to meet all the bullets under Acceptable Licenses at Commons:Licensing. BMacZero (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File:VIU-Round-Logo.png

I don't think this should be considered "own work" because it is clearly being used on en:Virginia International University's official Facebook and Twitter pages, but I'm not sure whether it's too simple to be protected by copyright. If it's considered to be a non-free logo, then should probably be uploaded directly to Wikipedia per en:WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking Yann. Should the file's description be updated to include a source link for the image? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if possible. Yann (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
OK Yann. I added links to the university's official Twitter page. If I did it incorrectly, let me know and I'll try to fix it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

FOP-Austria

Can someone familiar with FOP in Austria please comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kiefer AEIOU 2013-6.jpg? Thanks in advance. Natuur12 (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Chapter 08-Secondary Storage.pdf

I've never seen anything like this uploaded to Commons so I am wondering if it would be considered out of scope. The file is a 98 page PDF or a 98 slide slideshow and it seems educational, but not sure if it would be considered a media file. Does Commons accept this kind of content? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The copyright village pump is not really the place to discuss project scope matters (but yes, in principle, educational presentations are within our scope). A more pertinent question for this venue is if the uploader is authorized to publish the presentation under a free license. I doubt it, so I started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sgayatridora. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a closer look at the file and my apologies for posting my question on the wrong noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —LX (talk, contribs) 10:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Own work", but it obviously isn't

The image at File:Europe at the death of Theoderic the Great in 526.jpg is tagged as follows:

Description: Third map (of four) from plate 19 of Professor G. Droysens Allgemeiner Historischer Handatlas, published by R. Andrée.
Date: 1886
Source: Own work
Author: Droysen/Andrée; G. Kossina rev.

Presumably the description as "own work" refers to the photographing or scanning of an image from an 1886 book; but the copyright status of the book itself (and the map itself, if not created by the book's author) is relevant also. In the US the date 1886 would make it public-domain anyway, but as I understand it, the copyright status in the originating country is also relevant. I have not looked at other works uploaded by the same contributor to see if there are more instances of this incorrect claim. --76.69.45.64 09:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the {{Own}} in the source parameter. Also changed the license to a public domain tag (PD-old-100-1923). Pinging uploaders of the photo: @Maproom: and @Чръный человек: ★ Poké95 11:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Photo of entrance to Sveadal community

This photo shows the entrance to the Sveadal community. If a higher resolution version of the photo was released under a free content license, could it be uploaded to Commons, or would there be copyright issues with the signs at the left side of the entrance? (To be sure, the signs are somewhat of an accessory to the subject of the photo as a whole, and if worst comes to worst, it might be possible to crop the photo somewhat on the left side.) --Gazebo (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The signs are mostly textual. Therefore I do not think that they will create any copyright concerns. Ruslik (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Benito Juarez con las Leyes de Reforma.jpg

I did some cleanup of this extremely sloppy file description, but I'm stuck on the copyright tagging. (The uploader's {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} claim is obviously just completely made up.)

Since this image was just grabbed off some random website (I replaced the rather unhelpful "Google" with the URL of the first exact match I could find, as a likely source), the photographer is unknown. According to the {{FoP-Mexico}} tag at the top of Category:Murals by Diego Rivera in the Palacio Nacional, the depicted mural is covered by Mexico's freedom of panorama. Since the photo is a faithful reproduction of a 2D work, it would seem that the principles of Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag essentially apply, even though the copyright of the underlying work has not expired, but is instead limited by freedom of panorama. {{PD-Art|FoP-Mexico}} doesn't really make any sense as a combination, because the wrapper asserts that the depicted work is in the public domain. {{FoP-Mexico}} is not a licensing tag, so if left with only that, a bot will probably eventually mark the file as missing a license.

I'm personally not a fan of Commons stance of pretending that Bridgeman is a worldwide precedent, and I find it baffling that we consider 2D FoP with ND restrictions to be free, so I'm not going to be applying either of those tags myself. Whatever you think is appropriate, please just update the file description accordingly.

Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 01:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that there is no a copyright template for such a situation. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It should be based on the copyright status of the mural -- ignore FoP. FoP is more for depicting a work in its public setting -- something which basically just reproduces the original work (which is what PD-Art is saying) is then just a straight copy of the original. Since the author died in 1957... I think that makes it still under copyright, as it doesn't quite qualify for {{PD-Mexico}} (and therefore would also be copyrighted in the U.S. via the URAA). So, it should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
As for the copyright status... there was a time in Mexico that works needed to be registered for copyright or else they would lose it; I'm not sure we have any way to verify that status though. But if it was, then it would still be under copyright, both in the US and Mexico. Mexico's FoP clause only holds provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected (which is also basically in the Berne Convention, so it should be in most such laws). If something also qualifies for PD-Art, then it counts as a straight copy of the original, therefore the normal commercialization of the work is definitely affected (since making straight copies of a work is the basis for copyright law). So it should not be kept based on the FoP clause, in my opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my initial question, files without licensing tags are routinely marked by bots as missing a license. And that's exactly what happened after Gazebo changed the licensing section to only include {{FoP}} tags and a free-form PD Art-based rationale. I'm guessing that could have been technically avoided by wrapping that rationale in a {{PD-because}}. But now Jarekt has added a claim that the photo is covered by {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} – which seems to a be complete work of fiction. Can anyone see a basis for that claim (or a photographer to attribute, as required by that license)? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The file was uploaded under {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that that was the photographer's license. FOP templates are not considered license templates at the moment as they are usually accompanied by photographer's licenses. When a license was removed from the file, the usual procedure is to revert the edit, I reverted but added {{Licensed-FOP|1={{PD-Art|FoP-Mexico}}{{Not-free-US-FOP}}|2=cc-by-sa-4.0}}. [[User:LX|LX] If you do not think the CC claim is correct than propose how to fix it or nominate it for deletion. --Jarekt (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If the photographer has released the photo under CC BY-SA 4.0 and the photo is covered by both {{PD-Art}} and {{FoP-Mexico}}, it might be possible to use something like {{Licensed-PD-Art|1=FoP-Mexico|2=cc-by-sa-4.0}}{{Not-free-US-FOP}} for the licensing, to indicate that the photo itself can be treated as a case of CC BY-SA 4.0 in jurisdictions where faithful photographic reproductions of 2D artwork have or are likely to have their own copyright. To be sure, this seems awkward in that the wording of {{Licensed-PD-Art}} talks about uncopyrighted works of art and a work covered by FOP is not necessarily out of copyright. At the same time, given what Carl Lindberg has mentioned, it is not clear that {{FoP-Mexico}} can be applied to faithful reproductions of 2D artwork, so it may be a case of assessing whether the mural is likely to be out of copyright in the US and Mexico and if necessary, nominating for deletion. --Gazebo (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, let's try this again: The uploader's {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} claim is obviously just completely made up. The uploader didn't provide a source other than "Google" and thinks that the work was created by "Ninguno" (=no one). Can we please forget about this bogus license? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

PD-UKGov

Does a en:Royal Air Force work fall under en:Crown copyright? Jcb (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

sure. If the work was created by a member of the RAF as part of his or her duty. Not for private pictures taken while on service. --h-stt !? 14:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

At what point does a 2D work of art stop being a 2D work of art? Specifically, textiles, lace, fabric, material?

