Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/02

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

Photographs of copies of older artworks?

I would like to upload a photograph of a sculpture of Pierre Le Moyne in Mobile, Alabama. It was installed in 2002, but it is a copy of this bronze in Quebec, which was created in 1923 by Elzéar Soucy (1876 - 1970). What is the copyright status of a copy of a sculpture, when the sculpture itself is no longer under copyright? Tim D. Williamson (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it be covered under Replicas of Public Domain Works? - Tim D. Williamson (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the original sculpture is PD yet. It wasn't published before 1923 (for PD US) and the artist died less than 50 years ago (for PD Canada). Canada has freedom of panorama for sculptures, which makes photographs of the original sculpture OK, but doesn't change its copyright status. --rimshottalk 07:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reply, and for clearing this up for me. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 08:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Rosa Parks being fingerprinted by Deputy Sheriff D.H. Lackey after being arrested for boycotting public transportation - Original.jpg

Can I just get a quick review? I'm pretty sure this is correctly done, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is correctly done provided that it was indeed published without a copyright notice, which is difficult for me to check. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

What is the procedure when a Flickr user adopts a more restrictive license?

Hi,

Apologies for if I could have found the answer somewhere else. I'm not a wikipedian, I am a copyright researcher that wants to understand your processes. I don't know where to look. Suppose an image is available under CC BY 2.0 on Flickr. I upload that image to commons and used it in an article. Now I see that the license has been changed to, for example, an CC BY-NC-ND license. I know that the licenses are perpetual and that I am still legally be able to use it, however external information that confirms that this was released under CC BY 2.0 has been removed. How do you deal with these situations?

Thanks,

--Martsniez (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Martsniez: Basically, we're using a four-eyes-system to record the license at the time of upload: Commons:License review --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You can add template {{Flickr-change-of-license}} to such files. --Sporti (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Martsniez: We license reviewers will not and never change the file's license to the restrictive license the Flickr user stated, as the freer license is irrevocable. We also have {{Flickr-change-of-license}} for such files, as stated by Sporti above. ★ Poké95 11:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Frankie-the-Troubadour With gold Ribbon.jpg

File has been uploaded as own work, but I'm wondering if it could be {{PD-CAGov}} instead since its description says it is the "This shows our mascot, Frankie the Troubadour, with the California Gold Ribbon Award that was given in 2015 to recognize our outstanding CTE-AME program." The California Department of Education's webpage about the California Gold Ribbon Schools Program contains a link to this logo, but I couldn't find anything for "Frankie the Troubadour" at all. A Google image search came up with this, but that is only the troubadour part and seems to a logo used by an individual school. No source is provided for the file and it's not being used in any articles on Wikipedia, so not sure if this OK for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The license

May I upload this image [1]? --Maksimilian karlovich (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Maksimilian karlovich: The original woodcut (from 1876) has been in the public domain for a very long time now, so it's fine. A 'faithful reproduction' of an old two-dimensional PD work of art is still PD. Revent (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Maksimilian karlovich (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Two images of sculptures by Eugene Daub

The following two photos are of sculptures by Eugene Daub, who is still alive. In short, it is not clear that the sculptures are out of copyright or freely licensed.

From its description, the Harvey Milk memorial sculpture was unveiled in 2008, and the description for the Rosa Parks sculpture implies that the sculpture may have been unveiled around 2013. The descriptions do not say when either sculpture was created. (Harvey Milk died in 1978, so it seems unlikely that the memorial sculpture about him was created before that year.) In addition, the descriptions imply that the sculptures are located in the US, which means that freedom of panorama is unlikely to apply. Thoughts? --Gazebo (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You almost answered your own questions – the images should be deleted. Ruslik (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Cesare Battisti by Adolfo Wildt.jpg

There is a personal template with a legal clause incompatible with the creative commons license. What to do. Delete the template or the image?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pierpao: are you referring to User:Moroder/Template:Credits? What do you believe is incompatible? I see a polite request for notification (not a legal clause), another request to not overwrite, and a note that posting on social media likely breaks the license, depending on the T&Cs of the social media site... @Moroder: pinging owner of template. Storkk (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes you are right. I had misunderstood. Sorry--Pierpao.lo (listening) 13:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I'm working on an article in which I'd like the USPS logo to be used. However I couldn't find any here. The only one I see is at enwiki under fair use (w:File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg. Looking at https://about.usps.com/doing-business/rights-permissions/fair-use-exceptions.htm and https://about.usps.com/doing-business/rights-permissions/logo-trademark-usage.htm I see that only fair use is allowed, but I wonder if {{PD-USGov}} would apply to it. Thanks in advance for your help. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 16:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues?

Hi! I'm writing about the image File:Areni Sign Ceremony.jpg. It's claimed as the uploader's own work, but I do see it used here and here. The image is associated with an article on Wikipedia that was likely written by the subject's wife, so there's a chance that they might own the rights to the image but I'm not entirely sure. Posting here for comment. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

For this file the necessary permission should be provided through the OTRS. If the permission is not provided the file should be deleted. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Parade Floats Copyrighted?

Are parade floats copyrighted? The images in question can be seen here, where a parade float, created by Disney, is based on a copyrighted character of Disney. The float is a steampunk float of the Maleficent dragon. There are no depictions of the character as steampunk anywhere but the parade, and the float is never featured elsewhere. Is the float copyrighted or not? I am personally inclined to believe it is not, but I'm biased since I took most of the pictures and uploaded all of them. Elisfkc (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, they may be subject to copyright. I'll take a closer look at the examples and comment in the DR. --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Elisfkc (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Uploads "for Ashley Renee Jones"

AFAIcan see all uploads of DanWOrr (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) are missing proper licensing and it doesn't look like they were by the same creator, so I rarely see a chance of them recieving OTRS clearance soon, or at all. Do I judge too hard? Or do you agree, then could some logged in Wikipedian request deletion for them? Please see also en:User talk:DanWOrr. Thanks. --92.225.152.32 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people Understanding Copyrighted Material is always a little ambiguous but having read the aforementioned common criteria, that criteria was met such that "The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a private place, and Commons expects this even if local laws do not require it. In many countries (especially English-speaking ones) the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place."

Therefor a picture taken of a performance in a public place of a identifiable person and not used for commercial purposes doesn't even need the subject's permission but I went and got it anyway. The idea of creator ownership is also flawed since giving a photograph away indicates public distribution and does not prevent non-commercial redistribution. The request to remove from the commons is unfounded since copyright is not infringed upon but overly and abundantly protected. DanWOrr (talk)DanWOrr 05 February 2016

Dear Dan, could you please tell us the names of the photographers who took the pictures and the name of the audio engingeer and all musicians who recorded the sound file? --92.225.152.32 19:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Original license after redrawn?

Short question, does make a SVG derivative/redrawn a new license (remove original)? And if yes, the old license does not apply anymore (made no sense to me). Concrete case ↔ User: Perhelion 23:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say that turning File:Illu pelvic girdle.jpg into File:Pelvic girdle illustration.svg involved creative decision-making that is eligible for copyright protection. At the same time, the latter is clearly a derivative work of the former. If the original had been non-free, the derivative could not have been published under a free license. If the original had been published under a copyleft license (a free license that requires the original license to be preserved, such as CC-by-sa), the derivative would have to be published under the same license. In this case, since the original is in the public domain (not protected by copyright and therefore not subject to requirements of any copyright license), the derivative can be published under whichever terms the creator of the derivative chooses.
Tagging the derivative as {{PD-USGov}} as you did is not correct. Firstly, the derivative is not in the public domain, as that tag claims; the author of the derivative version chose not to release his modifications into the public domain. Secondly, the combination of that tag and {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} is nonsensical; a work cannot be both in the public domain (not protected by copyright) and covered by a copyright license (which presupposes copyright protection). I've removed the erroneous tag. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for detailed answer, that had led me to this post. It seems simply clear now, although the review "creative work", seems to be very relative. ↔ User: Perhelion 00:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ↔ User: Perhelion 00:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Excel's screenshots

Hello, can u help me? I want to upload some images from another project, can u check this page. Images from the page are ok for commons or not? May I use PD-trivial for them? Iniquity (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that these screenshots are so trivial. So, you may not transfer them to Commons. Ruslik (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thx. Iniquity (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this OK?

Is it OK to have images with a copyright at the bottom? Recently the user Astrowimp uploaded File:M13 (Hercules globular cluster).jpg, which has "copyright astrowimp 2015" at the bottom of the image. I'm not overly familiar with copyright with images, but I don't think that you can upload an image to WC and still exercise copyright over it in this manner. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This was just discussed in another noticeboard (was it the village pump?). Please see {{Watermark}} or wait for another user to respond here. It is ok, but discurraged. However, it may be a lie, it might be a NASA-image instead. Josve05a (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tokyogirl79: The owner of the copyright in a work may clearly watermark that work, in any way they wish... it is completely compatible with the CC licenses (or any others) for them to do so. The real question is if it's allowable for us to then digitally remove or crop out that watermark, and the answer is that there is no definitive answer. It depends on exactly how you interpret both the CC licenses themselves and how you interpret the provisions of the DMCA that prohibit removing 'copyright management information'. Wikilegal gives a detailed analysis at meta:Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images, but notes that not even their analysis is definitive since the actual question has never been answered by a court. Essentially, the answer is that Commons policy discourages the use of visible watermarks, but does not prohibit it, that Commons policy 'allows' the removal of watermarks but does not recommend it, and that it is strongly suggested that editors ensure they are aware of the possible legal ramifications of doing so before they do it. Sorry, not really a good answer (other than saying yes, such watermarks are allowed on Commons). Revent (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:US_Army_53138_United_States_Army_Africa_-_official_website_and_social_media_center.jpg and non-free Web browser UI elements

File:US_Army_53138_United_States_Army_Africa_-_official_website_and_social_media_center.jpg was uploaded by a third party. The first question is whether the user interface elements of the non-free Web browser, Microsoft Internet Explorer, can be included in the screenshot (it seems doubtful that they can, given that there is more of IE shown than just a title bar, for instance.) The second question is whether the depicted Web site as rendered by the IE software (or perhaps an underlying Microsoft HTML renderer) can be treated as a case of {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} or whether the site content has to be treated as a derivative work of non-free HTML rendering code. A third issue is whether all of the depicted content on the site consists of US government works, because from what one understands, US government sites can include third-party copyrighted works. --Gazebo (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, At the very least the browser interface should be cropped. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
US Government websites can, indeed (and often do) include copyrighted material. This image is, essentially, like a 'collage'... we need to independently show the copyright status of all the included parts. In this particular case, the screenshot image 'itself' is taken from the US Army website, but the source page itself does not attribute the screenshot as a US government work, so the licensing given here is really guessing, unfortunately. Revent (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Request OK for Eva Bartok press photo

Can someone review this 1959 press photo of Eva Bartok as PD? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have evidence that it was published at that time without a copyright notice then it will be in public domain now. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Besides the un-noticed original photo, with publication dates and proof of publication on the back, what other evidence is needed? --Light show (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
If it is a US work, it might be OK. But she was born in Hungary and died in London, so... Yann (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The description on the reverse states it was a photo for MGM in her "American film debut." --Light show (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, fine then. {{PD-US no notice}} might be OK. Yann (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm really dubious, based on 'just' what we see here, about assuming that this is a US-source work, even though it was used to promote an 'American' film. The 'blurb' starts out with the word "Hungary", and she was in movies for years before this... there is no evidence, without looking further, to indicate that it had not been used to promote other movies previously... there is no or indication of authorship on the photo itself. I'll look further, but I don't think there is enough here to say more than what Yann did... 'might be OK'. Revent (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hunting around a little, I found that Rex Images has a copy of this for sale (and they say it's a 1957 photo, not 1959... the movie was also released in 1957, so the Ebay seller is in error) but they don't attribute any further than the "Everett Collection", which tells us nothing. What is useful is a copy I found elsewhere, with what was apparently a handwritten note across the bottom front of the negative... "Eva Bartok Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" with no copyright notice... the copy you have appears to be a reproduction of it, with the words mostly blacked out (you can still see traces of the writing, and the word Mayer). Since this was apparently her first MGM movie, I think that's a pretty good indication that it wasn't an older photo, and it does appear to have been 'distributed for the purpose of further distribution' (which was publication) without a copyright notice. So, I think we're okay, though (not to be rude) I'd rather you did a little more searching yourself. Revent (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Photo of original oil painting I own

Can I load a photograph I have taken, of an original oil painting I own, but did not paint ? Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Does the adaptation of someone else's original work published in commons for free use make it "your own" work?

