Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/08

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

File:Logo-SocialistPartyAlbania.png

File is licensed as {{PD-text logo}}, but I'm not sure if the fist/rose imagery is below the TOO for Albania. There also appears to be a non-free revision in the history of the file based upon en:File:Logo e Partisë Socialiste të Shqipërisë.svg, which looks like the same file as the earlier version and is on English Wikipedia as non-free. Are all the versions of the file PD-text logo? What is usually done on Commons if they are not? Such files on English Wikipedia are dealt with by en:Template:Orphaned non-free revision per en:WP:F5, but I'm not sure how this is handled on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I doubt that is not copyrightable. Even if it is, the history of the file needs to be {{Split}}, as a violation of COM:OVERWRITE... unfortunately, there is a current bug sometimes breaking the undeletion of files after a history split, so... unless all or just the current version needs deleted, hard to fix. Reventtalk 06:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Revent. Like with the case of the European Parliment logo discussed above, there's no real need for a local non-free version on English Wikipedia if this original Commons version is PD, is there? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: No, there is no reason to have a local enwiki copy of a file that exists on Commons, unless it's a matter of it not being 'correctly' on Commons. The person needs to stop trying to overwrite the old logo, however, and just upload a new file. (sigh) For one thing, the flag marked as a derivative work of the old logo is not a derivative work of the new one. Reventtalk 00:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I saw your post Revent. That editor has been "warned" once before about overwriting regarding a different file, so not sure what is done if they keep at it. As for the file itself, I just want to clarify whether the fist/rose imagery is below the TOO as far as Commons is concerned. If the file is OK as "PD-textlogo", I will discuss the non-free at en:WP:FFD; If it's not, I will tag the Commons' version with Template:Logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: If I was not clear above, I'm personally inclined to think that the 'fist and rose' is probably above the TOO, and so the images are copyrightable, but I can't claim to have any real conception of exactly where Albania draws the line. The overwriting is clearly and obviously a problem, even if the files 'are' allowable, and if it persists the editor can eventually be sanctioned when they end up at the AN. It would be appropriate to open a DR for this image and it's derivative, and the new logo if separately uploaded, if you think they should go away.... I have an 'opinion', like I said, but it's not a strong one because 'it's Albania', lol. Reventtalk 00:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Understand and thanks for the additional clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Schloss-Spangenberg touristisches-Hinweisschild.jpg

It is design of an information sign. The source is here: https://martin-grafikdesign.de/touristisches-hinweisschild/ Is it PD, specifically {{PD-VzKat}}? --jdx Re: 07:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Das ist ein amtliches gemäß der StVZVO gestaltetes Schild und somit gemeinfrei {{PD-StVZVO}}. -- MaxxL - talk 08:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Why austrian PD template while the castle is located in Germany??? --jdx Re: 08:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. You are right. It should be {{PD-GermanGov}} as you see here. -- MaxxL - talk 10:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity – isn't {{PD-VzKat}} more suitable than {{PD-GermanGov}}? BTW. I've just noticed that a lot of German road signs use both tags, eg. File:Zeichen 267.svg. IMO one tag is enough. --jdx Re: 11:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Zindagi Kitni Haseen Hay

Hi,

Special:Contributions/Noor Arshad: this user is trying to "impose" a movie poster by uploading it several times with different licences. It follow a previous deletion of this poster. On File:ZindagiKitniHaseenHayTheatricalReleasePoster.jpeg, he invokes Wikipedia rules. Finally, he managed to upload it at the right place. I'm not sure it worths studying if one case fits.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

He manage not to upload it but to update it. It was already at the right place when he upload it 3 times on commons. I was about to ask for a block but let say he's a lost beginner. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I've tagged the 3 versions here for deletion as copyvios. Ww2censor (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

License compatibility

Quick question: do File:Mplayer.svg and File:Flag of the Hausa people.svg have compatible licenses? I wanted to combine the two to make a "Hausa cinema" icon, but I'm really not sure if the respective licenses make this viable. Thanks! PC78 (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately CC-BY-SA-3.0 is not compatible with GPL 2.1 (or later). Similar to this, GDFL is not compatible with GPL 2.1 (or later). See also this. Ruslik (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
PC78, it's not like we have a shortage of clapperboard icons. --rimshottalk 20:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't mean we have all bases covered. Thanks to Ruslik for the licensing advice. PC78 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Notice that File:Clap cinema.svg is based on File:Applications-multimedia.svg, that is in the Public Domain due it is part of the Tango Desktop Project and very low creativity is involved to create the derivative one; in doubt, just use the Tango! version and made the necessary editions.

Commons-logo-en.svg

I want to use the file File:Commons-logo-en.svg in my site to link to commons pages but I find the description confusing. It say's: "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license." and "Attribution: Wikimedia Foundation". but above it it say's "Wikimedia trademark policy and visual identity guidelines, and may require permission."

Do I need permission to use the icon file in my site? If I need permission, how I get one? and also, if permission is required doesn't it means that the file is not free...? Dr. Hoo — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.252.189.66 (talk) 20:55, 02 August 2016 (UTC)

@62.252.189.66: The trademark is not a 'copyright related' restriction... the logo is 'freely licensed'. The trademark policy is here, and is not restrictive at all... the limitations are basically that you cannot use the logo to create a 'fake' version of a WMF website, or to mislead people by linking them to some other website using a WMF logo. Those are not copyright-related restrictions, however... the logo could be used in such a way and still comply with the license (but we would hate you) and you might get in trouble for misrepresentation. Reventtalk 21:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear, using the Commons logo to link to us (as long as you attribute it per CC-BY-SA) is perfectly fine, and the trademark policy permits you to do so without prior permission as long as, when using the logo, you use the 'full name' of the site.... i.e. you need to link us as "Wikimedia Commons" if using the logo, not "Commons". Reventtalk 21:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Magazine Carta de España

The Spanish Ministry of Employment has published a magazine called Carta de España for approximately fifty years, which is also an important source of historical images. I know that "legal or ruling dispositions and their correspondent projects, resolutions of jurisdictional organs and acts, agreements, deliberations and reports of public organizations" in Spain are not under copyright protection. But this is a different matter... Are the images in the archive of Carta de España under a Creative Commons license? Should I contact them to be sure? Thank you in advance. F (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Petillés: They are clearly not CC licensed (as there is no such license stated on their page). Individual images might be PD, but they don't seem to give enough information about specific ones to make it easy to determine, unfortunately... they seem to all lack dates of the photo or it's publication, and most seem to not name the photographer. They can't be uploaded 'en masse', pretty clearly... contacting them might help, but there are probably images they don't own the rights to in there. Reventtalk 20:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Searching around, I found on http://archivografico.cartadeespaña.es/index.php?accion=creditos the Spanish version of a BAC 'all rights reserved' notice, which makes it explicit. Reventtalk 20:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Nice work. As I am a newbie to Commons, I do not have much experience in this sort of things. So thank you very much for your help. F (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Martin Zander.jpg

Hi! Please, check this file. I don't know which license would be good. Compare with category:Sanke postcards, please. --Regasterios (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like {{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{PD-1923}}. I don't see a photographer named, nor on other copies of the card in a quick search. The symbol at the bottom right is for Rotophot Berlin, not an individual. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. --Regasterios (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I make this photo ok to use?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacob_Lofland.jpg It's going to be deleted in a week. But it's the main photo on his imdb page here - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5015107/ does that mean it's okay to use? 2.102.187.157 14:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not -- see COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. We have to treat copyright much more stringently than "fair use"; we can only accept works where the copyright has expired (which takes an eternity, often well over 100 years) or where the copyright has an explicit license which allows wide-ranging re-use. We therefore can almost never accept photos off the internet, and "press photos" for publicity usage are also typically not licensed anywhere near enough for our requirements. See Commons:Licensing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah okay. This photo looks like it was made by himself to be used though... is there some method/site/program you guys use to discover the copyright of images? 2.102.187.157 14:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is a method and a site that we guys use to do this kind of checks. But as to teach it to you... Well, joking aside, there actually is such stuff, but it's nothing special. Call it lust for learning, a fancy for fiddly legal questions, common knowledge and Google image search. Your example is hardly made by Jacob Lofland himself, though: it's hard to pose for a photograph and operate the camera alone. Mobile phone selfies are selfmade, yes, but those show distinct technical features: a lighting that is not "studio like", bulging due to a lens with a shot focal length (fisheye effect), meaningful EXIF data and a "substandard quality" overall (noise, crop...). On the other hand, this Lofland still exhibits a well lit uniform background, a purposeful posing and seems to have been taken with a telephoto lens with a quite wide aperture (bokeh on the hands laid on the head). This leads to the conclusion: professional studio shot. It's imaginable that Mr. Lofland paid the hired photographer for the rights to make a release under a Commons allowable license, but this must be evidenced (through a communication in the OTRS), hence the "permission lacking" warning and not a speedy deletion straightforward. Hopefully, this answer helps you. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, what's a communication in the OTRS? And I Google image searched his name and the photo only leads to IMDB and one completely random site. I went through all the results too (only took a min, there weren't many results). Does this mean it's not possible to discover the copyright? 2.102.187.157 16:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
OTRS means that the original photographer needs to release his work under a free licence by writing an email to our voluntary staff. It all looks like Mr Lofland is actually not the photographer but that he hired a professional to take this image. And even if he had made the picture himself it would not mean that anyone could use it for any purpose once it was posted on the internet. Copyright is automatically granted to whomever took the image, and without an explicit licence we cannot use the phtograph in question. De728631 (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay and since there's no results of this image in a google image search of his name there's no hope of finding the copyright status of this image right? 2.102.187.157 17:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
You have to be careful about your wording. The copyright status itself is nothing that needs researching: it's simply "protected". To clarify the licensing status, there's work to be done. Of course, the photographer's name is nowhere published. But a solution could be to write to Mr. Lofland's management or, if he doesn't have one, to himself. The people (managers) there are usually knowledgeable about material created for and with their fosterlings, including promotional images and their licenses. At least, the OTRS staff is AFAIK mostly willing to accept a release under a free license emanating from an artist's manager. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Threshold of originality and Source

This is just another conflict between Ellin Beltz and Me.

The files afefcted are File:West Lafayette High School logo.png and File:TractionLogo.png, clearly bellow the Threshold of originality in the United States. Therefore, I changed the license to {{PD-textlogo}} ([1] and [2]), that is 100% correct. But, Ellin Beltz reverted these editions ([3] and [4]), that is IMHO, totally wrong and very disruptie consideron that it comes from an Admin.

After reverting her reversion, she tagged these files as No source ([5] and [6]), that is less worse than reverting to a wrong version but still disruptive (specially if one of these files has been taged as Copyvio by a Bot). Therefore, despiste that there is already concensus about this case,

--Amitie 10g (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason for requiring a source is to verify the copyright information. For PD-ineligible, the copyright evidence is entirely present and we don't need a source. I reverted the Lafayette one. I want to look at the Traction logo later on... not sure about PD-ineligible on that one at first glance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent upload of File:Wug.svg

I think the "wug" is too elementary to be copyrighted, as it's essentially the mirrored, flattened top half of a rest symbol with legs. So I drew an SVG and uploaded it. See w:en:WP:Media copyright questions#Wug picture for more.

What do you think? Σ (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the 'wug itself' is too simple to be copyrightable, even if specific drawings of them are. Reventtalk 21:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Teddy Riner.jpg

The photo File:Teddy Riner.jpg does not seem to be free: the red logo "2" on the top right is the logo of the French public media en:France 2 and I doubt the uploader of the image has got the rights from the television to use this picture, probably took from a brodcast.

PS: the same way, I don't think File:Teddy Riner 2012.jpg, uploaded by the same user, the same day/time, is not a free media I guess (even though the logo has been cropped on this one) Ssx`z (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I marked both as "No Permission" with MediaWiki talk:Gadget-QuickDelete.js. BMacZero (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: BMacZero (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

book upload - public domain reprint - redacting newer content

When public domain and copyrighted text are mixed in a book which will be uploaded to Commons, how should copyrighted text be addressed? Is blacking it out a recommended option?

There is a famous poetry text from India from about year 1300. The text is in the public domain. On paper it might be 100 pages. It has been reprinted numerous times. There is a reprint from 2015 of the original text without translation. The reprint begins with copyright information and a preface, as is common with reprints of old texts. Following that, the old public domain text is printed verbatim, except that there are footnotes explaining the meaning of the many archaic terms. The book ends with indexing.

It is proposed that the public domain old text be uploaded to Commons then imported to Wikisource. The challenge to address is the procedure for removing copyrighted additions of text to the newly reprinted material. Is anyone aware of any example of a precedent for this?

One way to do this might be to scan the entire book, including both copyrighted and public domain parts. At this point, all contemporary additions to the original text might be blacked out, so that there is accounting for all pages in the reprint but the copyrighted parts are obviously removed. Another option could be to avoid putting the scanned pages in Commons at all, and instead, do the transcription of text from the book to a new digital file which serves as the master in Commons and Wikisource. So far as I understand, Commons and Wikisource prefer to have source documents whenever possible, including scans of documents which are transcribed for use in Wikisource.

I am asking about this at Wikisource also, but may I please ask here also: can anyone say whether they have or have not seen any such instance of this sort of book in Commons? Does anyone have an idea or preference for how uploading a book of this sort should be done? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If you blot out the text completely in the bitmap images, and remove any footnote text from an OCR'd text layer, then you are no longer copying the copyrighted content and that should be fine. A source with no copyrighted commentary is probably better, of course. I don't think India has the copyright for a typographical arrangement anymore... the UK does, 25 years from publication, and we probably shouldn't upload those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Files from Leonard Bentley Flickr stream

Hello. When I closed this deletion request, I noticed that Leonard Bentley uploads on Flickr many images whose he is not the author. Many of files from his Flickr stream are on Commons (see Category:Files from Leonard Bentley Flickr stream and its subcat Category:Photographs by Leonard Bentley (Flickr); they are 487 files in total). They should be reviewed carefully, because some of them are in the public domain and others seem to be really authored by Leonard Bentley. BrightRaven (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that category still needs going through. I have marked quite a number as PD (old postcards), and nominated several more for deletion (much newer postcards). There are some which very much look like scans of printed material where I was not able to find an explicit source, so have left alone for the time being, and there are a few photos which do seem to be authored by him. It's a hard mix. But I'd lean towards deleting any work there which appears to be a scan taken 1950s or later (there are a bunch). It gets difficult if he is scanning some of his old prints, and a couple uploads do look like that, but many do look to be postcards (just not available elsewhere on the net). The DR you closed was one of several that @ghouston opened in addition to mine. They were mass-nominated in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files in Category:Mattbuck's temporary category#Flickr files by Leonard Bentley but since there were obvious PD files in there too, it was recommended to nominate them individually. The user definitely scans works from newspapers and magazines and postcards, so there is serious doubt on some of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I've done a few. They at least have dates, but unfortunately not source details, so it can be tricky. Any that are relatively recent and "newsworthy" events, like File:The Supremes (14547840277).jpg, I assume are not own work and easy to delete. --ghouston (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS from descendent of copyright holder?

I have a photo taken in 1990 that I'd like to upload. It was published in 2013 without permission of the original copyright holder, who died in 2002. I may be able to get a descendant to fill out an OTRS form to release the photo. Does the descendant have the power to release copyright (assuming they have power of attorney)? Thanks for your advice and sorry about my ignorance on the subject. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as a descendant is a heir, this person would indeed inherit the nonmaterial possessions, including copyrights and patents, from the deceased. Matters may be more complicated if more than one heir is involved. From a formal point of view at least, a copyright (or the similarly build rights in countries of civil right in e.g. mainland Europe) is something that could be inherited without problems. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll see if I can get contact info from a descendant. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, folks. I have a question about uploading an image. That image (here) is the logo of a long-defunct British insurance company that had branch offices in Canada. The information included with the image says that the original was created sometime between 1850 and 1885, but other information about the company narrows the range down to 1855 to 1870. Either way, the creator of the logo died in 1899. The publication date is not known. The image is taken from the web site of a Canadian museum, and the page that hosts the particular image (here) provides a Canadian BY-NC-ND 2.5 license. So I'm reasonably certain that this is public-domain material.