At first glance, it seems pretty straightforward, but what about textiles such as File:Band - Google Art Project (6851191).jpg? I just removed the warning about frames from that image, as there is no frame in the image. Have done a quick search through the archives of the Pump and Copyright but didn't see where the question of fabric or textiles was raised.

It's pretty explicit that three-dimensional elements are not permitted in images of public-domain 2D works of art unless the photographer/copyright holder has given permission for the whole image to be used. As a rule of thumb we've taken this to presume clearance for paintings and other artworks. For example, many of Van Gogh's paintings have very deep textured surfaces and thickly applied paint. They are certainly not truly 2D works of art, but we consider them as such, because the artist died long ago enough, and they are on flat surfaces.

So my question is - if a piece of painted linen/canvas is considered a 2D work of art, would an equally straightforward, flat photograph of a piece of printed linen from the 18th century (rhetorical example) be considered equally 2D? Or does the fact it was printed on fabric - rather than paper or card or board - instantly invalidate its claim to being 2D, even though it is just as flat, if not flatter, than a painting?

For example: File:Woman's Robe a la Francaise (Sack Gown) LACMA M.60.36.1 (5 of 6).jpg - here is an example of a textile photographed flat, to the extent that it is just as two-dimensional as any painting or print from the same era. Say that the copyright holders had NOT released this image - would it still be considered a 2D work? Some antique silks have hand-painted decoration - does that make them equivalent to paintings, or does the fact the fabric was designed to be made up into garments or upholstery alter all that? Where exactly is the line drawn? Mabalu (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

They are not different from oil paintings which can have quite a significant texture. Ruslik (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
So, technically, a photograph of a textile or embroidery made on the flat would be equivalent to a reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art? Obviously the same rules would apply per copyright, so that an artist (where known) would need to have died long ago enough that their work would be considered no longer in copyright, or the textile/lace/whatever would be old enough to be safely presumed to be out of copyright? Obviously there are some textiles which have very pronounced three-dimensional elements, such as padded embroidery or elaborate Irish crochet which often has three-dimensional elements, which seem that they would definitely be considered non-2D. Mabalu (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:HM Queen Elizabeth II 1953.jpg

I'm sorry but I just don't understand why this deletion debate is in favor of keeping File:HM Queen Elizabeth II 1953.jpg. The source very clearly states that it is copyrighted. DrKay (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have come to the conclusion that that copyright claim is bogus. Just because a site claims a file is copyrighted, it does not necessarily mean it's true. --Sebari (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Charles Schulz NYWTS drawing disguised.jpg

I've never come across a case like this before and am looking for some guidance. The photo is marked as public domain by the terms of its creation and donation to the Library of Congress. It depicts cartoonist Charles Schulz (of Peanuts fame) drawing his signature character, Charlie Brown. However, the sketch of Charlie Brown is pixelated-out "for use where depicting the original drawing might constitute a possible copyright infringement", according to the description. This strikes me as odd. The file is used on various Wikipedias to illustrate Schulz and/or his creation of Charlie Brown. If there is indeed a copyright concern over the sketch, and the intended use is simply to illustrate Schulz himself, then it seems to me that a better solution would be to either A) create a new version which crops the sketch out of the frame (seems this could be easily done while still showing Shulz himself in full), or B) use one of the other freely-licensed images of Shulz on Commons (many of which, I note, include depictions of his characters in frame). If the intended use is to illustrate Shulz's creation of Charlie Brown, then pixelating out the sketch defeats the purpose.

The whole point about copyright concern seems rather moot, since Commons also hosts the original version of the file (which is more widely used) under a public domain license. So whether or not a pixelated version also exists, the original is still present on Commons so the potential copyright concern remains no matter which version is used on which Wikimedia projects. To my understanding, since Wikimedia's servers are in the United States, and this is an image of U.S. origin obtained from a U.S. source, only the copyright laws of the U.S. are of concern to Wikimedia and its projects. The copyright laws of other countries where people may view the image may be different, and Commons' licensing tags often carry disclaimers for this reason, but that's as far as Commons' responsibility goes with respect to downstream use. So either the whole photograph, including the sketch, is in the public domain in the U.S. and on Commons, or it isn't. So in my opinion the pixelated version either defeats the purpose of the image's use, or fails to address the copyright concern, and is therefore unnecessary.