Hello, I made a small correction of the flag of the United Kingdom of Portugal and Brazil originally made by the wikimedia user Tonyjeff, whereas the 'round' coat-of-arms was replaced by a historically accurate square arms. However, at the time of uploading, I'm unsure if this correction made by me makes it "my work" or someone else's since all the elements I used were made by the original author, published for free use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crenelator (talk • contribs) 17:05, 07 February 2016 (UTC)

Your will own a copyright on your original contributions provided that they are above the threshold of originality. (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright... Thank you. -Crenelator (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

new copyright law in Slovakia

Begining January 1, 2016 there is a new copyright law in Slovakia. I have changed the {{FoP-Slovakia/sk}} and {{PD-SlovakGov/sk}}. I am not able to provide a correct translation to other languages. In my opinion there are no big changes regarding FoP and PD. Cann somebody help with the translation or give me an advice how to change the templates in other languages. Thanks. --LacoR (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Help in determining right's use

Greetings, I would appreciate your help in determining the rights to use the images in this database .

http://bibliotecadigital.uprrp.edu/cdm/

It belongs and is curated by the University of Puerto Rico, a state institution, part of the United States's government. So, I suppose the rule of the US government employee is relevant here. From what I gather from the page, the images were scanned from a defunct newspaper, "El Mundo." The university received all the rights to copies and it is opening them now to the public. The only information section I find that directly relates to usage right is in the front page at it says, first in Spanish (original) and then in English (my translation)"

Spanish: "Estos recursos están disponibles libremente para los estudiosos, investigadores, estudiantes y otras personas interesadas en la historia, la política, la economía, los asuntos sociales y culturales de Puerto Rico desde el siglo XIX hasta el presente."
English: "These resources are freely available for students, researchers and scholars, and any other person interested in the history, politics, economy, social matters and cultures of Puerto Rico from the 19th century to the present."

Please, let me know your thoughts about its possible use in WP.

Cheers

--Caballero//Historiador ☊ 08:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It lacks a clear statement about commercial re-use. Per the Precautionary principle better no use, as long as no PD-US-GOV rule could be applied or you've got a clarification forwarded to the OTRS-Permissions. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
PD-USGov is just the federal government, not state or organized territory governments (and Puerto Rico is an organized territory). The rights they are giving is only for students, researchers, and scholars (use which would probably be fair use anyways), and is far from everyone, let alone commercial use or derivative works. So, that license statement is not free. Puerto Rico would follow the U.S. copyright act though, so if any of PD-US-no_notice or PD-US-not_renewed apply, that could work (but sounds unlikely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. It seems that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get historical images that are not older than 1921. --Caballero//Historiador ☊ 14:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
If they are older than 1923, they are fine. If they are older than 1964 and they were not renewed (and I don't see the newspaper listed here) they are also probably fine, as long as the photos came from newspaper staff. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg What do you mean by renewed? Thanks. --Caballero//Historiador ☊ 16:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
U.S. Copyright law used to give a term of 28 years from publication, and then if a work was "renewed" (i.e. filed a formal renewal with the U.S. Copyright Office) during the last year of that term (i.e. 27 years after it was published), it got an additional term (which is now an additional 67 years, for a total of 95 years from publication. Such renewals can be a pain to search, as only records from 1978 and later are currently searchable at www.copyright.gov (which would correspond to works first published in 1951 or later). However, there are scans of the renewal records volumes online, which can be searched. Someone did a listing for periodical renewals at the link I gave earlier -- so if the newspaper is not listed there, then renewals were likely not filed. Photographs can be difficult, as they could in theory have been renewed individually in the artwork sections, or been part of a book published the same year which itself got renewed, and that sort of thing. But, if there is no listing on that upenn page for the paper, it's likely that pre-1964 issues became public domain. If that is the case, then the tag {{PD-US-not renewed}} can be used. The requirement to renew was abolished in 1992 (which means that works published 1964 or later did not need to file, and automatically get the full 95 years, and are still under copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg This is very useful indeed. Thanks. Cheers, --Caballero//Historiador ☊ 07:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could have some feedback about the pictures I have uploaded from the site we have talked about here, namely, this one:

http://bibliotecadigital.uprrp.edu/cdm/ The images are in my contribution/upload list here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Caballero1967&ilshowall=1 They are about 23. They are all images produced before 1923, but for some, the date is not specified. However, I dated them considering the context. This means, issues like the artist, the names used, and the images themselves. I would appreiate your feedback in order to make sure I am following the best practice. Thanks in advance. --Caballero//Historiador ☊ 18:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons to Flickr and CC to PD

Flick user wagon16 is copying images from Commons (his photostream has 5800 images), but putting them under Public domain licence. For example: [2] from File:Bribir Vinodolska 040109.jpg. --Sporti (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sporti: That does indeed appear, at a glance, to be a violation of the terms of the license, but 'we' (since we don't actually own the copyright in the licensed images that we host) can't really do anything about it other ask them to stop (or possibly mention it to Flickr). Only the copyright owner of a work has any legal right to enforce that copyright, or even to make an 'official' complaint. In the particular case that you linked, I don't think Roberta F. is editing these days, but you should be able to drop her an email. I suspect pointed messages from two or three of the particular editors here to Flickr itself would see the problem solved. Revent (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

1847 speech text

I'd assume that a digital version of an 1847 speech by U.S. Senator Corwin, transcribed from the 1847 Congressional Globe (whose agate type made OCR useless), would be uploadable to Wikimedia Commons without copyright considerations. Am I right? WREverdell (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)WM Everdell

  • Digitization creates no copyright; only creativity does that. So if by "a digital version" you just mean a text, you are correct, the speech remains public domain. If you mean video or audio, though, then the creator of that would have an implicit copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

A site offering pics with no reference at all to copyrights?

There is this wonderful site offering pics from various photographers with no charge or reference to copyrights. It invites photographers to join the project, which is to spread images of Puerto Rico.

Here is the link: http://www.boriken365.com/index.php/sobre-nosotros/

Text in Spanish: Boriken365 nace de la necesidad de exponer ante el mundo las bellezas de nuestra Isla desde otro punto de vista. La fotografía. La fotografía, es por excelencia, un lenguaje universal. No necesita explicaciones ni traducciones, por medio de una imagen podemos acortar las distancias y hacer que otros disfruten lo que hoy tenemos. Este espacio es para todos, aficionados, profesionales y cualquier persona que entienda que por medio de una foto en algún lugar en Puerto Rico capturó una imagen que merece ser vista por muchos. Esperamos que por medio de este portal podamos generar una red solida de amantes de la Isla que a través del lente expresen que valoran, atesoran y sobretodo preservan los encantos de Boriken los 365 días del año. Que lo Disfruten.

Text in English (my translation): Boriken365 arises from the need to expose the beauties of our island to the world from a different point of view. The photography. The photography is by excellency the universal language. It does not need explanations nor translations; through an image we can cut distances and help others to enjoy what we have. This space is for everyone, fans, professionals, and any person that realizes that through a picture taken from any place in Puerto Rico they have captured an image that everyone deserves to see. We hope that through this portal we can generate a solid network of people who love the island (Puerto Rico), which through their lenses can express how much they value, treasure and above all, preserve the enchantments of Boriken (PR) all 365 days of the year. Enjoy

This site appears too good to be true. Please, share your thoughts and let me know if this is what it seems to be.

Cheers, --Caballero//Historiador ☊ 14:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the whole site seems to be "© 2014 Derechos Reservados Boriken365." = example (see also http://www.boriken365.com/index.php/enviano-tu-foto/: "Todas nuestras imágenes tienen derechos reservados. Las mismas no podrán ser utilizadas en cualquier medio digital o impreso sin autorización previa.") which does not fit with "(...) with no charge or reference to copyrights"... Gunnex (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Gunnex Thanks for pointing this out. In hindsight, it was placed where contributors and not users would see it. Perhaps not the best place if they do not want people to use it. Anyhow, thanks! --Caballero//Historiador ☊ 19:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gunnex: If you allow me to ask yet another question, which I have not yet been able to understand fully regardless of how much I read the guidelines here (I think it is more a philosophical contradiction I see). I just had one pic deleted because it was licensed under CC 2.0 Generic, even before the artist could read and reply to the template email. Is there a way for an artist to have his or her name recognized in Wiki Common's media? This is what the artist had written to me: "Me parece bien siempre y cuando se de credito de la imagen y de donde proviene." (en: "It is fine with me as long as there is credit to the image's source."). I am struggling to understand how on one side we are trying to promote free interexchange, but we can't acknowledge credit. Thanks. --Caballero//Historiador ☊ 18:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
This case was related to an unfree Flickr upload (see also you user talk), most likely because the Flickr file was licensed with "© All rights reserved" or under a NC and/or ND restriction (NC = NonCommercial / ND = NoDerivatives), which is not compatible with COM:L. If the Flickr user is indeed the copright holder (which is not always the case), he/she may simply change for that particular file the license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. An alternative way is using COM:OTRS. Gunnex (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Caballero//Historiador ☊ 22:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Can of worms FOP question

I realize the enormous can of worms this question has the potential to open, so I am typing with some trepidation... Do we think we can establish some kind of community consensus regarding photos of modern buildings in Crimea? Storkk (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussion in 2014 makes it clear that legally everything is probably OK... but Commons policy-wise, I think it's still dubious, no? Storkk (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File_talk:Lovers_Legends_-_The_Gay_Greek_Myths.pdf

Hi. Can someone more experienced help review images in this work? Some of the images are the authors, and before the work can be redacted it needs a definitive list of what to remove. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The books itself says "Copyright © Andrew Calimach". So, the file should probably be deleted. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Given that it's not in the public domain, and the CC-BY-SA license is a copyright license, it should have a copyright notice. What's the problem here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

YouTube

Is that fine - marked as Creative Commons: [3] Can I upload screenshots from the video or this may be license laundering? --Kuull (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Iffy in light of the comment on the video "Looks like copyright violation - these photos are all rights reserved and cannot be CC-BY-SA." It might be license laundering, indeed.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
(ce) Hi, I doubt the account is the photographer of the pictures shown in the video. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Jeff Koons in Matt Black Reflections series.webm

Hi, I reviewed this video coming from Utube. Any opinion about the artworks here? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright on typeface samples

Hello! On Flickr I've seen uploaded by James Puckett a lot of photos of specimens of metal type I would like to upload. The photos are CC-licensed and all samples from the 50s or earlier, possibly as early as the 20s, but no sources are given. (Here's an example. They seem to all be American or just possibly in some cases British.) What do people think about uploading these? Some such as that are really just a printout of the letters of the font; some such as this are much more composed. Blythwood (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If they are bitmaps, they would have no U.S. copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible Google map images