My particular question has to do with the copyright notice stamped onto the upper right-hand corner of the image. That notice was not, of course, added by the creator of the original work, but by the museum. It can easily be removed, either by cropping or by "photo-shopping". And that leads to my two concerns

  1. Will doing that void the BY-NC-ND license? And does that matter, given that the underlying material is public domain?
  2. When I upload the image, I fully expect to disclose the fact that the source image has been modified to remove a copyright notice. I expect that this will raise a red flag to anyone who looks at the documentation.

Any thoughts or advice that you care to provide will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Because the image is in public domain the license is invalid and can be simply ignored. You can upload both the image with notice and without it. Ruslik (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Ruslik0 Thank you for your thoughts. I have one clarifying question -- are you suggesting that I upload both versions as separate files, or to first upload the "with watermark" version, but then replace it with the "watermark-removed" version? Thanks again for your comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: Upload the version from the source first, then overwrite it with your version please (unless you actually 'want' both). It's not where it can be 'simply' cropped, so people might want to do their own work of removing it at some point. Reventtalk 23:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Thanks for the advice. The file is now at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:International_Life_-_emblem.jpg . Was this what you had in mind? NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: Yup, you did a good job of cloning it out tho. Reventtalk 02:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: , @Revent: Is there any GLAM project for asking institutions not to watermark or claim copyright on public domain work? A list of those that need to be asked? It's probably mostly just oversight, and it might save us some work. HLHJ (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@HLHJ: Unfortunately, some well known institutions disagree quite strongly, in a way that goes well beyond simple oversight. Reventtalk 00:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Picture taken by uploader's grandfather

I had a request to move the file w:File:Herald of Free Enterprise after salvage.jpg to commons, but was unclear on the copyright status. According to the description, the file was taken by the uploader's late grandfather in May 1987. Since the CC 1.0 license didn't exist in 1987, should we assume that the grandfather assigned the license before he died, or that the copyright passed to the grandchild? Given that the picture was taken ~30 years ago, it's not in the public domain yet (Dutch copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem assuming that a descendant inherited the copyright and can license it. If another family member objects we can deal with it then. We have a {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}} template, but not one for 1.0. Not sure why we don't have a generic wrapper for heirs like {{Self}} (we do have {{Heirs-license}}, but it seems to be more for making heirs templates, rather than direct use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thanks! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
if you inherited the copyright you can release it. i note there is already a copy on commons here File:Herald of Free Enterprise after salvage.jpg. there are lots of files that could be transferred, but are not because of the deletionist tendency here, i.e. "The administrators of the commons have taken their role to protect against copyright violations (copyvio) completely overboard. I have submitted my own work and they deleted it because of the fear of copyvio. I have signed their paperwork multiple times--years of this. Finally the most recent contributions have not (yet) been challenged. For the wider ramifications of getting images of historical figures or just ones from other sources, the obstacles to putting up good images are almost insurmountable."[7] Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Waiving panorama copyright?

In the US (where Freedom of Panorama for sculptures does not exist) is it possible to get some type of permission from a sculptor which results in them waiving their copyright for photos of their sculptures - but not giving up their copyright to the sculpture itself?

And would this result in all photographs (and all future photographs) of the sculpture being free content - provided the photographer releases the photo under a free license?

I hope I'm making myself clear. Brightgalrs (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Afaik, as the author of a work you can always waive one or more parts of the rights in your work. But once you do that it is a permanent and irrevocable decision, so all future images of said sculpture would deprive the sculptor of their right for renumeration, credits, etc. That said, for use at Wikipedia or Commons such a waiver would also have to be documented through the OTRS email service. De728631 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, that matches my intuition perfectly. I'm thinking of asking Anthony Howe (kinetic sculptor) to waive his copyright for one of his sculptures, if you're wondering. Brightgalrs (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, is a photograph still free content if the sculptor waives the rights for only that photograph? For instance, this one (I requested the photographer change the license to allow commercial use, derivatives, still waiting for a response). Can't Mr. Howe just say that he gives up his copyright claim just for that photo? The photo could then be used commercially, and have derivatives, just like the commons asks for. Surely that would be easier and much more palatable than doing it for every single photo that would ever be taken? Brightgalrs (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Brightgalrs De728631 I asked this question before.
I am not aware of policy guidance on Commons of this happening. It is a common enough case. I think that it ought to be possible for anyone to release a photograph of a 3D non-free work without releasing the copyright to the work. I care enough about this to want to clear policy on it. I would talk more on wiki, but I think this is complicated enough to merit a voice or video chat. If you care enough to talk by phone or webcam then email me and let's talk more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes! You phrased it perfectly in your second link there.
I think the following needs to be done:
Any thing I'm missing? Brightgalrs (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative_works also would need plenty of updates. Too many blanket statements that derivative works can't be uploaded - need to stress the caveat that it's allowed if the original creator has given permission. Brightgalrs (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think you should be able to get the sculptor to just allow a photo with your desired license. It would still need to be filed with OTRS, and the sculptor would need to know what the license would mean (for the photo), i.e. it could be used commercially, and that the license is irrevocable. It would not be different than the normal OTRS wording, just that he's licensing his derivative work rights as seen in that photo (or photos). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
They can do that, but licenses accepted by Commons will always allow somebody to make a new sculpture based on the photo. The original request to license "all photographs (and all future photographs)" would surely allow the production of exact 3D duplicates. There's no FoP-like license available that only allows the original photo and not necessarily any derivative works. --ghouston (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure about your first statement there? If the sculptor only releases the 2d depiction of his 3d work from copyright I don't see how that also releases his 3d copyright.
Your second statement has some merit, getting enough photos of a sculpture is pretty much the same as 3d scanning it. My original request was top broad and much less agreeable than asking for individual photographs, however.
I'm confused about your third statement. Derivative works of a single photograph that has been granted permission from the sculpture is what we are going for (necessary to upload to Commons). If the sculptor granted permission for a single photo, a totally new photograph wouldn't be a derivative work of the first photo.
Either way, do you think FoP licenses would need to be written? One for all photographs (present and future) of a sculpture, and another one for an individual photograph of a sculpture? Brightgalrs (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
My reasoning is that Commons only accepts licenses that allow unrestricted derivative works, as far as I know. For an artist to license a photo with a provision that derivative works aren't allowed, or restricted to 2D works only, wouldn't be any better than a license that didn't allow commercial use. --ghouston (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Practically speaking, Commons currently only allows 2D works as a matter of technical limitations and creating 3D works from 2D ones is an uncommon and impractical kind of reuse, so as of now such a copyright restriction would be of low relevance. Now once 3D file formats become possible to upload here and/or 2D->3D reuse becomes more common, we'd need to give the derivative works restriction more scrutiny. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think any compromise needs to be made. The photos don't need to restrict derivative works. It's simply the 3d structure of the sculpture that wouldn't allow unrestricted derivatives - and the structure itself isn't the thing being uploaded to the Commons, if that makes sense. Brightgalrs (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ghouston: It would be a gray area. Yes, the license would allow making of derivative works. The copyright in a photograph is generally on the lighting, angle, etc. -- so derivatives using the photograph itself are fine of course. Whether a re-made sculpture would be considered licensed is likely a gray area -- if there was any expression not present in the photograph (and it may be hard to argue that full 3-D expression is always present) then a judge could certainly rule that expression not present in the photograph was duplicated, making a re-made sculpture a direct derivative of the original sculpture, and not simply a derivative of the photograph. It would be a pretty risky thing to do, I'm guessing, even with a free license from the sculptor on the photograph -- I'm not aware of a precedent. Once you remove all aspects of the photo, it will probably be dangerous making a work which is still derivative of the original sculpture but not derivative of the photo (i.e. removing the directly-licensed photographic aspects). But there may be some risk that uses the sculptor did not intend may be allowed, as well. It is a gray area to be sure. But if such an OTRS license of a photo specifically disallowed making 3-D versions of the pictured object, that may still qualify as "free" for the photo -- we certainly allow freedom of panorama photos here, which are most certainly restricted in that way. Those laws are basically a forced license of the 2-D representation, but not works which prejudice the normal exploitation of original work itself (i.e. copies in the same 3-D form). If those photos are OK, then I don't see why we wouldn't allow a sculptor to license a photo on basically similar terms, and accept it. Strictly speaking, the license could just be for the photographic aspects of the work, and waiving the sculptor's derivative rights for uses involving that photo. So there may be ways to allow the photo (enough for Commons) without making an explicit CC license on the original work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I suppose how risky it was would depend on the work and the photo and whether the original sculptor would be able to demonstrate that the work was partly derived from non-licensed views of the object. I'm not sure if a license would be accepted because it's "similar to FoP". The Commons:Licensing doesn't say that FoP restrictions are acceptable, but requires "Publication of derivative work must be allowed." It does contain a link to Commons:Freedom of panorama as see-also though. --ghouston (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Derivatives of the photographic work would be allowed. I think that's all we need. Not sure we need a full license on the underlying work, as long as it does not interfere with the photographic work itself. Once you make another statue, that is not a derivative work of the photo, in most cases. That is a separate work derivative of the original statue only. The expression in a photographic work is the lighting, angle, framing, etc. None of those are present in a re-made statue and I don't think the lack of the latter ability affects the "free"ness of the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Public Domain or Non-Free?

I and another editor on the English Wikipedia have different opinions on this file. Does the pepper make the wordmark non-free or would it be considered simple and be in the public domain? My thoughts, along with Marchjuly, are that it makes the image non-free. Marchjuly states on his talk page: "I don't think the pepper would be considered a simple geometric shape which is below the TOO for the United States, but that is just my opinion." Right now, this file is being used in all sub articles of Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns, but apparently it is "no longer used by athletics" per an I.P. and another editor (both disagree with me). I don't check Commons very often, so if I haven't replied back within a day or two, please contact me at my EN-talk page. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan 06:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out on my Wikipedia talk page, File:Chili's Logo.svg is licensed as "own work" even though it looks like COM:FU based upon Chili's official website. If the pepper imagery in that is acceptable for Commons, then maybe the pepper imagery in the wordmark is also OK for Commons. On a side note, the same uploader (User:Bashar Khallouf) who uploaded the Chili's logo as "own work" has also uploaded a number of other logos and currency images as "own work" which most likely are not. Some of these appear to be fair use, but others may be below the TOO and OK as {{PD-text logo}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
What the heck. That Chili's Logo should be PD. If it isn't simple enough for PD, then it shouldn't be on Commons. Also it should have a trademark template on it.Brightgalrs (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Cleaned what I could, asked the uploader to confirm things I cannot. Brightgalrs (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
If any part or aspect of a logo would qualify for copyright, that would be enough. I would agree the pepper would qualify for copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
As Carl said, it's completely dependent on the pepper... it's it's copyrightable, then the logo as a whole is not ok unless it was removed (and then it would not be the correct logo). I agree that the pepper probably shows enough originality to be protected. Reventtalk 02:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Should File:Chili's_Logo.svg be nominated for deletion? --Gazebo (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Gazebo: It's a lot closer to the line... it's arguable, at least, that it's sufficiently original, but I think it would probably survive a DR. It would be hard to make a convincing case that the pepper in that logo is not too 'generic' to be protected. Reventtalk 09:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Filters and copyright

Hi everybody. Pls, let me know. If I take a picture and apply on it some kind of filter, cartoon filter, sepia filter etc. using a smartphone app, for example, am I able to upload it on Commons using a "own work" tag? Regards, Sturm (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes -- the copyright owner is who took the picture. The only problem is if a filter adds pictorial work itself -- i.e. a texture which has pictures in it, stuff like that. Automated processing and effects are not copyrightable themselves, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Carl! Sturm (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It would be a nice idea to have a topic regarding this question on FAQ, eg. What about? Anyone able to do it? Sturm (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Just as a more 'general' note, the use of a 'software preset' to modify an image does not add any human 'originality' that is protected... if any other person, using the same preset on the same source material, would produce the same result then it's not copyrightable. It's only if, as Carl noted, that the preset adds content that is itself protectable, such as a frame. Reventtalk 02:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
To clarify... not saying the 'original' isn't copyrightable, just that such 'generic' modifications don't create a new copyright in the derivative work. Reventtalk 09:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

GLAM copyright claims on 1852 ad

I'd like to use this advert for a slave auction to illustrate text on the introduction of the African rice species to the United States. It was published in 1852, and it's an advert, so even in the US it's out of copyright. Actually, almost all of the collection is public domain. However, the website makes copyright claims on it. Possibly they are just playing safe with the few copyright items. Has anyone previously asked Duke University about putting this content on Commons? I think it is a faithful representation of a 2-D public-domain work, so I think it could be uploaded anyway, but could someone with knowledge of US copyright law please confirɱ? HLHJ (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@HLHJ: The 'original work' is clearly in the public domain due to age, and was most likely never copyrighted in the first place. This is a solid case where the only possible copyright is in the reproduction, and the argument for such a copyright is very weak. I'm not going to 'tell you to' upload it, because they do 'claim' copyright, but it would not be deleted from Commons... and I seriously doubt that Legal would honor a DMCA takedown, though I can't speak for them. You would need to use {{PD-scan|PD-1923}}, in order to clearly state a rationale for disregarding their claim. Reventtalk 09:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Thank you. I don't want to offend them, so I'll try and get around to contacting the University, and see if I can get them to put up something more like the Library of Congresses' "working out copyright is your responsibility". If anyone from Duke University sees this, feel free to upload it for me, I'd be delighted. HLHJ (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Greco22 uploads

While checking some images on English Wikipedia, I came across File:Aekcycling.png which seems non-free based upon this 2009 archived version of AEK Internet Fan Club which shows the logo being used online well before being uploaded to Commons. After checking the uploader's history, I found files like File:KavourasG.png, File:Vamvakarismarkos.png, File:Agamez-pao.png, File:Delva-Pao.png and File:Chiotismanolis.png and many others uploaded as "own work", but which do not appear to be so at all due to the wide differences in quality, etc. Any suggestions on what to do here since it appears the uploader may have incorrectly licensed or simply inappropriately uploaded so many files over an extended period of time? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here, Marchjuly. User:EugeneZelenko and I have nominated all the files for deletion. Warm Regards. Wikicology (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Swapped pictures

File:Plantation view slave quarters 1892.jpg ("Plantation view slave quarters 1892")
File:Port Royal Island South Carolina 1862 View of a farm house.jpg ("Port Royal Island South Carolina 1862 View of a farm house")
Somehow during upload these pictures got swapped. The titles, tags, etc. all apply to one another. Is there an easy way to swap them? HLHJ (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@HLHJ: I would not necessarily call it 'easy', but it's possible in a somewhat straightforward manner, normally. I'm reluctant to attempt to do it until I get some positive news about phab:T141704 being resolved, however. It's probably better to just overwrite each with the correct image, and note why in the upload summary. Reventtalk 17:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence Ho page's new photos

Hello,

I am Jeffrey from Strategic Financial Relations, a regional PR Consultancy appointed by Melco International Development. We are asked by the company to update their Chairman's, Mr. Lawrence Ho, wikipedia.