Thoughts? Feel free to correct me on anything; my understanding of the ins and outs of copyright on Commons is not perfect. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If copyright seems difficult to understand at times, you are not alone. Assuming that the sketch is copyrighted and is not a case of de minimis with regard to the photo of Schulz, then it might be advisable to replace the content of File:Charles Schulz NYWTS.jpg with the version where the sketch is pixelated, and to then have an administrator hide the previous revision for File:Charles Schulz NYWTS.jpg in order to avoid copyright issues. This would seem less disruptive than deleting File:Charles Schulz NYWTS.jpg altogether. --Gazebo (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Commons does not take a stance on which version some project wants to use. So even if the original version is OK copyright wise, both versions have their place here. Each Wikipedia can then decide which version to use. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The photograph is in the public domain. The drawing of the Charlie Brown character is almost certainly not. In general, copyright law gives authors rights over derivative works -- those works where authors added additional expression, but an amount of expression from an underlying work is still copied in the new one. There are some limitations on that -- some copying can be deemed de minimis, and some other forms of copying might be protected by fair use. However, the exact boundaries of those and similar doctrines can vary quite a bit country to country. Therefore, even if we deem the original OK to use (since only U.S. law would come into play for the keep or not keep policy decision), its usage in other countries might be more problematic. Commons exists as a platform to supply media for uses anywhere -- we do try to provide enough information such that re-users can figure out whether a work is OK in their country of intended use. In a situation like this, it's best to have both versions; one which shows the original photo and runs more a risk of being considered a derivative work, and one which removes that possibility altogether if the portrait of Schultz himself is most important. Every project can then decide which is "better" from their perspective -- that is not something that Commons should care about. A specific language Wikipedia might be more attuned to the laws in the country of most likely use, and follow those. It could even be that one article might each be better served by the pixelated version, and another article the non-pixelated version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. So let's say that a given project wants to use the photograph to show what Schulz looked like, but is concerned about the potential copyright issue of showing the sketch of Charlie Brown. Wouldn't a better solution be to upload a cropped version of the original photo that removes the sketch from the frame, rather than pixelating-out the sketch and leaving it in frame? The pixelation looks...weird/bad, for lack of a more eloquent way of putting it. In my opinion it would be preferable to create a cropped version, swap it out for the uses of the pixelated version, then delete the pixelated version.
A follow-up question for Carl Lindberg: If the sketch of Charlie Brown is "almost certainly not" in the public domain, then how can the original File:Charles Schulz NYWTS.jpg be considered public domain to begin with? That's what I meant by "either the whole photograph is PD or it isn't"...the original image is marked as PD, so doesn't it have to be PD in its entirety for that license tag to be valid? If it's not, due to the presence of the sketch, then the licensing of the original image needs to be reconsidered, which would then presumably affect the license of any derivative works. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to upload a cropped version as a third alternative, that would be quite valid as well. Some may prefer to show him in action drawing at a desk, some may prefer the more cropped version. Again, "better" is not something that Commons cares about -- we want to provide as many alternate images (provided they are freely licensed) as people need. That is a matter for the editors of the individual articles, and better discussed there.
As for the second question, there is always some uncertainty there. Sometimes, even though a work is present, it can be deemed de minimis (i.e. it's a trivial use). In those cases, even though the work technically contains part of a copyrighted work, it's too insignificant to invoke any actual derivative rights. In other cases, more substantial uses can also be OK -- in the Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, the judge ruled that a photo of a vodka bottle would not be considered a derivative work of a copyrightable label on the bottle -- in that case, the bottle was the focus of the photo, and the label was merely "incidental" -- i.e. it was inherently there when taking a photo of a larger subject. There was a similar case about a photo of a motorcycle with copyrightable painted designs on it -- in that case, the subject was the motorcycle as a whole, so was not derivative (legally speaking) of the paintings. France had a similar case of a photo of an entire street, with a notable and copyrighted building at the end -- it was deemed to not be a derivative work, since the photo was of a larger scene and the copyrighted work was just an accessory to the larger scene, even though it was in the center. In any of those cases though, if you crop to focus on the copyrighted work, the situation would change -- that would be derivative. The Ets-Hokin decision said as much -- photos focusing on a copyrightable label would be derivative. And lastly, sometimes inclusion of another work could be deemed fair use in the context of the photograph, even in commercial situations. So, particularly in the incidental cases, we have generally allowed such works to be hosted, since using the photograph as-is would seem to be OK (and compare the Commons:freedom of panorama situation as well, though that would not apply here). It has been deemed too punitive to delete all images which contain any scrap of other copyrighted content -- rather we should follow situations which have actually been ruled as derivative works. Whether this photo qualifies can be debated -- there are no hard and fast rules to such exceptions. While somewhat close to the borderline, I would tend to lean that it's unlikely that a judge would allow Schultz' heirs to prevent a usage of the photograph as a whole, even say as commercial use on a postcard, on copyright grounds. But there could be some arguments made in that area; it's never possible to definitively say one way or another unless there is an actual judgement in a court. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, though in this case I think common sense rules that depicting a famous cartoonist at a drawing board, drawing the iconic character he is renowned for creating, with the character in full view, is not de minimus, since the copyrighted work is a key part of the subject and removing it makes the derivative work radically different. This being Commons, we are somewhat taking it on faith that the uploader's claim that original photograph is PD is correct. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I would agree it is not de minimis. Whether it could be ruled a derivative work is less certain. A court could say there was tacit permission to reproduce that drawing in the context of the photograph, as well (Schultz allowed the work to be taken that way, and I'm sure printed in whatever way the newspaper wanted). I imagine there would be people on both sides of the debate if nominated for deletion. I would still probably lean towards keep, myself, but that's just one opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

File:VGcaplet.jpg - Copyright issues with packaging and screen display

This image was transferred to Commons from the English Wikipedia by a third party. Though the photo itself has been released into the public domain, it is not clear as to whether the depicted packaging (which seems to be mostly textual) is copyrightable or not. Also, there is the question as to whether the screen display on the depicted device poses a copyright issue. --Gazebo (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say it's OK -- the packaging is mostly text and I don't see anything copyrightable there. The screen display isn't really a screen display -- it's a marketing sticker over the screen area, which I assume would be removed before actually using it. Or maybe it was a store display. In the Ets-Hokin decision, the judge said that a photo of a bottle would not be derivative of a copyrightable label on that bottle -- only if you focused in on the label itself. This seems to be a similar situation -- the focus is the entire device. It could be less certain if the packaging was more copyrightable, or if the photographer themselves selected a copyrighted scene to be present on the device. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

15.wikipedia.org

https://15.wikipedia.org/history.html: That page has multiple copyright infringements, it is using images from Commons and Flickr contributors without any attribution. Starting a list of the (ab)used content by the section-numbers given on the abusive website:

We need to take action to ensure our community's policies and laws are respected. (discuss on en:wp) --.js[democracy needed] 09:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by their claim that File:Two_Gambel's_Quail_(Callipepla_gambelii)_-_Paradise_Valley,_Arizona,_ca_2004.png is the first photo uploaded to Commons. Isn't File:Deer at the Sigean zoological park.jpg over a year and a half earlier? --ghouston (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
They may be right, since Commons was launched on 7 September 2004, according to [7], but then I'm not sure why there are apparently earlier files in its database. --ghouston (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
That riddle has only been partly solved: a database timestamp dating from 2003, see COM:Milestones + file history :) --.js[democracy needed] 12:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, it's the only file dated earlier than the Commons launch. Looking at Traroth's contributions, they created a user page on 2005-02-08 and uploaded some other animal pictures in March 2005. So I guess there was a software glitch that gave that file a bad timestamp. Maybe @Pigsonthewing: knows something about it, since he marked the other file as the oldest. --ghouston (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
While that's really interesting It think the best place for further investigation & discussion would be Commons talk:Milestones and File talk:Two Gambel's Quail (Callipepla gambelii) - Paradise Valley, Arizona, ca 2004.png or File talk:Quail1.PNG --.js[democracy needed] 10:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I seem to recall that User:Guillom investigated this very question − something funny with the database but I can’t remember. Maybe he can shed some light on this. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep. It's all in this facebook thread :) guillom 18:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow, this website says that Images are freely licensed with attribution. and there is no attribution at all. Looks like authors of this website knew about attribution but did not add attribution — NickK (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow, the foundation is really ... I am at a loss here. How can one be so ignorant and violate the spirit of the project they are claiming to represent so badly. --Sebari (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe they are relying on fair use, since the images are so small. But I don't know why they didn't make the images clickable through to Commons, which would also have given indirect attribution. --ghouston (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It was fixed now, see official statements here and there. --.js[democracy needed] 10:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing it to the attention of the right people. As you mention in that discussion, this seems to be a problem with how the Foundation trains their employees. It's very frustrating. --Sebari (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be great if you posted your thoughts there, too, Jimbo sees no problem like they always treat such as if it were a single occurence reported by an isolated hysterical user... --.js[democracy needed] 11:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
On Wikimedia projects, it is often the case where attribution for an image is provided by having the image function as a hyperlink to the image's information page. This mechanism is useful for facilitating attribution, but the 15.wikipedia.org page initially didn't do even that, from what one remembers. --Gazebo (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Which type of licence this photo is subjected to? File tagging File:Alla-Folsom.jpg =

I am writing a page about one person and want to upload a photo in the article. The photo is in open free access on her official web-site in the directory "Kit for mass-media" (http://www.budu-koroleva.ru/media-kit/photo.html). Do I still need to contact the person and ask to send me a licence permission for use of these photos? Thank you in advance.