Are the maps in Special:Contributions/NitinBhargava2016, probably based on Google, copyrighted or not? Most likely uploaded in good faith - just checking the actual copyright situation to be sure (some old threads seem to indicate, that they are copyrighted). GermanJoe (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

FoP in Serbia

I uploaded this image of the interior of the Palace of Serbia published by the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs with a Commons compatible license. However, after uploading it, I became a bit unsure if it is possible to retain this image in Commons. I understand that in Serbia Freedom of Panorama exists, but not for public interiors. Does the fact that the image was released by the Austrian foreign ministry with a Commons compatible license allow it to be used in Commons? Thanks Gugganij (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Three Italian logos

I have drawn with Inkscape three logos of Italian companies; one is this ({{PD-ineligible}}?); the second is the "inverted heart" taken form the previous logo ({{PD-ineligible}}?), the other one is the signature taken from the panel above the door ({{PD-signature}}?). May I upload them to Commons (there are no copyright/trademark signs)? Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that you may. For the first one, I suggest that you use {{PD-logo}}. Ruslik (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
And {{Trademark}}--Pierpao.lo (listening) 21:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:BPSkantze

Could someone look at images uploaded by User:BPSkantze, some are marked "own work" and they are not, but could some of them still be free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangsna (talk • contribs)

 Comment This request has been languishing since October 20, and could really use a check by one of the regulars. Thanks. Revent (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

can we add this pic to Babes at Sea?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_TyUUIjjg9ws/RfhrUyh53gI/AAAAAAAAAR4/r0SO3HQiZxw/s1600-h/colorrhap5.jpg[[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igormulpas (talk • contribs) 20:43, 09 January 2016 (UTC)

@Igormulpas: It appears to be a still from "Holiday Land", which was published with a copyright notice in 1934 (it's watchable online, and the copyright notice is at the front). In order to upload it, we would need a specific check for if the copyright was renewed (which would have been circa 1962). Such a check really needs to be done by someone familiar with the Catalog of Copyright Entries... if it was renewed, the term is 95 years, and it is under copyright until 2029. "Babes at Sea" was the next cartoon in the series. So, "Babes at Sea", no... (it's not from that cartoon) but it might be okay if someone knowledgeable checks....if nobody volunteers shortly (and you are still interested in uploading it) poke me and I will look. Revent (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

change author

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial_view_of_Monaco_at_dusk.jpg JP MISS is the only author for this image. Thank you for your understanding. Original link: https://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/details/1518/monaco.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.11.153 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 14 January 2016‎ (UTC)

@86.162.11.153: Talked to an OTRS volunteer on IRC, Krd... the filed OTRS permission for the image is consistent with JP Miss (as a pseudonym) being the sole author, the other attribution being an artifact of the 'upload credit' on a 3rd party website. Corrected the attribution of the image on this basis. Thanks for mentioning it (correct attribution is important). Revent (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Historic pictures FC Bayern Munich

Hello everyone, i stumbled accross this site http://erfolgsfans.com/erfolgsgeschichte/fcbbilder/bilder_in_der_chronik which has an original chronik from 1925 with many pictures which would be very helpful for the article of FC Bayern München and many other german soccer related articles. Is it ok to upload these pictures?

Thanks and greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKNickel (talk • contribs) 2016-02-15T11:01:45 (UTC)

The copyright likely expired 50 years after the publication. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
If they are anonymous, then photos published 1925 and earlier would be OK. Anything after that and their U.S. copyright would still be valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Source Baruch Spinoza pictures?

User Tholme has posted some pictures of Spinoza on Wikipedia. I wish to know where they came from or contact Tholme to ask him/her in person. Is this possible?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijts (talk • contribs) 2016-02-15T11:54:02 (UTC)

@Nijts: Tholme has an email address on file, so you can use the 'email this user' link in the tooltray (to the lower left) to contact them directly from their user page... for convenience, here is the direct link. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Tholme Revent (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Derivative works of Géoportail

Hi, Some users have made derivative works of Géoportail, a French governmental website about maps, which is not free. What about File:Carte Grand Cret Eau.svg and File:BP echangeur-porte-de-Bagnolet.svg? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

uploading architectural drawings from an estate

Hi everyone,

Sorry if this has been covered before. I'm in charge (and legal inheritor) of an estate of 500+ very detailed architectural drawings, done between 1912-1970, by my grandfather, who was an architect trained under Paul Bonatz, as well as a city official partially in charge of preservation and restoration. The drawings cover various perspectives and details of buildings from Germany, Italy, England and beyond, including sights that have been destroyed in the meantime. We think this is an interesting resource, as the drawings are both attractive and have good documentary value. Some of my grandfather's drawings were used in architectural books.

I have full legal title to all the images, and we would love to share the drawings with a wider public. We think 40-50 should be of interest to a wider audience. (We will not use material from books, of course.) Is this indeed okay? My grandfather passed away in 1978, so it's obviously not yet covered by the 70 years rule. But, as mentioned, I own the collection, and the title.

Thank you! Hans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hundnase (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As a heir of your grandfather, you can release the drawings under a creative commons license. I think it will be better if you do through the OTRS channel. Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyrighted (and licensed) image descriptions.

See: File:Unknown_-_Funerary_Lion_-_57.AA.11.jpg and it's source, https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/6503/unknown-maker-funerary-lion-greek-attic-about-350-bc/

I am working on a project to upload 'many' images from the Getty that they have provided under their "Open Content Program", and trying to do it in a 'best practices' way. The images themselves are under a quite explicit 'copyrighted fair use' license (see http://www.getty.edu/about/opencontent.html), but the Getty has also written object descriptions that are under a separate CC-BY-4.0 license... as 'professional' descriptions that provide significant context they seem quite worth also adding to the category pages, but they are explicitly under a different license. The question is 'the best way to do so'... after asking around a bit, this seems to be a somewhat unique situation (that copyrightable description text, itself useful, is not under the image license).

My current idea is to write a template ({{Getty description}}), for use in the description field, that wraps their text in a quote template, with explicit licensing, i.e. {{quote|text|{{Getty Museum}} / CC-BY-4.0|source url}}. This would give, for the particular image I linked....

This crouching lion with its head turned to the left originally afforded symbolic protection to a grave in Athens or its territory. The lion's face and mane are stylized, and its body is rather doglike. The small incisions all over the body indicate fur. This unrealistic rendering of lions is typical of Greek artists, who would never have seen a real lion and thus modeled their depictions on a combination of artistic tradition, large dogs, and house cats.
In antiquity, walled family burial plots lined the roads out of Athens. Sculpted lions such as this one, placed at the corners of the plot, were especially popular in the 300s B.C. Funerary sculptures had a dual purpose: they protected the tombs and served to display the wealth and prestige of the family. The ostentation of these displays led to an Athenian law of 317 B.C. that banned all but the simplest of grave markers.

— J. Paul Getty Museum / CC-BY-4.0, in: https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/6503/

I'm really just asking for a consensus that this would be acceptable, or for someone to point out an existing method. Thanks. Revent (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks fine to me. Yann (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Feedback of a license template for the European Parliament

I uploaded a video of the European Parliament and couldnt find a suitable license. Therefore I created a new license template for the European Parliament based on the Eurostat template (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Attribution-Eurostat). The policy of the European Parliament is that you are allowed to re-use the material as long as certain attribution requirements are met (link to the original source, mentioning if the video is modified and mentioning if you created a translation that that is not the official translation, see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en/legal-notice). This is the first version of the license template, please give feedback or improve if needed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Attribution-EP --Hannolans (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The European Parliament is copyrighted and you can therefore not upload pictures or videos of it without permisson from the architect. See COM:FOP#Belgium for the one in Brussels and COM:FOP#France for the one in Strasbourg. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not a video about the building, but a video about a plenary debate in the European Parliament about the directive of the re-use of public information. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VODChapter_20130613_09033600_09350400_-48b995e413f3a40a3e0c97_EN.webm
Who holds the copyright to the speeches in the first place? In most parts of Europe, the copyright would typically belong to the person who wrote the speech, presumably the individual politicians. The copyright tag you created refers to situations where the copyright is held by the European Parliament, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Good question! Are speeches of politicans in a parliament copyright protected? --Hannolans (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The speeches are printed in the Official Journal of the European Union. On that website it reads: "14. Can I reuse the entire contents of the EUR-Lex database? How? Yes, you can re-use EUR-Lex data, for free." (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/faq/intro.html?locale=en) --Hannolans (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Hannolans: the relevant text seems to be "reuse ... is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced ...". This sounds incompatible with our licensing requirements, which stipulate among other things, that anyone must be able to adapt the work. Storkk (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC) (note, this is a separate objection to Stefan2's above) Storkk (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes I thought so at first as well, but in the next sentence they write "Any partial reproduction of data or multimedia items from this website must also cite the URL link of the complete item or the web page from which it was sourced.". So this assumes that partial reproduction is possible as well under an extra condition to link to the original file. Not sure if that qualifies as an possibility to adapt the work? Same for translations. --Hannolans (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that they do use other words in other languages for 'entire item'. In German: "zum persönlichen Gebrauch oder zur gewerblichen oder nicht gewerblichen Wiederausstrahlung vorbehaltlich der Einhaltung der Integrität der wiedergegebenen Elemente und der Nennung der Quelle gestattet." (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/de/legal-notice) and in Dutch: " is in beginsel toegestaan voor persoonlijk gebruik en voor doorgifte, al dan niet met commercieel oogmerk, mits de integriteit van de gereproduceerde fragmenten wordt gerespecteerd en de bron wordt vermeld." (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/nl/legal-notice) and in French: "est autorisée moyennant le respect de l'intégrité des éléments reproduits et la mention de la source." (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/fr/legal-notice). So I assume they made a translation mistake for the english text? --Hannolans (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
They responded in OTRS with the following answer: "Dear Mr. Lans, Thank you again for choosing our content. I have just double checked with our legal department and they have confirmed that you can use this video on the wiki page provided that you will acknowledge the source. In case you decide to use the video not in its full length or with any alterations different from its original version, please also include the link to the original file." I asked them to verify the draft license but they answered today "You will find all the necessary information in our Legal Notice: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en/legal-notice Unfortunately we are not entitled to give any comments or information beyond the scope of this Legal Notice. Thank you for your understanding.". So I'm a bit lost how to interpret this --Hannolans (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The part about "any partial reproduction" could mean that you will still be fined for partial reproductions but that you will be fined less than when making other modifications.
The template could also be interpreted to mean that it is permitted to make extracts from and translate the material but that any other modifications are prohibited. In that case, it would, for example, be prohibited to parodise the material, and a licence which doesn't permit parody of the licensed material is obviously unacceptable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
But they wrote "In case you decide to use the video not in its full length or with any alterations different from its original version, please also include the link to the original file.". Any alterations would qualify as any adaption, including a parody, I assume? But for a parody, note that personal and moral rights of the members in the video are still in place, as is also the case for Creative Commons Attribution. --Hannolans (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Should I send them additional questions by OTRS? Which questions? --Hannolans (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Dr Pepper bottle.JPG

Is the licensing for this file correct? I have no reason to doubt that the photo was the "own work" of the uploader, but it is a photo of a copyrighted logo, isn't it? The shape of the bottle itself is generic enough for sure, but the logo seems to fall under COM:PACKAGING. Moreover, the focus of the photo is the bottle logo, so I don't think de minimis can be argued here. Since the file's description says it's from the 1970s, I guess {{PD-Pre1978}} may apply and {{Trademark}} added as well, but it seems as if the CC license only applies to the photo itself.