Therefore all photos are provided by Melco. There should not be any copyright problem. May I know the reason behind why all the photos are deleted?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamyuichit (talk • contribs) 12:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for disclosing your relationship with the organization. However, I advice you to refrain from editing the article about your chairman. You may suggest changes on the talk page of those articles, where you should disclose your conflict of interest. You can use the {{request edit}} template to suggest changes. Concerning the deleted photos, Melco International Development should send permission to COM:OTRS, attaching the the name of the deleted files, e.g File:Melco International Development.jpeg. There are lots of backlog, it's likely to takes several days or weeks before they are restored. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tamyuichit: The images were initially deleted because they were uploaded as 'own work', yet were found to have been previously published on the internet without a free license that would allow them to be on Commons. We require a verification of permission for such files, via COM:OTRS. One image was then re-deleted (repeatedly) because it was repeatedly re-uploaded under multiple filenames. You may not re-upload deleted files, you must either request undeletion or, if OTRS permission is needed, wait for OTRS to do so after they process the permissions ticket. You also have another upload, File:Studio City Grand Opening Event 1.png, that will probably be deleted shortly, per COM:Collages, unless you address the licensing and attribution of the included images. The advice that Wikicology gave you above is mostly relevant editing articles on Wikipedia, not to uploading images here. Reventtalk 16:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Revent. Wikicology (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Washington State official portraits

I would like to upload the official portrait of Washington State Representative Hans Zeiger, downloaded from the Washington State website. Mr. Zeiger informs me that all images from the website are in the public domain. Can someone confirm that? Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

US federal government works are in the public domain. This is not true for most state governments, including Washington State. There is no indication at all that the images on http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/Hans-Zeiger/ are in the public domain. Quite to the contrary, the page says Copyright © 2016 Washington State House Republicans. --rimshottalk 19:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Harvard Library has a site on state copyrights. Washington doesn't appear to have a unified policy as seen here. clpo13(talk) 21:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

William_F._Ross_House.JPG

Hello, This image...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/7e/20160810204946%21William_F._Ross_House.JPG

... is not free media. The high res archived image should be removed. If you look at the meta data of the actual photo you will find the image is under copyright with Andrew Bruah 2016. Somehow this was overlooked and the image was post by Teamu08. Please respond with a follow up. Thanks in advance, michael@indowwindows.com — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.25.125.210 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the photo in question was uploaded by Jeifler (talk · contribs) ([8]) and the free version has been re-uploaded. An admin will have to revision delete the non-free version. clpo13(talk) 21:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Clpo13... it's the high res image that should be removed... Let Admin know I say thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.25.125.210 (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@174.25.125.210: The copyrighted version (which was indeed clearly marked in the EXIF) has been deleted. Sorry for that, and thanks for being nice about it. Reventtalk 01:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright vios in uploads

Would an admin be kind enough to go through this user's edits and delete all the uploads? These flags have been picked up from internet forums and most if not all of them are fake or hoaxes, not official symbols. Mar4d (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files created by Shaan Lollywood now exists, opened by another editor. I looked at the first 10 or so... the above assessment appears spot on. Reventtalk 18:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mar4d: As a followup, the uploader is now indefinitely blocked, and the images that were 'exact copies' of previously deleted files are gone. The rest are still at DR, though I expect the consensus will be to nuke them as either copyvios or probable ones. Reventtalk 00:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Thanks for following up on this. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

File:RhB Ge 4-4 II Wiesener Viadukt.jpg

@Kabelleger, the author of the photo, has published it under CC-BY-SA-3.0 on Commons and under CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 on his web site. Is it acceptable? See also archive from 16 Dec. 2013, 11 days after the time the 2nd version has been uploaded on Commons. --jdx Re: 19:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: COM:Multi-licensing is perfectly fine, as long as at least one of the offered licenses is compatible with Commons. When an author offers more than one license, people can choose. Reventtalk 00
53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: OK, thanks. But shouldn't the photo be tagged with BY-SA and BY-NC-SA tags in both places? --jdx Re: 06:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: Commons is only hosting, and redistributing, the work under the free licenses. We can indicate the NC one if we want, but we are not obligated to, and the author didn't upload it that way. There's also not really a convenient way to do it... what 'NC' license templates exist redirect to speedy deletion templates. Reventtalk 06:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Question to a Flickr picture

Hi, I urgently need a specific Flickr picture for the illustration of an article. It's marked as CC ... but with the tag "non-commercial use" only. Is there any chance to use it in the German wikipedia at least? If so, in what way? We have a similar case in the English project, namely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:House_of_Commons.jpg (= copyrighted pictures directly uploaded in WP:EN). Thanks for any helpful reply. Cheers, GeoTrinity (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

GeoTrinity Commons doesn't allow noncommercial pictures and neither does the German wikipedia from what I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's what I already assumed but I wanted to be sure. Thanks for the reply. Resolved & cheers, GeoTrinity (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: GeoTrinity (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC): resolved

Files on Ruth Buendia

Hello everyone,

is there a way to use files of Ruth Buendia, that I found on flickr on Wikipedia? All files that I uploaded have a license with some rights reserves that equals to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ this one: BY- NC- ND/2.0 Is that a valid license to put up?

Thank you for your response. File:Premiaciòn a Ruth Buendia.jpg File:Ruth Buendia Presidenta de la Central Asháninka del Río Ene (CARE).jpg File:Ruth Buendia.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlyspatz (talk • contribs) 09:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

NC-licences are not allowed on Commons. --Magnus (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It can only be cc licenses? Is there a way to specifically search for those kinds of licenses? --Earlyspatz (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
And this is confusing to me as I thought that pictures on commons should be non- commercial.--Earlyspatz (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It can be any legit CC license that doesn't have ND or NC in it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Earlyspatz: There are different CC licences – there are 2 "public domain" licences (CC0 and Public Domain Mark) and there is family of 6 CC BY licences. Among those 6, only CC BY and CC BY-SA are acceptable on Commons – see COM:L#Well-known licenses. And NC in CC-BY licences means "free for non-commercial use" – that's why NC licences are not allowed on Commons. --jdx Re: 11:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
CC-0 is also acceptable. "Public Domain Mark" is a special case, though, but distinct from CC-0. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

1933 publicity still

I want to upload this picture here of Merian C Cooper looking up at the huge King Kong bust. https://horrorpediadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/kk10.jpg

It's worth noting that there are probably more images using the 'these were never copyrighted' argument on Wikipedia itself than on Commons. While there are files here making that claim, and even a template that includes a version of that boilerplate text (which was itself imported from Wikipedia), such files are not uncommonly deleted if they go to DR unless there is more evidence that just the generic claim... it often depends, frankly, on 'who shows up' at a deletion discussion. Reventtalk 16:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
So what should I do? Should I just upload it on the wikipedia and use the same template as the ones that cplo13 cited in his example or should I upload it here with that {{PD-Pre1964}}?Giantdevilfish (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest waiting a bit before you decide... other people might find more information, or agree that it's 'likely enough' to be PD. Reventtalk 00:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
It's preferable to see the entire front (and preferably back as well) to make sure there were no copyright notices. I do see other versions on the net which do have the entire front; just a white border with no other markings. It's not really appropriate to claim PD-US-no_notice purely based on other similar photos; we should be able to see lack of notice on a copy of this work in particular. But, given other internet copies, it seems that is the case, so I think {{PD-US-no notice}} is fine as a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright of government owned media organisations in North Korea

Hi

I know there are different copyright rules for state owned media organisations in North Korea, but I can't find any clear guidance. I wanted to use the images from this page which are taken by KCNA and Rodong Sinmun in 2012, is it possible?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Their copyright law states that for works owned by an institution (which would presumably include the government), the term is 50 years from publication. They do omit "documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins" from copyright protection, but that sounds like textual works only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Tractor Sazi F.C. Logo.svg

Would the tractor imagery in this logo be considered to complex for {{PD-textlogo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say yes. It's a fairly unique shape as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Katch 22 publicity photograph.

I am currently writing a page about the London band Katch 22. I have a publicity photograph from 1968 which has been used extensively in newspapers, magazines etc. for many years. The photographer knew what it was going to be used for and gave his permission on payment of his bill for services. Can I put this photo on my page ? Mike-eastman (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No. See COM:NETCOPYRIGHT#Press photos. While it may be legal, Commons only accepts photograph where the copyright has expired, or the copyright has been explicitly licensed. The typical implied license for press photos is not enough. While it would probably fall under "fair use", Commons cannot accept fair use images -- only public domain and licensed ones. A 1968 UK photo, if anonymous, would only expire 70 years after publication -- and more likely, the author is known, and copyright would last their entire lifetime plus 70 more years. The photographer could well still be alive. So, it's not public domain, and the copyright owner (which may be the band, if copyright was transferred per the payment) presumably has not given an explicit copyright notice which grants the use we would require. Yes, it's frustrating to have these types of restrictions, but that is what the term "free" means. While a publicity image is designed to be copied, using it for commercial purposes or creating derivative works are often going beyond the intended use. You may be able to claim fair use on English Wikipedia -- see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. They are also more limited than being strictly legal though -- if there is a possibility of getting a free equivalent, they may decide it's not within their policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Lenore Ulric publicity photo from 1929

Can I get an opinion about this original photo of her, from 1929? It shows the front and back. The front includes the studio name (long defunct), her name, and the name of the film (considered lost) per her bio. Like nearly all posed publicity head shots, it was not likely taken during the filming, so any film copyright would not be a factor anyway. --Light show (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That seems fine for PD-US-no_notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. --Light show (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds of graffiti pictures of France where there is no FOP

Hello, Following this discussion in QI: in Category:Graffiti in France there are hunderts of pictures, but as everybody knows there is no FOP in that country. Can we host them here? Poco2 09:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

For non-trivial art, I doubt it is allowed. A lot of deletions should be done in this category in my opinion. Ssx`z (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I fact, it is not a matter of triviality, it´s much more also the intention of the artist, to demonstrate his very personal work, most of them with a signatur. Almost none of these works are trash, it is much more high quality! In my opinion, almost every of these pictures violates the lack of FOP in France. --Hubertl 11:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
In "non-trivial art", I was thinking about these examples:
Indeed, most of the works in this category can be considered as art otherwise Ssx`z (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I am also wondering about the legality of these graffiti and about what French law thinks of copyrights on illegally created objects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
From what it appears, images of illegal graffiti have, at least in some cases, been allowed on Commons on the basis that the artist cannot realistically expect to claim copyright on a work that was done illegally. See COM:IC#Graffiti and {{Non-free graffiti}} for details. Nevertheless, the copyright aspects of illegally created works may well be unclear. --Gazebo (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
So, should we proceed with a big DR for all these categories? Poco2 09:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Policy has been to allow them. The legal theory is probably less likely to be true in civil law countries like France, as opposed to common-law countries like the UK and US, but I'm not sure it has been tested much. I would not bother with the basic lettering-only graffiti like the four linked above at the least -- though the pictorial ones are more problematic. Given the uncertainty, I definitely wouldn't mark them quality images, but DRs are another matter -- that would be a change in policy. It had been one area where we were somewhat ignoring the copyright in the country of origin (if no FoP). Use the {{Non-free graffiti}} tag if not already applied, for non-FoP countries, so we can track them. It is a gray area... previous discussions are at Commons talk:Copyright rules by subject matter#Graffiti, Commons talk:Copyright rules by subject matter#Graffiti policy .282.29, Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 14#Graffiti, and I'm sure others. I'm not sure any of them were conclusive. For walls which have been drawn on by many different people, it may be more of a folk art situation and those may be OK. I would worry mostly about pictorial ones done by one artist in civil law countries (like France), though up to now we have just been tagging those with the above template rather than delete them. If there is any indication the murals are there legally, delete those of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS versus All right reserved

Hi,

After several reading, I do not understand what OTRS permits exactly.

If someone upload its own work on Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0 and prove through OTRS his rights but still has an officiel website saying "All right reserved" for this work, isn't there a contradiction? Mustn't his website be the first to show the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence?

Thank you for your explanations,
Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lacrymocéphale: Submitting evidence through OTRS lets a person 'prove' they have the right to license an image, usually needed because it's been previously published as non-free. An author can offer a work under as many different licenses as they want, even if they are incompatible, and is perfectly free to offer the image under different terms on and off Commons. We just need OTRS if the off-Commons license isn't free so that we know it wasn't simply stolen and falsely licensed. It's also worth noting that the text "All Rights Reserved" is not needed... that's a phrase that is required by the Buenos Aires Convention, but all countries that are members of that are now members of the Berne Convention, which does not require any specific statement to claim a copyright exists. We simply use ARR as shorthand for 'copyrighted and not freely licensed', most of the time. Reventtalk 15:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent:
"An author can offer a work under as many different licenses as they want, even if they are incompatible": I had difficulties to process it. Let say "thank to OTRS, the contradiction between licences remains a concern only for the author".
Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lacrymocéphale: Basically, yes. An example would be a photographer that offers their works on Commons under a SA license, but also 'sells' licenses to commercial users that don't like the SA restriction. Reventtalk
@Revent: Like using a photo for a magasine cover with a bought licence instead of SA to not have to put the cover under SA too?
For example, File:Phil Rock-Upsize Magazine-Philip Rock-Phillip Rock-Photo by J Barbosa.jpg: The magazine probably got this photo under a contract or licence in a way that doesn't put there photo under CC BY-SA 4.0 even if the photograph put it under CC BY-SA 4.0. With another timeline, the photo could have already been under CC BY-SA but the magazine could have buy it or having a contract with the photographer that would neither have put their cover under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Another example: File:"Dialog" project, Iceland, Installation in 2008, photo by Fiann Paul.jpg is already published at http://www.fiannpaul.com/gallery/projects.html?id=560-fiann-paul-photography.jpg with (and only with) "All rights reserved Fiann Paul 2016."; If the OTRS is validated, this will not be Commons' problem if the author was in fact wishing to reserve all the rights. As the CC BY-SA 4.0 rules are respected, anyone can use it, unmolested by what could be another licence.
--Lacrymocéphale (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes. In short, copyright owners can do what they like -- say "all rights reserved" in one place, and offer it under a free license in another, if they so choose. Nothing illegal about that, although as long as anyone discovers the free license, they can make use of it. (Well, perhaps a lower-resolution version was given a free license, and full-scale is still reserved.) Copyright is quite often licensed for individual cases or at least individual users. Even CC-BY files could be licensed separately just to avoid the need of mentioning it was CC-BY (or even crediting the author). All Commons needs is at least one verified free license -- at that point, yes, anyone can use the uploaded image in accordance with the free license regardless of which other licenses are out there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent and Clindberg: Thank you both for your explanation. I haven't thought to apply photo stock licencing scheme (different licences at different prices) to everything including Commons. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

NASA mission proposal

I'm wondering if a NASA pdf for the proposed HAVOC missions to Venus is going to have a copyright that would prevent its use/upload. I'm not exactly sure about how to go about finding this out. NASA's site states that images may be re-used for non commercial purposes, but I'm not sure whether images may be taken from presentations, and if they may, under what circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsigned (talk • contribs) 22:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Most NASA works are public domain; see {{PD-NASA}}. However, there are a few exceptions. If you can provide the link then it would be easier to tell. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0az7DEwG68A about 10 seconds in. Looks like PD-text to me. Reventtalk 04:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Photos from a 1958 booklet, no copyright asserted

I would like to add some photos from a 1958 church anniversary booklet. The work was printed with no copyright notice, and the images are already on-line at this university's collection of historical pamphlets. To the best of my knowledge, this appears to be public domain material. Is this acceptable for Wikimedia Commons, and how should I notate its status when uploading? --Bistropha (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Those rules (copyright notice) only really apply to works first published in the U.S. -- but this looks like one of those. The tag would be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Squires vs Burns 1907.ogv

IMO {{PD-old}} doesn't seem to be the proper licence for this film. The proper licence for the U.S. is {{PD-1923}} (according to the Hirtle chart), but what about the rest of the world? IMO we cannot safely assume that Miles brothers (or at least Herbert J. Miles, the cameraman) died more than 70 years ago, so {{PD-old-70}} is not applicable. --jdx Re: 09:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: It was filmed in California, so {{PD-1923}} is sufficient... pretty much everyone else uses the rule of the shorter term. Reventtalk 15:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: IMO pretty much everyone else uses "author's live + 70" rule (not "publication year + 70"!) and, as I wrote earlier, IMO we cannot safely assume that the author(s) died more than 70 years ago. --jdx Re: 15:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: You are correct, for works where they are the 'source nation'. Most countries don't protect works that have expired in their home country, though, even if their local laws would give a longer period of protection (the shorter term). There are a few countries that would still (possibly) protect this, but not many, and it's not something people really worry about much... the US tag is sufficient for COM:L. Reventtalk 16:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: OK, I've changed the licence tag to {{PD-1923}}. --jdx Re: 16:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
A quick eyeball of w:List of countries' copyright lengths says that life+50 is still most common, and half the people in the world live in China (life+50), India (life+60), US (publication + 95), Japan, Philippines, or Vietnam (all life+50). So no, life+70 is not everyone else.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Upload of a picture specifically free of use

Hi, i found a web page in which it is specified that the photos in there can be used provided that you reference the page and write the name and URL of the source. I add here the source of the page in order to allow you to check if im right or not= http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop6/16novp.html . Thank you for your time --Pedro1996wiki (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pedro1996wiki: Looks good to me, but you'll need to either use the 'advanced upload form', or edit the file page after uploading to do it right. Use
{{attribution|nolink=International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) |text=Required by the license: Photo courtesy of [http://iisd.ca IISD]/ENB-Leila Mead}}
for the license, and link the gallery page in the permission field. Reventtalk 10:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright question about file format

Hi

I left a message on the File types page here that is related to the copyright of a file format, if anyone knows anything about this it would be greatly appreciated. There are people working on supporting 3D models on Wikimedia projects and we have some questions about the .stl file format.

Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that you can't actually copyright a file format, you can only patent it. You can copyright the 'specification' of a file format, but that's not an issue here. I don't know how much you want to trust a book called "Idiot's Guide: 3d Printing", but it's claimed here that the inventor never patented it, and a list of his patents (here) doesn't show any with names that would be likely to cover it. More significantly, other patent applications ([9], [10], for example) that discuss the file format don't cite any prior patents.
I'm pretty sure it's free, but you might want to ask (or poke the WMF to ask) 3D Systems just to be sure. Reventtalk 11:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
phab:T143201 Reventtalk 12:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much Revent, really helpful. John Cummings (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I found a logo online tonight (the logo for the 40th anniversary of the NHL Officials Association). It was not created by myself, but by someone who's currently employed by the NHLOA. I'd like to know if I have to get permission from the person who made the logo, or if I can get permission from anyone involved in the party. Thanks. Mandoli (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mandoli, copyrights are generally owned by the people who create the works, with some important exceptions. If a work is created by an employee in the course of his or her employment, the employer owns the copyright. In this case, NHLOA should send permission to COM:OTRS. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
So I wouldn't need to directly ask the person who made it. Just the organization in general. Mandoli (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
NHLOA is the copyright holder. Thus, ask the organization. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
That's what I assumed. Thanks. Mandoli (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Global Geoparks logo threshold of originality

Hi

Is the Global Geoparks logo suitable to be hosted on Commons? I don't think it reaches the threshold for originality to be copyrighted.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Dia03.PNG (and its other version, File:Fegyverbe!.jpg)

What is the proper licence tag for this poster? Is {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1953}} OK? Next, is it a work of art, i.e. {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1953}} should be used? --jdx Re: 14:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: Unfortunately, the correct tag for those images is a DR template, with Category:Undelete in 2024. Hungary's copyright term is 70 years after the date of death for published works with known creators, and the chance that this poster (that was created for the 1919 revolution) was ever published outside of Hungary is very minimal.
However, to directly answer your question, I think the 'best' tagging here would be {{PD-Art-two|PD-old-auto|PD-1923|deathyear=1953}}, and would suggest adding that to both before taking the work to DR. You might want to read COM:When to use the PD-Art tag, but TLDR, PD-Art should be used when the depicted work is in the public domain, but we do not have a license from the actual photographer (because the uploader obtained the image from an outside source). Reventtalk 10:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: OK, however there seems to be a problem with {{PD-Art-two}} – see User:Jdx/licence test. It should be "life plus 60" instead of "life plus 50". --jdx Re: 10:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: I think that's with PD-old-auto, actually... you're right tho. I'll look at it. Reventtalk 11:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Revision of Template:PD-old-auto - as this is a widely used template (62k uses), it's going to take a while for the change to be processed by the job queue. Unpurged pages will continue to show 50 instead of 60 until it's done. Reventtalk 11:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart photo

Can someone review this front and back photo of Amelia Earhart from 1932? --Light show (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

YouTube CC license and TOS

Please see this thread and let us know if there's an easy answer or if the conversation should be moved here. --NeilN (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If a video is validly marked as CC-BY, that is a separate license than that granted by the terms of service. The terms of the latter would not matter here (since that is non-free), but if also licensed CC-BY, then it is OK, including captures. Captures could picture other copyrighted works, which would be de minimis in terms of the video as a whole but possibly not for an individual capture. In general though, that should be fine. As always, be very careful that the YouTube uploader is actually the copyright owner, and it was not simply reposted from elsewhere (Commons:License laundering). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyright and deleted files

I have been attempting to upload photos from my files to an article in my sandbox. Three have been deleted, but others have been accepted using the same criteria. I did receive a message from Magog the Orge stating these three lacked the correct copyright tag {{PD-Self}} and I thought I had added it. How can I recall these files to check them for what happened? Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

In File:Hidalgo carved by Frank 96dpi.jpg, it looks like you used [[PD-self]] instead of {{PD-self}} (i.e. square brackets used for links instead of curly braces used for templates). However, that is a claim that you yourself took the photograph, which seems plainly false for that photo. So, those would be deleted for an invalid tag as well. With your other text, you would be claiming {{PD-US-not renewed}} it would seem. For a photo of a statue, it gets worse there would be the copyright of the photo (which would be PD if not renewed), plus the copyright of the statue itself, which would be unclear. Seems unlikely that the second copyright was renewed, either, but that is harder to search for if not known when the statue was first published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I entered some photos through your wizard using similar criteria. Magog the Orge contacted me about entry errors on four of them. I corrected these errors on their edit pages, but they still deleted. I don't understand what the problem is. Please advise as what is wrong and how it can be corrected.

I tried reentering three of them under new file names, but they rejected and were sent to a special upload slash file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janice M. Ladendorf (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

UK coat of arms

While I dislike copyright paranoia, I've just noticed that according to Nationalarchives.gov.uk, the royal arms of the UK has a limited scope of allowed usage which precludes Wikipedia and that "any other use or re-use of the Royal Arms, or part of the Royal Arms, or Crest is not permitted". Yet File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg has a free user license. Could someone clarify this? In WP, there was a similar issue with the copyrighted Canadian coat of arms. Brandmeister (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

How old is that coat of arms and who did actually draw our version? Coats of arms are not like a logo, their are a concept that different artists can interpret differently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
From a copyright perspective, the UK can only control specific renditions that government artists make. Another artist can make their own rendition, and that artist would own the copyright of that version, and can license it if they so choose. That is what happened here, and is the same with the Canadian arms (en-wiki uses the official Canadian rendition under fair use, and Commons hosts a different user-drawn version. As long as they conform to the written specifications (the blazon), they are all valid coat of arms (see Commons:Coats of arms). Additionally, the UK has heraldry laws which define who can inherit arms, and use them, etc. -- those are probably what the restrictions you link to are based on, but separate from copyright, only apply inside the UK, and are Commons:non-copyright restrictions so they don't affect the "free" status. Obviously, if you are a UK user, you need to be careful about how you use the "free" versions as well. In a trademark or arms sense, "use" is different than the copyright "use", and usually means to use the mark in such a way to indicate a relationship with the entity in question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Libreaim

Hi,

Special:Contributions/Libreaim: this user has uploaded a lot of slides. In his late uploads, after 2016-06-09, the image often include a CC BY-NC-SA tag and "Created by : Ganesh" followed by an email address. For those images, the file entry on Commons is placed under CC BY-SA 4.0 as an own work. What I think about it:

  • The NC of CC BY-NC-SA seems incompatible with the commercial commercial usage authorized by CC BY-SA 4.0;
  • Libreaim must prove that he is Ganesh if he wants to change the licence or to claim being the source.

I thought starting with prepending all the CC BY-NC-SA ones with {{wrong licence|1=The image says "CC BY-NC-SA" in which NC (non commercial) is incompatible with the commercial usage authorized by CC BY-SA 4.0.}} through a batch task but

  1. there is so many files that I don't want to make a mistake;
  2. there is so many remaining images without the CC BY-NC-SA but with the same layout and style that I feel missing something.

Please, what should be done?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Were these previously published elsewhere? If so, OTRS is a requirement, for sure. Otherwise, you could argue that they are simply a multi-license, although having the license (especially NC license) embedded in the image isn't great. Ideally we'd crop those out, for our usage. On the third hand, there may well be scope issues with those. Not sure what those would illustrate, as they seem like presentation slides that are mostly text. There are graphics on a number of them though with unknown provenance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg:
Hard to find but some have already been published elsewhere:
https://discuss.fsftn.org/t/1-how-systems-work-together-sunglasses/715 contains File:System Integration.png.
--Lacrymocéphale (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bromley Manhattan Plate 001 publ. 1955–56.jpg

Have I used the correct license? Thanks. Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was not really renewed, then the tag is correct. Ruslik (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
That is one way to do it :-) As long as it's a U.S. work, we should trust their determinations of no copyright restrictions. Given that there is a copyright notice, and that I couldn't find a renewal notice on www.copyright.gov (which should be there for any work copyrighted 1951 or later), I added the {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag as well as that is the virtually-certain reason it's PD. It's good to keep the note that the NYPL also marked it copyright-free, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I was curious, so I double checked. It's in the catalog for 1956, shown as published 9 December 1955, as registration A218812. No renewal filed. Reventtalk 12:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
(we should have a template for giving this info, btw) Reventtalk 12:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: Is this copyright information available online? Vzeebjtf (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vzeebjtf: Yes, but it can take some practice with knowing exactly where to look... the pre-1978 material is not in the form of a database. The page at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ is a good reference, but links to the scans at Google Books... I find the ones at the Internet Archive harder to 'browse', but easier to use once you have the right volume. Often, you'll need to check a window of a few years around when the paperwork 'should' have been filed (such as in this case, when the registration was in the volume for the next year). Also, it's important to note that the database at the USCO pads file numbers out to twelve characters, so for A218812 the search term was A00000218812. Reventtalk 14:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Thank you very much for this valuable information. I had no idea! And sorry for the delay in acknowledging; I was off line for a week. Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Raquel Welch promo

Can someone review this front and back photo of Raquel Welch from 1966? It will only be posted online for a few more hours. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If that actual copy was distributed to the newspaper, as opposed to being a wire photo, it would be OK. If it was printed at the newspaper, and kept as part of its archive, the lack of a notice there would not mean anything. Are there other copies on the net which shows the origin was something other than a wire service? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't all the crop sizes and description of where it was to be located on the page ("TP TV Tab," referring to a tabular column,) be enough? At least enough to remove "significant doubt" that it was published? --Light show (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: I saved the page at https://web.archive.org/web/20160822122919/http://rmyauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=17524 so that it going away would not be a problem. FWIW, you should do this with all such sources. Reventtalk 12:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Montgomery promo

Can someone review this front and back photo of Elizabeth Montgomery from 1961. It will also be online for only a few more hours. --Light show (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure that has evidence of distribution. If we know it was found in a newspaper archive and its origin was not a newspaper, that would help. But no indication on the photo itself of its origin or other provenance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It has a stamped date which is a month before the show aired. Decent evidence? --Light show (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Who stamped the date? If NBC, then no, it doesn't matter. We are looking to see that this copy changed hands from the copyright owner (presumably NBC) to someone else. It's not really a matter if it was published or not -- it probably was somewhere -- but rather if this copy was actually distributed, which is the only way the lack of notice is actually evidence to a lost copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
That's the first time I recall separating "publication" from "distribution." The copyright law definintions (link below) states that "Publication is the distribution...." That "The offering to distribute...constitutes publication." Implying they are not separate events. --Light show (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
They are not different, but publication *with* copyright notice did not lose copyright. So, you need to find a published copy without a notice. Is this one? The fact it was published elsewhere with notice does not help that argument. You are trying to prove that copyright was lost. If a particular copy never changes hands (i.e. no distribution), then lack of notice does not prove your aim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, to avoid the question coming up again, can you explain why this image would be acceptable whereas the Montgomery one is not? They both seem to have similar information, and neither has proof it changed hands. Also, you wrote above that "publication *with* copyright notice did not lose copyright." Did you mean "without"?--Light show (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Light show: The Spock image, from looking at the back, appears clearly to have been printed by NBC, with a fancy color logo, to be distributed directly to the public.... that would clearly constitute publication, once such copies were offered or actually distributed. It actually looks, from the perforations on the edge, to have been something like a postcard.
The difficulty that I think you are having is that the mere 'existence' of copies without a notice, even if those copies (years or decades later) come into the hands of the public, does not mean that they were actually published without notice. Many of the works you want to upload could easily have been mere file copies, that were never published in the form in which we are seeing them. Reventtalk 12:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You are correct that File:Leonard Nimoy as Spock 1967.jpg is not really any different, unless there was more info on the original eBay page. That could come in the form of where this copy came from (if the archive of a non-NBC entity), or another lower-resolution copy without notice on the web which itself has proof it was distributed, etc. You are right that the odds favor that copies like this were distributed at the time and are thus PD, but when it comes to proving beyond a reasonable doubt, it's borderline. If uploaded it may be kept, or maybe it would be nominated for deletion -- at that point it's on the admins to weigh the evidence, and I could see them going either way. U.S. photos 1964 or later are much much riskier since there is no possibility of PD-US-not renewed... if this was a pre-1964 photo I'd feel a lot more comfortable. If a third party makes use of this image, and then gets sued for copyright infringement, what proof could they offer in court? If we have no provenance information, then the uploaded image is all the evidence we have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger news photo from 1974

Can someone review this front and back photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger from 1974? --Light show (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Taken by Madison Square Garden... decent chance of being OK, but there is no evidence that copy was distributed on the back of it. So... what was the source? If from MSG archives, then it was never distributed and there is no way of determining copyright status. If from someone else's archive, then cool. Are there other copies on the net which better show distribution? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There were numerous muscle-builder magazines published back then, all of them defunct now. But few of their photos are on the web. And the few that are, don't say where the photo came from. But I'm also still unclear why the photo itself isn't evidence enough of publication, per Copyright definitions, ie. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. --Light show (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it was published. You are however claiming that copyright was lost by virtue of lack of notice on this copy. For that to be true, this copy must have been distributed itself. If a company marks copies with a copyright notice and distributes them, copyright was not lost, even if they also had private copies which had no notice, as long as those other private copies were never themselves distributed. If this was a private copy owned by MSG and never distributed, then it's not evidence of a lost copyright, which may then still exist. When there is a stamp of a separate organization on there, then that is an indication it changed hands. If we knew where this photo came from -- if it was basically anyone other than MSG, and they obtained the copy before 1989 -- then that would also be enough. Odds are pretty high this did not come from MSG directly to the online seller, meaning it probably was distributed without notice at the time and lost copyright, so I probably wouldn't argue to delete it myself -- but others might. Using images from 1964 and later is inherently much more dangerous copyright-wise, since there is no possibility of not being renewed, so it's best if the evidence is clear-cut. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy promo photo from 1975