You need to contact the photographer and request a written permission as specified on Commons:OTRS. Ruslik (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Montage of video screenshots

I'm curious about File:Pizap.com14530610906672.jpg, which is a montage of video screenshots. The montage itself may be the uploader's own creative work, but the screenshots are taken from the Grimm TV series, and the photographer (or show production company) would own the copyright for the photos. Therefore this seems to be a derivative of other copyrighted work. The uploader tagged it as "own work" CC-BY-SA. What would be the proper status? And does this even belong on commons, or would there be a fair use rationale for hosting the image on Wikipedia instead? Amatulic (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios as the other uploads of this user - deleted. --Denniss (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

use of imagery

Hello

Am I free to use images published here?

I would like to use an amended image of the Lord Protectors coat of arms published by Sodacan?

Thanks (109.145.178.232 10:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC))

Please see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia, which should answer your questions. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

URAA and copyright restored at the foreign source country

Hi there. URAA restores copyright in the U.S. on foreign works that were still copyrighted in the foreign source country on the URAA date, which is January 1, 1996 for most countries. Okay. Fine. But what if copyright was restored in the foreign source country itself after that date? Particularly, in case of Russia (URAA date is January 1, 1996), where some works went into public domain in 1993, 1994, 1995 but their copyright was restored in 2008 when new Russian copyright law went into effect (these some works went back into copyright protected domain). Does not URAA restoration of copyright in the U.S. also work on those works? Hinote (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes in the source country after the URAA date have no further effect on the U.S. copyright status. The U.S. copyright term gets set on the URAA date, and after that, only changes in U.S. law would affect them. In general, the U.S. uses "national treatment" -- they give foreign authors the same rights and terms as U.S. authors. The URAA was a one-time event to conform to the terms of the Berne Convention. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks alot! Everything is clear now. Hinote (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User wrongly uploading under a CC license

Hello,

Most — if not all — of the uploads of Raphaelbaudet2015 have been made under a CC license, but they are all logos and he is obviously not the author. Some of theses logos might be requalified under {{PD-textlogo}}, but maybe not all. What is the procedure in that case? --Superbenjamin (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think he's a rogue user, complain at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Otherwise, nominate problematic files for deletion. AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Planet nine.jpg

This image was uploaded today by @Radialvelocity: . There is no copyright tag on this image. I became curious as to how this image might be licensed. Note that the image can be found at the source noted on the image file, and note the caption on the image states "Credit: Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)". I found IPAC's advice regarding the reuse of imagery here, and that page indicates this image should be available under a license compatible with Commons. However, I've not been able to find a license appropriate to the purpose at Commons:Copyright tags. The closest is {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, but this is inaccurate as this agency, while working closely with NASA, is not NASA itself, at least no direct 'ownereship' of IPAC is indicated on their 'About IPAC' page. Suggestions? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Does {{Copyrighted free use}} fit - does that site own the copyrights to the images?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll say delete this thing and re-upload on Wikipedia as fair use for now, unless things change. --Fazbear7891 (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems a bit more complicated than I expected - see the deletion discussion here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation or not?

The title is pretty self-explanatory. I took this picture in 167th Street (IRT Jerome Avenue Line) two years ago, and have been holding it back for a while. ----DanTD (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Simply put, is a picture of this poster within the station legal or not?
 Comment This poster is quite simple, so it might fall under {{PD-ineligible}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence-verify-CC0 1.0-2200pdfs

I am one of the person in the List_of_Wikipedians_in_Residence(see the table serial number-94). In my outreach, i have got this license from our goverment. For the first phase, I am going to upload ~2200pdf books from the academy. This is the first pdf file for the license verifiction. Please, check the first file to upload all the pdfs. Thanks in advance.--Info-farmer (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Related: User_talk:Jkadavoor#Licence_and_review. Jee 01:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
A tag added by User:Yann, An administrator(commons). Thank you--Info-farmer (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of Cradiff.png

I have a question about File:Coat of Arms of Cradiff.png. The source listed for the files is ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Cardiff. That looks like a wiki page of some kind, but at the very bottom is says "© since 1996, Heraldry of the World, Ralf Hartemink". Also, the files added to that wiki(?) must have come from somewhere else, right? Don't we need to know the original source of the image? Heraldry of the World:General disclaimer says "Use of the images in Wikipedia is allowed with reference to this site and/or the original source as mentioned on the site.", but I'm not sure if that is sufficient to ensure that every image added to that site has is freely licensed to begin with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In general, it says for Dutch arms to use {{NGW}}. For non-Dutch arms, {{NGW2}} -- which is just a source tag, and is no indication of a license. This would be the latter, so there is no evidence of the license, correct. I think the source page indicates that it comes from a 1932 book (author died 1982 but not sure if that was also the illustrator). It should be nominated for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for checking Clindberg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about my uploads

Is there someone available to assist me with uploading images? I have photos from PBS, ASU and CNN that have been approved to be uploaded, but not exactly sure of the process or what I need from each of these groups in order to have the photos uploaded. I have other photos that were taken by my children and have requested approval from permissions-commons, but not sure what to do with these ticket numbers or if they have been already been approved. The wiki site is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriana_Sanford#cite_note-:13-3

Please advise.

Thank you679699sof (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that you have already put {{OTRS pending}} on most of your uploads and this is sufficient. Our volunteer email team will evaluate the email you sent to permissions-commons but this may take several weeks to months. If any your photographs has not been published before and you are in fact the original photographer we don't need a confirnation. The more immediate issue seems to be File:Beyond The Curve Show.jpg though which has been marked for missing permission. Did you include this in your email? If so, please add the OTRS string to that file too.
As to images taken by your children, we always need permission from the original photographer so each of them would have to licence their own photographs. So I think it would be easiest if your children uploaded their photographs individually. Please note though that if any of those images have been published before we would also need a confirmation of authorship and licensing by email. De728631 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Just for reference De728631, I originally added {{No permission since}} to some of 679699sof's uploads and replaced them with {{OP}} because 679699sof said they sent in emails to OTRS. The only "NPS" tag I didn't replace was for "Beyond The Curve Show" and that was because it seems to be a professionally taken PR photo which is quite different in style from the others said to have been taken by the uploader's children. So, I wasn't sure what to do even though uploader said they sent an OTRS email. If it's OK to add {{OP}} despite all of that, let me and I'll do it asap. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the information and for updating the file pages but now we need to hear the full story from 679699sof. In the end, they need to confirm that they took this photo and didn't just copy it somewhere else. So let's just wait for their response to my question. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like File:Beyond The Curve Show.jpg is the same as the background image in this youtube upload (i.e. this image). Also, it would seem, a copy of File:Radio Talk.jpg (same uploader) which was also recently deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks De728631 and Clindberg for further checking. I did a Google Image search of "Beyond The Curve Show" and it does seem to be being used in quite a few Youtube uploads like the one Clindberg points out above. I guess it's still possible that one of 679699sof's children, but as I said above it seems more like a professionally taken PR photo than some of the other photos submitted by 679699sof. Hopefully, 679699sof will respond and further clarify the image. I left a post at en:User talk:679699sof#Wikimedia Commons questions the other day, but no response has yet been posted there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright. The deadline for verifying the free licence for the radio image will expire on 29 January but if 679699sof or his children can confirm their authorship and licensing then we could just restore the file. De728631 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-Look

This template is... a little weird. The Library of Congress, as an additional service not actually related to instrument of gift provides notes on some of the photographers in their collection.