I think there are also similar issues with the respective licensing for File:Dr Pepper bottle.jpg and File:DrPepper 0.5l PET.jpg and File:Temple Dr. Pepper.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a {{PD-Text}} logo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The logo is not copyrightable -- and per Ets Hokins, it wouldn't matter if it was. The photo is not primarily of the logo -- it's of the entire bottle. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes and Clindberg: First of all thanks for taking a look. I can understand the licensing if the logo is not copyrightable per "PD-logo", etc., but I don't quite understand the it wouldn't matter if it was part of Clindberg's reply. The entire "Not OK General rule" section of "COM:PACKAGING" seems to say that the copyright status of labels/logos used in packaging does matter when it comes to such photos. There are exceptions listed, but exemption number 3 "Packaging which carries only a printed design which is old enough for the copyright to have expired. That applies to the classic Coca Cola logo (but not to more recent Coke designs)" seems to imply that the packaging of newer Coke products may still be protected by copyright, so such photos may not necessarily be freely licensed. If the copyright status of such labels/logos used doesn't matter at all, then it seems the conclusions reached by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Delidas Stark sås 150 grams flaska.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:DELIDAS LOGO JPEG board.jpg, and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/06#File:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg were incorrect and some files may have been unnecessarily deleted/altered. It also seems to mean that similar photos/files (e.g., such as en:File:Cola Couronne bottle.jpg, en:File:ClearlyCanadian Cherry1.jpg and others in en:Category:Images of bottles, en:Category:Cereal box covers, en:Category:Images of cans and en:Category:Images of soft drinks) uploaded as non-free to Wikipedia could actually be freely licensed and moved to Commons, doesn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole—a useful article not subject to copyright protection—and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. It's arguable whether COM:PACKAGING is good policy -- I don't think there are any court cases which back it up -- but on the other hand, most packaging has artwork over the entire box, and the packaging completely surrounds the entire product. Designs on the surface of a utilitarian product are a different matter -- we don't delete photographs of people who happen to be wearing clothes which have a copyrightable pattern on them (and there are many). At some point the derivative work line of thought becomes too onerous on photographers, though it can be fuzzy where that line is. For a similar situation, there was a French case where a building was prominently in the center of a photograph of a city street (the building was at the far end). It was ruled to not be derivative, because the photograph was of the entire street, not the building in particular. Similarly the ruling above says when a photograph is mainly of the label itself, the situation would change -- there you are focusing on someone else's copyrightable expression, rather than expression which was unavoidably there when photographing a larger subject. There was a similar ruling of photos of a motorcycle with copyrightable graphics on it -- photos of the entire bike were fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
If I may branch this discussion by folllowing what you wrote Carl, to something which I've been wondering for a while. What would you say about images like this? It is not of the enitre aicraft, but cropped (photographed) focused on the artwork. Josve05a (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I think, in the case of that particular image, at least, it's quite clear that the photographer's intent was to show the artwork itself, not the 'utilitarian object' that it happened to be attached to. That being the case, I would personally consider it to 'obviously' be a derivative work of the artwork. It's a case of the image being 'focused on the particular copyrightable expression', as Carl put it, and the title and description given by the photographer make that explicit. We can't later 'claim' that it's just a photo of a plane's tail that happens to have copyrightable art on it in order to avoid the issue... the 'work' created by the photographer was clearly intended to show the art. Revent (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
There are rarely any clear distinctions when you get to stuff like this. Even the Ets-Hokin case, the lower court ruled it was a derivative work before being overturned -- so it's not obvious among judges, even. For photos like that, virtually all uses would be OK due to fair use -- it's just the sliver of uses such as if you put that photo on a postcard (i.e. where money is being made off of the photo) where you would run into trouble in real life -- but that's also the line we need to follow for "free". Given the above ruling, that photo of the plane is focusing on the artwork on the tail, which is clearly copyrightable, so I think that would be an issue. The stuff in en:Category:Cereal box covers are straight-up copies of cereal box artwork -- those would definitely be issues. Images of the bottles would seem to be OK; the question gets fuzzier when the packaging designs cover the entire surface of the product. Some of those may trade on the intent of the photographer -- are they taking the photo of the cans, with the packaging just being "incidental" -- or is the photo trading on the expression provided by the packaging artwork itself. For one example, a fashion photographer had a model wear a pair of fancy glasses because he thought it make the photo better -- and when the glasses turned out to be copyrighted, the judge ruled the photo was a derivative work. But if you were taking a photo of someone who happened to be wearing those on the street, where the inclusion decision was not really the choice of the photographer -- that should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Indeed, the line I tend to follow is basically 'can some small business owner without a legal department rely on us'. You rather have to assume that someone might want to use any random image in a book, on a printed object, whatever...we really need to avoid any kind of 'unlikely to get in trouble' train of thought. In cases of DW or DM, I think we really have to give a lot of consideration to the 'available evidence' of what the creator's intent was... a photo of 'an object that happens to have some art on it', compared to 'some art that happens to be on this object' are not the same... one can likely be DM, the other is a derivative work of the art (being imprecise, here, technically both are derivative works, but...I think I'm clear). I think any court, looking at the reuse of such an image, would look quite closely not only at how the photo was reused, but the available evidence of the intention of the photographer. I got poked to weigh in about something similar on enwiki recently, about if the 'display' of a copyrighted photo of Kim-Jung-Il, on the grounds of an embassy in a FOP country, would let us crop out the particular photo for use in an infobox... several issues, but the relevant one being that we can't use something that is an 'exception' to copyright, in a 'intermediate' derivative work, to get around the copyright in the original. Revent (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

en:File:Windows Write.png

Does this file qualify to {{PD-shape}}?

  • little portions of text, arrows and squares are common property and contains no original authorship
  • The document inside the text editor is derived from the Wikipedia article, which is {{Wikimedia-screenshot}}

--Rezonansowy (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

While the output may be trivial, the Write software itself is copyrighted and non-free. That is why Commons only accepts screenshots of freely licensed software. De728631 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@De728631: It doesn't matter if it's free or not, when we deal with the Threshold of originality. The user interface of the MS Write seems to be under this threshold and {{PD-shape}}. --Rezonansowy (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Screenshots. For results created by software we also need to consider the computer code behind the output. E.g. just recently, a screenshot of malware producing plain text and ASCII art has been deleted. For the same reason you can theoretically claim a copyright for SVG drawings of simple images because the script behind it may require original thought and effort. De728631 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The PNG doesn't contain any software -- it's an image. The question is whether, considered for what it is, ie an image, it exhibits sufficient originality. That's different to an SVG which does contain code (albeit sometimes code that does not manifest any notable originality or creativity attributable to the creator); and it's different to an image of text, where there may be copyright in the text displayed as text. Here, we simply have an image. Jheald (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 Info: Window decoration and common UI elements was already discussed. These elements are not exclusive to Windows. However, the non-free software status could be still discussed, and IMHO, seems too simple. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the elements here in more detail: The text is from the CIA World Factbook (compare [5]), which is PD-US Government. The flag of Switzerland is old, and also geometric. The map of Europe appears to be a free one from Commons. The way these elements are arranged together is conventional and shows no particular selectivity or creativity.
The arrangement of sliders, arrows and menu items are entirely generic, stock features. (Compare the U.S. notion of Scènes à faire). There is nothing here that was not also present (and considered ineligible) in Lotus v. Borland.
Beyond that, there is nothing in this image. There is no distinctive original artwork or design. It doesn't matter that this is a screenshot of a piece of non-free software, if there is nothing in the screenshot that is sufficient (neither in part nor together) to attract copyright. Jheald (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that Josve05a tagged the file with {{Copy to Commons}}. Do we already have enough arguments to transfer this file? --Rezonansowy (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Question

About copyright. If I write an article or a book using wikimedia free images, does this affect the whole copyright of the work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.121.170.87 (talk • contribs)

Note: Question converted as cleanup of accidental DR. Эlcobbola talk 23:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Pillage des armes aux Invalides - Jean-Baptiste Lallemand

Hello, my question is, that this painting can be uploaded to Commons? It was painted by Jean-Baptiste Lallemand around 1789. --Fmvh (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes Fmvh use the template {{Pd-art|Pd-old-auto|deathyear=1803}}--Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Fmvh (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issue about a map and a chart

please someone can check this request Commons:Village_pump#Help_re_license_confirmation.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Madeline Kahn, press photo

Requesting review of Madeline Kahn photo from 1974, from Keystone Press Agency. FWIW, her lead image is currently using a poor non-free, so something better is hoped for.--Light show (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: I'm not seeing there, or finding elsewhere, any evidence that this image was published at the time, or ever actually distributed for publication. It appears to simply be a photo taken at a public appearance by a third party. Do you have any evidence that this was ever published? Revent (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly where, when or even if it was reprinted in a publication is not necessary to prove publication, as explained by the copyright office: "publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public." The reverse gives the description of where it was taken, the date, and the photographer, shown as "Credit: Peter Gould, Keystone". It also has the standard Keystone stamp, indicating it was made available to the public. --Light show (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: You miss my point, as seems to often happen. The quote you give is incomplete, and would actually argue against this being okay, as there is no indication here that it was actually 'distributed to the public'. Such evidence, that it was distributed without notice, would make it clearly okay... I found none. What could be applicable here is the second part of that section of the that definition, "the offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication." It's quite likely Keystone would have done so, it's their business model. That is, however, text from the 1979 act, and this is a 1974 photo, so is irrelevant unless the image was not published by Keystone for several years... unlikely. The 1909 act did not define publication. The Keystone stamp on 'this copy' does not prove that the image was published without notice.. this could easily (and plausibly) be an actual 'photographic print', made from the negative and kept merely as a file copy, while 'printed' copies for distribution had a notice. Since Keystone is actually in the business of 'selling images', not 'promoting clients', they had more incentive to careful about copyright than a talent agency.
The image is, indeed, 'probably' okay, as Carl said below. The problem is, as I have repeatedly told you, 'probably' and 'likely' are not the standards of evidence used on Commons. If there is a significant, reasonable doubt, the image is not acceptable. You seem to consistently respond to requests that you find better evidence with claims that it's not needed, that your 'guess' or 'assumption' is okay. It's not. You past history shows that the community does not trust such judgements on your part. You do not, honestly, seem to have learned from your block... it's only that you are not actually 'uploading' without discussion that saves you. If you were uploading images merely on the grounds of the arguments you, personally, have been making since unblocking, you would be reblocked. Revent (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Talent agency photos

I'm also wondering what the policy is for obvious talent agency promotional photos not showing the reverse. For example, this one, another, or this one (2nd), from the William Morris Agency printed on the front. Is it conceivable that a PR agency would require permission, via a copyright, to print a photo of their client?--Light show (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: It does not matter, not at all, if it is 'conceivable' that they would or would not do so. You need to show reasonable evidence that the particular, individual work was itself actually published, by the copyright owner, in a way that did not meet the statutory requirements. This has been mentioned to you before, repeatedly. Revent (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Per my reply above, it is not necessary to prove it was actually published. These are agency promotional photos made available for reprinting or for press kits. --Light show (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
To be free of copyright, works needed to be published (meaning *that copy* was actually distributed) and did not have a copyright notice. If we can't see the back, we really can't say there is no notice. And yes, we need to show publication. Overall there is little doubt it was published at the time, but for the lack-of-notice tag we need to show those copies in particular were actually distributed -- if it was only the copies they had in storage which had no notice, but the ones they distributed did, there was no loss of copyright. The Kahn one... is probably OK. Those do look like markings from an entity other than Keystone, and there is also a Keystone stamp. I worry somewhat if it was a wire print (i.e. never distributed outside the client) but not sure those would get those Keystone stamps. Many photos get reproduced many years later, so if there are no markings indicating actual distribution of that copy before 1978 it's hard to prove. Again, you are claiming that the copyright was lost because the actual copy you point was itself distributed and it had no copyright notice. Both aspects need to be shown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A Book Cover of a German Book (1917)

Dear colleagues, in my university library in Germany, I scanned a cover of the first edition of Gustav Meyrink's Walpurgisnacht, a book originally published in 1917. Now, Gustav Meyrink died already in 1932, but both the publisher Kurt Wolff († 1963) and the cover designer Emil Preetorius († 1973) died more recently. Who is the owner of the rights here? Am I allowed to upload the file? Thank you --Jakub Ehrenberger (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jakub Ehrenberger, well, regardless of who the rights owner is (which is difficult to say), the fact that the cover designer died in 1973 means the cover -- provided it is, as you seem to assume, eligible for copyright protection in first place -- is still protected today. This means we cannot use the scan unless the current rights owner releases it under a free license (see Commons:Licensing; e-mail templates to request such a release can be found at Commons:Email templates). Which brings us back to the question who the copyright owner is ... Typically, the publisher would have been granted exclusive rights, but their scope may not be sufficient to freely license the work. Also, use on the internet was, obviously, unknown back then, so unless the publisher has since acquired additional exploitation rights from the author's legal successor(s) (unlikely), he couldn't make such a release anyway. So, it's complicated; if you want to pursue this matter, you'd likely have to get in touch with both the publisher (usually a company, whose legal successors may differ from those of the company's founder as a natural person) and the author's legal successor(s). — Pajz (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

VW Wolfsburg emblem steering wheel

Is this image (drawn by me with Inkscape) OK for Commons?