Can someone review this front and back photo of Leonard Nimoy from 1975? --Light show (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure seems like that photo was used multiple times. Does not seem like a wire photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
As Carl notes, the image appears to have changed hands from the marks. This is at http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515177214 with the source given as Bettmann. That's the Bettmann Archive, and a copy there was quite likely obtained from publication in some form. The way in which Getty is marketing it somewhat implies that they think it's PD, though they don't actually say so, of course. Reventtalk 13:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Francis Ford Coppola photo from 1976

Can someone review this front and back photo of Francis Ford Coppola from 1976? --Light show (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Was this from an NBC archive, or somewhere else? It's not slam-dunk, but I'd lean OK, if we can be reasonably sure that the markings on the back were a newspaper or at least not NBC. If this was a private copy owned by NBC, then it was never distributed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The back shows the cropping size and the day it was to be published. It also says "rush," which implies they needed to get it published soon. --Light show (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There is another copy at http://www.ebay.ca/itm/1975-Famed-Hollywood-Director-Francis-Ford-Coppola-Wire-Photo-/300769412229 (in much poorer condition) and Getty has it here. Given the second copy, I think it's fair to assume this was distributed for publication. Reventtalk 13:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Beatles, 1965

Can someone review this front and back photo of The Beatles from 1965? --Light show (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

And another of them here, from 1964. --Light show (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The first one was taken by CBS, but that copy has no indication it was distributed. If the only copies actually distributed had a copyright notice, then copyright was never lost. If that copy was kept in the CBS archives until 1989 or later, then there is no evidence for PD status.
The second one is a wire photo. No back. No evidence at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. - is http://www.gettyimages.com/license/185199235 at Getty. Also used in an amplifier ad, and, oddly, in the University of Akron 1971 yearbook. Don't think either of those gives clear evidence of no notice, however.
  2. - there is not a chance in hell that AP did not protect their copyright in that (famous) image, which has been published by everyone from Time to the Christian Science Monitor to Rolling Stone to the BBC (and they all credit AP). See http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-New-York-United-/3c74622562e5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/107/0 and don't even think about uploading it. Reventtalk 14:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

copyright in an image part of legislation in the Netherlands

I am considering re-uploading (or requesting undeletion) of an image of a visa present in Dutch secondary legislation on the Dutch legislation website. The deletion discussion didn't give me a very clear view on why it was deleted, and the deleting admin (user:INeverCry) referred to the proposer of the deletion ((user:Stefan2/User:Stefan4) as he is very experienced in the matter. As he seems inactive for the past month, on suggestion of INeverCry, I am placing the matter here to have some input on the matter. For practical reasons I am repeating the request to Stefan below. His argument for deletion was "Bogus copyright tag" (possibly because passports images etc don't normally fall under it; as they are not printed as part of legislation? or because the tag was somehow bogus?); the result of the deletion discussion was "Deleted". L.tak (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Caribbean visa image

He Stefan,

I am sorry to bother you so long after, but over year ago, you nominated File:VisumKonderNedCaribischGebied.png for deletion stating that the copyright tag used was not ok. There was no further discussion and the image was deleted by user:INeverCry. I have asked him to look into the deleted file in order to re-assess whether the deletion was required.

  • The image was found at the Dutch legislation website wetten.nl as part of the "Regeling Toelating", a piece of secondary legislation.
  • Deletion discussion was at Commons:Deletion requests/File:VisumKonderNedCaribischGebied.png
  • The tag was template:PD-NL-Gov/nl, to be used for all works made by or on behalf of the Government (Article 15 Copyright Act).
  • In case of legislation, both Article 11 (all laws and directives are copyright free) and Article 15b of the Dutch Copyright Act are legal basis to consider it copyright free

Based on this info I'd say this image is free of copyright because it is part of legislation. Would you based on this reconsider your view on the matter; or indicate where in your view this evaluation is incorrect? L.tak (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The description page of the file should not have used the page "Template:PD-NL-Gov/nl" as a template. It should have used "Template:PD-NL-Gov" (which, since 2010, was a redirection to "Template:PD-NL-Gov/en"). You'll find the explanation about the deletion of the file on the page "Template:PD-NL-Gov/en". In short, that template was deleted three years ago, in 2013. See "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NL-Gov/en". The page "Template:PD-NL-Gov/nl" should have been deleted also, but apparently the admin forgot to delete it. The files that had been tagged with that template had to be either relicensed when possible or deleted. The file was deleted in 2015. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a technicality then. Thanks for clearing that up! L.tak (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Re-reading the discussion it is more than a technicality but an interpretation of Dutch law to not include derivative works. I don't think I agree (if you look at the history of the Dutch copyright act in 100 years ago, I am sure this was not in mind; and the point of the legislator has to be interpreted here), but I didn't check the travaux preparatoires... Anyway, the way out was also given in that deletion discussion: CC0 as with all gov-published works... L.tak (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's the idea of relicensing. The rationale to say that something from the NL government is in the public domain in the NL can't be based on the articles of the NL copyright law that were invoked in the deleted template, because it is not what those articles of the law say. But when the NL government owned the copyright on a work, the rationale to say that that work is in the public domain in the NL can be based on a declaration of voluntary release in the public domain made by the NL government. You already discussed this subject in 2014 on this page and you actually relicensed at least this file. It's the same principle. Just provide on the description page enough information and links to allow readers to check that the tag you use reflects the correct status of the image. The problem with the deleted template was not about derivative works. That was discussed but it was not the reason for the deletion. The problem was that the law says that the works are copyrighted and that their author retains exclusive rights on some types of uses. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I had already an idea I had been at this before, but couldn't remember how exactly. It is good it worked out now. So what needs to be done now is to remove this Template:PD-NL-Gov/nl or redirect it, or use it solely for the Article 11 exception (which is very explicit in stating laws etc are not subject to copyright). I have done the latter for now as a quick fix. Feel free to further tweak or to choose one of the other options... L.tak (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that explains the "bogus copyright tag" comment by the nominator of the DR, then referring to this use of the tag "PD-ineligible". -- Asclepias (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Faye Dunaway photo

Can I get a review of Fay Dunaway photo from 1975? It has front and back, and it's a UPI press photo. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

And another original of her here.

With one more original as a backup, which has numerous stampings on the reverse. --Light show (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

At least the last, I think the answer is clearly no, because of [11], [12], and [13], all promotional material for the same film, with clear copyright notices in an area not visible in the given image. Yours might be okay, but we cannot see the entire front. Will look at the others. Reventtalk 18:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This one is credited to Henry Grossman. Indeed, not much about the copyright status can be said from this copy if we don't know if and how much of the sides were cropped. By the way, Commons has three photos by Henry Grossman, from theatre plays. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The second, also clearly no, since looking at the full-size image (from the link you gave) there is a copyright notice for Columbia Pictures visible. Please don't start trying to argue if it's a defective notice or not.... please just look before asking in the future. Reventtalk 18:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The first... I'm really not thrilled with being unable to see all of the front or back, tbh. Reventtalk 19:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

New PD license template

After having a number of images of 'recent' Jordanian coins and banknotes pointed out to me, and starting a DR for many, I created {{PD-Jordan-money}}. Feedback appreciated. Thanks. Reventtalk 10:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Eiganotomo-casquedor-nov1952.jpg

Hi! What is your opinion about this file? Is {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} a legitim license for a movie poster of a French film? --Regasterios (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For the original poster, yes. The French translation may have a separate copyright on the text, or the poster may have been modified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Image updated with a copyvio

Hi,

I just reverted File:Poltorak stepan.jpg because the second proposed version is too far from the first one. And I've discovered that this 2nd version might be a copyright infringement; It can be found on several website like here where it has the same size (960x1316). Can this second version be hidden?

(Is there a better place or a tag to ask for the hiding of a specific file revision?)

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done I have no idea what he did to get people so excited (I don't read Ukranian) but with over 30 hits for that image with it being here less than half an hour, there is no way that's not a copyvio. As far as asking, there's not really an 'official' way for anything but removing a non-free frame, because of the 'Streisand effect'. IRC is best if it's anything urgent/personal. Reventtalk 00:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, apparently he's the new defense minister. For some reason that seems to mean he needs an odd variety of moustaches, lol. Reventtalk 00:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Saturnino Urios.jpg

The file's description says "The sketch picture of Fr. Saturnino Urios, S.J.", but I'm not exactly sure what that means. I guess it could mean that uploader drew/painted this and then took a photograph of it, but it also might just be a photograph of a painting on display somewhere at en:Father Saturnino Urios University since the person pictured was the president of the university from 1900-1914. If this is not "own work" of the uploader, then it might be old enough to be public domain depending upon when it was created and when the person who painted it died, right? Anyway, it seems to me that the claim of "own work" should be at least verified by OTRS, but I am interested in hearing what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No correspondence has been sent to our support team, thus there is no way they can verify if this is uploader's own work or not. That being said, I don't see any clear evidence to suggest the painting is not their own work even if it is not. The uploader does not have any history of copyvios and there is no evidence of the use of multiple camera model. Wikicology (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank for taking a look Wikicology. I believe the uploader took the photo, but not sure they created what they photograph. As for no history of copyvios, there was en:User talk:Anitnovic2016#Wikipedia and copyright in which quite a bit of copyrighted text added by the uploader had to be removed from an article, but maybe that's a bit like comparing en:apples and oranges. Do we need to show that the painting is clearly not the uploader's own work or does the uploader need to clearly show that it is his own work? COM:PCP seems to imply we should err on the side of caution when things are unclear, doesn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Paintings on a large hardboard or wood are often difficult to digitized unless it is photographed. This may actually be the user's own work, thus I won't rush to take it to DR. I'll assume good faith. Pinging Revent for an insight. Wikicology (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Understand. For reference, I wasn't thinking of DR; just thought that maybe it should be tagged with {{Npd}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason to doubt that the uploader took the photograph, but I'm extremely dubious that the depicted painting isn't on display somewhere at the university. I can't find any other images of it, so no 'proof', but it seems rather unlikely that it was painted by the uploader. Probably worth at least asking the uploader to explain, yes. Reventtalk 13:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I asked them here. Wikicology (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Wikicology for making the extra effort to verify this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Bruce Ariss.JPG

How to deal with this statement? --jdx Re: 10:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Comment - This seem like a legal issue that needs to be forwarded to the WMF legal team. The photo in question looks like a professional photograph. However, with a quick Google search, I found a linkedin profile with the name "Beth Peerless" who is a photographer but I'm a bit reluctant in linking their personal information here.  The image in question was uploaded here by User:Mark Miller in July 2007,  Beth Peerless claimed they took the image in 1994. The image Metadata shows that it was taken with FujiFILM camera, model FinePix S2950. Miller appears to have use the same camera model in taken other Images like this and this image. Other camera model Miller have used in the the images they uploaded as "own work" that I randomly checked includes: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi, Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi, FujiFilm FinePix S2950, FinePix S2950, Sony DSC-T100 and "SANYO DIGITAL CAMERA  GH2" owned by Lt. Gavin Newsom. Analysis of User:Mark Miller contributions shows they registered account here on March 27, 2007 with 1000+ edits with over 50 images. It also appears that User: Mark Miller is editing under their real name. With a quick Google search, I found someone online who bears the same name with User:Mark Miller who appears to be a photographer and owns a blog that has to do with photography. I won't link that here as well. Per our precautionary principle I'm a bit reluctant in assuming that Beth will not bother to sue or cannot afford to sue. This is why I think this would be best handled by the WMF legal team. I understand that users are responsible for their actions especially in issues related to files they uploaded as "own work". Wikicology (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
FYI, I left a not at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Note. Wikicology (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted the file per PCP. The camera EXIF at least cannot be from the original picture. The camera model was introduced in 2011, while the picture indeed seems to have been taken no later than 1994, given the fact that Bruce Ariss seems to be alive in the picture. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It probably should have gone to a discussion. The upload is just a photographic copy; if the original is indeed licensed that is all fine. It's the original license from 2007 which is in question, and don't think that qualifies for immediate deletion. Even a speedy tag would wait 7 days. The file has been here for years; we could at least see if the uploader has a response before deleting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The file has issues as-is. It was uploaded after the COM:GOF cutoff, yet claims the photo is owned by a third party who "authorized it's duplication and use with limited copyright release", but there is no OTRS confirmation of such. That was still early in the OTRS process, but the file was uploaded with a claim of someone else being the photographer (correctable), but no real confirmation as to what license was actually allowed. Authorizing "duplication and use with limited copyright release" does not sound like a free license, and does not explicitly name the GFDL and CC licenses currently named. The second upload looks like a photograph of another copy. The uploader is still somewhat active, so it would be best to ask them -- but it would be within policy to start a deletion review. Especially given that someone not named now claims to be the photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - @Jdx, Jcb, and Clindberg: Do we have enough reasons to trust other images uploaded by Mark Miller? Can we open a copyright investigations on images uploaded by this user? Their use of multiple camera model like Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi, Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi, FujiFilm FinePix S2950, FinePix S2950, Sony DSC-T100 and "SANYO DIGITAL CAMERA  GH2" owned by Lt. Gavin Newsom and the report by Beth is not a good signal to me. IMO there is need to investigate Miller's uploads to prevent related issues like this that may arise in the future. This is not a punitive measure but a preventive measure. Let me know what you think. Wikicology (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Good. I started it at User:Wikicology/Copyright investigation/User:Mark Miller. Any help would be appreciated. Wikicology (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I notified Miller about this thread here.Regards. Wikicology (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Eh. Maybe ones where he claimed permission from someone else, especially early on. A few of the uploads you list there don't look all that suspicious. One or two are uploads by other people he simply modified, so they show up in his "contributions" but aren't really his and aren't claimed that way. He's a longtime contributor. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Should we simply ignore and COM:AGF that they won't take someone else photo and claim "own work" in the future? Maybe someone can leave a helpful note on their talk page. Personally, I don't want them to be sanctioned. We all makes mistakes. It's a learning curve. What would you suggest? Wikicology (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Has this user ever claimed someone else's work as "own"? They left an explicit note as to who the copyright owner was and that permission was obtained; that is not trying to hide anything. It was not done according to procedure, and it looks like they were mistaken about who the copyright owner was, but that was also nine years ago and the user has been a pretty constant contributor since, and learned an awful lot along the way I'm sure. Basically, I don't see a reason why COM:AGF does not apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. Let's AGF and move on. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Rights with Google books

Hello

Do you think it is possible to use an image from an american book dated 1854 in Google book, copied with a screenshot and transformed in Photoshop, in order to transfer it in Commons ? I think it belongs to public domain, the drawer is anonymous.

Here is the Google book link

The book title : The National Magazine: Devoted to Literature, Art, and Religion, Volume 4

Thank you in advance

Tubamirum (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

American books published in 1854 are PD in the US and in the source country of the work (that is, the US), and thus can be uploaded to Commons and used as you will. (They are most likely PD world-wide, but that's not necessary for Commons.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, thank you.
Tubamirum (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Inkscape 0.48.2 with Red Gallardo.svg et al.

The uploader claims derivative File:Inkscape 0.48.2 (2).svg to be own work, but there's no such statement at original version at File:Inkscape 0.48.2.svg. File:Inkscape 0.48.2 with Red Gallardo.svg is a derivative work of both.

The license status of File:Inkscape Logo.svg and File:Inkscape logo 2.svg is a mix of potentially incompatible GPLv2+ and CC-BY-SA licenses, explained in one of the license descriptions by User:Tomchen1989. These logos are also used in the work.

This makes up for a lot of confusion what license the logos and derivative works like title should be released under. I've tried doing my best to address any issues with copyright concerns on those pages, but some license changes are done in good faith but illegitimately because I didn't publish a derivative work. Note that the uploader also never published their own license statement, so I've added GPLv2+ or GPLv3-only/CC-BY-SA-4.0 implicitly based on permission of original files used in the derivative works. There is very little source information and some of the original attributions were unsmart, such as "The Inkscape Team" which I've since attributed to the AUTHORS file or another author where known.