However, the template throws up major warnings for anyone without an explicit page, even if they were definitely a staff photographer for LOOK, and thus definitely covered by the instrument of gift. Take Bob Sandberg (or Robert Sandberg, if you prefer) He was a 32 year veteran of LOOK magazine. However, if you put him into the template, as can be seen at File:Jackie Robinson, Brooklyn Dodgers, 1954.jpg, the template offers no way to turn off the warning.

The thing is, here's the information page about the release of the LOOK archives. The key phrase is: Copyright to photographs not produced by LOOK staff photographers may be retained by the photographer and/or his or her heirs.

In short, the warning should be turned off for Sandberg. So, how do we handle this? One simple solution is to simply add the evidence that Sandberg was a LOOK photographer into the template (preferably under both "Robert" and "Bob"). But it's also clear that there may be other photographers poorly handled by this template, so would anyone object to a simple override for the warning? E.g. "Staff photographer = yes"? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added both suggestions as it seems obvious. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Playrix Logo.png

How does this not meet the threshold of originality? It is not just "simple geometric shapes or text", even the word "Playrix" would be copyrighted.
Link: File:Playrix Logo.png
Picture: File:Playrix Logo.png
Anarchyte (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 Info I nominated the file for deletion. --★ Poké95 07:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Pokéfan95. Anarchyte (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and just closed this as a speedy deletion, no reason to wait, it's blatantly not even 'debatably' close to being below the TOO, and the source makes an explicit copyright claim. (For anyone that missed it, it's the image at the very top right of http://www.playrix.com/ of the baby dragon). Revent (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 11:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Flick and PD

Hi2all! I didnt knew that CC0 license from flick not allowed in wiki, as result I uploaded 4 images under this license. this, this, this and this. From one side now I must nominate for deletion this images, but from the other side, this photos author is Yellowstone National Park. Its a US goverment organization. Anybody can explain can we keep this images or can't? :) Thanks. Cap1000 (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cap1000! I think there are a couple of misunderstandings here. Firstly, as noted at Commons:Flickr files, there's a difference between {{CC-zero}} (which is a public domain release of a previously copyrighted work by the copyright holder) and Public Domain Mark (which is used to assert that a work is already in the public domain for some usually unspecified reason). {{CC-zero}} files from Flickr are compatible with Commons' copyright requirements as long as the Flickr uploader has the actual authority to release the work. Public Domain Mark files may or may not be OK; it depends on whether one can identify a valid reason as to why the works are supposedly in the public domain and find a tag with a suitable PD rationale. The files in question should be fine to tag with {{PD-USGov-NPS}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
...like this. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright on old newspaper photos

I have found a bunch of photos from a US newspaper circa late 1920s that I would like to upload. The photos have no copyright notices. Can I upload them under PD-US-no notice? Or is it simply assumed in that circumstance that the copyright lies with the newspaper? Gatoclass (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • You will have to check if the newspaper has a copyright notice. If so, then the photos are covered by that copyright notice (unless they are used in advertisements, which needed separate copyright notices). Also, the copyright to many newspapers wasn't renewed, so you could also check whether the newspaper renewed its copyrights or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Stefan, I'm sure the newspaper will have a copyright notice somewhere inside it, but a failure to renew copyright sounds like an avenue worth exploring :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said, the newspaper is late 1920s so the pre-1923 tag unfortunately doesn't apply. Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You could check UPenn's periodical renewal list. I think they have said that no newspapers outside of New York were renewed prior to 1945. If photos were made by the newspaper's staff, they are probably OK. If they are from an agency like the Associated Press, it gets cloudier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are NoDerivatives & NonCommercial not allowed?

as far as I can see, those two restrictions mean that the image should not be edited or used for profit. apart from adding a "don't edit this image" comment to it, what is the issue and why was it flagged as non-free? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see the need to have images without restrictions. I personally think the gains from having strict restrictions do not outweigh the need for having access to better/more images, but I guess this has been discussed to death in the past, and it's easier to just accept that's the way it is. I shall be a touch more careful with what I try to upload in the future. Thanks for the reply. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Spacecowboy420: A lot of the benefits are invisible: If you create a culture of free content, you'll get a lot of stuff released as fully free content that otherwise you'd get under a much more restrictive license. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Spacecowboy420: Not allowing NC or ND restrictions goes way, way back in project history. One of the original parts of the whole concept was that it would be allowable for third parties to repackage Wikipedia (and Commons) content and distribute it offline.. (a print Wikipedia, or WP-on-DVD). Something like WikiWand or Answers.com would not be able to legally mirror any content from a WMF project without explicitly removing the parts with restrictions (since they are for-profit organizations), and it would likely be effectively impossible to do so (and even if possible, incredibly burdensome). Even just a ND restriction would be problematic, since such projects are derivatives 'as a whole'. Revent (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

ASKfm's Owlcat

Recently, ASKfm has changed their designs. The wordmark, although quite elaborate, I believe is not meeting the threshold for originality, while their mascot, Owlcat, is quite questionable. I want to know if it their mascot can be under copyright. - Gacelisnothing (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The mascot is above the threshold for originality. Ruslik (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. The wordmark itself is PD-text, despite it's use of a couple of fancy fonts... simple text, in whatever font, is still simple text. The mascot, though, would IMO be ruled as original (and copyrightable) unless there was essentially identical prior art, and it would have to be pretty obviously taken from a PD source for us to be able to assume that. Revent (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Screenshots of Google Chrome

I need to start this discussion again, because the last DR of the Google Chrome screenshots process was very vicious.