Thaks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say "not OK", as the wolf silhouette is not a "simple geometrical shape" and different from the one shown in File:Wappen Wolfsburg.svg. Well, you could still say that it's a derivative of a PD-work (the said coat of arms), but I wouldn't. Grand-Duc (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
What about simplifying more the silhouette and making it a set of triangles?--Carnby (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You'll loose the educational usability, then, as the drawing won't look anymore like the emblem used on the actual devices, I think. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Retroactive license tag changes.

Can someone confirm policy or precedent regarding retroactive, more restrictive license tag changes that substantially alter the license terms of content long after it's been uploaded? See this example I happened to notice. Policy re. those changes being effected by subsequent edits to templates in user space, where they're less likely to be noticed? I figure if an uploader (well, copyright holder) wants to allow a more restrictive license template than they have in the past, an appropriate guideline requires they start using a new template and allows an in-use license template to be made less restrictive, but not more restrictive. --Elvey (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not a licensing change; just a note that the file's existing license is incompatible with Facebook's terms of use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
My questions are about the general case, not the example I happened to notice. And you're right; I stand corrected. Thanks.--Elvey (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
For the background see meta:Legal/CC-BY-SA on Facebook. --Túrelio (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe I'll be bold and link his template to that page.--Elvey (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Facebook's terms of use are problematic in several ways:
  • If you upload a picture from Commons to Facebook, and the picture is licensed under CC-BY-SA, then you are required to grant Facebook a worldwide licence to use the image for any purpose, but there are restrictions in the CC-BY-SA licence, so you can't grant Facebook this licence.
  • If you upload a picture of a building to Facebook, then you are required to grant Facebook a worldwide licence to use the image for any purpose. For example, you are required to grant Facebook a licence to publish the picture on postcards in France and to create 3D replicas of the building in the United States. However, you are not able to grant this licence to Facebook as there is no FOP in France and as {{FoP-US}} only permits pictorial representation of copyrighted buildings while 3D copies aren't permitted. Same problem with other exceptions from copyright law, such as de minimis and fair use: you are required to grant Facebook a licence to crop the image so that the copyrighted material no longer is de minimis and to use the copyrighted material unfairly, and you are required to grant Facebook a licence to use the material in other countries which do not have the same exceptions from copyright law.
I'd argue that you are not violating the copyright to the underlying material by uploading it to Facebook but that you are only violating Facebook's terms of use and that Facebook therefore is the only one who might be able to get compensation from you for your violations. Also, at least in Europe, courts tend to reject unfair terms in contracts, and it is possible that a court would rule that these terms are unfair and thus reject them, especially considering that Facebook doesn't seem to do anything to enforce this part of its terms of use by for example suing everyone who uploads pictures of buildings or such things. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Johanna Basford image

I've been working on enhancements to the Johanna Basford article on en.wiki, and I contacted her about whether she had a photo that she held the copyright for, which she could release under the proper license to be used on Commons. Instead, she just sent me a photo that she holds the copyright for. I know I can't just upload it. What else do I need, specifically, from her, to make uploading this to Commons legal? The licensing FAQ says you can upload a file if someone gives you approval. What form should that approval take, and how should it be linked to the file? Thanks. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 01:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:OTRS. Ruslik (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Grimsby Institute & University Centre logo.PNG

Can this file be licensed as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported"? My understanding is that the threshold of originality tends to be lower for logos, etc. of organizations in the UK than it is in other countries and I cannot find anywhere on grimsby.ac.uk/index.php stating the content on the website has been freely licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that you can use {{PD-textlogo}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
No, as Marchjuly pointed out, this is a logo from the United Kingdom, and their threshold of originality is low enough that en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg (which is significantly simpler than this logo) is considered eligible for copyright protection.
I don't see any mention of any Creative Commons license either before or after the upload, and their terms seem to be completely non-free. The licensing claims seem to be completely made up, just like for the other files uploaded by the same user. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies Ruslik0 and LX. I tend to agree with LX on whether this can be considered "PD-logo". It could possibly qualify as PD-USonly if uploaded locally to Wikipedia, but it's a close call, so it's probably best to treat this a non-free logo instead. Either way, I think it needs to go from Commons. The only question is whether this should be done using {{Copyvio}} or {{No permission since}}, or should it be discussed at DR. Any suggestions? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The uploader claims that the file is licensed and lists a credible copyright holder. I prefer to use {{subst:npd}} in such situations. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Stefan2. That's what I did so hopefully they'll provide the information needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I tagged the file with "No permission since". This will give the uploader some time to provided proof of a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Placard of Julia Ward Howe in a D.C. building

After having exhausted other places, I come here for advice about using an image of Julia Ward Howe's placard in a D.C. building (here). The placard was installed in this building in 1938, but the building is much older. As per the 1978 cut-off for public art, there is no sign of copyright on this placard. Should I assume, then, that this image is ok to use here? Thanks. --Caballero//Historiador ☊ 15:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This placard as a whole qualifies as {{Pd-text}}. The only copyrightable element is a portrait (made from an old photo) of Julia Ward Howe, which is probably in public domain because it is very old. Of course, you should consider the copyright of the image itself. Ruslik (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Thanks. This is very helpful! --Caballero//Historiador ☊ 14:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinions on "derivative" vs. "inspired, but not derivative" needed

See here, a discussion about how much similarity is needed to make an image a derivative work.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I closed this since the background image was obviously not own work of uploader, and it was not sourced. Derivative work, doesn't just mean "how closely one can copy another person's image." In this case it was derivative of the background image without crediting the source. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Bottle labels

The starting point of this question is File:Chilled Buckfast (02), January 2010.JPG which was included in de:Buckfast Tonic Wine - an article I translated into German, but myself didn't include any pictures of the bottle because I think it could be problematic from a copyright point of view. Well, but as I notice now, Category:Wine bottles is full of images of wine bottles with probably copyrighted labels clearly forming a prominent part of the image - despite the box at the top of the category that says "images where copyrighted product packaging constitutes a major aspect of the image are not allowed on Commons". What to do? Are hundreds of deletion requests in order? I have to say, I aren't especially keen on mass-deleting images of wine (and other) bottles, but then I see no reason why something like File:2011 Château Saint-Aubin Médoc (15062312343).jpg shouldn't be copyrighted...? Gestumblindi (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. decision, at least in the U.S., that would not be a derivative work -- the photo is of the entire bottle, and the label is incidental. Photos focusing on the label would be a different story. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
But File:2011 Château Saint-Aubin Médoc (15062312343).jpg (as one of many examples) is under a CC-BY license. That means that we tell the users, by displaying that license, that they might create derivative works from it, e.g. cropping the image on the label and re-using it as they see fit. Is it the responsibility of the users alone to be so well-versed in law to know that in such a case, the CC-BY license can't be taken literally, and re-use of the image is actually restricted? Do we accept images with such restrictions? Gestumblindi (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The photo is CC-BY. It's not a derivative work of the label, so we don't need a license on that. De minimis is different, but the same licensing situation exists -- we would accept the photo, but if you crop to the copyrighted element, that crop can run into trouble. Yes, that is the responsibility of users to know that just the photo is licensed, and focusing on an incidentally included copyrightable work brings someone else's expression into play. (I would guess that it would take commercial use of such a crop to really be a problem in real life -- such users should be cognizant of copyright law.) We do have a {{De minimis}} tag which notes the basic issue; we could add that tag although in this case it would be a slightly different legal theory (the "incidental" one rather than "de minimis") at play. Maybe that tag could be generalized, as the sentiment is the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Generalizing the {{De minimis}} tag could be a good idea, then. Although Commons is also observing the law of the respective source countries, so e.g. for a wine bottle photo from France, we would also have to be sure that French copyright law allows for this, not just US law. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
France does have a very similar ruling, the "theory of the accessory", where if a copyrighted element is just part of a larger scene (even if prominent), it was not a derivative work. I think that was in a ruling where a photo of a street, with the w:Tour Montparnasse prominently in the center at the end, was ruled not derivative. That is mentioned in the {{FoP-France}} tag. At some point, with rulings like this, I'd almost want to see actual rulings which go further than that before we delete such images from other countries. There has to be some limit on the derivative work clause -- the artist of a label really shouldn't have derivative rights over every photo the bottle appears in; at some point you have to balance the photographer's rights in such cases. The above cases seem a reasonable line. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Well, personally I still wonder how the label on an image like File:Chilled Buckfast (02), January 2010.JPG could be seen as "incidental" - without the label, it would be just a nondescript green bottle; it is the label that really makes it a "Buckfast bottle". Also, most other wine bottles are of a few standard types (such as the Burgundy-style bottle) with few distinguishing features; the only thing that distinguishes the hundreds of photographs from each other and is the whole point of the photo, I'd say, is the label. But well, no reason to complain if we really can keep such images, I guess... Gestumblindi (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, is the photographer taking the photo because of the specific artistic elements in the label, or just wanted to take the photo of the brand regardless of whichever label the company had chosen? That was sort of the point in the Ets-Hokin case; the photographer was hired to take photos of the entire bottle, no matter what label happened to be there or not. A similar case in Florida basically ruled that photographs of a motorcycle were not derivatives of the copyrightable artwork on the body of the motorcycle -- again, they were hired to take photos of the entire motorcycle and the artwork was incidental (even though it was prominent in the photos). It can get more complicated if the photographer does seem to be trading off of the actual expression in the label somehow. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

WWII German pictures

Are them in PD? i.e. can I upload them here on Commons? Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 19:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No. The sourcing for these appears non-existant. If they were taken in Germany, then German law applies and we would need to know more about the photographer. If the photographer was unknown or deliberately unattributed then they would be PD. Note that as I'm writing from the UK, under UK law there are a lot of seized photographs that are PD, and have been published here, however they are at risk of being contested if published in Germany. With a bit of research you might find higher quality versions online in the Imperial War Museums collection, which may help pin down what is known about the photographer (the IWM will invariably state they have rights, but for these types of WWII photographs they have no direct legal claim that would stand up in court). --Fæ (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