Last contribution by uploader (User:Jfd34) here on Commons was in 2014.

See also:

The mentioned proxy is not tagged into the files, and as far as I know there's no template on Commons for this.

Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well. 80.221.159.67 09:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

These derived works also have conflicting licenses and missing authorship or source information:

Done all I could there. 80.221.159.67 16:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons Licensed file with non-free images

This is an issue I originally raised on the English-language WikiSource, but it was suggested that I ask here. I apologize if this is already covered somewhere in documentation/policy, but I was unable to find it.

The scenario is as follows. I wish to upload the investigation reports by the Australian government authority that investigates aviation accidents, the ATSB. According to the ATSB website, the reports are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, with the exception that the following are not released under that license: "the Coat of Arms, the ATSB logo, photos and graphics in which a third party has copyright". (The copyright statements, in full, are here.) The CC-3.0 part which should be ok based on Commons:Licensing, but I'm uncertain about the non-free images part.

Since the CC license allows for "remixing", is the appropriate action to remove the non-free images from the scan prior to uploading it, maybe replacing it with a placeholder image of some sort ("non-free image" in a box, sort of placeholder)? Or can the file be uploaded as-is? Or am I misunderstanding entirely and the file cannot be hosted on Commons at all? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 20:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Mukkakukaku This is a confusing issue that is not specifically covered anywhere. I faced the same issue with a video that was CC licensed but contained a few seconds of non-free content. That discussion is at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/05#Advice_on_noting_non-free_logo_animations_in_freely_licensed_videos. Separately, I was working with a old public domain book which contained some new copyrighted commentary in a contemporary reprinting. That discussion is at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/08#book_upload_-_public_domain_reprint_-_redacting_newer_content.
Yes, the CC license allows remixing, and yes, you can remove the non-free content from the file to create a totally free work. It is also correct that a file with non-free components cannot be hosted in Commons unless the non-free parts are removed. As you say, if you remove the non-free parts then Commons can host the file. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi)

Moved from Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Mahabharata Book (Hindi). --Achim (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Are They really in public domain gita press started in 1923. No painter name no author life time no published date Baddu676 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Mahabharata appears to be an ancient text. Is that volume a translation, an adaptation, or just a printed edition of public domain text? If there was new authorship in that volume, but no author listed, then it is anonymous -- those types of works can have shorter terms. Which country is Gita Press from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir from India. The world largest publisher of Hinduism Books with very low cost --Baddu676 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, India has a term of 60 years from publication for anonymous works, which if there is no author named, means this one is. The linked work has a library stamp date of 1955, which means that volume was published before that (and possibly well before that). So, the work is virtually certain to be PD in India even if there was new copyrightable content in this edition. The US situation would be a bit fuzzier, and would depend on the exact publication date (before 1941 would mean it's OK), and if there was any new copyrightable content in this edition (if not then there was nothing copyrightable to begin with). If this is a translation rather than the original text, then there would be new content. If it is the age-old text, then there is nothing new, unless there was a foreword or annotations or other added text. So, is this a translation, or is there any added text? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read this book page about gita press.Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India --Baddu676 (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Google Books is blocking some of the linked pages for me... can't quite tell what helpful information would be there for the questions I had above. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This book says that these are published in 1955s by gita press--Baddu676 (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Albert Einstein photos

1. Can someone review this front and back photo of Einstein from 1933? --Light show (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

2. And another from 1932. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

3. Or this one from from 1933 as a deadly outlaw on the run. $5,000 bounty. --Light show (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

4. Until he found a temporary hideout in the UK with armed protection from some English friends. --Light show (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

First one looks fine. Second one... probably fine; would prefer evidence of actual distribution for that copy, but seems probable to be OK. Third one... taken in Belgium, though it says "exclusive photo" for a U.S. company, which may indicate it was first published there, and so may also be OK. The fourth one... comes from a UK source, so presumably the UK is the country of origin. If it was published in the U.S. within 30 days, it would avoid the URAA restoration. The N.E.A. date (which was part of Acme) seems to be less than two weeks after the photo was taken, which does seem to indicate it was likely published within 30 days. So, the question is if it qualifies for {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Is there any information on who the photographer was? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It was a news photo, similar to this one. Einstein was there for a few weeks at Locker-Lampson's invitation. It was likely published as part of a news story about his visit, although the location was kept out of print. --Light show (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure. But is the photographer known? You can't claim lack of copyright notice on this one since it's not a U.S. work; you have to show that it is PD in the UK today, and either that the URAA does not apply or that it was PD in the UK in 1996 -- and it was definitely under copyright in the UK in 1996, so you need to show why the URAA did not apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Various photo agencies all attribute each other in the usual shell game, but the BBC attributes the image as 'courtesy' of the son of the landowner, a couple of places. Might help tracking something down, though I had no luck beyond this. Reventtalk 08:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The date on the the BBC page is not accurate. It's not really wrong as they write circa 1934, but still, the year is 1933. The credit might not be complete either. It could be that Philip Colman shared with the BBC a copy he had of the photo. Other photos, apparently taken the same day of the same people, are credited to Leslie Cardew of the Daily Herald: there and there, which give the date 24 July 1933. Also uncredited and credited, which gives 12 September 1933, almost like the photo in the link by Light show, which gives 11 September 1933, but 11 and 12 September might be the later dates when Planet News (SSPL) distributed the photos taken on 24 July for the Daily Herald. It's possible that the place was open on that day to other media and photos taken by different photographers. It's possible also that on that day it was an exclusive story for the Daily Herald and the photos were all taken by Leslie Cardew. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The BBC image is slightly different -- almost the same instant, but the angle is different (see the tree in back and positions of participants), and Einstein's hand is on the horse's forehead in one, and behind the head in another. So there were likely a group of photographers there, or perhaps a family member (Colman) along with someone from the press. If there is a named author, the work is most likely still under copyright. The back of the photo has a credit to Planet News Ltd., and later the Acme stamp. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
You're right, it's not the same, though clearly within a couple of minutes. Reventtalk 12:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 Comment The first of these was uploaded by Light show at File:Einstein 1933.jpg, and I've now sent it to DR as the New York Daily News not only attributes it to one of their employees, but explicitly claims it was copyrighted as late as 2000. Reventtalk 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
And withdrawn, now that we have (clearly) enough evidence to discount the Daily News here. Reventtalk 12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Manuel Acuña Roxas.jpg

It seems unlikely that this file is "own work" given the fact that it can be seen posted online here in October 2014 almost two years before being uploaded to Commons. It's possible that the real source of the file is this January 2013 archived version of an official Philippines Government website. If you scroll down a bit, you'll see that this is actually a colorized version of a much older looking photo. I'm not sure how colorization affects a photos copyright status. Could the original be old enough or is "official" enough to qualify as PD? Would the colorized version be considered a derivative work and would colorization be considered something that is "creative enough" to establish a new copyright for it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not "own work". The colorization was done by the Philippines government, which might be OK. But we need to find where the original photograph came from. It looks like it was taken in the Blair House (across the street from the White House) in Washington DC, in May 1946. There is a photo taken that day in the same room here, though I have not yet found any source on this photo in particular -- if there were a number of photographers there, it could be from a lot of sources (and maybe even PD-USGov). Most likely a US photograph at any rate. But without evidence, it should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to take a closer look at this Clindberg. FWIW, the file has been nominated for deleteion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manuel Acuña Roxas.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

1976 press photo

I'm wondering if this 1976 UPI press photo of en:John E. Corbally might fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}. I've tried looking for where it might have been published, but I've had no luck. Perhaps someone else can have a look. clpo13(talk) 17:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely. You need to show how that copy got distributed from UPI to another party, and show that that transfer took place before 1978, or at least 1989. It probably was further published, but if all published copies had a copyright notice, then it's not PD-US-no_notice. A common way for clients to get image was wire photos... which is where the image was transmitted over telephone lines and printed at newspapers. In that case, the copy printed at a newspaper was never really distributed, so I don't think the lack of copyright notice on that particular copy has any meaning. So you'd have to know where this copy came from, and when. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
All right, thanks. clpo13(talk) 21:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Barbara Hutton publicity photo, 1938

Can someone review this photo from 1938. It's an original publicity photo from Photofest, showing front and back w/o notice. --Light show (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Photofest was founded in 1981. They are obviously not the original authors. So when did Photofest obtain this? Without that info, you don't know for sure that this copy was distributed before 1989. Photofest also unhelpfully covered up the original authors with stickers. Now... that may be enough to assume that Photofest knows it's PD, so it was free to do that. Or, they only allow usage under fair use to begin with. The copy itself is obviously old, and does have some markings which probably indicate distribution long ago, so this may be OK -- and it's also likely not renewed, so you could go that route, other than the name you'd need to search for is obscured :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

1958 press photo of Mike Nichols and Elaine May

Can someone review this publicity photo from 1958? It shows the front and back w/o notice. It also has a newspaper clipping with a date and the TV show it was publicizing. --Light show (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Would prefer a bit better evidence (company name) of distribution, but that does look like a newspaper or other publisher's marks on the back, and those are dated, so... that looks OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

1971 press photo of Rodney Dangerfield

Can someone review this photo of him performing. It has no notice, shows both sides, and includes the newspaper clipping with the image, along with the exact date and paper section. (On a side note, I'm mostly listing images where the person's article needs a better image.) --Light show (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless the image was altered, this seems like a good case of {{PD-US-no notice}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Bettina Liano

Could someone please check whether File:Bettina+Liano+Bettina+Liano+Runway+MAFW+7SqW-rix8SWl.jpg is OK. The licensing says cc-by-sa-4.0, but the source page http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/W1b4HJFbghX/Bettina+Liano+Runway+MAFW/7SqW-rix8SW says "Source: Patrick Riviere/Getty Images Entertainment". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not OK. I marked it "no permission". Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It may now be potentially impossible for French citizens to license their works under free licenses

Recently, France passed the "Law on freedom of creation, architecture and heritage" , which makes "reproducing and communicating to the public images for search and indexing purposes" illegal without a license from a copyright royalty society. To allow this legal requirement, the law prescribes that when an image is published online, the "reproduction right and the right of communication" is automatically assigned to a collection society. This could mean that contributors no longer have the right to license their works under free terms.

Is this accurate? Is this a correct interpretation of the law? ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: This actually means that it is still free to license works under free terms, but any search or indexation engine will have to pay to a collection society for indexing these works, even if they are free. For example, google.fr will have to pay to some randomly assigned collection society for indexing 33M images from Wikimedia Commons, while, say, google.de will not have to pay for it. It is not yet clear how this can work in reality — NickK (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
That means that our content will essentially become non-free in France, since they now cannot be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose due to copyright restrictions. ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
It'll be as free as it can be made, which is all authors can do. We'll see what the effects actually are; while I have not read the new clauses, it would not be the first time that a law change would have unintended affects, and it may be corrected later or shaped more precisely by the courts. I'm not sure who would sue who, if someone used a work without payment under a granted license like that, so it may end up being a theoretical thing without any practical effect. And if the law truly does what is suggested above, it may not even conform with the Berne Convention -- Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. Countries have the right to have some limited exceptions; maybe it would be in the form of a compulsory license for such usage, making Google etc. pay a licensing fee (I wonder if actual authors will ever see a portion) for unlicensed works, but I'd be really surprised if there was a legitimate lawsuit over nonpayment for using a work that way which had been freely licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151, NickK, and Clindberg: not entirely wrong but not accurate, this new law is not about copyright per se but more about related rights (maybe Commons:Non-copyright restrictions can be applied here). French citizens can still choose the license they want but other people will collect royalties on it (which is stupid and kind of immoral for free works... but it doesn't forbid to choose a free license). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyrights status of Calligraphies

Per Compendium of U.S. Copyright office practices, Chapter 900 (visual arts), "as a general rule, typeface, typefont, lettering, calligraphy, and typographic ornamentation are not registrable. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a), (e). These elements are mere variations of uncopyrightable letters or words, which in turn are the building blocks of expression."check this link Now the question is that how we treat the calligraphies in Commons. --Mhhossein talk 11:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

They are ineligible in the U.S., so that satisfies that part of licensing policy. So, the rest would depend on how such things are treated in their country of origin. We have a little bit of info at Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag; it would seem that Japan and China protect calligraphy. Iran, in article 2(5), protects Paintings, pictures, drawings, designs, decorative writings, geographical maps or any decorative and imaginative work produced in any simple or complex manner; the "decorative writings" part would seem to indicate that calligraphy is protected there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the point, Carl Lindberg! However, what should be done for the cases with unknown copyright law in their country of origin? --Mhhossein talk 07:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully, almost every country has a known copyright law ;-) The best we can do is read it, and see if there is any likely support. If not, and no known court cases, we may well accept it. But as always we can only decide with the legal information available, and make our best guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Artificial Archipelagos, Dubai, United Arab Emirates ISS022-E-024940 lrg.jpg

In the extend there is no FoP in UAE, the buildings/artificial islands were clearly constructed coordinated way for artistic purposes (from above a kind of palm tree at bottom left, and at top right a map of the earth). The buildings/artificial islands are undoubtedly in UAE territory, so no matter from where is taken the photo, here the space. The subject stay under copyright law of it's country of origin, therefore the image is a copyright violation under the UAE law. Other opinions? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting case of an image of one country taken and published from under jurisdiction of another country (USA). In this case, I think, the USA law should apply and therefore the image can be uploaded here as there is the freedom of panorama for buildings in USA. (Artificial landscapes can be regarded as buildings.) Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
FoP USA should apply only for buildings in USA territory, I don't see why an how FoP USA could apply only because the photo was made by an American agency from the space. It is the depiction of the subject witch is not allowed by the UAE law. Another way to see the issue is, is a french building near the border with Germany not protected by French law? me I think the building stay protected, because FoP Germany apply only for artworks permanent displayed on it's territory. It's the same for UAE. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
That is taking things a bit too far, I think -- the photo would also have to be focusing on one island in particular to be an issue anyways, I'm pretty sure (e.g. photos of a city skyline should always be OK, even if recognizable buildings are in there and even centered). This photo is of a wider scene. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
This is clear that the artificial islands have been made and arranged for to be seen from above and...from far. All that is voluntarily artistic may have a copyright protection. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Carl here. Even if there is a design, claiming a copyright violation doesn't make sense. No photographer went to UAE to take this, so there is no reason the UAE law should apply. The most logical is to use the law where the picture is first published, i.e. USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Buildings are made to be seen, too. It is only a photograph focused in on one particular building where we would have an issue. A wider scene is typically not a derivative work. Making an island like that does not suddenly grant the author (if there even is an individual) a derivative copyright over every aerial photograph of Dubai. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "It is only a photograph focused in on one particular building..." FoP laws are not only for building but for all artworks, all of the buildings are of course De Minimis in this photo, but honestly who can deny the artificial islands were made in a coordinate ways in a visual goal therefore were made artistically (in same proportions a logo with a similar palm tree and a map of the earth will be below TOO? I don't think so). The artwork is the arrangement of these islands, whose purpose design is to be seen and understood from ...the sky in a whole great set. And who can deny the artificial islands are the main features of this photo, and if not the main features, at least certainly not De Minimis. But well, fine for me, I wanted opinions, now I have. Thank you :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Let's apply our policy. The image must be free both in USA and the country of the origin. The latter country is defined as the country where the image was first published and this country is also USA. Therefore the image must free in USA, which it is as per USA freedom of panorama for buildings that I mentioned above. The UAE law has nothing to do with the copyright status of this image. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

File:PFD Logo Gold.png

This file as well as File:PFD Patch.jpg, File:PFD Logo Yellow.jpg, File:PFD Logo BW.png were uploaded as "W:Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments" and a claim "Released by Philadelphia Fire Department for use on Wiki sites. Contact: pfd.fcu@phila.gov". All of the files are dated the same "1951/01/01" for some reason as well. As far as I know, {{PD-CAGov}} and {{PD-FLGov}} are the only two U.S. state governments whose official images are in the public domain. Is there such licensing for Pennsylvania as well? No source url is provided for these, so there's no quick way for their licensing to be verified. Moreover, I don't think it's typical for someone having to email the copyright holder for such verification, but rather it should be on record at OTRS, right? Should these be tagged with {{No permission since}}?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If the dates are correct they'd qualify as {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I won't have time to verify them right now. http://www.pa.gov/ shows a copyright notice, so without proof to the contrary I would not assume that they are PD for any other reason. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Jo-Jo Eumerus. FWIW, I did a google image search and it looks like "File:PFD Patch.jpg" is a photo/scan of an actual patch that is being sold online at various websites such as [14], [15], and [16]. It's also being used on various blogs, etc. and from this image on the department's official website, it kind of looks like the patch is still being used on uniforms. I have not, however, been able to date the patch or its design. As for the other files, "File:PFD Logo Yellow.jpg" looks the one used on the department's official Twitter account and "File:PFD Logo Gold.png"looks like the one on this press release, but I wasn't able to find "File:PFD Logo BW.png" anywhere online. It seems a bit odd that all of the patches were created on the same day. Is it possible that "1951/01/01" a default setting or something similar for the "date" entry in the file upload wizard? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to copyright strategy discussion

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a new copyright strategy that is being considered by the Legal department. The consultation will take the form of an open discussion, and we hope to receive a wide range of thoughts and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki. JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Photos uploaded by company's brand officer

Hello, the brand officer for Himalaya Airlines, Salina Nakarmi, had uploaded several images taken by professional photographers to Commons. However it is my understanding that because she did not take the photos herself, she does not hold the copyright and cannot upload the photos on her own. So I successfully nominated her photos for deletion, examples: here and here.