  • There is a previous DR resolved as Kept with broad concensus
  • The arguments presented by me was not enough (considering in special the Threshold of originality)
  • There are some screenshots of Microsoft Edge and even Internet Explorer, where have DRs resolved as Kept

So,

  • Are the Chromium (and by extension Google Chrome) graphic assests actually above the TOO? namely
  • Should be the Microsoft IE and Edge screenshots deleted, invoking to the non-free software statement and ignoring the TOO?
  • What happening in Commons? Is Ellin beltz (who resolved the DR as kept) the best admin to deal with complex copyvio cases?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitie 10g (talk • contribs)

Hi Amitie: Please remember to sign your correspondence with four "tilde" characters so that the system knows who wrote what. I have no idea if I'm the best admin to deal with closing Deletion Nominations or not, but I considered all the arguments in this lengthy situation. I then closed it as best as I could based on the discussion in that specific nomination and that is all I can do based on what I was given and working within COM:AGF. The fact that "other stuff exists" is not usually used in Deletion Nomination discussions - either pro or con for retention or deletion. I would point your attention to "If the screenshot shows any work that is not a direct result of the program code itself, such as a text or graphics that are not part of the program, the license for that work must be indicated separately. For example {{Free screenshot|{{Apache|The Android Open Source Project}}." Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
First, the main discussion here is the Threshold of originality.
As you mentioned "If the screenshot shows any work that is not a direct result of the program code itself, such as a text or graphics that are not part of the program, the license for that work must be indicated separately", the graphic assests are part of the program because them are part of the Chromium source code, licensed under the BSD, but clearly bellow the Threshold of originality in the US (that is part of the US Copyright Law); so, you may just answer if these shapes are above or bellow the TOO in the US.
And, I mentioned Is Ellin beltz (who resolved the DR as kept) the best admin to deal with complex copyvio cases? because I thing another admin could closed the DR as kept, like the previous one (considering, again, the TOO). Deleting a file based in a Copyright notice rather what the US Copyright Law actually says a huge problem, and IMHO, a Deletion policy violation. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: First, and a bit emphatically, the VPC is not an appropriate place to make complaints about the behavior of another editor. If you want to question the correctness of her close of the particular case here, fine. If you want to talk about her competence to close DRs in general, you know where to go, and it's certainly not here.
Secondly, the discussion itself... you ending up arguing as to why the PRP 'should not be applied' to the particular case. That argument is a complete nonstarter, the PRP is a site-wide content policy, and it would be completely out of line for an admin to choose to disregard it in a particular case, even if there was a 'local consensus' among some small group to do so. Even if you think her close was 'factually wrong', it would have been wrong for any closing admin to have ignored the PRP in this case, or indeed in any deletion discussion, even if it had not been mentioned.
Third, your citation of 'viral licenses' as part of your argument (i.e, that such viral licenses override the Google TOS) is completely wrong. Really, it is. If a creator includes material under a supposedly 'viral license' in their own derivative work, that does not 'forcibly' apply the terms of the viral license to their own contributions, it would at most mean that they violated the license of the 'viral' material, and thus committed copyright infringement. Even if they have committed copyright infringement, that in no way affects their ownership of their own parts of the derivative work, and using the derivative work under the 'viral license' in such a case would itself be a blatant copyright violation. Revent (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
So, I assume trat you read and understanded the whole Google Chrome TOS when you mentioned your citation of 'viral licenses' as part of your argument (i.e, that such viral licenses override the Google TOS) is completely wrong, because the TOS mentions explicitely that the separate agreements override the TOS (namely, the third party libraries licensed under the GPL, LGPL and the MPL/GPL/LGPL Tri-license) included in Chromium (don't forget that Google Chrome is based on the Chromium source code). Therefore, neither The Chromium Projects nor Google commited copyvio when Google released Chrome under the TOS (that, again, explicitely mentions the licenses as separated agreements). If Google actually commited copyvio, the dozens of developers that contributed to Chromium (including The Chromium Projects) just instructed to Google to release Google Chrome under the same conditions of the Chromium (the BSD license), but it never ocurred in the several yeaqrs of the existence of Google Chrome.
But, Google need to distribute Google Chrome with some propietary elements, that should be released as closed source. Then, there is the TOS, to release its code as closed source without affecting code under licenses that explicitely forbid it.
So, Who of you wrere taken the time to read carefuly the whole Google Chrome TOS, the GPL, Apache, and even the BSD license? At least me.
And finally, the question is simple, are or not the graphics assests above or bellow the TOO? Neither of the user that participated here even mentioned it.--Amitie 10g (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the Google TOS, which essentially (without quoting them verbatim) states that Google does not claim that that their terms apply to material that they don't own, but are themselves using under an open source license. You completely missed my point, as it applied to the argument you made at the DR, and to the actual effect of a supposedly 'viral' license.
More to the point, the original DR was toxic because you made it so, and refused to listen to people telling you were wrong. When Ellin closed it, you came here to spend as much time questioning her competence as you did mentioning your actual copyright issue (while not actually giving enough detail that someone could understand the argument without re-reading the whole DR). When I expressed... not even a third opinion, but at least a fifth or sixth... that you were wrong, you questioned my good faith and competence, by trying to imply that I had not bothered to read.
The question here is becoming... at what point will you actually admit that you are even 'possibly' incorrect, and not claim (or imply) that the opinions of anyone that disagrees with you are somehow invalid?
The 'real' situation... Google Chrome (and Chromium) both use both open source code, and code written by (and copyrighted by) Google. Google designed the UI, using individual graphical elements some of which are themselves, individually, under the TOO. The overall 'design and arrangement' of the UI is, however, not a matter for the threshold of originality... unless actually copying prior art, essentially any arrangement of PD elements that is not in some way 'obvious' is going to be copyrightable, as 'any' specifically identifiable point of originality is all that it takes under US law for the work as a whole to be copyrighted.
That being said, Google has every right to release the exact same code, authored by them, under multiple licenses. A screenshot of Chromium is freely licensed, because it was produced by freely licensed software. The code written by Google is undoubtably copyrighted, it's just freely licensed as Chromium. A screenshot of Chrome, even if the actual image is identical, and the actual lines of code executed to produce the displayed pixels were identical, is not, because it was not produced by software distributed under a free license. Both are copyrighted, but one is freely licensed and the other is not. It is vaguely within the realm of possibility that a court might disagree (and that seems to be the argument you were making, that we should keep it unless Google sues). The argument you made, that we should ignore the PRP, is quite simply doomed to fail. The mission of Commons is to host content that we know is either PD or freely licensed, not to host 'as much as we can get away with that people aren't going to sue us over'. Even if we think that the issue I just stated, that identical images generated by both free and non-free code are not both free, is open to valid debate, the PRP (i.e., longstanding community consensus that a discussion between a dozen people at a particular DR is not going to overrule) says that we can't keep material where there is a significant doubt.
The question of if an image of an individual graphic design element was below the TOO isn't being addressed because you linked a number of such images that are not only obviously not above the TOO, but were not deleted. Arrangements of such elements into a UI are a completely separate issue, as is the code that actually generates such an arrangement. It you want to object to Elin's judgement, take it to ANU. If you want to object to the PRP itself, open an RFC. If you want to contest the deletion of a specific file as being itself incorrect, take it to COM:DRV. If you simply want to claim that you are right, and everyone else is wrong? Have fun with that. Revent (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Than, Why other admins decided to resolve as Kept the DRs related to Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer?
And, how can determine if the copyright holder of the UI assests is Google or The Chromium Projects, without seeing the source code? --Amitie 10g (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: I can't really comment on the other DRs you're referring to without actually seeing them, and I certainly can't speak for those admins, but many many browser screenshots have been deleted, and many have had the UI cropped out. This particular DR was discussed ad nauseum, the consensus indeed seemed to be for deletion.
As far as your second question... Google created Chrome, and then licensed most of it as Chromium. Since Chrome existed first (literally) you rather have to assume that Google created the UI, and they thus own it. If you can't provide evidence that the Chrome UI is freely licensed, then you can't upload screenshots of it. It really doesn't matter if someone else can't prove that it isn't freely licensed. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to upload a particular image. Revent (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We need a clear end to this