PD files with copyright nonsense in the EXIF

File:George W. Bush Presidential Center dedication.tif contains some rather... interesting information in the EXIF "Copyright holder" tag. It makes quite grandiose claims about what one can and cannot do with the file (e.g. "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way"), which is utter nonsense since the file is clearly PD-US (there may be issues of personality rights, but as I understand it, those are far more complex than these blanket prohibitions). Do we have a copyright tag or other template for marking files like this as "no, really, this is public domain, the EXIF is wrong?" If not, should we? --NYKevin (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not know of an existing template or category. As checking EXIF data is the type of bot housekeeping job that can result in mass deletions without much human intervention, it would be a good protective measure to have a category/template that ensures that files with misleading EXIF data are skipped from future checks. As a technical point, changing the EXIF would be a bad thing to do, as it would then get harder to compare the file with externally hosted versions. --Fæ (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The restrictions mentioned are basically about publicity/personality rights, and have nothing to do with the copyright. So, just add the {{Personality rights}} tag. The license tag is correct (though could be {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}, which is more specific). Would be good to credit Pete Souza in the Author field (using Creator:Pete Souza) and add to Category:Photographs by Pete Souza. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done. Gunnex (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
NYKevin is right. For the record, the restrictions constitute w:copyfraud. But Fæ's argument for keeping the EXIF is hard to argue against. Thus, a template tag advising would-be-users of the issue would be appropriate. {{Copyfraud}} is taken for something else - a redirect to Template:Copyright claims, BUT "No pages link to Template:Copyfraud", so it seems reasonable to replace the redirect. It could be argued that something less direct/more flowery would be better - {{Dubious copyright claims in EXIF data}}, but I would disagree. We have hundreds of such files; see Commons:Village_pump#Photos_distributed_by_White_House, etc that warrant such a tag. --Elvey (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not copyfraud -- while we at Commons place the lion's share of importance on copyright, in real life, other rights are just as meaningful, and there are real restrictions based on those rights as well. In that case, "manipulated" doesn't mean merely altered in any way like a derivative work, but really would mean changed (e.g. photoshopped) such that something that really wan't there in the photo appears to be there in the manipulation, which could rise to the level of en:misrepresentation or slander. Even if legal per copyright law, it may well not be legal by other laws, and that notice is simply calling those other situations out (probably in too-strong terms, but that is the author's wish). You can't read every restrictions statement and just assume it's based on copyright -- many statements involve trademark, publicity rights, federal insignia laws, or other rights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with you (as I usually do) if it weren't for the fact that the statement appears in a metadata field called "Copyright holder", which makes it at the very least gravely misleading, and that appears to be intentional. The disclaimer is also present in the "Image title" field, so repeating it in a copyright-related field seems to serve no other purpose than to inspire uncertainty in potential reusers. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't get to control the titles of the metadata fields -- those are sort of standard. They splattered the same warning in the title text too. Secondly, in many other countries, such restrictions could also be based on the moral rights, which are usually part of copyright laws (or "author's rights", as not all countries use the term "copyright"). Although "copyright" really correlates to the economic right portion of author's rights, it can still be related depending on a country's laws. Basically, EXIF has some standard fields related to copyright, but they neglect to have fields for other types of rights, so there's not much you can do to make it explicit -- if you want the warning in there, you have to shoehorn it into some existing, standard field. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
(note) This is a recurrent issue, it came up yet again on the main VP about a week or so before it was mentioned here. See Commons:VP#Photos_distributed_by_White_House. The blurb is removed from file pages on a regular basis, by longstanding consensus (and many opinions other than on Commons itself that the text is nonsense). Revent (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Earthrise over Compton crater -LRO full res.jpg

Can someone more familiar with US copyright law and what kind of efforts would generate new copyrights for PD image, look at the above DR? --Jarekt (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The linked image issue is not a derivative image issue. In that case the image is credited to both ASU and NASA and the issue is whether both ASU and NASA have released it as PD. Thats how understand it. Re derivatives - it can be argued that there must be "substantial variation" from the original for the derivative to be copyrightable. Of course what exactly that means can be argued with reliance on previous cases. Also it can be said that that there is a higher standard of creativity required for a derivative work to be considered as copyrightable than for an original work to be considered as copyrightable. Rybkovich (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Clipart?

I've remixed some clip art images together, can I post it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangokeylime (talk • contribs) 03:03, 23 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "remixed." Also depends on the licensing agreement for your clip art, and how close it is to the original. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 04:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Any such mix will probably be out of scope -- we don't keep art from non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Photos missing licensing info

Can someone more knowledgable with copyright and the prevailing standards here place look into the images uploaded by User:Polarbear 11? They claim to be CC-licensed by the copyright owner but many of them list different owners with no substantiating evidence of ownership or licensing. The one image uploaded by User:JuicefineAM appears to be similar and related to this as there is definitely something unusual going on with editors who have an interest in Bowdoin College, the subject of each photo. ElKevbo (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Reusability

I found this file on Taiwan's official presidential website.

The website is attached with a license that suggests a term similar to that of a CC BY-SA license. I do wonder if images on this website could be used on Commons and Wikipedia.

If not, nominate it for deletion.

Sincerely,

Ueutyi (talk) 04:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems very much like a CC-BY, including the fact that it is irrevocable, but I think that clauses III and IV amount to ND, which we do not permit. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a Chinese version that words it very differently. Here, if someone reading this could read Chinese, please see if this could be used. Ueutyi (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Paul Muldoon.jpeg

A query has been raised at en wikipedia help desk by someone claiming to be the organiser of the event at which this image was taken and stating that the rights to its use have not been given. The creator of the file claimed 'own work' but there is little in the camera detail. Eagleash (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks like an organizer asserting a form of non-copyright restriction. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
They have been asked to provide more information. Eagleash (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

URAA issue assistance

Seeking some assistance in clarifying the copyright status of File:John Lyng.jpg. On its source site it's tagged as CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 which is not an acceptable license but on Commons it's additionally tagged as PD-Norway50. According to that template non-artistic photographies under an older photo law had their copyrights expire 25 years after creation if their copyright had not expired by 29 June 1995, otherwise they'd be subject to a 50 year term. This image was made in 1963 so neither the extension of the Norwegian term would apply (since the copyright had already expired in 1988) nor the URAA (the copyright has expired in 1988 and wasn't prolonged in 1995 until 1996). Is there something wrong in this logic or is it safe to consider the image as truly PD? I am asking because enwiki uses a fair use image which would need to be deleted if the Commons image is properly licensed as enwiki fair use policy does not permit fair use images when free ones are available to fulfill the same scope.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the tag, the older law was the later of 25 years from creation and 15pma. The named author died in 1993, so it was not PD by the older law in 1995, and was also not PD on the URAA date in 1996. It sounds like it has since come into the public domain in Norway (in 2014), but it will be copyrighted in the U.S. until 2059. (For any EU country which treats it as an artistic photograph, it will be under copyright until 2064.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Clindberg. I've put in a deletion request here, seeing as that CC license is not free enough for us.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Clindberg, Yann, and De728631: Hi! I must admit, that I am quite confused how URAA affected files are currently treated in Commons, considering also the recent outcome (kept) of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peloduro Portada No.99.png, concearning a "fresh" upload from 01.2016 which is in PD in Uruguay (the illustrator es:Peloduro died in 1965) but not in US. So far as I could follow all the related discussions, "old files" with URAA issues (including the restored ones) should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, avoiding in potential deletion requests for these files "a mere allegation that the URAA applies" because it "cannot be the sole reason for deletion". For "fresh uploads" the comment made by De728631 in above discussion makes sense (for me). In other words: are "fresh uploads" of URAA affected files tolerated in Commons — or not? Thx in advance for any clarifying comment. Gunnex (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
According to COM:L#Uruguay Round Agreements Act, files should be deleted if "there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US [...] law", and in this case, there is significant doubt that the file is free under US law. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
My impression is that URAA cases require careful analysis of the copyright laws and dates involved to tell whether the copyright was effectively restored. Thus, Not-PD-URAA cases can't simply be deleted like, say, fair use images, but need case-by-case discussion to tell whether the status of the file is questionable to the point of warranting deletion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Stefan2: thx for the feedback. As I feared, my test case Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alfonsin88.jpg just reflects what I was trying to say with " I am quite confused how URAA affected files are currently treated in Commons, (...)". Gunnex (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • In that event, the template text will need to be changed because currently it reads "Images whose copyright was restored in the U.S. by the URAA are no longer accepted at Wikimedia Commons. New files should not be uploaded with this tag". De728631 (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Two parts to the below post - one regarding the legal complexity of the issues, and second a copy and pasting of key parts of previous discussion and articles

@Clindberg. Carl in your above analysis. Is it assumed that the photograph was not published, neither in Norway or US. If it was then the publication analysis would apply rather then creation analysis above. How likely it is that it was published, is not important to this particular analysis, I just want to concentrate on what would happen if it was published. I assume that right now we cannot be sure about this question, of course normally on its own, this is not enough to prevent a file from being deleted.

I looked at Nimmer on Copyright (for non copyright obsessives this is the Holy Grail on copyright that is regularly sited in by the US courts, it was cited in the Golan v. Holder Supreme Court case that is so key to this whole issue.) This is out of his 9A.02[a][2] section on URAA resurrection based on formal defects. I am copying and pasting and removing citations. Interestingly the work addressed in the discussion was also created in 1963 same year as the photo. In that case the work had been published. Phrases in brackets are my comments, they are not intended as legal analysis.

Concerns regarding copyright resurrection arise vis-a-vis foreign nationals who lost US copyright protection from failure to comply with parochial American formalities under US law, such formal stumbling blocks blocks as notice and renewal threatened to doom the American copyrights of the unwary, including those belonging to foreign proprietors.

Failure to resurrect those works is of much less moment that the previous scenario. [previous scenario involved works that were not published]

First, the consequences of those formal defects applied equally to US nationals and foreigners, meaning that this situation at least was not aimed particularly at the "Mahfouzes" [have no idea what this means] of the world. Moreover, for technical reasons, Article 18 of the Berne Convention arguably requires resurrection of very few of these works.

Consider, for example, a hypothetical Cuban work published with proper copyright notice in 1963, but not timely registered for renewal in 1991. The term granted works published in 1963 was twenty-eight years, after which the work lapsed into the public domain. Given the expiration of the term of protection previously conferred, the appears to be no need to resurrect it from the public domain under Article 18. [By this Nimmer states that there was an expiration of a full copyright term of 28 years, which was prior to January 1, 1996 (the date when the URAA restoration rule becomes applicable) so there is no URAA restoration issue. 1963+28<1996]

Now imagine that the Cuban work was republished without notice in 1965. The latter unnoticed publication would cause copyright forfeiture. But in as much as that work enjoyed US copyright for two years, [under date of creation rule the counter started in 1963 and ended in 1965 when the publication rule overtook the date of creation rule. So under the date of creation rule the work was considered US copyrighted for two years], like reasoning indicates that subsequent expiration of the US term would not require resurrection of the copyright. [1965+2<1996]

Can it be maintained, to the contrary, that a two-year term (or even an initial twenty-eight-year term) is "abnormally" short, such that resurrection is still required? The Senate Report for the Uruguay Round Agreements Act tacitly assumed a distinction based on an artificial concept of normalcy, referring to works “that have fallen into the public domain for reasons other that the normal expiration of their terms of protection." Although that retroactive view of the Berne Convention’s anti-formal requirements represents one defensible strand of treaty analysis, this author views the Berne Convention’s prohibition of formalities as operative within US law solely from accession on March 1, 1989 onward, not retroactively….

The conclusion therefore follows that even a “short” term previously accorded obviates the need for resurrection under Article 18 [of the Berne convention].

At the very end of the restoration due to formal defects section, Nimmer writes - "In sum, therefore, this author views works in the U.S. public domain on account of formal defects as seldom in need of resurrection pursuant to the Berne Convention."