Then I noticed at COM:ET that under the Interactive Release Generator, a company authority could select "I represent the copyright holder" and go from there. So is Nakarmi allowed to upload those photos she had not taken herself? If so, since the use of Interactive Release Generator is discouraged, what process should she follow to upload the photos? Thanks. – Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 05:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The files should have confirmation of the license with OTRS, and the Interactive Release Generator generates such an email. One of the questions is whether the files have been already uploaded or are to be attached. --ghouston (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I had the photos deleted, should I request undeletion? — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 13:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
As explained at Commons:OTRS and Commons:Undeletion requests, there is no need to request undeletion when using the OTRS process. If the permission is in order, the volunteer processing it will act to restore any files which may have been deleted. Salina Nakarmi should also read Commons:Guidance for paid editors and en:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. However Ms Nakarmi also states this, is it valid? "We have hired professional photographers to take the pictures and paid them.. thus the pictures are the property of himalaya airlines" — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Per Nepali copyright law this seems to be ok: "The author of a work shall be the first owner of the economic right of that work. ... In case where a work is prepared on payment of remuneration by any person or organization, that person or organization who has paid such remuneration". [17] De728631 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@De728631: Thanks for looking that up, I will try requesting undeletion. Should she send an email to OTRS saying that she indeed has uploaded the photos on behalf of the airline? There is no verification that the actual brand officer uploaded them, and it could appear some of these images were stolen from the web as they appear in news articles. (I have communicated with her and she says she indeed uploaded the photos). — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 23:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need an OTRS ticket for these files to be on the safe side. Once the copyright holder, i.e. the company, declares that they have uploaded and released the images the issue should be solved. De728631 (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Files allegedly authored by rebel/terrorist groups

Numerous files are uploaded to commons attributed to rebel/terrorist groups such as ISIL. We know that such groups are not inside the Berne Convention, nor their copyright laws are sufficiently known. What should we do regarding these files, considering the very fact that per Precautionary principle, where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. --Mhhossein talk 06:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Syria is a member of the Berne convention; Iraq is not. Regardless, copyright laws have never been designed with a war zone and forcible changes in who gets to enforce laws in mind, so I am inclined to call them "unknown copyright status". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to call them copyrighted materials. The files seems to fall under files we should delete per our long standing policy. This is not a PD work and the fact that their author is unknown or difficult to identify is not a valid reason to keep them here. For example, the author of this work needs to send permission to our support team. Thus, if we can't get a permission from its author, there is no point keeping them here. Wikicology (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a fact that this rebel/terrorist claim to be independent and to tend/want to apply only its "own law". It is also a fact that no text laws edited by them about their "copyright law" is available for us, nor, if this text law exist, it have a chance to be recognized internationally. Our policy demands that a file must be free United States and in the source country. The files have been created outside the constraints of the copyright law textes of the countries concerned, e.g. nor Syria neither Iraq do not recognize the document (medias) created by the rebel/terrorist groups. Therefore we have no textes to determine the copyright statut of such medias. I fully agree to apply PRP and to delete all full content created by this rebel/terrorist group. On a more personal level, I will also be happy that content created by "these persons" be not next to my photos, I mean sometimes it's hard to remain neutral, I saw no shame in that. But even if neutral point of view is in our policies, it is a fact that the copyright statut is very unclear. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should apply COM:PRP with these, and be very careful with COM:TOO. Keep votes in DRs of these logos by non-Arabic speakers/readers are questionable at best. How do they know what's simple and what's calligraphy? Also, permission isn't an option, unless someone from OTRS really feels comfortable communicating with terrorists/possible terrorists, which is illegal in most countries. Any email from Nusra (as mentioned above) would have to be forwarded to WMF Legal, and then probably to the NSA. We certainly wouldn't get an OTRS ticket out of it. INeverCry 17:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's a DR for the Nusra flag/logo: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jabhat al-Nusra flags. INeverCry 17:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What about svg recreations of some of these files? I've noticed files which look like non-free logos being used in infoboxes/list articles about these groups or the conflicts they are involved in such as en:List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War and , but quite a number of them are svg versions uploaded to Commons under a free license. For example, en:File:National Defence Force Syria Logo.jpg was uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free, yet File:Flag of the National Defense Force.svg and File:Flag of the National Defense Force (Variant).svg are uploaded to Commons under {{PD-textlogo}}, and File:Národní obranné jednotky insignie.png was uploaded as "own work" (FWIW, Special:Contributions/Grozo20 all seem to be fair use files claimed as "own work" and probably need to be checked). There many other examples of this and it's a bit hard to understand how the basically the same image can be non-free for Wikipedia, but PD for Commons. Does simply creating a svg version of a copyrighted logo/flag mean the original copyright no longer is applicable? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the both images above for deletion, as I can't see how they can be below TOO, and if some SVG codes can have their own copyright, that don't surpass the original artwork.... Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think a user has been changing a lot of these images from a cc license to a "below TOO" license, which I agree doesn't work with things like the linked NDF flags. These were all uploaded several years back, but I think the reasoning for uploading the NDF logo as fair use was because I had merely found it (as opposed to creating an svg) and therefore didn't feel comfortable uploading it under a cc license. I wouldn't lump the NDF in with the various non-state groups in Syria however - the NDF is an irregular government run force; perhaps more akin to a Syrian equivalent of the US National Guard than a private army. If it's felt that a cc license can't cover the NDF flags, and that there's no allowance for it due to its nature as a government creation, then what we could perhaps do is replace the wikicommons flags with a small, low-res image image (like what's been done here for Hezbollah). I suggest this because I'd venture the bulk of NDF flag usage is in small, infobox form. A fair-use version could then in turn be uploaded to Wikipedia. In these circumstances all other Syrian government emblems etc (e.g. the various Coat of arms) would have to be removed too and something similar done. MrPenguin20 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

File:Puffy Shirt 2006.jpg

The background screen capture of Seinfeld is copyrightable. If cropped out, the picture will consist of just the blouse. The reader would not know what the picture is about without the capture. Wait... Is photography allowed in the Seinfeld museum? --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not the Seinfeld museum, and whether photography is allowed is something we've consistently held to be irrelevant. We should crop out the background screen capture, though there is an argument for (also) uploading it to Wikipedia under a fair use license. Pictures don't have to stand alone, and in many of its current uses the puffy shirt alone will be useful with sufficient context in the caption.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ali MacGraw publicity photo from 1972

Can someone review this photo of her from 1972? It includes both sides, showing it's an original from Photofest. No notice found. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

... and maybe not quite enough evidence of distribution. When did Photofest obtain this copy? Before 1989 or after? Basically, the main question is why would lack of notice on this copy affect copyright? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The seller, who is a professional dealer in originals with a 100% satisfaction rating for accuracy, states that "It is an Original Vintage photo FROM YEAR OF ISSUE." Is there any reason to have "significant doubt" about their description? --Light show (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
They were founded in 1981. I'm sure it was *produced* in 1972; but was it *distributed*? If it was not distributed before 1989 (say Photofest obtained an uncirculated copy in 1990), then the lack of notice means nothing. Yes, the odds are for it, but we really should have more than just odds for such a recent photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
There can be seen an imprint underneath, or on, the Photofest label from en:National General Pictures, a theater chain, film distribution and production company that per the text, "released" the film. They ended business in 1973. It includes their N.Y. address. So it was not someone's private photo since it was printed with that company's name to publicize their movie.--Light show (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Question about posting CC-BY-SA images on Facebook

Hi

I have a question about posting CC-BY-SA images on Facebook, I posted it on Meta on a legal page, would appreciate your input.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Mauthausen Concentration Camp photographs

Hi all, I'm posting here in order to get opinions about the copyright status of the pictures taken by the nazi administration in the Mauthausen concentration camp. Who's the owner of the copyright of such pictures? The author of most of the surviving pictures taken before the liberation of the camp (for instance, see here) was Paul Ricken, an SS official who led the photograph service? I don't have the information about his death date, but he definitely survived the war and subsequent trial. Did the copyright belong to him, to the SS or to the German state? If the latter, was it seized by the Allied powers? Any idea? Thanks --Discasto talk 21:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If they were part of official duties, and if he was heading the photographic service it would seem that would be the case, I would imagine the copyright would be owned by the German government. However, the copyright term (if an author is known) would still be based on that author's life. If the photos are sourced to a U.S. National Archives record, it's probably fair to assume those were seized records. That type of photo would have had its original copyright expired in Germany almost certainly, only being restored due to the EU directive in the 1990s, so it would be the restored terms which would apply today. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Per here, before June 1941 the photos were taken by a Friedrich Kornacz (who was apparently sent to the eastern front). It's also possible that some were taken by assistants Antonio Garcia or w:Francisco Boix (the link above has a photo showing Boix with a camera himself, though apparently he was not a photographer by trade). Boix supposedly took photos during the liberation. Not sure it's the same person, but a German veteran cemetery search (www.volksbund.de) has a single hit for someone named Friedrich Kornacz, born in 1913 and died (or missing) on October 29, 1944. The only hit on Ricken's name has someone who died in 1917, so not the same person. He was supposedly 55 years old in 1941, though pl:Paul Ricken (esesman) has him born in 1892. Boix died in 1951. Garcia was still alive in 1998. But yeah, it seems that most were taken by Ricken. Would be very good to find out how long he lived. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carl, I'm going today to the library for a book telling the story of Boix (BTW, it's the article I'm working in and the reason to ask). According to Pike's book, it was Kornacz, and then Ricken, who actually took the pictures (prisoners working in the photograph service were not allowed to take the pictures). The reason why many pictures survived it's because Boix stole and smuggled the pictures (the pictures taken after the liberation are his, that's another issue). So, the source of all the pictures is Boix. Many of them are nowadays available in the Bundesarchiv (and subsequently taken here), NARA, or the Friends of Mauthausen association (who provided them to the French archives or to the Catalonia National Archive). I take for granted the copyright status of the pictures uploaded here by the Bundesarchiv (I assume it's what you said, Germany is the owner of the copyrights), but I'm unsure about other pictures. NARA pictures are possibly pictures provided by Boix to the Nuremberg trials... The question is simple: may take Mauthausen pictures not provided by the Bundesarchiv and assume they're already in the public domain? --Discasto talk 08:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The ones taken by Kornacz which were also in U.S. archives, yes. The ones which were not in U.S. archives technically got restored by the URAA... although if they were all used as evidence at Nuremberg, that may count as seized. The whole point of that URAA clause was to avoid suppression of Nazi/Japanese war crime material via restored copyright shenanigans, so these are directly on point. If they are in the U.S. National Archives, they would have passed through the Alien Property Custodian, which is the legal requirement to avoid the URAA, but unsure about images in other archives. If Ricken survived the war, then his photographs are still under copyright in Germany -- we'd need to find out how long he lived. If the Bundesarchiv licensed them, that is then cool for both countries of course, but otherwise we can't assume copyright has expired. I did read some about it last night -- apparently Garcia was the trained photographer, but mostly did the development, while Boix helped out in other non-photographic ways. Garcia was the main one accumulating the photos, but Boix had the better connections to smuggle them out. But yes it does sound like the German officers were the only ones taking the photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
According to El fotógrafo del horror. La historia de Francisco Boix y las fotos robadas a los SS en Mauthausen (2015), by Benito Bermejo (page 109), Ricker was born in Duisburg in 1892 and died in Düsseldorf in 1964.
Considering what you have pointed out above, what happens with the pictured smuggled by Boix that are nowadays in hands of the Association of Former Mauthausen Prisoners? May I assume that their copyright actuall belongs to the German state until 2034? --Discasto talk 21:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like it. 2035, to be precise. I doubt any use the Association would make of them would cause someone to try to stop them... by old German copyright law, those would have all expired by 1971, but the EU directive would have restored them in 1995, so technically they are still under copyright for another 20 years yes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:PD-Britannica‎

Template:PD-Britannica‎ was created in 2005, and like many license templates from that era it needs to be updated to the current standards. At the moment the template does not provide any legal rational to the claim that the images from that book are in PD. As far as I can tell 12the edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) was published in 1922[18], so in the US {{PD-1923}} would apply; however I am not sure what is the country of the origin: UK or US? First to 11th editions were published in UK. Some of the 11+ editions were printed in the US by Sears, Roebuck and Co. 12th edition was identical to 11th except for 3 extra volumes and it sounds like it was published in the US and possibly UK. I do not think we can claim that EB was first published in the US, so we need to know the copyright status of images from EB editions 1 to 12 in the UK. Images using the template can be found in Category:PD Britannica and consist of photographs, etchings and drawings, some by named artists. --Jarekt (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

w:Encyclopedia Britannica says "American partnership bought EB rights on 9 May 1901" and "EB rights sold to Sears Roebuck in 1920". So, yes, we can say in the 20th century, the EB was first published in the US. Certainly the copyright status of the 8th edition, completely published by 1861, is clear. There might be some issues with the 9th edition, but they aren't something I'm going to fuss with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, thanks for the analysis. I think Template:PD-Britannica‎ should mention some of the legal rationale behind the PD claim the way most license templates do. We should either add text of {{PD-1923}} or add the template itself. --Jarekt (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding an archived post

The image was deleted and the posts archived;