Public Domain Mark. The stupid tag that Flickr adopted as it's public domain tag for old and already in public domain images. However users has used it on their own images, and per {{Flickr-public domain mark}} we have deleted almost all those images from our collection of images here on Commons. Hoever there are still some that remains. THose images listed on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:James Horner for instance. I know this is bordering on canvassing, but all I'm asking is for broader inpput, since these are amongst the only images left with such "license" tag from Flickr. And almost all others has been deleted. We need uniformity. Please add your comments and thoughts there and make this madness end. Either delete these, or undelte the other hundreds deleted... Josve05a (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

To me, if it's clear that it the Flickr user's own work, I would just tag them as {{PD-author}}. Yes, CC0 is by far the more recommended tag to use, but humans will probably understand what "public domain mark" means more naturally than "creative commons zero" and will often just use that instead. No way should we auto-import them though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but then we still has to ask ourself, has the user agreed to what is actually said in the template we put on the images. We need to have a good faith belief when we put such an action, and there is no way I could support us, or do a license review, claiming that a user has agreed to any such terms ("grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.") without actually being able to see that they have done so. It might be their intention, but we can't act on intention. I might intend to do something criminally, but I can't be convicted of that crime unless I do it (I may be convicted for intending to do it, but that's a different charge). We need to have something concrete to be able to say that they actually has agreed to it. Otherwise we are license laundering. Josve05a (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
We use PD-author for whenever someone says "I place this in the public domain" or whatever equivalent there is to that. It's not a word-for-word license; it's a bit more generic than that. I highly doubt we got an explicit agreement to that specific wording from basically any author where that tag is used -- if we did, we'd be better off asking for agreement to CC0 in the first place. We need something when people say "this is public domain", or equivalent statements, and PD-author is generally it -- that situation does come up. It's pretty silly to not accept statements like that on non-Wiki sites, when it's clear the statement comes from the author (and they have a good enough idea of what the concept means). The author's intent is generally clear. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
But nowhere has the users said that "I place this in the public domain", they have said (by chosing the license) "I intend to put this in the public domain". There's a legal difference of doing and intending to do. Josve05a (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
They have said "This work has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission."[8] That says nothing about their future intentions; it says the work is PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. The only way the tag is possible is if the work has been placed in the public domain (past tense) by the author. Thus, the PD-author tag makes the most sense to me. Or if not, then we need another valid tag to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the fishy part about the licence is this: "Unless expressly stated otherwise, the person who identified the work makes no warranties about the work,... When using or citing the work, you should not imply endorsement by the author or the person who identified the work." This means we can't be sure that the author actually agreed to such a waiver of copyright. It just means that someone else has identified the work as PD without providing any warranties. And what is most important imo: without a statement from the author this licence cannot be verified. De728631 (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
If an author is tagging their own work, i.e. they are the same person as the "identifier", then yes should assume that. I mean, Commons' own general disclaimer says much the same thing. So we just pass that possibility through -- we just note the author identified their own work as public domain (i.e. lack of copyright protection), when they are the ultimate authority on said copyright protection, and we think that's enough -- but any re-user should make their own determination. The intent is clear to me. If an author took the time to look at the fine hairs of the wording like that, they'd figure out what CC0 was. This is more about users thinking they found the correct tag for what they want, and not picking the best one, but one which is close enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The author is not the ultimate authority on copyright protection. Copyright laws state that copyright protection is mandatory and the author can't have any influence on that, other than by licensing the material.
The Creative Commons page says This work has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. This typically means that the user who identified the material as such has discovered that the file satisfies the conditions in the {{PD-old-80-1923}} template. The Creative Commons page says nothing about the material being licensed under any licence whatsoever, so if the file doesn't satisfy the conditions in the {{PD-old-80-1923}} template, then the statement on Flickr seems to be bogus and should be ignored. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The copyright owner is pretty much the ultimate authority on their own copyright. If they say there are no known copyright restrictions, then the restrictions which they have the right to impose have been given up. Yes, CC0 is more formal and better practice, but there are many forms of "I place this work in the public domain" that exist out there and we use PD-author for those. It's not a license, no, but an indication of abandonment of their copyright (or economic right). I really don't see a reason for Commons to disallow such works, and an author putting that tag on their own work basically amounts to the same thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's say that the copyright owner states that there are no known copyright restrictions at one point, but then sues someone for copyright violation and states that copyright restrictions since have become known. The sued person will have to prove that there are no copyright restrictions on the material, while the copyright owner probably only has to prove that the is the copyright owner. The court might question why the copyright owner at one point stated that there were no known copyright restrictions, but if he responds that I thought that copyright protection didn't extend to photographs but learnt that I was wrong when I spoke to a lawyer, then the court would probably accept that the picture is unfree and that all rights are reserved. If the photographer is lying to the court, it would basically be up to the user of the photograph to prove that the photographer is lying. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The copyright owner would have to explain why he put the public domain mark on the work and why it would not apply. His own copyright does not suddenly become "known" later on -- it existed when he put the mark on. It would be a form of en:abandonment. You are basically saying we cannot trust anyone who says they put the work into the public domain in any circumstance without a very formal license statement. While those might be preferable, but we should deal with other situations too and not get overly legalistic about it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Adding the 'public domain mark' is only a statement that you think that the material is not copyrighted but not a statement that you have abandoned any rights. If the copyright holder states that he added the mark because he intended to abandon his rights, then fine, a court would probably say that the copyright to the work has been abandoned and can't be enforced (although the rights may become un-abandoned in some countries upon the death of the author). On the other hand, if the copyright holder states that he added the tag because he misunderstood how copyright protection works and replaced the tag with "all rights reserved" when he learnt about his mistake, a court would probably not say that he has abandoned any rights. Also, if he added the tag for some reason A, but states that he instead added the tag for some reason B, then the person who was sued will typically have to provide evidence that the tag was added for reason A if reason A is more beneficial to the sued person than reason B. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"Upon the death of the author" is its own bugbear; in the US, a copyright renewal can give heirs the right to revoke any "perpetual" license.
A person who labeled their own work as public domain despite every right to leave it unlicensed is not going to be in an easy position in court. It will differ from country to country, region to region, and probably judge to judge, but people who make statements adverse to their own interests and then sue those who rely on them tend to get looked on poorly by courts.
Lastly, there's nothing special about Flickr here. Anyone who uploads to Commons, under a PD license, material they scanned or photographed could sue on the same grounds. They might actually have a better claim, since we (unlike Flickr) lead them (correctly or not) to ignore any rights they may have in the reproduction of PD works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Carl Lindberg here for "own works" by the Flickr users. I had notified this matter to Diane long ago and didn't heard back anything so far. It seems a Flickr-CC initiative; so they must responded if there is a serious issue. Anyway, those Flickr users can't sue any as they themselves made those statement; so reusers seem safe. Jee 03:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I would (and I was, actually, AFAIK the one that raised this issue, or made it a 'big deal') agree that, in the specific case where the owner of the Flickr album was unambiguously the actual author of the image, that the PD Mark (a statement that the image is PD) and a CC-0 license (that I, as the author, am affirmatively licensing the image under terms equivalent to it being PD) are functionally equivalent. It seems unlikely that a court would uphold a claim of copyright infringement on the grounds of what would essentially be an argument that the author was acting in bad faith when declaring that their own work was PD..... in countries that have a legal tradition based on British common law. My argument was more along the lines of that we were in many cases claiming that authors had not just stated that the image was PD, but claiming that they had agreed to a specific legally binding license statement (the CC-0) when they had not actually done so. The CC-0 does not place an image in the public domain, and it does not even claim to do so, it "dedicates the work to the public domain" (which has no legal effect other than as a statement of intent) and "waives all rights to the work under copyright law to the extent legally allowable" (paraphrased), which is in and of itself a legal statement based upon that the person who licenses the work under the CC-0 owns the copyright.. they cannot waive their rights without actually asserting that they own them. It's not "this is PD", it's that "I make a legally binding promise to not enforce any rights I might have". I have no complaint about us stating that the author claimed that their own work is PD (and thus effectively gave up their rights), I have a complaint about us stating that they explicitly agreed to a specific license statement (even if it is functionally equivalent) when they did not. The difference is the exact reason why the CC-0 includes text stating "to the extent allowed by law", and why PD-author says "In some countries this may not be legally possible". Some countries (in the Spanish legal tradition) do not allow a person to give up legal rights that belong to their heirs.. that is the entire reason for the 'in some countries' statement. The "PD Mark" statement has no lasting effect in such a jurisdiction... it is not a 'contract', it's just effectively a statement of ignorance (I don't mean the person choosing it is ignorant, I mean they are 'ignorant of any restrictions'). If such restrictions exist that they are unaware of, or that they do not have the legal right to give up (the legal rights of their heirs) then it's effectively meaningless once those rights no longer belong to them (i.e., they died). Revent (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Carl Lindberg, and Jee, and Revent. Let me link to two specific discussions:
where Josve05a has nominated two photographs of the Governor of South Carolina by the Office of the Governor of the State of South Carolina for deletion on these grounds that the Office of the Governor didn't actually mean it when they said they were public domain. If a few people would weigh in there, that would be appreciated. --GRuban (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
✓ DoneThank you User:Yann! --GRuban (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Aaaand it's reopened. :-( The main discussion seems to be at Commons:Deletion requests/File:J. Yancey McGill and Nikki Haley.jpg. --GRuban (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Images of Sega Genesis/Mega Drive region lock error screens--above the threshold of originality?