Carl would you agree that this analysis would be applicable if we assumed that the photograph was published in the US? What about published in Norway with/without a US notice?

Part two: @Yann and other compatriot editors.I looked through our discussions and decisions on URAA and pasting them below along with some comments:

From the February 14, 2012 WMF's legal team’s URAA review statement providing general guidelines on dealing with URAA copyright restored files deletion requests:

Copyright is only restored if the work entered the public domain for one of three enumerated reasons listed below. If the work entered the public domain for other reasons, such as expiration of a full copyright term in either the U.S. or the source country, then copyright is not restored.

First reason: failure to comply with formalities in the U.S. Before 1989, the U.S. had formal requirements, such as registration, deposit, and mandatory copyright notice. If a non-U.S. work entered the public domain for failing to do one of these things, the work may be restored if the other required factors are met.

Second reason: lack of subject matter protection. This reason will apply to sound recordings made outside the U.S. before February 16, 1972.

Third reason: national ineligibility. This would be the case if the U.S. failed to recognize copyright in the work because the source country did not have copyright relations with the U.S.

These are general, non-comprehensive, guidelines for identifying content that may have been restored copyright under § 104A. If a specific work obviously has restored copyright under these guidelines, Commons may choose to apply the regular speedy deletion. If not, a more comprehensive analysis by the community may be needed. [The standard of review for this analysis is not stated.

Following the Golan v. Holder Supreme Court decision, a February 2013 Legal/URAA Statement article, states:

As has been discussed extensively within the Wikimedia community, the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Golan v. Holder upheld the constitutionality of the law implementing the URAA. The practical effect of the URAA was the removal of many non-US works from the public domain and the placement of these works back under copyright protection - even if they were freely available in their country of origin. As a result, the Wikimedia Foundation now has files hosted on its servers that may have reacquired copyright protection… Members of the Wikimedia community, understandably upset and frustrated by this law, have proposed removing the affected works from Commons and forking them to third-party servers outside of the US. Unfortunately, these plans would violate Wikimedia Foundation policy and US law.

Following the explanation for its conclusion, in the subsection ‘’’Guidance’’ it is stated:

The ‘’’community’’’ should evaluate each potentially affected work using the guidelines issued by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department [the February 2012 statement above] as well as the language of the statute itself, and remove works that are clearly infringing [reference to files that can be tagged for speedy deletion]. However, if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature [for the community] to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status. Due to the complexity of the URAA, it is likely that only a small number of the potentially affected works will be subject to such notices. These guidelines differ from the more proactive systems currently used by the community for other copyright violations, but the complexity and fact-intensive nature of the URAA analysis makes a more active approach imprudent. [Note, it is explicitly stated that the standard of review in these cases should be different from the community’s normal deletion standard.]

One year later WMF releases another statement. February 28, 2014 Legal/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge. Again regarding the issue of moving servers to where US copyright laws do not apply. It provides reasoning and restates its conclusion that the servers should not be moved. In the last paragraph it states

at the core of this discussion is a community policy of Wikimedia Commons. The community policy only accepts content that is freely licensed or in the public domain both in the U.S. and the source country. Given the application of U.S. law, Commons volunteers now face a difficult task in figuring out whether content on Commons has been taken out of the public domain as a result of the URAA. While we can't provide legal advice to community members, we have identified some relevant factors to consider. We have also proposed a Wikimania talk on the URAA and other copyright issues. But most importantly, as we stated last year, very few works on Commons are likely to be affected due to the various requirements of this statute. Indeed, to date, we have not received a single takedown notice under the URAA. A valid notice would provide us with the facts necessary to make a determination under the URAA. It requires information that may not be available to a Commons volunteer trying to make a decision without a takedown notice. So WMF does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. If we receive a valid takedown notice or get actual knowledge of infringement, we will do a full legal analysis of the work based on all the relevant information that is presented in that notice and vigorously resist any invalid notices.

In the statement WMF states that while it cannot provide legal advice “we have provided some relevant factors to consider” by the community. It reasons that very few works on commons are likely to be affected do to various statutory requirements. It explains this by stating “to date, we have not received a single takedown notice under the URAA.” Such a decision would require information that may not be available to a Commons volunteer. Likely meaning that a commons volunteer likely will not be able to make a justified decision to delete a file. Its conclusion is “So WMF does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA.’’ Based on what it previously stated, it is likely that WMF is not referring to its decision to delete a file but to a reason for a commons volunteer to delete a file.

Approximately one week prior to the above WMF statement a Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA was initiated. The WMF February 28 statement is considered in the discussion. On April 2, 2014 the discussion is closed, with the conclusion that “Closed as YES. URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR. Potentially URAA-affected files should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Yann (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

On April 9, 2014 the Commons:Review of Precautionary principle discussion was initiated. The principal stated:

This is a proposal to relax the scope of the Precautionary Principle policy to allow Commons to host more of the locally public domain files that are being deleted because of the US URAA law, and also to keep more photos that have freedom of panorama in their home country but which might be copyright-protected in the US.

Please feel free to skip the detail if you are not into copyright issues; your opinion still matters.

Put simply, do you agree that Commons should aim to host more files that are public domain in their home country even if they *might* still be copyright-protected in the US?

The final resolution stated:

A careful study of the opinions below show that there is overwhelming support to reject the proposal in its entirety (with a ratio of around 3:1)… According to the generally accepted guidelines for closing discussions — of which the most important ones are listed at the page explaining the role of bureaucrats — a closing bureaucrat might give more weight to well-argued opinions rather than unargued votes. With that in consideration, it is even clearer that at this moment, the Commons community does not wish to relax the scope of the precautionary principle to host files that are in the public domain in their country of origin but which are still copyrighted in the United States due to the restoration of copyright imposed by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).

It is my understanding that the outcome of this discussion stands in direct contradiction to the recent discussion on restoring files affected by URAA. Given that there are many problems with the way in which the URAA discussion was closed, and given the fact this discussion was originally initiated as a means of resolving the incompatibility between the precautionary principle and the outcome of the URAA discussion, and the fact that the precautionary principle is an official Commons policy, it is my understanding that at this time there is no community agreement to host files affected by the URAA. odder (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Commons:Licensing article URAA section states :

Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.

Compare to February 2013 WMF statement:

if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature [for the community] to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status. Due to the complexity of the URAA, it is likely that only a small number of the potentially affected works will be subject to such notices. These guidelines differ from the more proactive systems currently used by the community for other copyright violations, but the complexity and fact-intensive nature of the URAA analysis makes a more active approach imprudent.

The Precautionary principle states:

The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted.

As I stated on top, the conversation seems to be at an infinite continuation. I have provided the above info to illustrate the complexity of the issue as referenced to in the WMF legal statements. And also, if the conversation continues - to have easy to refer to key elements of previous discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user