File:Bruce Ariss.JPG

How to deal with this statement? --jdx Re: 10:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Comment - This seem like a legal issue that needs to be forwarded to the WMF legal team. The photo in question looks like a professional photograph. However, with a quick Google search, I found a linkedin profile with the name "Beth Peerless" who is a photographer but I'm a bit reluctant in linking their personal information here. The image in question was uploaded here by User:Mark Miller in July 2007, Beth Peerless claimed they took the image in 1994. The image Metadata shows that it was taken with FujiFILM camera, model FinePix S2950. Miller appears to have use the same camera model in taken other Images like this and this image. Other camera model Miller have used in the the images they uploaded as "own work" that I randomly checked includes: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi, Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi, FujiFilm FinePix S2950, FinePix S2950, Sony DSC-T100 and "SANYO DIGITAL CAMERA GH2" owned by Lt. Gavin Newsom. Analysis of User:Mark Miller contributions shows they registered account here on March 27, 2007 with 1000+ edits with over 50 images. It also appears that User: Mark Miller is editing under their real name. With a quick Google search, I found someone online who bears the same name with User:Mark Miller who appears to be a photographer and owns a blog that has to do with photography. I won't link that here as well. Per our precautionary principle I'm a bit reluctant in assuming that Beth will not bother to sue or cannot afford to sue. This is why I think this would be best handled by the WMF legal team. I understand that users are responsible for their actions especially in issues related to files they uploaded as "own work". Wikicology (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
FYI, I left a not at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Note. Wikicology (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted the file per PCP. The camera EXIF at least cannot be from the original picture. The camera model was introduced in 2011, while the picture indeed seems to have been taken no later than 1994, given the fact that Bruce Ariss seems to be alive in the picture. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It probably should have gone to a discussion. The upload is just a photographic copy; if the original is indeed licensed that is all fine. It's the original license from 2007 which is in question, and don't think that qualifies for immediate deletion. Even a speedy tag would wait 7 days. The file has been here for years; we could at least see if the uploader has a response before deleting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The file has issues as-is. It was uploaded after the COM:GOF cutoff, yet claims the photo is owned by a third party who "authorized it's duplication and use with limited copyright release", but there is no OTRS confirmation of such. That was still early in the OTRS process, but the file was uploaded with a claim of someone else being the photographer (correctable), but no real confirmation as to what license was actually allowed. Authorizing "duplication and use with limited copyright release" does not sound like a free license, and does not explicitly name the GFDL and CC licenses currently named. The second upload looks like a photograph of another copy. The uploader is still somewhat active, so it would be best to ask them -- but it would be within policy to start a deletion review. Especially given that someone not named now claims to be the photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - @Jdx, Jcb, and Clindberg: Do we have enough reasons to trust other images uploaded by Mark Miller? Can we open a copyright investigations on images uploaded by this user? Their use of multiple camera model like Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi, Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi, FujiFilm FinePix S2950, FinePix S2950, Sony DSC-T100 and "SANYO DIGITAL CAMERA GH2" owned by Lt. Gavin Newsom and the report by Beth is not a good signal to me. IMO there is need to investigate Miller's uploads to prevent related issues like this that may arise in the future. This is not a punitive measure but a preventive measure. Let me know what you think. Wikicology (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Good. I started it at User:Wikicology/Copyright investigation/User:Mark Miller. Any help would be appreciated. Wikicology (<span class="signature-talk"talk) 09:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I notified Miller about this thread here.Regards. Wikicology (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Eh. Maybe ones where he claimed permission from someone else, especially early on. A few of the uploads you list there don't look all that suspicious. One or two are uploads by other people he simply modified, so they show up in his "contributions" but aren't really his and aren't claimed that way. He's a longtime contributor. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Should we simply ignore and COM:AGF that they won't take someone else photo and claim "own work" in the future? Maybe someone can leave a helpful note on their talk page. Personally, I don't want them to be sanctioned. We all makes mistakes. It's a learning curve. What would you suggest? Wikicology (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Has this user ever claimed someone else's work as "own"? They left an explicit note as to who the copyright owner was and that permission was obtained; that is not trying to hide anything. It was not done according to procedure, and it looks like they were mistaken about who the copyright owner was, but that was also nine years ago and the user has been a pretty constant contributor since, and learned an awful lot along the way I'm sure. Basically, I don't see a reason why COM:AGF does not apply. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. Let's AGF and move on. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Uhm.....did it not seem odd to anyone that I was accused of stealing an image from (California) Lt. (Governor) Gavin Newsom? That was not mentioned in the notification nor is there a link to that accusation. Please let me know If I should contact Wikimedia Legal but until then....I think I may be owned an explanation if not an apology, as I have not seen any declaration from the photographer that the image of the Wharf theatre photo of Bruse Ariss was not a work for hire or registered for proper copyright per law before 1976 (Which it seems it was but the above claims do not suggest a report was ever made by the photographer). I was given permissions from the image owner and was led to believe they owned the copyright as given from the widow of the subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
"limited copyright release" meant the CC license. It was explained what that meant to the "owner of the image" when the question of copyright was originally raised.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
No OTRS was requested and the image has never been published before and specific (if incorrect) permissions given for duplication.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
"Should we simply ignore and COM:AGF that they won't take someone else photo and claim "own work" in the future?" Why? That wasn't the case here. I never claimed the image as my own, just the photo copy as I would if I scanned the image. I certainly was not trying to pass the image off as if I took it and really feel there needs to be some discussion of that particular accusation....as well as the Gavin Newsom thing. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Mark Miller (User:Amadscientist), I can't see the deleted image now. If the source didn't quoted it as "own work" and the original author was correctly attributed to the work, then I must have misquoted the source and I do sincerely apologized for this. I didn't in anyway meant that you stole anyone's image. The photo was uploaded here in 2007 (3 months after you registered an account). Even if the source says "own work", it doesn't mean you stole the image. New users often make the mistake of uploading all images as "own work" including the ones they blatantly copied from the internet. As per the Gavin Newsome thing, I never accused you of stealing any image from (California) Lt. (Governor) Gavin Newsom. It is this mansion that is owned by the Governor not the photo. If you feel insulted and embarrased, I am sincerely sorry. Please, accept my unreserved apology. Pinging Jcb and Clindberg. Wikicology (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The file was uploaded with this information: 

== Summary ==
{{Information
|Description=Reproduction of photo owned by Angelo Di Girolamo who has authorized it's duplication and use with limited copyright release
|Source=self-made
|Date=07-19-07
|Author= [[User:Amadscientist|Amadscientist]]
}}

== Licensing ==
{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0|author=I, [[User:Amadscientist|Amadscientist]]}}

I think you all can imagine this information did not contribute to my confidence in the valid legal status of this file. Jcb (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course the deletion itself is not in question. If you feel it should be deleted per a request by the author then it must be done. However...what is the Gavin Newsome issue? I have never, to my knowledge, uploaded an image of Newsome off the internet. I have several images I took myself. Some from a Pride Parade in SF many years ago and then again in 2010 at a rally in Sacramento. I remember photoshopping an image from an article but it was an existing image. I don't think I made a mistake but it is possible. Clarification would help.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) OK, one issue down or ✓ Done. Lets try another. Wikicology stated: "[W]ith a quick Google search, I found a linkedin profile with the name "Beth Peerless" who is a photographer". They then state: " Beth Peerless claimed they took the image in 1994". They state that a report of some kind was made. I was never notified about this. I do not even know if Angelo is still around but if he is, I will seek him out again at the Wharf Theatre. My understanding of the image was that it was a work for hire as an official portrait for his wife and that the copyright now belonged to the holder of the image. As it was a gift to Angelo he assumed he owned the copyright. Most images of theatrical personalities are "work for hires" for the exact reason that they may be copied in the future without requesting the photographer's permission. Since there is only the claim that this was a normal studio shot (I assume) and nothing further to demonstrate otherwise, I understand the deletion, although I would have preferred to have had a chance to look into the situation myself. I did not just fall onto the image on the internet. My main concern is the continued accusation that I was "Debunked as the photographer" and that is why a challenge to my images is taking place. Since admin can undelete, I request an undelete of the image of Ariss to determine if there was a purposeful attempt to claim the ownership of the image as my own, or if there was some misunderstanding by Wikicology as to what they read (as seems to be the case in more than a few instances).
As for how many cameras I have used in nine years.....seriously? That is a cause for concern? Do you know how cheap my first digital camera was or the number of photos scanned by old scanners? Do you want to know how many scanners I own? More than one. I even have a new GoPro. What is the exact issue here? Do I need to contact Wikimedia legal and demonstrate ownership of all my cameras, scanners, pads and spouses phones (I don't one. Hate the things)? I have already seen them brought up. It isn't a problem to contact them if needed. If they are in San Francisco I could meet in person if need be.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I should also mention that I am not "a photographer and owns a blog that has to do with photography". My old blog was about random political stuff has not been used since 2010 and was a photography blog. I am an amateur photographer. My first site was a Geocities homepage for Rocky Horror. It was archived and is still available on the net to see but it's bad. LOL! My most current page is a WIX page for my family genealogy and another on a Hawaiian Princess.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Mark, the use of multiple camera may give an impression that photos were taken by different persons who may probably owns those cameras. That may not be the case in some instances. The fact that you have been around for 9 years may undermine such assumption since no one would expect you to use one camera for 9 years. I have apologized above for any wrong assumption and I am going to apologize again. I am sincerely sorry for any wrong assumption. Mark, f you want me to do that on your own talk page, I will. With kind regards. Wikicology (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem was not and is not the deletion. If I have to, I can always re-upload the image as "Fair use" now that we have the name of the photographer (after verification) at Wikipedia itself. It is worth saving the image, if even under those conditions. But the continued accusation that I was debunked as having tried to pass off a work as my own was indeed unwise and it was highly insulting. Thank you for the apology and it is warmly welcomed. For the record, the Sanyo camera is owned my myself and my spouse jointly and any image he took is attributed. The images of Gavin Newsom are indeed my intellectual property as I took the images. You must admit he's damn handsome. ;)
--Mark Miller (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Mark. Of course he's handsome and it was a nice shot. I have a new friend here on Wikimedia Common and that is nobody but Mark Miller. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Evaluating suitability of a file

en:File:Thor's Hammer - Bryce Canyon.jpg was uploaded by a "Mjones3137" (which can be a shortened form of "Martin Jones") to enwiki under a free "self" license and with plausible EXIF and by a "Martyn Jones" to Flickr earlier where it currently displays a All Rights Reserved license, with identical EXIF. Is it plausible enough that both were uploaded by the same person? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Also applies to File:Monument Valley Panorama 2.jpg and https://www.flickr.com/photos/martynjones123/3033395234/in/set-72157609155703895/, with the same circumstances. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, the Wikipedia files are full resolution, and it doesn't appear as if the full-resolution files are available at Flickr, which indicates they are the same person (the Flickr source would not indicate previous publication of the full-size images). Of course... who knows what the situation was in 2009 when these were uploaded. If they are not the same person, we would be assuming that someone invented a username in order to upload them. On balance... given the high resolutions on Wikipedia, which we can't prove existed elsewhere... I think they are OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You ask if it is "plausible enough". It is certainly plausible. If it is enough depends on your evaluation. The Wikipedia user did link to the flickr account. Of course, what we want is an indication in the other direction. There's no apparent reason to think that it's not the same person. There's a telling clue, which we can find there and there. As we can see on the Wikipedia talk page, a user contacted the uploader soon after the upload of one of his files, noting that on flickr the file was tagged all rights reserved, and suggesting that it would be a good idea to change the tag of his flickr file to a CC license. If we look at that file on flickr now, we can see that the tag is CC. It's a good indication that the flickr user Marty Jones changed the flickr tag following the request made to the Wikipedia user Mjones3137 and that he is the same person. It would have been better to request something more explicit written on flickr or by OTRS, and you can try to find a way to contact the flickr user in order to avoid the question being raised in the future, but the user has not been active on Wikipedia for many years, he was not asked to provide anything more when he was active, and it would not seem to serve any useful purpose to delete good files when an indication that the two accounts are from the same person has already been provided, as requested, by the change of the tag on flickr for the file for which it was requested. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Seems like barely enough, then. I've referenced this discussion on the files in question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-free revisions of File:Inkscape0.45.png

According to File talk:Inkscape0.45.png, the three revisions of this work available on Commons have metadata of CC-BY-NC-SA (unknown version). If true, this is out of scope. Those screenshots were also captured on Windows XP, which is non-free. Could you apply oversight to hide these revisions? 80.221.159.67 12:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

They are not out of scope but copyright violations. We do not apply oversight in such case - simple deletion is sufficient. Ruslik (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, how is this different from #Image updated with a copyvio discussion on this page? Nevermind that I've not determined yet if there's licensing issues in the revisions with a yellow car. 80.221.159.67 19:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It was hidden, not oversighted. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
If so, I don't understand the difference. I guess I meant to say "hidden" in original post. 80.221.159.67 19:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
From what one understands, oversighting is a more extreme method of hiding content such that oversighted content is not visible even to administrators. In addition, the number of individuals who have oversighting privileges is much smaller than the number of administrators. This guide has more details. For the image being discussed, I requested that an admin hide the revisions that show the blue car graphic, which was said to be non-free. Last month, the image was tagged to indicate that there might be a license compatibility issue (the licensing info for the image refers to the GPLv2+ and the Free Art License for the same screenshot.) It is also not clear as to why the "Licensing" section on the image's file page refers to the GFDL license and not to the GPL or FAL. --Gazebo (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The Grosberg drawing (the original version of the Commons file, now deleted) was derived from a 2005 photograph licensed GFDL by the photographer Wikisearcher. (Although perhaps not properly credited by Inkscape with the derivative drawing. The drawing is clearly derived from the photograph. Even the wheels are in the same position.) The uploader of the file to Commons credited the original photograph. The GFDL probably referred to the license of that photograph. Now that the file version that was derived from the GFDL photograph is deleted, the GFDL would be out of the way. The uploader of the present version of the Commons file possibly just forgot to remove the GFDL tag. The Rotkevich drawing, posted on deviantart on October 17, 2006 (and later modified by bulia byak for inclusion in the Inkscape package, the present version of the Commons file), does not mention from what it was derived. The IP user who recently added an incompatible license warning on the Commons description page did not specify which licenses he deemed incompatible. Did he want to say that Inkscape couldn't include a free art image as one of the examples provided with the Inkscape package of examples because the Inkscape software is GPL? Did he want to say that the uploader couldn't publish on Commons the free art image displayed with the image of a GPL Ubuntu window? -- Asclepias (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Given what has been said, I have removed the GFDL license tag. In addition, I have added details about Ubuntu Linux being licensed as GPL v2 only. Even so, I do not know if all of the elements and works in the screenshot (such as the icons in Inkscape) have been accounted for when it comes to license tags. With regard to license compatibility, one example is that the GPL (versions 2 and 3) require that modified copies of GPL-licensed works be licensed under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license. Along these lines, a GPL-licensed work and a second work can be combined into a new work only if the second work is licensed in a GPL-compatible manner. At the same time, an "aggregate" or "aggregation" of multiple separate works on the same storage medium is OK even if the collection includes both GPL-licensed works plus works licensed under GPL-incompatible terms. The FSF has indicated that the Free Art License (FAL) is not compatible with the GPL, and the car graphic in the screenshot is licensed under the FAL. The question of license compatibility for a screenshot that incorporates multiple works does not seem to have an easy answer. --Gazebo (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Does Commons:Collages help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning Commons:Collages. As applied to screenshots, the current information on that page would seem to indicate that all of the graphical elements in a screenshot have to be licensed under compatible licenses or be in the public domain. For example, a CC BY-SA 2.0 licensed image and a CC BY-SA 4.0 licensed image could be included in the same screenshot, assuming that suitable attribution and license info was specified on the screenshot's file page and that the screenshot itself was suitably licensed, i.e. as CC BY-SA 4.0. At the same time, an image licensed under GFDL v1.2 only and a CC BY-SA 4.0 licensed image could not be included in the same screenshot. Commons:Collages is said to be an essay, as opposed to a guideline or official policy, and on the talk page, there is at least one comment suggesting that the copyleft provisions of the GFDL and GPL licenses are not necessarily as restrictive as the current essay claims. --Gazebo (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Asclepias: The IP user who recently added an incompatible license warning on the Commons description page did not specify which licenses he deemed incompatible. This was referring to FAL + GPL being incompatible, as pointed out by User:Gazebo. 80.221.159.67 13:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In regards to Commons policy, Commons:Screenshot is related. Screenshots are derivative works and as such subject to the copyright of the displayed content, may it be a video, television program, or a computer program. 80.221.159.67 13:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/08&oldid=313902836"