Would this screenshot or this other screenshot be below the threshold of originality for the purposes of Commons? (In particular, would {{PD-text}} apply to either screenshot?) As far as the country of origin, the first screenshot is from the video game Mickey Mania: The Timeless Adventures of Mickey Mouse but the origin of the second screenshot was not specified. --Gazebo (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:VitalyDruchenok

We've so many similar templates, including approved by me in my OTRS time. But while looking back to them, I see an imperfection. It claims "This permission only extends to photos taken by xyz at this link". But we are not reviewing whether those files exist in that link in a particular date. Chances that those sites disappear. Chances that authors delete their works from there. Then we've no evidence for those files had published there. So I think every file under such permission need to be reviewed by COM:LR or a similar mechanism. Jee 03:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Now,Template:Vitaly Druchenok. Odder could you comment on how logical this template is? I don't know which OTRS volunteer approved it. Jee 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Not being an OTRS agent, either, I don't know who approved it, but I recall @Base confirm that it was a genuine release by the photographer, Vitaly Druchenok, who agreed that all the files he uploads to that site will be released under CC BY-SA 4.0. Perhaps Base can comment on this once again. odder (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. We usually can recognize the volunteer through the user parameter which is missing here. That's not my main issue. I feel the wording is not logically safe enough to assure those files are from that pool. Let us wait for Base's comment. Jee 11:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Right; I'm not sure it was Base who accepted the permission, I know he confirmed it to be genuine at one point, but it might have been someone else who dealt with the ticket. As for the source, I think it all comes to the assumption that Vitaly Druchenok owns the "Vitaly" account on that website, but I do agree it's better that we wait for Base (or any other OTRS agent, for that matter) to confirm that the ticket is indeed valid. odder (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Ahonc is who responded to the ticket. Storkk (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the language used in the license release can't really be regarded as confidential in this case. It is: "I am the copyright holder of photographs found at http://spotters.net.ua/search/?user=Vitaly and I agree to licence these photographs under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." In this case, I believe it is not problematic that it was forwarded, because there is a note on the ticket stating that it was confirmed "via feedback form on site.". This doesn't address the inherent problems with "on site xyz at date DDD", which I agree is potentially problematic. Storkk (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Storkk for looking into it. Yes, the problem is not with the permission; but with the logic applied in the template. We can't verify each file this way. So pinging odder and Ahonc again. Jee 17:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion that each file should be reviewed in a matter similar to Flickr and other external sources (by a license reviewer), noting the date when the file was confirmed to exist at Spotters.net.ua, as is the procedure with Flickr and others. odder (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we should no longer accept this wording. For general releases I think we have two safe options:
  1. The photographer releases all his work
  2. The photographer releases a part of his work, but this is specified in a way that can be reconstructed. E.g. a release of all his pictures of planes, or all pictures listed on a provided list
In the end a permission is only reliable if we have registered what files are included in the permission. Jcb (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks odder and Jcb. It is very late from my side to find this logical loophole. I don't know what to do with existing uploads under several similar templates. (I think I approved a few earlier.) May be a code expert like Zhuyifei1999 can run a script to mark them existing in those sites? Jee 01:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jee: There were just 8 files from that source, and so I marked them all as reviewed by hand earlier today (and forgot to mention it until now). odder (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
General notes... files uploaded as 'present on site at date' should have the source page either verified as in the Wayback Machine (www.archive.org) as of that date, or added to it when checked. The Internet Archive is the 'definite record' for such things. Theoretically, every image that is not, to all available evidence 'own work' should eventually be reviewed. That the "PD Review" project died is a pet peeve... it is a subset (though more specialized) of license review, and verifying the PD status of images is just as important. It does, however, need more technical knowledge than the typical (yes the source says this license) of license review, but.... LRs should be paranoid anyhow, about sources that am themselves copyvios. When I do reviews (and typically, I do other things) I consider Google Images and Tineye searches for prior online publication to be mandatory, and I think all reviewers should do the same. Revent (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/01&oldid=372572667"