  • Consider, for example, a hypothetical Cuban work published with proper copyright notice in 1963, but not timely registered for renewal in 1991. The term granted works published in 1963 was twenty-eight years, after which the work lapsed into the public domain. Given the expiration of the term of protection previously conferred, the appears to be no need to resurrect it from the public domain under Article 18. This looks like a misinterpretation of the Berne Convention; the critical part here is not article 18. Instead, check article 5 (2), which says that The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, the protection of the work in the United States may not depend on whether the copyright holder complied with a formality or not. Thus, a foreign work whose copyright was not renewed must be given exactly the same protection as a work whose copyright was renewed, as the protection otherwise would depend on a formality. There are two exceptions where it may be acceptable to use copyright formalities under the Berne Convention:
  1. Rule of the shorter term: The Berne Convention says that it is not necessary to protect foreign works if the work is in the public domain in the source country through expiration of a term. As there is no requirement to protect the works at all, it is maybe acceptable to use some kind of formality in a foreign country which still wishes to provide some kind of protection to the work. USA interpreted the Berne Convention this way by applying copyright formalities on foreign works which were in the public domain in the source country on 1 January 1996. Note that the French supreme court has ruled that works which are in the public domain in the source country through lack of compliance with copyright formalities are ineligible for the rule of the shorter term as defined under the Berne Convention. It is unclear to what extent courts in other countries would uphold that ruling, but it's possible that all {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}} works were restored in all Berne Convention member countries upon USA's Berne Convention entry in 1989 unless there's another copyright tag such as {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-old-70}} which also applies.
  2. Domestic works: Article 5 (3) states that Protection in the country of origin is governed by domestic law. and USA interprets this to mean that foreign works may be given less protection than what the Berne Convention requires for foreign works. Consequently, USA interprets this to mean that USA is allowed to keep copyright formalities for domestic works. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@stefan The issue is very complex and there can be multiple interpretations of the different statutes and case law involving them. I think that illustrates WMF legal teams concern regarding this issue. I think it is one thing to look at statutes and case law and try to apply them to a relatively simple issue at hand - like the US originality standard and how it applies to logos, but another thing to do analysis on our own of the super complex URAA issue. Even the most basic Berne principles have to be analyzed through how it is interpreted by US statutes and how those statutes are interpreted through previous cases. This is why I directly copied and pasted from Nimmer who's very respected on copyright. And I did that not for an argument of a correct interpretation but for an example of a respected interpretation. Rybkovich (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2: The analysis is not incorrect. The 1978 Act retained the renewal system for pre-1978 works that were still in their first term when the act came into effect. Renewal for pre-1978 works was not made 'automatic' until 26 June 1992, and only applied to works originally copyrighted between 1 January 1964 and 31 December 1977... that would have been due for renewal in 1992 or later. The specific choice of 1963 as the year of 'hypothetical' publication was deliberate... a 1963 registration without an actual 'filed' renewal in 1991 would have expired at the end of that year, on the very last day that such a copyright might have expired due to failure to file a renewal. See USCO Circular 15 for details. As the work would have fallen into the public domain in the the US due to the 'regular expiration' of a term of protection that was previously granted, the Berne Convention (under section 18) would not require it's restoration. US law 'does' allow for restoration of a copyright that expired due to failure to renew, but Berne itself does not explicitly require it. Revent (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Also note that Cuba itself did not join the Berne Convention until 1997, years later, so even though the hypothetical copyright did not expire until after the US joined (in 1989) the Convention did not 'come into effect' between Cuba and the US until well after it's protection was expired. Revent (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
In general -- I have not heard of a court taking Nimmer's opinion on that. If they do, we could reconsider. The Berne Convention has a minimum term of protection, and that is 50pma. A term of 28 years from publication is woefully inadequate (let alone two) and would in no way qualify the U.S. as conforming to the treaty. Long-time Berne members (before the minimums were upped to 50pma in the early 1970s) who had shorter terms were grandfathered in and could keep those terms, but not new countries joining the treaty, such as the U.S. Such countries are free to do what they want with domestic works, but foreign works must be retroactively protected to the minimum (or at least the rule of the shorter term). Some countries who join do not restore works, and other countries may let them slide on that. The U.S. tried to do the same (there was no restoration in the 1989 law changes when the U.S. joined the treaty) -- but other countries did not stand for that in the U.S. case (the formalities had long been an irritant). Given that the old U.S. terms were based on date of publication and not life of the author, it was hard to exactly correlate it to minimum Berne terms, but the compromise was worked out between the U.S. and other countries during the w:Uruguay Round of GATT talks (one of many issues discussed). The end result was the URAA -- the U.S. agreed to retroactively restore any works lost by formality. It was allowed to use the old full terms based on publication -- at the time 75 years from publication -- as close enough to 50pma to qualify for the minimum. That way, the U.S. could keep their traditional treatment of copyright terms (the same for domestic and foreign works, which was the basis for many still-in-effect copyright treaties). The clear intent was to restore works which had expired by either lack of notice or renewal.
For a second point, the text of the Berne Convention is not legally binding in the U.S. It is explicit that only the text of the U.S. law is binding. Now... as part of the "restored work" definition, it applies to works which are in the public domain due to (among others) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements (emphasis mine). Therefore, even if possibly not required by the Berne Convention, the law explicitly restored works to the full term if they had not been renewed. I really don't see how that is contestable.
The U.S. *did* take advantage of most any term in the Berne Convention to avoid restoring works in the URAA compromise. First, if something was published in the U.S. within 30 days of the publication in a foreign country (the Berne definition of "simultaneous publication"), then it qualified as a "United States work" and was not subject to the URAA -- the authors needed to follow U.S. formalities in that case. Secondly, they used the rule of the shorter term to avoid restoring works which were public domain in their source country on the URAA date, since those were not required to be protected by the Berne treaty at that point. Anything which did get restored got the same term as U.S. authors -- 75 years from publication. That was extended (for everyone) to 95 years in 1998; this created the 1923 line which will start moving again in 2019.
As for publication, yes all of this assumes works were published. If a work was never published before March 1989, it never lost its U.S. copyright and thus the URAA is moot -- such works get the full U.S. protection, and always have. I'm not sure what you mean by "creation analysis" -- the U.S. has never had a term based on date of creation. Norway did -- the old term for photos was the longer of 15pma and 50 years from creation. Publication did not matter. If it had (presumably) been published without notice and lost its U.S. copyright, then the fact it was still under protection in Norway in 1996 means its U.S. copyright got restored. The only chance was if the photo was simultaneously published in the U.S. -- that could avoid the URAA. We should need some evidence to support that theory if it's claimed, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg By creation I meant as not published, not sure why I put in creation and not life of author. Re published in the US, I think we would definitely need more evidence for this possibility to go into our usual precautionary principle consideration. But I think it maybe a valid argument (not sure) that consideration of US publication may be included in the less stringent WMF legal teams' suggestion that: "it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status. Due to the complexity of the URAA, it is likely that only a small number of the potentially affected works will be subject to such notices. These guidelines differ from the more proactive systems currently used by the community for other copyright violations, but the complexity and fact-intensive nature of the URAA analysis makes a more active approach imprudent." Specifically "because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the the determination of copyright stats". Also I think that your take being different from Nimmer's is a good illustration of the complexity of the URAA restoration issue. Which also adds to the argument that regarding URAA issues, deletion should require more certainty that an uploading of the file is a copyright violation. Rybkovich (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is much mystery in the URAA situation as it pertains to Nimmer -- the law is pretty black and white. If the photo was never published, its U.S. term is 70pma. If it was published (and without notice), it was restored to a term of 95 years from publication (or 70pma, depending on date of publication). Either way it still has its U.S. copyright. The complexity of the URAA is mostly due to the law in the foreign country -- in many cases the term on the URAA date was shorter than the term now, and you need to research whether law changes were retroactive or not, and that kind of thing. The URAA says nothing about if a work was still PD in the United States on the URAA date -- just in the source country. The Nimmer stuff seems to 1) ignore the minimum term of protection required by Berne, and 2) not mention that even if he was right and the restorations were not mandated by Berne, the plain text of the law did so anyways, which is the text that matters. The Foundation themselves noted that recently in the Anne Frank diaries case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I went back to Nimmer and read more. The above was his take on an interpretation of Berne article 18 upon accession in 1989 - "(2) If, however, through the expiry of the term of protection which was previously granted, a work has fallen into the public domain of the country where protection is claimed, that work shall not be protected anew." His take on how it is after URAA is very straightforward as you stated. Its in Section 7.02[D] Rybkovich (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the actual 'situation' on Commons should be fairly clear, and consistent with statements by legal. We should not attempt to identify works that were restored by the URAA in any kind of 'bulk' manner, delete them in such a way, or delete works merely on an 'unfounded allegation' that the URAA applies, because we would quite likely be incorrect in many cases. In the case of a 'specific' work, however... if we 'know' that the URAA restored it's copyright (due to a 'Notice of Intent to Enforce' on file at the USCO), then we must delete it as a clear violation of the licensing policy. If a well-founded argument is made, based on research into the situation of the particular work itself, that raises a 'significant doubt' that it's copyright was restored, then it should be deleted on the basis of the PRP.
Later addition, for clarity. I do indeed, that we should require a higher level of 'evidence' in URAA cases, since they are not, at all, clearcut, to raise a 'significant doubt'. When should delete when such a doubt exists, however. Revent (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
@Revent By "specific work" do think that we should consider any uploaded file including those where the deletion request soon followed the upload, or should we only consider works that were uploaded up to a certain date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybkovich (talk • contribs)
@Rybkovich: No works are exempted from the licensing policy requirement to be PD (or freely licensed) in the US due to their upload date; the only 'grandfathering' is that works actually 'marked' as {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} before 1 March 2012 should not be deleted en masse. All such works should, eventually, be individually checked, and either marked with a valid US PD license template (there are ones in Category:URAA specifically intended for explaining why the URAA is believed to not have restored a copyright), or deleted as not complying with COM:L. Unfortunately, as I noted, there are editors who do not agree with the deletion of 'any' works with a US copyright restored by the URAA, and so any such DR, no matter how well founded, often has a 'local' consensus to not delete it... they should, honestly, be deleted anyhow, if the argument that the URAA applies is well founded, as a 'local' consensus cannot overrule that of the community as a whole, but it often does not happen, unfortunately. The names that appear in such DRs are often predictable. Revent (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This is, essentially, what I believe that the community agreed to. Unfortunately, however, there are a number of editors (and some administrators) who will seemingly argue against the deletion of ANY file, no matter the arguments made or how well-founded they are, on the basis of a restored copyright.... I personally do not think that any of the administrators who were involved with the edit warring around the closure of either of the URAA RFCs should be closing such DRs. There seem to (and again, my opinion) be those who continue to make and accept the arguments from the 'original' RFC, that were regarding mass deletions, that were emphatically rejected by the community at the second RFC when it comes to particular files. I also suspect there is a certain degree of "well, I'll just hit the button first" going on, and that it's being tacitly accepted solely because nobody is particularly eager to resume the edit warring. Revent (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding notices to country-specific templates about US copyright

The following discussion was taken from Template talk:PD-China#Using this template by itself

I've seen countless files that use this template as its only rationale for inclusion on Commons, however there are many scenarios where the files are not free in the US and thus should not be used on Commons. Photographs are free in China if taken before 1966, but need to be taken before 1946 (PRC) or 1952 (ROC) to satisfy Template:PD-1996. This 14-20 year gap is probably overlooked by anyone unfamiliar with Commons licenses. I would therefore recommend a notice is placed on the template reminding users that files need to be free in both their home country and in the United States (perhaps with a link to Template:PD-1996). What are other users thoughts? Jolly Janner (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this would require a Commons-wide discussion. If this proposal is adopted, a notice should be added to all non-US PD templates. It makes no sense to treat PD-China differently from other country-specific templates. -Zanhe (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. I've added a link to this discussion at Template:Centralized discussion. I would certainly recommend its use in any template in similar circumstances. There may, however, be some country-specific templates which by their definition would also allow US rights. A hypothetical template on the UK's threshold of originality comes to mind. Such cases probably wouldn't need it. Jolly Janner (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I've modified this template to transclude {{PD-old-warning-text|50}}, which at least 'marginally' addresses the concerns... this is not intended to stop any discussion, it's just an immediate fix for 'this' template. Reventtalk 09:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The transcluded text is

You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that this work might not be in the public domain in countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term and have copyright terms longer than life of the author plus 50 years. In particular, Mexico is 100 years, Jamaica is 95 years, Colombia is 80 years, Guatemala and Samoa are 75 years, Switzerland and the United States are 70 years, and Venezuela is 60 years.

There are probably quite a few other 'country' PD templates that should transclude this.
@Jolly Janner: @Zanhe: - since this has been idle.
A more 'sophisticated' version of this transclusion would allow using a 'nowarn' parameter to turn the warning off, but.. meh. Reventtalk 10:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be used across all country PD tags. By scrolling through them all, about half of them do. Template:PD-United Arab Emirates photo covers the topic quite nicely and some such as Template:PD-Saudi Arabia provide a table to make it easier. Anyway, here's a start with some that do not mention US copyright statuses as a rationale: Jolly Janner (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I think {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} rather oversimplifies the URAA, but... yeah, all non-US copyright templates should mention that a US license tag is also needed, and ideally have the ability to 'turn it off'. As far as editing 'all' of them, it might be better discussed at VPC... this is in {{Cent}}, but more people seem to watch that page. Explicitly mentioning the 'and the US' requirement might actually help with copyright problems. Reventtalk 02:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I added it (with hopefully the correct time paramater) to the ones you mentioned that don't claim some kind of 'exempt' status, as it's pretty clearly appropriate. Reventtalk 02:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
End of original discussion
Perhaps you could edit Template:PD-Australia too. There are quite a few photographs that are public domain in Australia, because they were taken before 1955, but hard to know if they are public domain in the US because they don't have a publication history. --ghouston (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think Template:PD-Sweden-photo would be ideal too, as any photos taken prior to 1946 would be copyrighted by URAA now (makes the entire license tag seem redundant for any new uploads, since it advises to use a different tag for pre-1946 uploads...). Apparently Sweden switched to 70 pma a while back, not that it would make any difference. Jolly Janner (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
    • {{PD-Sweden-photo}} contains errors, and URAA application is difficult. It says that photographic works are in the public domain in Sweden if the photographer died before 1944. This is not correct. The copyright term for photographic works of art is 70 years from the death of the author. Some people argue that a change to the law which occurred in 1996 which extended the copyright term of photographic works of art to 70 years from the death of the author didn't restore the copyright to any photographs (but this might be a misunderstanding: the people might have mixed up this copyright term extension with a different copyright term extension in 1994 when the copyright term was extended for photos which are below the threshold of originality). Death before 1944 never seems to have been the correct limit. Before the law change in 1996, the correct term was, I think, 10 years from creation (if created before 1951).
For photographic works of art created since 1951, the copyright term becomes whichever is longer of the 1961 rule, the 1994 rule and the 1996 rule:
  1. 1961 rule:
    • Photographer anonymous, published during the lifetime of the photographer: 50 years from publication.
    • Photographer anonymous, not published during the lifetime of the photographer: 50 years from the death of the photographer, but the law requires you to have evidence that the anonymous photographer has been dead for at least 50 years or else you can't use the picture unless it was published more than 50 years ago.
    • Photographer not anonymous: 50 years from the death of the photographer.
  2. 1994 rule: Same as the 1961 rule, except that the word 'photographer' is replaced by the word 'author', with a note in some documents that the author and photographer can be different people (so you may need to check the death year for two people and establish if one of those two is anonymous).
  3. 1996 rule: 70 years from the death of the author, or if anonymous, the term in {{Anonymous-EU}}.
If the term modification from 1996 restored the copyright to photographic works of art, then you should apply the 1996 rule (and only the 1996 rule) for photographic works of art created before 1951.
Under the 1961 and 1994 rules, a person is anonymous if the person's identity hasn't been publicly revealed before the expiration of the anonymous term. On the other hand, under the 1996 rule, a person is anonymous if the person hasn't publicly revealed his identity until the expiration of this term. It seems that it is slightly more difficult to be anonymous under the 1961 and 1994 rules than under the 1996 rule, if someone other than the person publicly reveals the person's identity.
For photographs which do not meet the threshold of originality, the copyright expired 10 years after creation if created before 1951 (I think) or 25 years after creation if created before 1969. Other photographs which do not meet the threshold of originality enter the public domain 50 years after creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/02&oldid=190430823"